Why I Purchased the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 vs RF 28-70mm f/2.0
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 лип 2024
- RF 24-70mm f/2.8: amzn.to/3R1vbKQ
RF 28-70mm f/2: amzn.to/4a2RxUQ
Canon R5: amzn.to/3GoJOTF
RF 70-200mm: amzn.to/49YVsSC
RF 15-35mm: amzn.to/3sMOL5G
RF 50mm f/1.2: amzn.to/3uCwxEv
RF 24-105mm f/4: amzn.to/410raLa
PRESETS NOW AVAILABLE | HELP SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
stevenfoster.gumroad.com
FOLLOW ON YOUR FAVORITE SOCIAL
/ _stevenfoster
glass.photo/stevenfoster/
/ stevenfoster.cda
Where I get my music from:
www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
0:00 Intro
0:57 Filter Mount Size
2:08 Overall Size and Weight
3:26 24mm vs 28mm
4:48 Image Stabilization
5:30 Aperture
6:58 Closing Thoughts
7:58 Outro - Наука та технологія
The RF 28-70 is a mind-blowing lens for wedding photography. A versatile telephoto with the IQ of prime lenses.
Yeah I don't shoot weddings but I could see how that lens would be a game changer for any photographer in that space.
Very subjective, i have 2870 and hate it for weight and inconvenience and love image quality
@@bhupinderkumar9106 if you get a camera battery grip it helps a lot, I prefer to sacrifice the extra weight and get amazing image quality and versatility. It’s no different to shooting with the EF 70-200 F2.8 same weight which I have been using for 20 years, my hands are used to it.
@@eliaspap8708 good point no one brings up. The ef 70-200 is a large and heavy lens.
dude while I was watching the video, I thought you have thousands of subscribers. then I looked but you have only 677 subs. You deserve more.
Now 997 just 3 more subs away from 1k
Very helpful video for all of us photographers who photograph people, carrying equipment and trying to get shoots done efficiently for our clients. I was researching the F2.8 vs 2.0 and you're so right - F2.8 is the clear choice.
I really struggled with this lens choice. I had used the 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens on a 5D Mark II for nearly 8 years and gotten some incredible images, but I always wanted a little more in the aperture dept. The 28-70mm f/2.0 is a bit unwieldy, but in terms of sharpness and rendering its an incredible piece of glass so I went with that. But you explained your choice well here.
Is the 24-70 L still worth it in 2021, or i should save enough and get the Mark II version?
@@philipquaicoe9071 tbh if looking at EF I would pick up a 2nd hand 24-70 II, but only one you can see in person - the II is noticeably sharper and very much a work horse - recently I just sold 2 for around half the cost that they would have been new, and realistically the buyers could sell them for more than that quite quickly - a lot of pros have been selling a heap of EF glass in great condition as they move to RF (some adapt their EF gear as well) ... but I wouldn’t trust the post, or want to buy any 2nd hand lens I couldn’t see in person. I got both my 24-70s new, but 2nd lenses can be sold basically at the price they were bought - so lenses like my 400 5.6 which I picked up 2nd hand have basically kept their value, and now I can reinvest that $$$ into new gear.
I also own an 11-24 that was bought new; I considered selling it, but it’s an expensive lens and while I don’t use it that often when I need it I have nothing else that can do what it can do. I really love it on the EF-RF adapter, and have bought an adapter for it to live on. I shot a meet and greet last weekend, and they called me back to get a huge crowd shot... it was perfect for the job, and I wouod rather put any upgrade cost into other investments ...
@@philipquaicoe9071 It's a great lens. The Mark II has the image stability and is probably a bit better/newer but the 24-70 2.8 original is the lens I had on my camera for years and I got some fantastic images with it.
Great points. This covered all the things I've been thinking about with filming youtube videos and keep the aperture a little higher, especially shooting groups, families, small kids etc. Thanks for making the video!
It’s true that content is king 👑 Great video with straight to the point information … really liked the simple gfx too!
Thank you for this video. I have been on the fence about which one of these to purchase. You have confined me to go for the 2.8 after watching this video.
The 28-70mm has that intangible Je Ne Sais Quoi that makes it a magical lens. Some call it character and others call it micro contrast. Either way I find that every image I create with it is amazing.
Ya'll going to make me get this one too... lol
70mm range limit is just plain stupid. For plan american and full body you need 50, 40, 35 or even wider if is well corected, even 15 for environmental portret, and for bust portret you ned 85-90 mm so as to have 1,5m to subject that is 5 spacial/ volumetric diagonal of an adult human head so as to have a natural perspective rendering, with no exagerated volumetric distortion. Canon 85 f 1.8 and 100 f2 are lemons with purple pink bokeh and unreliable AF, but there is also 85 f 1.4 expected decades by canon shooters, available and good. I would have prefered a 90 f 1.7, lighter and with wey better flare resistance, but no wey I would be happy with 28-70. I have a 24-90 f 3.5-4.5 sharp and with decent bokeh, and the only reason is not colecting dust is that there is no dust in my closet...
I just got mine a few years ago and I have been amazed with all the images that I have taken with it so far.
NEW SUB THANKS!!!
Steven I appreciate your due diligence on lens selection. You bring up excellent points for the decision-making process.👍👍👍
I weighed this decision as well for weeks and made the same decision you did. Not being a dedicated portrait photographer, I didn’t see the need for the 28-70. I’m sure it’s an amazing lens but I love having the 24-70 as my walkaround lens.l on my R3. Paired with the 15-35, 70-200 2.8 and 100-500 (all RF) I have a kit that gives me pretty much all I need.
well said on all points...and I especially appreciate your outro comments and good vibes.
Thanks! My best to you!
this is exactly what I needed to see today! I"ve been debating for days over which lens to buy. I have a coupon for $100 off only till Sunday... You hit all the points that helped me make up my mind. Thank you so much. I just subscribed too!
I watched probably ten videos about this comparison, and this is the first one from someone who both knows what he is talking about and provides information to make a good decision. Thanks Steven! Too much content is from people who want to be influencers and don't actually own or use the gear.
I'm finally going mirrorless and got the 24-70 2.8 with an R5. Reasons (in no particular order):
* 82mm filter ring, so a good CP doesn't cost half as much as the lens
* Image stabilization
* Faster and quieter focus.
* Size/weight
* I can add the 50 1.2 later
I had 2 x 24-70 2.8 II's, and while they were reliable workhorses and sharp, I never really loved using them as much as primes. Before the R5 launched I picked up a 28-70 on an amazing sale (back before covid, and while only the R was out)... The difference has really been night and day; it feels much more like a portrait lens blended with an event lens. After a very short time with the lens you get used to the weight, and the ergonomics... and that extra Depth of Field can really go a long way, and there is something just nicer about the images coming out - I love the way that it pairs up really well with the 85 1.2 DS, as they let in similar amounts of light. (when I would shoot with my 24-70 and EF 85 1.2 I would often have to edit the images quite differently as the amount of ambient light coming in was quite different...
However it is not the best lens for everyone, . I would not buy a 24-70 without weighing up
a ) 28- 70 f2
b ) EF 24-70 2.8 II (with EF-RF adapter)... (Saving $1000's ... 2nd hand EF possibly 1/3rd of the price of the RF, which could go towards other lenses / gear )
One of the best comments I've received on this video in the entire year it has been published. Thank you for this note and my best to you!
28-70/2 was a clear choice for me because of f/2. Thanks for video
An excellent Compo vid between 2 great lens, all the better for the personal reasons he uses the 24-70 over the 28-70. Thanks Steven, very useful.
You pretty much state the same reasons I had for going for the 24-70 over the 28-70. I think my main was the size and weight as I like to travel light as possible. Saying that, just ordered the 85 1.2 solely for portrait work, but the 24-70 will still be the main lens when out and about.
Thanks for the video...I am also a 24-70mm user (Tamron) for my Nikon D750, along with a 50mm for photojournalism work here in Chicago! :)
Great video man - a lot of the reasons you explained were great. I'm dreading leaving the 1.4/1.8 aperture, but what I've realized is that some of the best photography I see (especially with families and multiple people) usually involves having the background somewhat visible. 1.8 and 1.4 really just create a super blurred background, which isn't bad, but it becomes old kind of quick if that's all I do. I found that pictures with more attention to the environment help tell a more lifestyle/journal type of photo and 2.8 and beyond is perfect for that.
Like you mentioned, I'll probably keep a 1.8 lens available but I don't think I'll find myself using it frequently.
I don’t understand your comment. You have control over the Aperture. You have more choices with a 1.4 or 1.8. You can shoot at f8 if you want more background. Those lenses give you the most options for each shot.
Loved the video man, read through the comments and I have no doubt the 28-70 is good, but you sold me on the 24-70 (especially factoring in the price difference). Great content, keep it up and the results will flow :)
You've nailed the quality of video, maybe just beef up your descriptions and thumbnails - will definitely help the viewers and subscribers roll in :)
thank you for sharing your notes! Best to you!
What a fantastic video!!! I love your presentation style and your photography. Completely love your composition. This is the second video of your I have watched and you have a fan, not wanting to be too gushy lol! This one has really helped me decide that the 24-70 is the way forward for me. It will sit nicely on my new R6 mk ii but hopefully help get those pictures rather than just look nice :)
This is really valuable info, thanks so much for sharing! 👍🏻🤩
I only have the sigma 18 35mm for my canon r6. Do you recommend me upgrading to this lens sir?
As a Pro photographer I want my images to be special. The 28-70 is the most special zoom I’ve ever used. I have the 24-70 f2.8 and still bought it. When people see the pics they usually say WOW. It renders in a special way. It gives you the versatility of a zoom lens and the Pop of a prime lens. I can live with the weight and cost.
Agreed.
Which one’s better for video? I have an r5c and no IBIS, so I guess the 24-70 is the right choice?
I think your title says it perfectly, this is a use case for you specifically and it makes total sense. However, the lens is so stupid sharp that I’m willing to put up with all the negatives you mentioned, weight, size, thread size, cost. Etc to literally replace multiple primes with this one lens. I used to rent the RF85 1.2 for portraiture and now I’d pick the 28-70 all day over it. I can pull off 90% of a wedding with that one 28-70 lens and deliver tack sharp shots with beautiful backgrounds time and time again all while not having to constantly go back to my bag to switch primes. Plus at that weight, it’s saving me a gym membership 🤣
Thanks for sharing this note! I don’t shoot weddings. portraits I’ve been doing on the RF 50mm f/1.2. I’m working on a one year later video with the 28-70 and yeah no gym required this week!
I've rented the 28-70 f2 before and it is a great lens even though it's heavy and massive. But the main reason I decided not to get it was the filter size. Needing to get all new filters on top of the hefty price doesn't seem to be worth it. Hopefully in the future they make a 28-70 f2 Mark II and they somehow squeeze it down to have a 82mm filter size. 😁
I'm going for the Honly Trinity, I just recently picked up the rf 70-200 (most of my shots at this point in time are uncertain distances so having that flexibility is REALLY nice, plus the near macro shots and compression are just insane.. this lens is pure magic.) and my second lens I'm working to picking up is the 15-35 for mainly vlog / video stuff but also nice wide angle photography when ever the oppertunity presents itself. As the last lens, I was going to pick up the 28-70 MAINLY because I love how big it is (just the look of it lol) and I think the 24-70 is the better choice after watching your video. I can absolutely make f/2.8 work with no issues and still get something super quality so the f/2.0 isn't a huge deal for me. This video was awesome and a completely different take than everything else I've been seeing so far, you've helped me decide that I will close out the trinity with the 24-70, so thank you for that!
I did went for the 28-70 F2, and I can tell that is a different animal you can’t compare them honestly.
Is as most people said magical.
Won’t regret a bit that I pay $2400 out the door for my 28-70 and now is going for way more.
Been trying to decide between these two. The 28-70 seems like such a cool lens, but the weight is a big deterrent for me as a small framed woman. I feel like I would only want to bring that lens on shorter shoots and wouldn't want to bring other lenses to pair it with. I think the 24-70 makes the most sense, but I do see a lot of people talking about how much they love the 28-70mm.
Thanks for the great video!
the 28-70 is a feat of engineering, and if you have a specific use case that justifies it, it is great that it is there, but to the weight point, I spent 2.5 hours on a shoot yesterday and my hands started fatiguing at the end. Could not have done that same shoot on the 28-70. And I ended up taking a fair amount of shots at 24mm which comes in handy more often than I would think, at least for me. Thanks for watching and sharing your notes! I took a look at your site and really liked the Frida and Diego portrait illustrations you did! Best to you!
I have 28-70 f2 on an r5. Now I am thinking to buy a 24-70 2.8.
When compared with 70-200 it’s about 200 grams heavier. And also when the filter size is 95 mm, the weight is more on the front element of the lens, then you have to hold the lens farther away from your biological body. Which hurts even for a short shoot of 10minutes.
If you want a touch of magic in every picture go for the 28-70 F2 you won’t regret, this is way more artistic results lens, and if you want “simplicity” and great functionality then just go for the 24-70 2.8
I'm a big hairy bloke and the sheer heft of the 28-70 made me baulk. Make no mistake -- it's peak glass, a wonder of opto-electronics and my friend's copy produces images that are (as far as I could make out) flawless throughout its parameter space. But I went for the 24-70 because, while optically inferior, it's still very good and I shoot out and about more so I'd rather spend that weight budget on my 70-200.
Some advice here. Scatter by Video Village. I've had it for quite some time now and emulates perfectly or near perfectly every filter you're on about except ND Filters.
Thanks for sharing. for me the image stabilisation on the f2.8 kind of evens out in the wash when up against the f2 , unless your capturing a lot of moving subjects I think the f2.8 is fine and more agile. having said that it would be great to have the f2 for my main location portraits at my weddings, you could create a dreamier look and obviously sharper images always help. but apart from that. you probably struggle on my Gigs especially long 12 hour weddings only using the heavier f2, you would need a wrist support or something. Ideally a combination of both of these for my work would be ideal. but having both is really hard to justify.
Thx for taking out of my mine the 28-70, thx for your video, my question, I saw Polarpro Peter Mckinon dnMark2 with mist, do you mind to recommend me the thread I need to buy like 82 and rings to stop up or down, still confused, I really appreciate honesty, Xabier
Dig your videos man. Keep it up.
Thank you for the video! I was very confused watching other videos make me feel that 28-70 it was better
Good video mate, really informative and useful........either way it's going to cost me heaps!!
I have an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L and it shows strong axial chromatic aberration at 70mm, minimum focus distance at f/2.8 as well as loss of sharpness. It's sharp from 24-60mm and there's significant barrel distortion at 24mm. Is the 28-70mm f/2L afflicted with the same problems, particularly axial CA?
Appreciate constructive criticism
Very helpful video! I’ve been wanting to upgrade my ef lenses and rf makes it so hard because I want them all lol As a hobbyist and mom who loves to take photos I think the 24-70 is going to be perfect, as well as the 70-200 2.8 and now I need to decide on either the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 ☺️
Awesome comparison! I didn’t know the 28-70mm f2 is SO MUCH bigger compared to the 24-70mm f2,8 😨
That plus 24mm would be my reasons to get the f2,8, if I had the money 🥲
For know I’ll keep practising with the RF 24-105 F4 and try my best as you said 🙂
Keep up the great work mate!
that RF 24-105mm f/4L is so good and so under rated. I've taken some of my favorite shots from this past year on it. keep at it and best to you dude! I always enjoy seeing a note from you!
@@_stevenfoster Since we are on the topic of discussing the Canon L 24-105mm: Would you say that the 24-70 F2.8 is far superior to the F4 (in terms of sharpness)? Or would you safe $2000 and "settle" for the 24-105mm since it gives one an extra 35mm reach but loses two stops of light? At the end of the day, they are both L-series glass. So I often wonder if the 2 grand justifies that extra two stops of light? Please advise.
@@sonicvboom I should do a side by side video of those two lenses at f/4 and a f/4 vs f/2.8... my gut says probably not far superior. The RF 24-105mm f/4L really does earn its place in the L series with canon's spectra coatings on its elements and 9 blade aperture... My wife did some incredible work with the EOS R + the 24-105mm f/4L that helped pay for us building out our kits further. That and borrowing some EF glass and adapting. All that said, it isn't just two more stops of light you're getting with a wider aperture but more focal compression, greater subject separation, and a tighter focus plane throughout your focal range. Advising from my own scenario: Get the f/4. Get some paid gigs. figure out what focal lengths you would like to have at f/2.8 or wider. Then buy that glass with the money the f/4 made you. Thank you for sharing this note with me and my best to you!
Your post is spot on. If you can’t tell the difference get the cheaper lens. I own all three and use them for different things. For travel I take the 24-105. It’s light, has more reach, takes good pix, and if it gets stolen I won’t be out as much. Perfect first lens.
24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 for use as a travel lens. What are your thoughts. RF 35 1.8 is always on the camera now btw
How would you compare the 24-70 to the 24-105. I know its not apples to apples but if you need one lens for a wedding, which would you choose?
You could get a lot out of both depending on the wedding. Large outdoor wedding? maybe bring the 24-105 to be able to focus on the couple at a further distance. Shooting a reception at night or a moody lit place? The f/2.8 on the 24-70 would do a lot for you there. Consider your shot list and location then make a decision from there.
I use kolari's internal nd filters which go inside the camera so I can switch lenses back and forth without worrying about reattaching an nd filter or different thread sizes. When I'm traveling I used to carry my 16, 24, 35, and 85. But with the 28-70 I'm just carrying the 28-70 and 35. F2 makes a big difference when you most need it. Yes I would love the 28-70 to be able to go to 24 but its beauty out distances the ability to go to 24. The biggest point for me is that a 24-70 looks like a zoom. Being a prime user I don't like zooms. But the 28-70 almost looks like a prime. And that's why I went with the 28-70. It means I don't have to swap lenses in those hectic moments. But if I have time I can fall back on my primes.
Just subbed. Great video.
Nice video, thanks. I have the 24-70 f2.8 and have been trying the 28-70 f2. I find the f2 lens delightful but heavy. The 24-70 f2.8 is ideal and very sharp. I my end up with both but the f2 lens will just be for specific use whereas the f2,8 lens will sit on my R5 most of the time. It’s size is great and IQ superb …. Still like the f2 though … aargh :).
Thanks for sharing your note John! I know the feeling but I'm holding out now for the rumored RF 35mm f/1.2... that is if I don't give the RF 50mm f/1.2 another go. Best to you!
Nice video, enjoyed your take on the "trinity." Quick question; I have the RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM, and the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Is this combination a "holy trinity?" 😎
It’s a tough call. If I were doing events or maybe even sports where I needed speed, bokeh plus the versatility of a zoom, I’d get the f/2. Personally I got the 24-70 as a walk around lens for the size, cost and IS - even with ibis on my R3, the extra stops have proven useful. When I want bokeh, I doubt I’d be completely happy with f/2. Someday I may get it just for fun as it has a great rendering. However for portraits, I’d still rather go with a nice prime like the 50 or 85 1.2 or the new 135 1.4. For video I generally use the 15-35mm f/2.8 but the 24 vs 28 does make a difference for a walk around lens. I thought about 28-70 and then getting 24-105 for walkaround, but at f4 I might as well just use my iphone 😅
Would u suggest the RF28-70 or the RF24-70 for daily photos for kids & pets? (Indoors & outdoors) Thank you!
Both would be more than enough for what you’re looking for but for me I would stick with the 24-70 because both of those subjects are probably moving fast and having image stabilization truly is a super power with these RF lens. Plus with shooting family photos I know I would want a tighter aperture with more in focus to help those memories be more than just a blurry background and subject.
@@_stevenfoster that’s great to know! Thank you for your suggestion! I thought about the IS in 24-70 too, but since R6 already has IS built in, it made me think that the larger aperture f/2 might be better for indoors. But it’s great to know that 24-70 will already be enough! I’ll go for it, thank you! :)
I think if I was stills only I would go with the 28-70 since I can cover the 24-28 with the 15-35. But I have an R5C with no IBIS and use it as a true hybrid 1/2 video 1/2 photo. So for me the 24-70 has to win since it has built in IS, and the savings can go for a really nice f1.2 prime to take care of those times I really want that background separation.
I'm packing for a wedding video shoot tomorrow, and I'm running through the options. Where I've landed is RF 24-105 f/4 as general go-to lens during the daytime, for very similar reasons to Steven. Let me explain this madness, for anyone who might be in a similar position...
-- Firstly, I don't own a 24-70 IS. So, there's that. But I do own the 28-70 f/2.0, and lots of primes.
-- Secondly, I want to go handheld as much as possible. For me, handheld = a big cross against any lens that doesn't have IS (like a prime lens, or like the 28-70). I don't think the in-body IS on my r5c cuts it for handheld video.
-- Thirdly, I don't have filters for the 28-70. So, what happens in direct sunlight? (It's an outdoor ceremony.) With a 28-70, I'd have to close up the aperture, even at 1/2000 shutter -- which not only means that you lose the benefits of having a fast aperture, but, for video, it's usually not desirable to increase the shutter anyway, because you get a staccato look. In contrast, the 24-105 has a 77mm thread, and I've got a variable ND handy.
-- Fourthly, it's just kind of chore to get shots under documentary conditions with the 28-70. Things happen, and not only do you not react fast enough, but manual adjustment of the lens is slower than with a smaller-diameter lens. You instinctively don't even want to pick the camera up. Now, I've got a photographer buddy who runs around all day at weddings with a 28-70; it never leaves his camera. But what I'd say to that is that he's got stronger wrists than me, and also a different style. I'm going for fleeting candid moments; he's generally going for shots that he can take more time to set up.
So, what am I sacrificing vs the 28-70? Well, wider-angle shots aren't going to look as "cinematic". I can't knock out the background. But close-up shots are fine. And just maybe increased stability contributes as much to making an image cinematic as shallower depth of field.
But what happens during the reception in the evening? Well, 24-105 becomes unusable for video. At that point, I'll have to switch to something faster...
Can you honestly answer this:
Did you ever try the 28-70 F2 ?????
Cuz totally sound like you didn’t and is hard to believe that you know what are you talking about when you haven’t try first hand.
With this 28-70 F2 I have way more keepers than not.
Note: I’m shooting on the EOS R
Lens that I currently own:
RF 15-35
RF 28-70
RF 70-200
EF 100mm Macro.
I gave up the F/2 for the same reasons I gave up the RF 50mm f/1.2, It was really awkward to use, weight distribution didn't feel right in my hand. No knock on the build quality of any of these RF lenses because they are quality built. I hope you'll reconsider your comment here and the flagrant accusations you put in it. Not for my sake, but your own. You'll treat yourself how you treat others so I sincerely wish the best to you.
@@_stevenfoster First at all we are here to grow together and Sorry if sounds like I’m attacking you but is not, this is the problem with this type of communication you can’t ever transfer the humans element.
I did a Halloween party and that was the only lens that I use, and definitely I was using this with very small amount of light because was a party in the afternoon and I got incredible results, is not way I was able to achieve that with the F2.8
I’m not arguing about the sizes and weight issues with this lens but come on every one that I show the results got extremely impress by this lens.
@@RexxDIY I appreciate you and your response. Our difference in option would appear to be in your last sentence: I don't shoot to impress any one but me. My work is primarily outdoors, lots of natural light, and I like to have as much in focus to tell my stories as possible. So for me the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is the right lens for my work. As I said in the video, I very happy canon made the f/2. It makes the R series cameras and the RF mount system more attractive and demonstrates Canons prowess in optical engineering. But it's not the lens for me and my work. That said, I'm grateful you've found enjoyment with the f/2! In the hands of the right shooter like yourself is where that lens belongs. Again, thank you for sharing this note and my sincerest best to you!
@@_stevenfoster Thanks again for upload this type of videos I know is not an easy task to do and I really appreciate your effort.
And I use the 2.8 and definitely I was not really thrill to keep producing content unlike the 2.0 that I feel inspired by some weird thing this lens give me.
But again you’re absolutely right F2.0 is not for everyone just for small amount of people.
And the main reason I went for the 28-70 F2.0 is cuz I will not adquiere fix Prime Lenses only I need the flexibility of Zoom lenses and unless you have 35,50 or 85mm Prime lens I will understand not getting this one but non of my lenses goes below F2.0
As r5 user I had 15-35 70-200 and 85 f1.2 once I tried 24-70 and 28-70 I knew 28-70 is the lens that can’t go wrong wiz it. But cost more(I agree wiz ur points as weight filter and more expensive). If u was the guy that want to achieve best results, then go wiz f2 will never get wrong.
btw... both the 28-70 and the 24-70 have 8 stops of stabilization. even though the f2 doesn't have IS
awesome, how you built those animations? cool
Thank you! My wife made them with After Effects for this video. Best to you!
Good video, new subscriber
really interesting, thanks.
I'm struggling. I have the a7siii and I don't like it at all. The bitrate, framrate and AF are amazing but I just don't like the look.
I'm thinking about the r5 (for video and photo, even though I love my fuji xt4 for photos).
And I was thinking about the perfect photo+video combo where I don't need to swap lenses (almost at all) and this F2 is really exciting but then I'm like whaaaat 95mm filter?? That's just wrong to me (+focus breathing)
depending on what kinda of video you're doing, it could be a really incredible combo. I also always encourage people to rent for a week if it's a serious consideration and you don't have another way to get your hands on this kind of gear. The R5 has been an incredible hybrid camera and I wouldn't give it up any time soon. Hope that helps and my best to you!
@@_stevenfoster well actually if I really want this glass, I will find a way to put the filters I need. There are few solutions
Nice objective take on glass.
Thanks for stopping by!
I have owned the rf 24-70 for well over a year. It’s a fantastic lens in all aspects. But zero character. Every lens I own has this character about it. I find the images boring.
I’m tempted to rent the 28-70 and see if it’s for me. It certainly has some good reviews. But it definitely sounds like you mad the right choice.
I have been juggling between getting the 24 or the 28 and I recently rented the 28 and it’s all I can think about now. I am a hybrid shooter even though most of my work is photography I like to have gear that can help me do either in any situation but I am really close to buying the 28 and taking a back seat to video for a while. It’s really an amazing lens I brought strobes and lights for the gig and I ended up just using the 28 in ambient light.
I sold my RF 24-70 because I preferred the results from the 28-70 which I hired for a few days. I prefer the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and RF 15-35 plus RF 70-200 f/2.8. I have a 50mm too but find it’s a bit limiting compared to the 35mm
Time to upgrade my adapted Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 (g1) to the RF 24-70mm f/2.8, but the expense slows me down, so I agonize over the purchase by watching videos. Thanks a lot! :-)
move the camera and tripod half a meter back....and u can use 28mm
Nice video. I came to the same conclusion. I have the 24-70 2.8. You mentioned that you also have the 24-105 f4. Do you find that you use the 24-105 for much? Or, do you find yourself using the 24-70 as a general purpose lens? I am contemplating whether to purchase the 24-105 f/4 and if so whether to keep the 24-70 or sell it in favor of using the 24-105 to cover that range. Leaning toward sticking with the 24-70 and skipping the 24-105. But, I would love your take. (I also own 70-200 2.8 and 15-35 2.8 and 100-500). I'm an amateur shooting mostly stills, some short video clips, with an R5. I'm building out my dream kit to take me through retirement.
I think it comes down to what you do. Right now for my work the 24-105 f/4 has been the more of a go to than the 24-70 f/2.8 but I’m shooting outdoor lifestyle stuff where I need a larger focal plane for human subjects and a more versatile focal range for unknown distances outdoors. The lighter price and weight is a big plus to consider as well. The 24-70 f/2.8 is great if you’re doing events, indoor work, and trying to get a tighter focal plane for smaller objects. Having both between my wife and I have been great to cover that range.
All that said it sounds like you have that dream kit going strong! Thank you for leaving this note and my best to you!
will the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM Lens work on the canon rebel t7?
No.
Both lenses actually get the same advertised 8 stops of IS on an r5/R6 body. But the 24-70 would still get 5 stops on your wife’s R. I would’ve made the same decision. I have the RF50L and the rf24-70. Ive been debating trading both for the 28-70. Still not sure about it but you covered all the same issues I have with the 28-70 lol.
That’s good info. I was having a hard time finding those image stabilization numbers. I had the 50L for about a month but returned it. Beautiful lens but not necessary for my work. Thank you for sharing your notes and best to you!
28-70mm makes sense for a wedding photographer. But I went with 24-70mm so I can carry it around.
Some times you need 24mm at weddings.
F2.8 is definitely all I need to get those nice portrait shots both indoors and outdoors. It's not worth the extra money on an extra blurry background when the f2.8 is already more than enough.
About about focus breathing in video?
In my work so far I'm mostly doing single cam locked off shots on a tripod. Not really focus pulling or pushing that minimal focus distance for this lens. So I haven't noticed any focus breathing in my shots. The maximum magnification is listed as 0.3x for the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and 0.18x for the RF 28-70 f/2 so if that focus breathing is something you're concerned about I'd give the RF 28-70 f/2 a look. Hope that helps!
I do short films and some commercial shoot. So I m planing to buy this lens.. Such magnification is manageable. Can Mac book pro 2015 13 inch handle the . H264 of R5. .. How do u manage long take and it's Editing?
@@dev8996 On the go I use a 2018 MacBook Pro 13inch... but that can start to drag in final cut or premier once my projects go beyond the 15min mark. I have a 4k capture card that I can plug into my computer for recording longer than 30minutes. Mainly use that for interviews and presentation recordings. I shoot everything in 4KHQ at 24fps. That might be tough for a 2015 MacBook Pro 13inch to edit through but just a feeling from my experience with the 2018 MacBook Pro. Best to you in your endeavors!
@@_stevenfoster hello! I shoot mostly run and gun video so I was curious as to your thoughts for which one is best. Obviously the 28-70 is better glass but as a videographer first, what would you consider? And what are your thoughts on the AF noise when recording? Is it too noisy? Thank you for your time!
Steven, with all due respect: you seem to know what you’re talking about but without seeing any of your work on the screen, we don’t see what you’re talking about - I couldn’t even find your website or Insta to see what your work looks like to compare all those shots with a more significant depth of field. 🤷♂️
Hi Timothy, absolutely fair feedback. I didn't realize I had not linked my instagram or twitter in the description of this video and have since corrected this. I do plan on making a video demonstrating what I have been able to create with the 24-70mm f/2.8 and hope you'll check out that video in the future. Thank you for sharing your notes. I wish you well. My best to you from the Pacific Northwest.
@@_stevenfoster yessir! Thank you. I’ll check out your work immediately. I’d love to see if you find the 24-105 f4 more workable for the shoots you do?
I’m in the same boat, a lot of client work needs more depth of field, not less like bokeh monsters seem to demand on here. I also wonder if people notice how much loss of detail happens in images because so much is out of focus when the plane of focus is narrow.
28-70mm is a photographers lens. Videographers have other needs.
Do you not recommend this lens for videographers?
The weight of the RF 28-70 that everyone seems to complain about is actually an advantage. Along with a battery grip with full magazine of two batteries adds to the stability to the shot. One does not really need a gimbal to get smooth footage in order to tell your story. If an R5 w/ battery grip & the RF 28-70 is too heavy, there are these amazing things called dumbells that help build strength. As for the high cost well, take more photos & make more videos to sell & make more money to buy more expensive gear!
lol the douchebag comment
Some samples would have been great 🤨
"and I'm a small dude, I'm 5'8", me being 5'5" :'(
Dude if you're 5'5", you're travel sized and that is a legit life hack in my book! Thank you for watching and my sincere best to you!
@@_stevenfoster you're welcome, very nice comparison between the 2 plus it was helpful, I'mmaking my research before going full frame currently shooting an a M50.
I am 6 n i thought i am small 😆 now i feel tall 😅
The 28-70 f2 is is way better than any other zoom lens and most primes. It gives an unbelievable ambience and is incredibly sharp. This review goes out of its way to nitpick the lens which is ridiculous. The most risible criticism was the 24 to 28 part, just move the camera back a few inches and you’ll be fine 🙄. The best lenses are the heaviest due to the glass quality and engineering specifications. The only reason not to buy this lens is if it is not in your budget.
If you prefer the 28-70mm that's great! I left one on the shelf for you when I chose the 24-70mm. I didn't go out of my way to nitpick the 28-70mm. I used both and shared my considerations in hopes of helping anyone who is making a purchase decision. As for your comment as a whole, I would put forward for your consideration that I'm a person, a living breathing human being like yourself. How you treat others is a reflection of how you treat yourself. I made this review out of my own time in hopes of providing value to others. I expect few to arrive at the same conclusions as myself and welcome the differences of opinions and concerns but your comment is inconsiderate of my humanity and your own. Sincerely, I wish you well, and hope you'll reconsider how you presented yourself here.
"Gives you more room to talk"......???
This is not a technica/size/weight choice. It's more philosophical. If you are a creative photographer, regardless of your subjects, the 28-70 is the only choice. It will help achieve your vision more than the 24-70. One is a 'standard' zoom, and the other is a 'creative' tool.
I love the philosophical point! I'm just a different creative with a different philosophy but I respect your position here.
@@_stevenfoster Exactly. People are driven to different tools for different reasons. Impossible to cover all points of view.
Sounds like you're just cheap and don't want to fork out $2,800 for an exceptional lens, and this is the video of irrelevant and weak "points" you stated to falsely justify choosing the RF 24-70mm f/2.8....
I'm totally kidding. They are both awesome lenses 🤣