Great video. I went from all primes lenses to 28-70mm and 85mm 1.2. I only use 70-200mm for ceremony. BTW. I purchased the 70-200mm after watching your video. Keep up the great work.
🙏. The 28-70 is a beast. I love it but I couldn’t bare using it for video on a gimbal and needed the 24mm. My beloved EF 85mm is not really missed in the RF kit for some reason. Cool that it works for ya. I get a bit of church ceremonies so that 70-200 is clutch. Enjoy the lighter weight 70-200 :)
@@RickyCheung I am also a hybrid shooter. I would never use 28-70mm on a gimbal or a slider. Haha. But it works great for handheld on r5/r6. Before I got the lens, I really couldn't believe that the combo of the lens and r5 will provide same 8 stops of IS just like with the 24-70mm IS. It was the right choice for me. I already had another 24-70mm (tamron) at the time. It's my favorite lens now. It renders like a prime f1.8, micro contract and sharpness is amazing at f2.
I'm a bokeh addict for sure. My 50rf 1.2 is always what I gravitate to. However, lately I've also enjoyed using my 24-105 f4. Shooting at f4 makes me pay much more attention to everything in the frame, and create a different type of photo.
I know, I love, love DoF. I’m a super narrow shooter and with eye tracking it’s tempting to try my luck when I can it indeed when you don’t have 1.2 that limit of 2.8 or even f4 makes you think twice and a great challenge, hope you like it. The RF 50mm 1.2 is another level of goodness.
For a high-altitude film project, I'm considering using these three lenses with the R5C (though I've always been a Nikon user) : the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L, and RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L. I love prime lenses and my cine lenses with my BMPCC4K, but in the mountains, it’s challenging. I think these zooms look incredible and much more practical. I would have loved an RF 100-400mm f/2.8 or the RF 100-300mm f/2.8, but they're just too expensive and heavy.
I would assume very limited space and time for a lens swap in high-attitude filming so I personally might even go the 24-105 f2.8. A big bigger but the range at 2.8 without swap might be more useful with your work. Seems really cool what you do.
@@RickyCheung Thank you for your feedback! Indeed, I hadn’t thought about the 24-105 f2.8; I’ll check out the reviews to see how it performs in terms of photo and video quality. It could definitely be an option for certain setups! Thanks 🙂
That lens is a beast. High altitude film projects I could only see the negative being a bit heavier on a single body. It also doesn’t have barrel depth extension during zooming so probably lay a huge plus for you on those sets. If you need BTS of that count me in. :) best of luck. Canon also just released a new all internal zoom RF 70-200 2.8 like the original EF ones
@@RickyCheung Thank you! 😁 I’m going to look into all that; I really love the fact that it doesn’t have barrel extension. I’ve had one on my Nikon for many years for photography, a old Sigma 120-300 f2.8 first generation, but it weighs a ton (3-4 kg) 🤯 Thanks for the suggestion; I’m curious to compare! 👌
@ dust suckers are no fun but with that said my Rf 15-35/24-70/70-200 don’t have much dust in the lenses at all and they are used daily, not in clouds of smoke but all types of scenarios.
Love your vides.Doin my 1st wedding after a while and will be using what you are?Quick one?What speedlights do you use for weddings or what is your lighting set up ?
2x Godox V1s and 2x AD200. You can checkout my other vids regarding reception light which people find most tricky. Hope this helps. Thanks for your feedback.
After soo many years of my go to 85mm 1.2 I’m liking having the flexibility of the 70-200 2.8. The compression if room allowed is unmatched @ 200mm. Always have fun.
I've been shooting with the trinity of 2.8 EF lenses for quite some time. I never really liked the 24-70 2.8. It fails to blow out subjects like a prime but is adequate enough for its convenience. This time around when upgrading to the RF mount, I went all out and got the 28-70 2.0. Its a much more closer look to a prime than the 2.8 and I don't think i'll ever buy a prime again.
I loved the 28-70 F2 but opt'ed for the 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.2L, I still couldn't get the look I'm use to. For my work mounting a 28-70 f2 on a gimbal would be a workout if not impossible without a huge setup. LOL. My buddy swears by it but after 10-12hr days on a wedding as a photog, I'm with a :, he's in a little pain). It is a remarkable lens for sure.
@@RickyCheung I absolutely agree with you. Its massive and a pain, but i feel the results are worth it. I've never been a huge fan of the 50, i feel like its a love it or hate it lens. but I would love to try to rf 50 1.2. Honestly, i'm hoping Canon makes a 14-28 f2 or 70-180 f2. A complete f2 trinity. I want to see things that were never possible before the RF mount.
Aperture is a light and depth of fieldof control. If you want those creamy backgrounds 1.2 if you need more things in focus within a certain plane then you’ll probably want to that aperture higher for example, if you’re shooting multiple people a row of family members you’ll probably want to be at f4.5/5.6 to get more people in focus within that focal distance vs 1.2 with a narrow depth of field.
Thanks for the video! I have 50stm, 100L EF and 24-105/4 rf Want BOKEH, versatility and compression. 100L is enough, but I want better image's by lenses. Magic of 50-85 1.2-1.4 (extremely wide aputure) is the possibility for make amazing BOKEH in close distance without need to go far back. 85 1.4 is shorter and more comfortable, but this lens only for portraits in low light. For the day light 70-200 will be awesome What do you think about this dilemma?
I hear ya. I recently picked up the RF 50mm 1.2 and that has been my only prime. I use this for most of the day if I don’t have the distance to back out. I don’t miss the 85mm 1.2 as usually at that length I have the space to pull back with even more compression with the 70-200 2.8. I think the 50mm is great at 1.8 but if you crave a little bit more 1.2 for the win. Even the EF 1.2 is amazing on the mirrorless just not as sharp but that’s the character of the EF.
I’m actually setup with that RF trinity currently but sparely use the 15-35 for weddings. But yea, it’s enjoyable for sure. I cracked up to iso for some shots at 2.8, easy.
@@RickyCheung why do you think you rarely use the 15-35? Should I skip it and go for a prime? Do you think 24 is wide enough for group dancing shots and things like that?
Distortion, any wide angle on the 15-20ish range will have distortion. Ok for receptions in-to-the action, mosh pit dance stuff but generally not too great for other things unless for environmental portraits which I love doing but 24 works in a pinch. I shoot real estate, UA-cam, gimbal work 100% on the 15-35mm. I should review that lens shouldn’t I, hehe.
@@RickyCheung I guess the lens correction sometimes isn’t enough; I could also crop in on the edges a bit. I’d watch, yes. Now you’ve got me on the fence lol
It is a beast of a lens. I didn’t go that route because I shoot a bit of video content via gimbal setup and that would be difficult to balance (too front heavy without counters) and after playing with it the f2 still Isn’t the 1.2 magic I’m use to. It is certainly magically if you aren’t use to shoot 1.2 but that primes it’s not quite there for me.
Both great lenses but really highly depends on what you shoot and your “style/look”. If you are a new photographer I would say stick with 24-70 or even better 24-105 f4 and start with the basics and see what you shot most as the 24-105 is really a flexible lens. I have a video that one as well.
Depending on what lens in reference if it’s the EF 24-70 ii vs the RF 24-70. No comparison the RF wins hands down. The RF 70-200 is like an EF 70-200 2.8 III in a super small form factor.
Great informational content, video looks beautiful, the intro volume and added sounds and music though make these videos downright painful. Way too loud and distracting man. Especially in your videos where you make multiple points or references and add sounds in between them. The sound/music itself is awesome but the volume is way too loud and distracting. Sound is supposed to accompany a video, not take away from it. Just a nobody's two cents.
Great video. I went from all primes lenses to 28-70mm and 85mm 1.2. I only use 70-200mm for ceremony. BTW. I purchased the 70-200mm after watching your video. Keep up the great work.
🙏. The 28-70 is a beast. I love it but I couldn’t bare using it for video on a gimbal and needed the 24mm. My beloved EF 85mm is not really missed in the RF kit for some reason. Cool that it works for ya. I get a bit of church ceremonies so that 70-200 is clutch. Enjoy the lighter weight 70-200 :)
@@RickyCheung I am also a hybrid shooter. I would never use 28-70mm on a gimbal or a slider. Haha. But it works great for handheld on r5/r6. Before I got the lens, I really couldn't believe that the combo of the lens and r5 will provide same 8 stops of IS just like with the 24-70mm IS.
It was the right choice for me. I already had another 24-70mm (tamron) at the time. It's my favorite lens now. It renders like a prime f1.8, micro contract and sharpness is amazing at f2.
You deserve so many more subscribers, your content is amazing.
I appreciate it man. Thanks for your support.
I'm a bokeh addict for sure. My 50rf 1.2 is always what I gravitate to. However, lately I've also enjoyed using my 24-105 f4. Shooting at f4 makes me pay much more attention to everything in the frame, and create a different type of photo.
I know, I love, love DoF. I’m a super narrow shooter and with eye tracking it’s tempting to try my luck when I can it indeed when you don’t have 1.2 that limit of 2.8 or even f4 makes you think twice and a great challenge, hope you like it. The RF 50mm 1.2 is another level of goodness.
For a high-altitude film project, I'm considering using these three lenses with the R5C (though I've always been a Nikon user) : the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L, and RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L.
I love prime lenses and my cine lenses with my BMPCC4K, but in the mountains, it’s challenging. I think these zooms look incredible and much more practical. I would have loved an RF 100-400mm f/2.8 or the RF 100-300mm f/2.8, but they're just too expensive and heavy.
I would assume very limited space and time for a lens swap in high-attitude filming so I personally might even go the 24-105 f2.8. A big bigger but the range at 2.8 without swap might be more useful with your work. Seems really cool what you do.
@@RickyCheung Thank you for your feedback! Indeed, I hadn’t thought about the 24-105 f2.8; I’ll check out the reviews to see how it performs in terms of photo and video quality. It could definitely be an option for certain setups! Thanks 🙂
That lens is a beast. High altitude film projects I could only see the negative being a bit heavier on a single body. It also doesn’t have barrel depth extension during zooming so probably lay a huge plus for you on those sets. If you need BTS of that count me in. :) best of luck. Canon also just released a new all internal zoom RF 70-200 2.8 like the original EF ones
@@RickyCheung Thank you! 😁 I’m going to look into all that; I really love the fact that it doesn’t have barrel extension. I’ve had one on my Nikon for many years for photography, a old Sigma 120-300 f2.8 first generation, but it weighs a ton (3-4 kg) 🤯 Thanks for the suggestion; I’m curious to compare! 👌
@ dust suckers are no fun but with that said my Rf 15-35/24-70/70-200 don’t have much dust in the lenses at all and they are used daily, not in clouds of smoke but all types of scenarios.
Love your vides.Doin my 1st wedding after a while and will be using what you are?Quick one?What speedlights do you use for weddings or what is your lighting set up
?
2x Godox V1s and 2x AD200. You can checkout my other vids regarding reception light which people find most tricky. Hope this helps. Thanks for your feedback.
Incredible videos man!
Thank you so much
Great video and love the comparisons. I'm eyeing the 70 to 200 2.8 bit for casual shooting my rf 85 1.2 works ok for now. Keep up the great work
After soo many years of my go to 85mm 1.2 I’m liking having the flexibility of the 70-200 2.8. The compression if room allowed is unmatched @ 200mm. Always have fun.
I've been shooting with the trinity of 2.8 EF lenses for quite some time. I never really liked the 24-70 2.8. It fails to blow out subjects like a prime but is adequate enough for its convenience. This time around when upgrading to the RF mount, I went all out and got the 28-70 2.0. Its a much more closer look to a prime than the 2.8 and I don't think i'll ever buy a prime again.
Btw you have great content, and love your videos. you deserve more subs
I loved the 28-70 F2 but opt'ed for the 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.2L, I still couldn't get the look I'm use to. For my work mounting a 28-70 f2 on a gimbal would be a workout if not impossible without a huge setup. LOL. My buddy swears by it but after 10-12hr days on a wedding as a photog, I'm with a :, he's in a little pain). It is a remarkable lens for sure.
@@SP-ly3vd Thanks for your support
@@RickyCheung I absolutely agree with you. Its massive and a pain, but i feel the results are worth it. I've never been a huge fan of the 50, i feel like its a love it or hate it lens. but I would love to try to rf 50 1.2. Honestly, i'm hoping Canon makes a 14-28 f2 or 70-180 f2. A complete f2 trinity. I want to see things that were never possible before the RF mount.
@@SP-ly3vd they are going to keep making banger lenses. 28-70 f2 the packaging of the 70-200 2.8. Enjoy the 28-70 f2.
I’m new at photography. When should I used f1.2 and when not. I notice you said you wouldn’t used 1.2 when it’s a lot of people
Aperture is a light and depth of fieldof control. If you want those creamy backgrounds 1.2 if you need more things in focus within a certain plane then you’ll probably want to that aperture higher for example, if you’re shooting multiple people a row of family members you’ll probably want to be at f4.5/5.6 to get more people in focus within that focal distance vs 1.2 with a narrow depth of field.
Thanks for the video!
I have 50stm, 100L EF and 24-105/4 rf
Want BOKEH, versatility and compression.
100L is enough, but I want better image's by lenses.
Magic of 50-85 1.2-1.4 (extremely wide aputure) is the possibility for make amazing BOKEH in close distance without need to go far back.
85 1.4 is shorter and more comfortable, but this lens only for portraits in low light.
For the day light 70-200 will be awesome
What do you think about this dilemma?
I hear ya. I recently picked up the RF 50mm 1.2 and that has been my only prime. I use this for most of the day if I don’t have the distance to back out. I don’t miss the 85mm 1.2 as usually at that length I have the space to pull back with even more compression with the 70-200 2.8. I think the 50mm is great at 1.8 but if you crave a little bit more 1.2 for the win. Even the EF 1.2 is amazing on the mirrorless just not as sharp but that’s the character of the EF.
The 24-105 is a Great Wall around but will limit that DoF unless you have 105mm space to worth with. I have another vid on 50mm vs 24-105 DoF
Own both and have yet to shoot an entire wedding with them but definitely have the peace of mind I can. Gonna finish the Trinity here shortly.
I’m actually setup with that RF trinity currently but sparely use the 15-35 for weddings. But yea, it’s enjoyable for sure. I cracked up to iso for some shots at 2.8, easy.
@@RickyCheung why do you think you rarely use the 15-35? Should I skip it and go for a prime? Do you think 24 is wide enough for group dancing shots and things like that?
Distortion, any wide angle on the 15-20ish range will have distortion. Ok for receptions in-to-the action, mosh pit dance stuff but generally not too great for other things unless for environmental portraits which I love doing but 24 works in a pinch. I shoot real estate, UA-cam, gimbal work 100% on the 15-35mm. I should review that lens shouldn’t I, hehe.
@@RickyCheung I guess the lens correction sometimes isn’t enough; I could also crop in on the edges a bit. I’d watch, yes. Now you’ve got me on the fence lol
Subject in the middle and you’ll be fine. Forget the swinging arms and bopping heads, hehe.
Gorgeous photographs ❤️
Thank you Lazaro!!
I hear the 28-70 is a prime replacer! I only ever shot with 24-70 + 70-200 2.8 :)
It is a beast of a lens. I didn’t go that route because I shoot a bit of video content via gimbal setup and that would be difficult to balance (too front heavy without counters) and after playing with it the f2 still Isn’t the 1.2 magic I’m use to. It is certainly magically if you aren’t use to shoot 1.2 but that primes it’s not quite there for me.
What should I buy first 70-200 or 24-70. Really want the 70-200
Both great lenses but really highly depends on what you shoot and your “style/look”. If you are a new photographer I would say stick with 24-70 or even better 24-105 f4 and start with the basics and see what you shot most as the 24-105 is really a flexible lens. I have a video that one as well.
24-70 period
Great video!! How would you compare the rf vs the L ii?
Depending on what lens in reference if it’s the EF 24-70 ii vs the RF 24-70. No comparison the RF wins hands down. The RF 70-200 is like an EF 70-200 2.8 III in a super small form factor.
Thanks for this video sir❤️ I got 24-70 and 70-200 i dont need anything else. Maybe maybe one day ill get 50 1.2 one day 😂😂
I recently picked up the 50mm 1.2. It’s a great lens. Reviewing coming up soon. Enjoy the zooms, workhorse lenses.
Great informational content, video looks beautiful, the intro volume and added sounds and music though make these videos downright painful. Way too loud and distracting man. Especially in your videos where you make multiple points or references and add sounds in between them. The sound/music itself is awesome but the volume is way too loud and distracting. Sound is supposed to accompany a video, not take away from it. Just a nobody's two cents.
Subscribed and liked ❣️