Canon 28-70mm f2 R Review: Greatest Zoom EVER (for Canon EOS R)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2024
- Win a Canon EOS R or Fuji X-T3: freesdp.com
The Canon 28-70 f/2 R (sdp.io/c28) is a full stop faster than the standard 24-70 f/2.8 that many pros use, and that's a HUGE deal. That reduces noise by a full stop in low-light situations. It blurs the background more than has ever been possible. There's a cost, though: size, and, well, cost. It's $3,000. I compare it to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the Canon EOS R 24-105 f/4.
A friend of mine showed me some of their shots they took with this lens. The image quality is jaw dropping. Everything about it blew me away. Honestly, it's worth the money if you want the very best along with the versatility of the 28-70 focal length.
Thanks for sharing. I'm trying to get a used one now. ^_^
"It's disturbingly big" - That's what she said.. ?
95mm diameter is definitly disturbingly big...
Chris Keppler Big girtha.
Sounds like an adult film.
Sounds like something Kai would say.
Adult film...that would be large format, BTW.
I’d be interested to see the T-stop value of both lenses before spending 3k.
You can say a lot of bad things about Canon...but bad lens quality is not one of them.
Too bad the total lack of stabilization means It'll be outperformed by lenses 1/10 the price in some situations.
Felipe Figueroa But bad sensor quality certainly is.
yeah especially for people who don't know what they're doing
I.S? bring a tripod like a pro.
fnx , learn how to shoot. Most subjects move and IS doesnt help. For sports, IS is generally turned off. I have the fabled 24-70mm L ii, and don't need IS.
I have it. I’m a nightclub shooter who is a new owner of the r6 and it’s ideal for any low light shooter imo. The results you get with this is pretty much what you’d get from primes except you need one body and one lens. Why pay 3k for this? Well why not? The lenses will generally outlive the camera so over the lifespan of a camera I would’ve paid for this lens 3 times over by the time the shutter gives out. It’s weather sealed so I’m not worried about people spilling drinks and splashing my equipment. It only makes sense if you’re a working photographer and that’s what this type of gear is made for. I’m getting tack sharpness at f/2 and super sharp at f2.5 with 2 people in the frame who’s faces are close together out on the same plane. And at f2.8 I can get 3 with the right labe plane positioning. It’s a stretch but it can be done. To be on the safe side you can do f3.2 or 3.5. I also received a few laughs and surprised looks from people who noticed the size. And right now I’m the only guy on the scene with this large lens so it’s becoming my trademark look. But after a few weeks of using it I have no regrets about spending the money on it. This is the Thor’s hammer of photography and run and gun workflow. Because of the diameter size and aperture range I can let more light into the lens at lower ISOs as well. What I’d normally use with my 24-70 adapted lens at ISO 640 and 1200 I can do with ISO 250-640 and expose the ambient lighting of the venue in the background with varying brightness being from little to none. And with the speedlight settings set lower I’m also able to shoot more low light events on one set of AA lithium batteries. I was halfway on my fourth event before I had to change them out. It’s been a dream so far. I’ve gotten used to the weight as well so it isn’t that heavy anymore. It was a as Kyle daunting at first but I adjusted
I am 14 years old from Australia and worked 3 whole years at Mcdonalds to buy this lens, saved every cent. No regrets. Now I need money for the Canon EOS R camera...
Work another 3 years and by then the EOS R mark II will probably match the Sony A7RIII.
No way. How tf would anyone hire you when you were 11? Also the lens was only announced a few months ago, so I guess you have a crystal ball, too ;P
... and now he has the lens, but no body to use it on. No 14-year old is this dumb. ...
Hahaha
Well I worked as an investment banker in Mongolia from when I was in my mother's womb, and now I'm 3 weeks old and I bought two of them.
This lens is simply STUNNING... best zoom ever? Yes!
10:37 "You gave us a pro lens, where is the pro body?" 2 years later, the R5 and everyone's jaw is shut.
The R5 is the highest selling camera on the planet.
A non-stabilised lens that costs $3000 for a non-stabilised body that costs $2300... Canon has no shame, that's for sure.
They will add IS. First they want to sell as many of these as they can. When sales fall off, they will add IS.
liteoner you can afford to be arrogant when you are at the top. Look at Apple.
Canon behave just like 10 year ago in all there shine and glory.
Canon have to realise their golden era, when they define prices, has gone. Tamron and Sigma 24-70 2.8 stabilised aren't seriously lacking. Adding Sigma Art 1.4 for bokeh - overcome everything Canon f/2.0 can give.
This blindness just heart industry - I dont want Canon disappear because they produce lota of interesting and rare glasses
have you seen the market share lately?
You're less likely to need IS at f/2 though.
With IS this lens would have been more expensive, bigger and heavier...Please stop complaining, this is a great new lens design, and it's pretty rare in the camera world.As a professional,I like the fact Canon use the mirrorless design to unleash quality lens designs, and not just reduce the size.
Jean-Baptiste Casasola thank you! I look at all the film cameras from the past and see that they never had any form of stabilization. I started to realize that the weight of the camera plus the photographer, is the stabilizer. I’ve been shooting dslr for years and never realized that none of my cameras ever had stabilization.
@@SoPoetIQ37 The reason film cameras got away without stabilization is that they're so damn heavy. A mirrorless, even with a lens like this, is going to be too shaky when handheld. It was absolutely the right decision to not get OIS for this lens, but it was absolutely the wrong decision to not put IS into the EOS R camera bodies.
@oliver roozen that’s true. I believe my statement mentions that, but I’ve shot Dslr for years and never had a stabilizer built into the body, i now shoot with the eos R with a grip and I phenomenal shots. I think the world is so CZcams fed and tech hungry that if something doesn’t have a “feature” then it’s the biggest disappointment. Photography is an art form that requires an artist. I never heard of a paint brush trying to paint for the painter.
@oliver roozen I also shot a wedding with the eos r and the RF 28-70mm f2 lens and it made the camera heavy, however, the build of the eos r was able to handle it so although it was heavy it was perfectly balanced so I never got an ounce of shaking at all! So heaviness doesn’t mean a lack of stability on canon cameras at least.
Well done Tony. A 20 minute video squeezed into 11 minutes....
Happy to hear about the new 24-107. I ordered the kit even though I already had the original 24-104L for the smaller size and the ring. I’m happy to hear your experience with it! Thanks for your thorough unbiased reviews Tony! :)
So this lens has no wide end (28mm is not really wide, it's standard street focal lenght) it's super heavy (1400g vs 800g (2.8 version)) and not stabilised.
Sure some people will find it usefull but I would rather have 3 faster primes and keep the weight of my hands
This lens is insane!!!! It can potentially replace all prime and zoom lenses at this focal length. F2 is definitely wide enough for even indoor sports. I’m used to shooting indoor sports with a prime but that limits my composition. I’ve always lusted the zoom’s functionality, but is still shooting prime because of the f-stop difference. This is gonna be a game changer! Even though I’m no longer a canon shooter, this will probably get other manufactures making similar lenses.
Are you shooting at 70mm or less. I would have thought that you'd prefer a longer focal length to get closer to the action.
This is what I actually thought when I saw Sigma 18-35 F/1.8. Do I still think it can replace 24-70? No. Well it lacks telephoto end but the F/1.8. At this point you start to think about weight, cost, and other aspects. No it won't replace all primes and zoom lenses because they all have their pros and cons.
I agree, if I were a Canon shooter I would be all over this.
Certainly a good point! Until you realised you are shooting a Canon R, that is.
Lucid_OnLooker lmao when the alphas first came out, we were complaining that they have good cameras but terrible lenses. At least canon is putting out great glass before great body, which is the right move. I don’t expect canon or Nikon or Panasonic to get it right on their very first camera, but it’s good to see them going on the right direction
For $3000 I want this to go to 24mm... and be made of platinum. With lens elements made from diamonds. You can buy a Sony A7iii + Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for $2800, and it will have IBIS, and all the other features that the EOS-R is missing. So... who the hell is going to be buying this?
People who like Canon
If someone buys a $3000 lens that only works on a new camera that's inferior to the competition and only has a few other native lenses available for it, that all also cost way too much, just because they like the company that makes it, then... they're fucking morons and deserve to get ripped off.
Professionals.
People who are patient enough to wait for R5 or R6.
This lens will be awesome for the next iteration of Canon R with IBIS!
IBIS results in sharper brighter images without the bulk and weight~
Srs tho, I can't believe how sharp these 28-70 f2 and 24-105mm f4 are. Canon stepping up in the lens game again.
i am still waiting for your detailed review of the 28-70mm f/2 lens with Canon R5. more details are required from you. The sweet spot of this lens needs to be identified in terms of f spot.
Looks like the perfect lens for very very very high end wedding photographers that will buy it once Canon has higher end model in 2020.
Yeah now that R5 adn R6 have IBIS, this lens practicly gets 8 stops of stabilization
@@davidhrzenjak Still not going to replace the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.4 primes.
I think this lens will be the 'go-to' lens for many Canon shooters. Shame about the price tag and the lack of IS, but I'd certainly have it in my arsenal.
And 28mm
In theory maybe; but in practice it's probably too heavy, bulky and unconfortable te be a 'go-to' kind of lens
Edoardo Fioretto - Would have been nice to see a side by side of the 28-70mm on the R and the 24-70mm on a 5D to see if the body size offsets the lens size by enough to wash that argument. I would think it would at least by enough to be worth the added stop and sharpness. But then you have the argument of how the 5D is still a better overall camera for events due to the dual cards slots, not to mention the R is crippled for burst shooting, not to mention the control schemes (5D has a thumbstick, R has a control ring).
And what about the 24-70 on the EOS-R? Smaller, lighter and equally sharp, at the cost of one f-stop. I can only see this 28-70 f/2 in very specific situations and not as a 'go-to' lens.
I rather shot with a fast prime. A Leica Noctilux only has a 60 mm filter ring.
If there is no stablization in the lens, and no stablization in the body. I will definitely go to the EF lens instead.
What EF lens? There is no F2 EF zoom.
Dear Tony,
I have been shooting Basketball 1.Liga for many years. It makes little sense to work with Aperture 2.0. Then I could take a fixed focal length with aperture 1.4. A sports photographer will prefer to increase the ISO. With that, all full-size cameras are clear today.
Prefer two fixed focal lengths in the luggage as such a heavy part, with little scope of the focal length.
Years ago when I got into Canon the online forums complained and complained about the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 not being wide enough so Canon developed the 24-70 f/2.8 which is an awesome lens. Fast forward to 2018 and Canon reintroduces the 28-70 and not a 24-70? If 28mm's wasn't wide enough, remember? You mentioned in some of your Canon EF lens reviews that 24 was a better focal length since it was a bit wider. Seems like one step forward and two steps back to me.
I really like 24mm on a lens, I wouldnt get a 28, but thats just because of my needs and preferences. I also like the sharpness of sigmas arts over cannon anyway, hahah
I am curious to see how this performs on the R5 or R6. Now that the new Canon Bodies are out. I am just about to purchase a R6. But am conflicted between getting this 28-70 or getting a F4 zoom and few(3) F1.8 Primes.
What did you decide? It'll perform the same/better in every respect on the R5/R6
@@willherondale6367 I went with the 28-70 f2 The color and sharpness seem better than any F1.8 prime.
i think this lens, paired with a 85 or a 135 mm would be a staple lens system for most of the fashion and wedding photographers out there. A beautiful lens with a not so beautiful price tag.
This lens doesn’t make sense to me.
Too heavy to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. No lens stabilisation as it would be even bigger and no IBIS
Too expensive
I agree. You can talk shit about Nikon and Sony's marketing material. Personally I don't believe Nikon has 5 stops of image stabilization and Sony's 5.5. But I do believe its good for at least 1 stop. Which is exactly what this f2.0 zoom lens brings....1 stop advantage.
Honestly you might be better off carrying 2-3 stabilized prime lenses rather than lugging this thing around.
John Smith - It depends on how close you are to the subject. I shoot a 50mm F1.4 a lot and don't have issues for what I use it for, unless I am right on top of someone.
Seems to me that this lens would be great for wedding photographers. Stabilization often won't help as you'll get subject movement, so they need to keep above 1/60s anyway.
Yes it is expensive, but it is on the only lens in the world, so of course you will pay a premium. And it replaces four primes.
It's far too expensive for an average consumer, but for a pro I can very well imagine the price is quite acceptable.
But then you run into the issue that the EOS R is not a pro body. I'd guess a wedding photographer would want that second card slot...
John Smith yes there is a speed advantage. But this is a heavy lens and 1/60 is too slow to hold this lens. Monopod at least is required for church photos
Buy an 85mm f1.8 instead and a 24-70mm f2.8. This lens is $3000. Just not justifiable for many pros
Marc De Vries I understand your point of view. But no good in a church, too short a telephoto. Have to say I’m thinking of the dark churches we have in the UK
Still feel this lens is too heavy for most pros to want to use
No good for landscape as f8 or so is used most often
Control ring is my favorite feature in this new mirrorless camera.
When they bring out a pro body then this system will be the cats nuts with the control ring lenses. For now I'm waiting in the wings to see what develops before I spend.
I think people are generally overreacting to the lack of IS in a lens like this. It's an F/2, and the focal length is maxed at 70mm. I don't think it will come into play that much considering it's likely use. I'm not saying IS isn't valuable. I just thinking people are putting WAY too much emphasis on it.
Tony sports photographers like myself will not care if it is stabilized. We shoot at 1/1000 sec where image stabilization is meaningless and may actually slow focus acquisition. My Canon 24-70 f2.8 is currently my go to lens for shooting basketball under the net. .
3 plus pounds, no IS. Great for (strong) wedding photographers in dark halls, but I'd rather shoot primes (which are lighter and far easier to hold, faster, generally sharper and typically have IS) and change lenses when I need to. Sounds like a brilliant technical achievement, but without IS or IBIS and so so heavy to hold (and then there's the price), something of an aardvark.
I get the convenience of the zoom lens but that is a tough price tag to swallow combined with the high weight & size. Yo can get 3 excellent prime lenses at f1.4-1.8 covering those focal lengths. I think at $2000 it would make a killer must have lens but at 50% higher it is a tough call. I think for weddings/events it would be a fantastic fit.
The thing is, IS can make a difference of up to 5 stops, so a good stabilized f2.8 lens can do better in low light than this f2 lens does.
I think this lens is a toy for people with a lot of money who want ot show off and don't have to care about actual performance and practicality. It's huge and heavy, which means it is bad for long hikes or mountain tours, takes a lot of space in your camera bag and draws a lot of attention which is not always ideal when you want to photograph people as a reporter or wedding photographer.
IS doesn't help for moving subjects though.
For wedding, I don't think it matters. Often we carry 2 bodies anyways and often one with a big white 70-200mm f2.8. People will notice you regardless.
When I was working in newspaper, we use 1D and 5D series bodies. They are big cameras. It is more about giving respect to the subject than trying to be "sneaky"
Sure, if you want to go on a hike or holiday, then it may not be good for you, but then this is why we have got the 24-105 IS.
DeletedDelusion , learn how to shoot mate. IS doesn't help in the reak world of moving subjects. IS is typically turned off or reduced for sports. I have the fabled 24-70mm f2.8 Lii non IS, & I dont miss having IS ever.
Wtf u buy this lens to get more shallow depth of field and that’s about it. If u can’t shoot without ibis or IS what do you think photographers were doing 3 years ago. Get a grip fucking gear psychos
@@jonpremosch2896 also a whole stop lower ISO
As a photographer i dont understand the big fuss about in body stabilization. Esp on any lens that is below 100mm. The only time ive never notices camera shake is in low light and on a telephoto to begin with. So not having Is on this lens which is the standard length i use on a daily basis isn't a problem. to me it seems like people are getting lazier and not putting in the work to handle the equipment to get a good photo. come one people shoulder presses and holds work those muscles.
Been saying this since the eos r reveal. The 28-70 f2 is the best part of the eos r to be honest. Why aren't other people (cough Nikon) making new, amazing lenses? Oh well.
hello Tony and Chelsea, personally, I don't care how sharp it is, I would never buy this lens. it weighs 1430 grams. it makes the Sigma 85 f1.4 Art seem light. and you can buy f1.8 primes and have better low light performance than this zoom. so the zoom gives you some convenience, but I sure wouldn't want to carry that around for an entire day, if you have three primes. you don't need to be carrying all those primes at the same time. they can be in a bag on a table next to you, and when you have a lens like the Tamron 28/75 f2.8 that is $799 and only weighs 550g. it's like 900g lighter, and with the money you save you could also buy the Sigma 50 and 85 f1.4 art lenses and still be spending less money than this new Canon. but the Canon 24/105 f4 sounds like a great lens. great focal length and not to big and heavy. at a decent price. but yes it's f4. but f4 is ok for allot of situations, but I know there will be allot of Canon shooters that will buy this new 28/70 f2. some because they have lots of money burning a whole in their pocket. and some just to walk around with a lens that will make people look so they can feed their big ego, and some just because they actual see it as beneficial for what they do. on another subject, I am wondering if the bigger lens mount actually has the benefits that Canon and Nikon claim. because Sony claims that it's not true, and so far Sony has put out some really nice glass. and the benefit to Sony's mount, is it is also the same mount as on their apsc cameras, so both systems can share glass, but Canons apsc cameras will not be able to share glass with their full frame cameras. unless they are going to ditch their m mount and start making apsc cameras with this new huge mount, which I don't think Canon will do. I could just picture some tiny apsc camera with that new 28/70 f2 on it.
photographerjonathan , too many words mate. The bottom line is the Canon glass is in a different league to the Sigma in image quality. Good images need good glass.
Shooting games or a wedding with Primes is a different thing entirely to shooting with a zoom. You genuinely miss unexpected moments. Not saying it's a definitely better solution for every photographer but having 3 primes in your bag is not the same. For what I shoot I think I'll be sticking to a stabilised f2.8 or even go back to a 24-105 and a couple of primes if there really is that much difference
Eos M is indeed dead, Canon understand that that's exactly how they pull new consumers through the ranks. Get them to invest in mid range bodies, then glass and then they're already bought into the ff system to get the new body.
I'm not defending the brands, I personally hate that they're doing the usual canon thing of 'sell a stripped down version that people will buy (eos R) and then release the real thing that's just better enough to make a pro really value the missing features'.
@@jamaize1 "Shooting games or a wedding with Primes is a different thing entirely to shooting with a zoom. You genuinely miss unexpected moments." thats complete BS. I use 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 for weddings and I am able to get all unexpected moments.
Wow, this is the type of lens you switch platforms for. It almost makes primes lenses in that range redundant.
It took Sony 3 years after the launch of the a7 to come out with standard f2.8 zoom. I thought it would take Canon and Nikon about the same amount of time but then BOOM. Canon releases this f2 monster.
Sony was a mirrorless pioneer. Canon had the advantage of knowing what works and what does not for mirrorless systems.
This is a beautiful lens, the extra stop is very useful, I still have my Canon 28-70 f2.8 L I bought in 2000 before Canon brought out the two 24-70's F2.8, I used it all the time for weddings with 400 ISO Fuji film, if the person conducting the wedding let me take photos during the ceremony I'd be in AV mode with fill flash, that would still only give me f f2.8 at a 30th, so this new lens with extra stop would of been very useful at the time and yes I survived without image stabilization.
I walked around with this at Universal Studios, Florida and so many random people asked me to take their photo; such a wonderful piece of glass!
Interesting to see the new R5 will have IBIS :D that should help make up for no stabilisation on the lens :)
Yeah totally. Wonder what the price of the R5 will be
Damn I was like "lets go with the 24-105 F4" this time when switching to the R system, then I heard about this one..
This lens is the only reason I will purchase a Canon R camera.
Got this lens. No regrets. Paired it with the RP and called it a day. In effect, I have ‘primes’ in my camera between 28-70mm. The weight of the lens alone provides an on-board stabilization (sort of).
Hi Tony, why don't you compare the 28-70 to the 24-105 both at f4 for sharpness?
Compare both at/around f9 or f11. Doesn't make comparing them at f4.
@@borg_uk doesn't make sense comparing two lenses with different apertures. It doesn't matter if it is f4 or f9. Of course around f9 it will give you the maximum sharpness, but what you want is a relative comparison not absolute.
In 4k video mode on the EOS R it is 48-120, what a versatile lens...
Since he really had a limited hands-on, I doubt Tony really did a light transmission test. Sure, it's a F/2 lens, you'll get f2 bokeh. But f2 light gathering? As in you will get a full stop of extra light compared to a f/2.8 lens? Doubtfull, especially since that monster is full of glass elements.
With that said, this is the piece of tech I am most interested in the EOS R system. I can understand the enthusiasm. The first generation of cameras is underwhelming though.
I'll check this. I have all the test shots I need, I just forgot.
Wouldn't adding in camera sensor stabilization be a greater advantage than an f2 lens vs an f2.8?
Why do people act like no IBIS / no IS is a deal breaker? People who shoot moving subjects (sports, portraits, wildlife, weddings, street, photojournalism) don't really care for IBIS.
If your using a long focal length for wildlife/sport then you would want IS lens even though the subject might move. Because the field of view is narrower it effectively magnifies any camera movement that would be there at a shorter length making it hard to frame your shot. That is why most longer focal length lenses have IS. But it isn't needed for this focal length nearly as much. It does drain the battery.
I’m a bird photographer and sometime I want shoot a 100 iso and I don’t care if my dslr can handle 12800iso. I’m shooting sometime at 100iso at 1/125s with a 600mm so with the ibis or is I do care 😉
Feel free to check on my instagram
LOL right? And it’s not like they could afford the lens anyway.
“The only ones who care are camera snobs” guess I’m guilty, I watched the whole thing 🖖
Ah, back when Tony's videos looked good.
Another quality video. Thanks for explaining the benefit of f2.0. I did not realize that there would be such a big difference in the amount of light going from f2.8 to f2.0. I shoot a lot of basketball at high speeds and low aperture. I have the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 but don't use it much for basketball. I pretty much only use the 70-200mm f2.8. Sometimes a 300mm f2.8. Once Canon comes out with a high frame rate mirrorless, I will get that instead of a 1Dx Mark II. Hopefully the second generation of this lens will add image stabilization and we will be good to go.
At first when I seen the specs on this lens, I was all in. But then seeing how big it is, and especially the weight, I definitely don't want to use this as an all purpose travel lens! It's huge, and weight as much as a 70-200 f2.8! I used to be all for functionality, no matter the cost (size, weight, etc), but after travelling a lot, size and weight really do matter. Isn't that the point of having a zoom, one lens to do it all? It kind of defeats the purpose when that lens weighs as much as two. Oh well, great lens otherwise Canon.
Big THANK to you Tony for your one more excellent review! Much appreciated! Wishing you and your whole family all the very Best always! /Greetings from Sweden!
Keep hearing how these fast apertures can save the day in low light situations irony is I also keep hearing about the excellent high ISO performance of virtually all new cameras, this could be a factor for 20x16 or larger prints but how many people print to that size, (those who do are mostly pros using medium format).
I was searching for exactly this video! Thanks. Looking forward for the video about the 24-105 mm as well.
7:20 - 4 times the area of a full frame sensor is still less than 6x6 medium format. The smallest common large format starts at 4x5, or a bit less than 16 times the area of a full frame sensor. You'd need a 4 stop advantage at full frame to equal the equivalency you've stated.
i aim to be this detailed, objective and accurate in literally everything I do some day. So much useful information, thanks for the videos!
At 6:50 - 7:24: f/4 -> f/2 = 2 stops, same as MFT -> FF, same as FF -> "large format sensor"....wait what? Where can you get a large format sensor? Large format refers to film size 4 x 5 (inches) or 127 x 102 mm, or higher, compared to FF (36 x 24) or 0.28 crop factor. Current medium format sensors are 44 x 36 (used by Fuji, Pentax, among others) and 54 x 40 (used by Phase One among others). Micro 4/3 sensor is about 22 x 13 mm. APS-C (non-Canon) is 28 x 16 mm.
So, micro 4/3 to FF is slightly larger change than FF to the larger MF sensor. Way smaller than "large format".
I presume that will be about $4,500 in Australia. No thank you.
Mind you, how many prime lenses would you no-longer need if you buy it?
None of them.
I'd still prefer a 35 f1.4 and/or 50 f1.4 plus a stabilized 24-70
You could probably get a flight to the US for that extra money. So combine the purchase (if you really are in the market for it with 3000$) with a vacation there!
Mind you, please prepare money for wrist surgery too.
In Canada - "ONE MILLION DOLLARS!"
I'm glad I went Sony to be able to stick a light and cheap Tamron 28-75 on A7iii with IBIS. Handholding at 1/5s at the wide end becomes usable.
XuQi Feng , Tamron is not nearly in the image quality as the Canon, and is is not needed in the real world of moving subjects.
@@nordic5490 For video ibis helps. Plus IQ of 28-70 is not four times better either.
@@frankfeng2701 but for video sony ibis is rubbish compare to gh5. For photography is not to bad.
Thinking about eliminating my 35mm f1.4 Sigma Art, 50mm f1.2L, and 24-70 f2.8 ii for this! Would you do this?
Canon announcing this Lens.
Sigma´s reaction: "Hold my drink for a second!"
To be continued....
Heard a lot about how BIG this lens is, but didn't really take it in until now when I realised, 95mm filter size.. that's the same as my sigma 150-600c.
Less noise but also less depth of field. I think I would rather have half a stop on the sensor than a stop on the lens.
Thank you Tony for this review! I wish this was the first review that I watched today, because it would have saved me 8 hours of my life. The video was very informative and helped me make my final decision. Thank you! Please keep up the hard work!!!
Well...Sigma has in production a SUPERB 24-35/2 lens some two years ago...which can be mounted in any "mirror" or "mirrorless" camera. It is also smaller and with less filter width. Now that Canon has jumped in the f/2 boat i would like to see Sigma produce a pair of 24-50/2 and 50-135/2 for the ones that can appreciate such a combo.
I think any working professionals who rely on a 24-70 this is huge. Getting a hole stop of extra light is amazing for pretty much any situation, especially weddings and indoor sports. There are allot of uses for this lens and it’s is exciting to see that canon is innovating in glass. (Of corse bodies are another story) the only issue I can see is the 28mm, for some that will be a dealbreaker, but for others it won’t be and this lens will be great for them. Over all a great lens release and I can see this drawing in a lot of people to the eos R in the hopes of a more professional grade camera body to come.
Costa Clicks , yup. However, my go yo lens for indoor events now is the 16-35 f2.8 L3, my 24-70 f2.8 l2 hardly gets used. So 28mm is not wide enough for me.
Nor Dic I personally agree, I used my 16-35 2.8 alll the time before I switched from canon to Sony. I would use if for any thing wide, then have a 50mm and 85mm prime with me for anything else I needed. Worked perfect for travel, events, engagements, and on location portraits.
I’m loving Nikon and Canons approach to winning the long game over Sony. And it’s all about the new mounts and lenses that Sony won’t be able to produce because of the mount chosen on there cameras. When they eventually catch up with the Sony bodies and tech and they are pretty close already, the new lenses which were unthinkable before will win the day. Very clever marketing which might eventually unsettle Sony to change there mount to complete.
Canon RF lenses with 20mm flange to sensor distance can potentially be adapted to Sony E-mount (18mm flange to sensor distance) and Z mount (with 16mm flange to sensor sensor). But only Canon EF lenses or FD lenses can be adapted to RF mount cameras.
So RF lenses would be better investments than Sony E-mount or Nikon Z mount lenses.
Next time you see a Canon rep let them know their pro lenses need IS and the R and Rp and future bodies need IBIS, if not Canon will lose sales to the competition. I'm ready for mirrorless but not until the IS/IBIS situation is resolved. Getting back the the lens I've yet to see or read a bad review of the lens optically but it's not the first constant aperture f/2 lens, that honor goes to the Sigma 24-35 f/2 Art.
Isn't F/2 is too shallow for shooting moving people/sports? I would think that one would stop down to F/2.8 at least, which kind of defeats the purpose of having F/2 in the first place?
Hello,
This lens (Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM) is sure heavy and hefty. But the quality is amazing. Shooting at f/2 (not even f/2.8) for up to 70mm opens a great variety of possibilities with one lens!
On a practical side, is there a cheaper option for Canon RF lens, which would be may be a bit softer at a higher stop (zoom) but still a good enough option for closeups and landscapes alike? Thank you for your reviews!
so its big , heavy , cost 3k , and all you get one stop , you can get 2-3 primes (f1.4~1.8)for that money .
mb2006 , you prefer to be swapping lenses @ events ?
@@nordic5490 two bodies - two primes, occasional lens changes. Done.
Anybody who would buy this lens probably does not need explaining what 1 stop difference means.
Definitely considering this lens! Could definitely be something I use for the next 10 years, as the EOS R system is just getting started.
Hmmm...~$6,000 for a Fuji GFX 50R + 63mm + 45mm + 32-64mm Vs. Canon EOS R + 28-70mm
I'm more excited about the new 24-105 lens. Sharper than the canon 24-70ii? That's impressive.
Interesting statement about the 24-105/F4.0 since, that has a nice zoom range, and, to be honest, you don't want F2.8 or F2.0 all the time (since you have to focus dead on otherwise you miss the focus). I don't see the extra value over my EF 24-70 lens... in real life, I doubt you notice it.
Don't know if it was the first 28-70mm F2.0 or not,but the original 4/3 Olympus (14-35mm) is also a super performer!
Speaking as a high school sports photographer, that lens would be a joy. I'd love another stop of light. But the body, no. The continuous shooting modes are simply too slow. 5 FPS just don't cut it.
Just from reading the comments you can tell who's the professionals and who's the hobbyist who spend more time reading up specs instead of actually shooting.
I hate to say it, because I love great lenses and love Canon for them... but this is genuinely too heavy for me. It's almost as heavy as my Tamron 70-200mm G2, which as much as it's a great lens is a pain in the butt to carry, to the point that I only take it when I have a very specific, planned purpose. Like a concert or baseball game or whatever. I'd never carry it around. Admittedly this will have a better weight balance since it isn't as long, but I can imagine my wrists aching while using this thing. I'm glad this exists, and if nothing else it makes a big statement about Canon still being the leader in glass. It's just not very practical for many use cases imo.
I honestly wish they'd lightened the load, maybe by making is slightly less sharp than the 24-70 f/2.8 II, because with the f/2 it would still be a better lens overall that way.
Also, this illustrates perfectly why Canon needs to add in body stabilisation to their pro model. Because there's no way they can afford to be making their lenses even heavier for IS if they're going to create beasts like this one.
EDIT: Though I suppose with the EOS R vs my 5D II I'm saving a little weight on the body (200g), but who knows how much the pro-level canon will weigh. I guess we'll see.
d_dave , to many words mate. Bottom line is, quality glass is allways going to weigh more. Physics mate.
Funny thing to say, because you happen to be talking to a physicist. You actually can have lightweight, but still high quality lenses. There is indeed a physical limit somewhere, but we can make lenses lighter through improved glass crystal structures and formulations, coatings, and polishing techniques. However, the other side of the triangle is price. If you want high quality glass that doesn't weigh too much, you pay a big premium for it.
I wasn't asking Canon for a $10k lens though, which you'd know if you read my post. I was saying that I'd rather they have made it on par with the 24-70 or slightly less sharp in exchange for being lighter. Maybe if a comment is too long to read, you shouldn't reply.
Not necessarily. You cannot deny the progress, just compare the traditional Nikkor 300mm f/4 -1500 gram, to the newest generation - 755gram. Same high quality if not better, only half the weight
I had a chance to play with it for several hours at a local launch event. Stunning image quality but the lens alone weighs nearly 1.5kg. I don't find it practical on a long day of shooting where endurance is key.
i love you guys and your videos - but i can’t help wonder why you keep talking about the eos r with such disdain. it isn’t pro? a tool is only as good as the user - no? i recently switched from the 1dxmkii to two eos r bodies with battery grips. i’ve been shooting with the 1dxmkii for almost five years - and loved it - but remember when everyone ripped it for only having one cfast slot!? it seems no camera is good enough - doesn’t have IBIS? when did shooters in the 60’s shooting film have stabilized cameras? i think although i know where you’re coming from comparing one camera against many, i still think it’s important to talk about the basic photographic skills from time to time - remind people how lucky they are with all the bells and whistles. ps - i can’t WAIT to get my hands on the 28-70 f2 as it’ll be my first rf lens. keep on keeping on guys!
I watch all your videos like I'm actually a photographer lmaooo
Enjoyed your review. looking forward to the 28 to 70mm -- someday....it's a true beauty. Will go well with my R3 -- Chris Cox, Texas USA
Fabulous piece of equipment. Nice one Tony, looks like you did a lot of work.
Canon engineers: Oh yeah, we could have made this lens for EF mount, but it would have been huge.
*Proceeds to hand reviewers a lens with 95mm filter thread*
$3000 is not that unreasonable considering how practical it is.
Is it really better than the only other zoom for EOS R?
I have the amazing 24-70 2.8 USM ii
I personally often use 24mm ! So I won't have a broken heart for that new lens.
Great review actually, but the part about a 'pro body' could have been left out at the end... nothing to do with any lens and some of us are really happy with the R as it is. Thanks.
Hey Tony, love your reviews. Just wanted to mention Sigma's 24-35 f/2. It's not a 28-70 but it is an incredible f/2 zoom so Canon is not the only one with super fast professional zooms. Based on the cost alone I WILL NOT buy an unstabilized lens to use on a body without IBIS. Why was IBIS left out? The answer is simple, if you want IS you buy a Canon lens and make more money for Canon!
Looking forward to the 24-70 / 24-105 comparison. That's a hole in the current Sony A7Riii kit since the GM seemed a little soft.
Good video Tony, thanks. Have you also tested the new 35 mm from Canon? I am planning to buy the EOS r together with the 35 mm. so I'm curious about the results.
So many weak people complaining about weight. I regularly hold 2kg of equipment in hand even when on vacation. Body + lens alone will be 1.7 to 2kg at the bare minimum because i only use f2.8 zoom and f1.4 prime lenses. There are more stuff in my bag, and i never had issues with weight.
Looking at the photos the f2 lens on my screen is better than the f4...am I missing something ???
Without IBIS in camera, how much more would you have to crank up the shutter speed and would you still have the same advantage of 2x more light?
No with the nikon you have ibis. So you do not need high iso except for some situations
You missed to comment the chromatic aberration, which are stronger on the 28-80/2. And Bokeh, colors, contrast+resolution. Sharpness is not everything.
hey sony, please release an f2 24-70GM lens.
Sincerely, everyone.
(oh also add lens stabilisation -the 24-70GM 2.8 is unstabilised)
IBIS though...
Dear Tamron, please make an f2 version of the 28-75 :)
Please test the earlier version of the 24-105 F/4 lens with the new one that comes with the Canon EOS R.
didn't Tony contradict himself about two weeks ago about the 50MM f/0.95 lens for E mount? Also, I believe Sony said at Photokina there isn't anything to this throat diameter stuff with regards to their mount - (the 16-35MM f/2.8 E lens is the sharpest in the industry isn't it?)
Please stop saying FF gets higher f stops vs APSC and MFT.. it is technically wrong. Full frame gets more light for sure but f stop is just a ratio of the lens itself