This lens has been on back order for over a year. I finally picked one up used for 2400! I rented it for all my weddings. I use it for 90% of the wedding day. It’s kind of like having 4 prime lenses in one. I used to shoot dual camera, that always sucked, then I had a lens bag but I admit that changing lenses all day gets old fast. It you’re a wedding photographer, sell whatever you have to get this lens.
I've been using this lens professionally for indoor sport for 12 months and it's a game changer. Sport and primes don't mix, and if I used an f2.8 zoom then my iso would be over 10,000. This lens has helped me become one of the best in my niche.
@@jimmyqballs I do indoor sport. 200+ is too much zoom. But if I can’t capture something in the 28-70 range, I wait for action to come back into range. It never takes long.
@@AreolaRock Ah ok I see. I shoot a lot of outdoor sports and the 400 2.8 has been magnificent, and I still have the 70-200 and the 28-75 on my chest / hip
@@v_stands_for_value124 100% wrong in my line of work. There are maybe 4 or 5 people in the whole world who are experts in what I shoot. Every single one of them is jealous of my 2.0 lens. It may not be life changing for you, but if you ever shot the same indoor sport as me, you would realise how important it truly is.
I have this lens and it really is something else. Sharp wide open, barely any chromatic aberration, and gives a prime lens look while being a versatile zoom. This is an incredible lens for portrait and event shooters and perfect for me who does theatre photography.
Considering that prime lenses mostly breathe forward, i think this lens can intersect with 50mm primes at some point near to minimum focus distance. And with such breathing it looks more like 60-65mm on real portrait distances. This is important to note. Experience with long end on such zoom lenses is much closer to 50mm primes than to 85mm. But "70mm" can be perceived by someone as almost a portrait focal length. Like "not 85, but long enough". And it will be a mistake. It's noticeably shorter than even 50mm lens on crop 1.5 experience, that many probably remember from their first DSLR
@@whiterock1865 That is why in about two years from now Canon will release a breathing corrected cinema version of this lens for the bargain price of approximately $15,000.
I’ve had this lens on the R5 for a year now. It’s amazing for image quality, I love the look of everything it produces. You just can’t handhold it though for very long as it’s far too heavy. I tried street photography once, a 4mi strolling walk, and thought i had carpal tunnel syndrome from it…
I have had mine about that long as well and its usually the last lens that I put on....I have worn out a few wrist straps during weddings LOL. I wouldn't walk one block with that lens on. Im too skinny
Time to do some more curls brother haha jk it's very very very big haha. I shoot Sony and Fuji but I rented the R5 with this lens and it's amazing quality but the weight is too much, would love a 24-50 f2, would also be big but at least smaller than this one, hopefully haha
@@TTWGD3 you are right. 🤣Every time I shoot with that lens I make sure to eat first so my muscles get bigger. I would definitely go for a lighter 24-70 f2.
I own this lens and have used it extensively with the Canon R5. I didn't get the onion-skin specular highlights and haven't found that to be an issue. I will say that I've compared this lens directly against the RF 24-105mm f/4 as well as the RF 50mm f/1.2. It performs significantly better than the 24-105 in that it is noticeably sharper. But the 50mm beats it for sharpness. I studied the images, taken on a tripod, at 200% and 400% magnification and the 50mm is a beast! I had to add it to my kit, but I still love for the 28-70mm for most shoots because of its versatility.
Had this lens as a buy-in into the R system. The EOS R was a good pairing..but with the R5. This lens was really made for that body. As you say, this lens works great as a walk around lens. I also feel it had a very specific aesthetic - something the 24-70 F2.8 distinctly lacks, in my opinion. Extremely happy with mine, many memories already kept and immortalized.
I’ve own this lens for over a year & it is always on my EOS-R!! I know people talk bad about the R, but it’s been a real workhorse for my business. Haven’t even given thought of replacing it, but I’m fascinated with what I’m hearing about the R3. For the record I’m a stills photographer & video isn’t my bag! Now let’s talk about the lens. There’s nothing that I can compare it too! It’s just that simple, if you can afford it buy it. You won’t regret it!
As a wedding shooter, I have ran with this kens for 2 years. Speed kills in wedding industry. this is the lens to have for a canon shooter for events. What do you compare it to... easy EF 35Lvii, rf50 ... ops that is it. It is that good. My primes stay in the bag because of this lens. Weight... if you can hang with an EF 70-200 f2.8 all day... this lens is manageable. Actually balanced really well. BTW.... this lens has a fabulous look on an R6 with a little bigger pixel size for light gathering. Did I mention 70mm @f2 in a zoom lens. Good stuff.
Chris... gear aside, the photo of your daughter (right? 4th photo in the gallery) in the DPReview sample gallery is the cutest and sweetest thing on the internet today!
I have this lens on my R6. I shoot mainly street photography and I also take it on hikes to waterfalls and a couple weddings. It is my favorite lens I rarely take it off I dont think the weight is a big issue at all. In fact I did a 4 hour street session took over 1500 pictures walking around a city. I was more tired from walking than anything. One of the best lenes I have ever had. Pictures are super sharp. great colors, I would put it up against my primes any day. I will say it does seem like the lens they tested in the video had way softer corners that what I have in mine. but yeah weight is not an issue for the performance you get.
The R5 has more than twice the resolution of the R6, so it will *expose* (pun intended) softer corners way more blatantly. Other than splitting hairs though, I think absolute sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities with a lens.
@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 the lens and camera were not the problem at all. I honestly have not had a problem with the weight. But I'm 6 foot and 250 lbs. And what you would call not fit. Lol.
@@arnebischoff6732 that is really great info for me I was thinking of upgrading to the r5 but I don't like the 2 different card slots. So would the r6 be sharper over all or just the corners. Or are you say because there is so much data you can just see the corners soften more on the r5. Thank you for that reply btw.
Shot almost an entire wedding on this - considering it was my only RF lens at that time and I only had my EF 85 1.4 as my secondary it held up amazingly well.
I have it, worth every penny! It's tack sharp wide open from my experience, no complaints and gives a very unique look to the images. I actually leave vignetting compensation deliberatelly off to preserve it for portraits. Bokeh is outstanding. Given the price of RF L primes and that there is no fast RF 24L or 35L yet, this lens might actually save you money and space in the bag. For on location portrait/wedding work it is excellent. I wish Canon would make more unique fast zooms, the RF mount has the best technical capabilities for that.
Two weeks ago I used it for 99% on my R5 on a, wedding day. Just switched to EF 100L only for photos of the rings. On my 2nd body 5d4 I used S85A, C35L, C70-200L2 and C16-35L2. Out of 3700 photos, 3300 photos were made with RF 28-70L
@@AjayMenonPHOTOARTIST with two cameras it is tough to used them for the whole wedding. First 4 hours it is ok, then im used to use only one camera and 2nd one only In the crucial moments.
I find that I can hand hold this lens easier with a grip installed on my R6/R5... as far as the lens performance is concerned I'll just have to say that the "look" which you get with this lens is different (and often unprecedented) than with anything that I've used before... and well worth the extra weight of carrying it around.
I'll 2nd that with the grip help balance both this lens and the 100-500 . but I love the look the 28-70 gives . the only down side is I wish the focus distance was closer
@@kevinbouley 0.39m so 400mm I just wish it was 200mm lol for my style anyway I got the RF100 macro now so not that bothered as I can just use that for close ups but that 100-500 @500 F8 at 1.2mtrs looks so good :D and a very short Death of field
When I made the switch to mirrorless, I went the other way - going from /2.8 to /4 lenses. IBIS + modern sensor performance more than made up for the lost stop of light, and I'd rather a smaller, lighter lens that is more fun to use. Those sunstars are beautiful!
If you just want a "record shot" of a static subject then sure, f/4 + IBIS is great (and that's why my travel lens is the 24-105/4). If you want to freeze subject motion or achieve significant background blur then there's still no substitute for speed. This lens has its place. The only reason I haven't bought it is because I have a full set of f/1.4 primes, and I'd rather carry a few of those in my pack than have something this heavy hanging off the front of the camera.
@@patrickchase5614 It's sad that you assume the OP wasn't already aware of those considerations -when a more careful reading of his post might have saved you the effort.
Really enjoyed the measured, honest review of this lens vs. the (over) hype that is out there. To be clear, I own the 28-70, but it was a close call vs. the 24-70 2.8. I chose the 28-70 just to get that extra light when needed which suits my photography. It's an amazing lens for what it offers but doubt it will make me sell my 85 1.2. Great review DPR!👍
@@ericmeekey7886 yup, that's gonna be a monster as well but I am very curious where it changes from f2 to f2.8, if it does so around 90mm then that would be fine as f2.8 for telephoto is more than enough but if it changes very quickly around 50mm then it would still be awesome but not as cool as I hope it will be.
@@TTWGD3 Around 50mm as a cutoff for the large aperture is probably more realistic given its apparent size in the press release photo, and the words 'comfortably compact' in the description. Likely no optical stabilizer either. It can still replace a 70-200mm 2.8 zoom though, 'specially one that shortens its effective focal length to focus closer
I shoot 99% video on an R5. I own this lens, it is spectacular and heavy but since I use a monopod, no big deal. A cheap trick for event videography, set C1 to full frame and C2 to cropped frame. Because it is an 8k sensor, you get FULL 4K resolution in both modes and broaden your focal length.
This kit costs 7848 euro's in the Netherlands. Undoubtedly great (and affordable) for pro's who will use it for many years as a workhorse, but anyone doing photography as a hobby should probably just get the Leica Q2 and spend the rest on travel.
I spent a short time in calgary (6 months) and the palomino was my favourite place to go eat. Great bbq, and they had metal concerts in the basement. I'm not really into that type of music but it was a great time.
I rented this for a shoot in the mountains this past spring and it was phenomenal. I shot it almost exclusively wide open at f2 and it created just the right amount of separation between the subjects and the visually busy forested background. I shot a lot into the sun and the flare-usually a weakness of zooms-was not bad at all. At $3K I think it would be worth it, but I did always find myself worrying about scratching that big front element. With a filter you just get too much ghosting in these situations. Now if Canon could only design a camera with a few more stops of dynamic range we'd be in business.
With full frame autofocus lenses only two really separate from others the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L and the Canon 28-70mm f/2 L. Both are great achievements.
Thanks for the review! I would love a Panasonic 24-70 f2.8 review sometime, I know it gets mentioned a lot on the channel. If not a full review, a shootout with the other similar l-mount lenses would be cool as well.
Olympus had a similar lens back in the day for the Four Thirds DSLR system, the 14-35mm f2 SWD. Similar angle of view and aperture (of course not a similar DOF) and it's still one of the very best standard zoom lenses ever made!
They had a 35-100/2 as well. Shame the four thirds bodies themselves were big. People would say the lenses were big but this puts it into perspective, they are much smaller than full frame f2 zooms
@@beomon3449 There were very small FT bodies like the E-400 series. Those cameras were almost as compact as the mFT bodies, but the f2 line of lenses were way to huge for them of course.
So what is the point to compare if dof is not similar and so is not low light capability? 43 f2 is like f4 and nothing special. They would need to make it f1!! to be comparable to this lens. 😃
As always, great post. Especially appreciate Jordan's assessment of video. Off topic, I'll respectfully request a video on how workflow and yow DPRTV processes video for different systems. Tough to understand the differences on workflow between one system or another (e.g., Panasonic GH5 II vs. S1H) as well as differences in quality. Thanks!
I tried this lens on an EOS R back at launch. Could tell right away that it was optically very good, but no matter how much you downplay it, it is a heavy lens for a small body. The only amateurs who do walkaround photography with heavy expensive pro-zoom lenses like this also wear photography vests and sling all of their gear into a backpack as they walk down the street. Otherwise it's brilliant for a working pro shooting events.
I'm fascinated with this lens but have absolutely no need or use for it, but I still want it. I'll definitely do a CPS evaluation loan with it one day to try it out in the future and maybe I'll find needs for it.
this lens stays on my R5 basically which now my back up is my 24-70 2.8 rf basically 😅. now many ask why do you keep it cause Incase anything happens to my 28-70mm which I hope it never does , I have a backup with my R6 and i dont have to miss any shootings. hopefully that never happens though. but shooting at f2 is a game changer not only is the bokeh beautiful but so much light is let in between the elements so it works amazing in many diffrent styles of photography. now the 95mm filter threads are kind of a pain because our market in good filters is very limited but this lens is still worth it.
I thought I would want it for shooting live music so I requested it from CPS and yes I loved it and if a budget was not an issue I would buy it. However for the most part my 2.8 gets the job done and I cant justify the cost.
I picked this lens up last week, it’s an absolute beauty! Unless you specifically want / need that extra percentage of bokeh look from a 1.2, this lens has that beautiful prime look through the range with amazing colour etc without a doubt. I completely get why it’s not a lens everyone would choose but if you’re considering it you won’t regret it!
I would add that yes, it’s ridiculously big and heavy FOR a standard zoom but if you’re used to handling longer lenses or the old 70-200s it’s perfectly manageable. The first ‘standard’ zoom lens I’ve been able to take out without feeling like I’m compromising artistically by not having my primes.
I respect your enjoyment of the lens, but it doesn't exactly have a prime look through the range as they showed in this review. Not a lot but it does have some LoCA, and it won't sharpen up in the corners at any f and F combination as DPreview mentioned here. It's good, but that is not quite prime performance. By trying to get close to prime performance you pay in bulk. Some will choose to, but certainly not a compromise free variable length prime.
@@artgreen6915 Completely agree with you regarding the compromise free statement and in terms of absolute look, primes like the RF 85mm f/1.2 etc are on another level. Obviously that's a lens which is arguably best in it's class though so a high bar for a zoom lens comparison! BUT, for a zoom lens which delivers fantastic quality through a very helpful range at an aperture and quality which is definitely the closest to a prime look I've used I think this is a fantastic choice. To me it's all about the look rather than that extra few % of corner sharpness and this lens has got it. f2 is a great sweet spot, substantially different to 2.8, and for both photography and video work having access to this at 28mm and 70mm is so versatile. It's well worth giving it a go if you're considering it, the images have got a fantastic pop to them - subjective I know but I've used 15 or so L lenses and this is definitely up there.
Reminds me of the Olympus 14-35mm F/2 ED SWD Zuiko Digital lens for standard 4/3 mount. Which, I believe, was the first standard zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. Weighed 915g or 2.19 Nocts or 2.02lbs.
@@lukazupie7220 The lens itself is still f/2. When you adapt an f/2 35mm mount lens to 4/3 mount, the lens itself is still an f/2 lens. Your shutter speeds at f/2 are the same as they would be regardless of sensor size. The apparent depth of field changes due to the fact that you have to move backwards to maintain the same framing with the 2x multiplier of the 4/3 sensor. If you shot from the same distance to your scene then the apparent depth of field would be the same between the two formats. An f/2 lens is an f/2 lens.
It can't be long before Luminar or Topaz will introduce an AI-powered cat's-eye roundifier/onion-ring eliminator/sunstar enhancer, and then Chris's post-shooting evaluation segments will shrink by 20%…
@@GrantSchwingle Cause I got it on my APS-C ;) and I hate switching lenses. It's kinda nice to have all 3 in one lens. They are F1.4 which is F2.1 FF equiv.
@@mralexlex That literally makes no sense, unless you are doing prints or cropping HEAVILY no one gives a fuck how much sharper they are. And "practical" yeah, you just contradicted yourself there mate.
Great critique of what sounds like, and looked like, a very useful lens which can produce some beautiful images - I liked the portraits especially. Thanks.
Fantastic lens but not sure I'd want to lug that thing around all day. Great lens for professional shooting but I much prefer the 24-105 F4 for all around shooting. Sigma Art 24 70 f2.8 is magnificent and more practical.
If such lens exist (I doubt it will), you'll gonna hate the weight and price if the optical quality is top notch. But if it's compact and reasonably priced, you'll gonna hate the image quality. We live in inperfect world.
The constant f2.0 aperture comes at a very high price…it’s bloody huge, heavy and impractical. You don’t gain that much light or bokeh from 2.8 to 2.0 anyways. The new DGDN from sigma 24-70mm f2.8 is a far better option.
You've clearly never shot this lens. It buries the Sigma in every way imaginable. I know several women who carry this lens 6-8 hours a day on portrait and wedding shoots. Sorry you are so weak.
I had this lens for about 6 months and while it produced excellent results it is a working man’s lens . It really is. For wedding photography this would be must have for me… If you are just a hobbyist or do type of photography where you have time to swap lenses without missing critical moments do yourself a favor and skip this one. You will never want to take it out of the house or actually walk around and carry it for hours. It is a brick…
I really wish you can shoot the video reviews with the lens being talked about. At the same time I perfectly understand a lot of efforts required to that.
Hi you two. I agree, for double the light I'd pay the extra. It's unique - a valuable selling point with some clients. Guess the optics were too heavy for effective built in stabilisation. To what extent can the in-camera controls deal with the highlighted optical challenges? BobUK.
that example is so extreme and unrealistic, you camera even when shooting video will never focus to cover that range, who are you shooting? superman flying?
i personally chose the sigma 24-35mm F2 - i wanted the wide angle vs the telephoto Plus with mirrorless you dont get any AF-Accuracy issues that some people had on DSLR. I pair it with the samyang 85mm F1.4 for the longer telephoto option
@@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691 for portraits and events? Usually the difference between 24/28 is negligible. If you really want an ultra wide, most would add a 16-35 equivalent.
@@benjhaisch I disagree, for almost every use case the difference between 28 and 24 is huge. At 28mm you will find yourself always needing to back up to get a wide shot.
Have this lens for 1.5 years now and love it. I have lurked it to mountain tops and hikes and every outdoor walk ever, I just don't carry a camera bag. And if you get carpal tunnel syndrome, get a battery grip and it balances nicely. Little note, you're overblowing the sharpness issue: sharpness at F2 is perfect with the sole but notable exception of 70mm at close distances
Unfortunate that with the industry sales shrinking they're focusing on high end heavy monster lenses like this to stay profitable. I wish there was more of a focus on making full frame gear lighter, without big sacrifices in image quality. There seems to be a mindset at the camera companies that if you want lighter (and as a consequence, smaller aperture or variable aperture lenses) you're just an amateur and they don't focus on great image quality for you, or in the current state of the industry, they may not make one of those lenses for you at all.
@@michaelbell75 Yeah, that's why I specified full frame; I'm not interested in the drop down to APS-C, and I think there is a lot of room for lightening the gear, there's just no focus on it.
I would have bought it if it would have been internal zoom but went with the F2.8 instead. The F2 would be the perfect lens on a gimbal.. insane lens indeed!
I think you have to be a photographer who shoots professionally and very dynamically, that is you might miss something swapping bag full of primes around.
Excellent..I have been waiting on this! This is the only lens I plan on buying once I make the switch from EF to RF…everything else is getting adapted! 😤
Finally, a channel that understands the pain and complications of walking around with a brain. This…..this is my Graceland.
I leave mine at home most days.
It's not the weight of the brain that gets me, it's all the annoying questions. "Whose brain is that? Where did you get it?" It gets tiring.
What’s a brain?
@@Whyducry i dont know,,, do you? 👀
Obviously not if I asked the question
This lens has been on back order for over a year. I finally picked one up used for 2400! I rented it for all my weddings. I use it for 90% of the wedding day. It’s kind of like having 4 prime lenses in one. I used to shoot dual camera, that always sucked, then I had a lens bag but I admit that changing lenses all day gets old fast. It you’re a wedding photographer, sell whatever you have to get this lens.
I've been using this lens professionally for indoor sport for 12 months and it's a game changer. Sport and primes don't mix, and if I used an f2.8 zoom then my iso would be over 10,000. This lens has helped me become one of the best in my niche.
Curious, what do you for subjects that are far away where say a 300-400, or 600 would be handy?
@@jimmyqballs I do indoor sport. 200+ is too much zoom.
But if I can’t capture something in the 28-70 range, I wait for action to come back into range. It never takes long.
@@AreolaRock Ah ok I see. I shoot a lot of outdoor sports and the 400 2.8 has been magnificent, and I still have the 70-200 and the 28-75 on my chest / hip
2.8 to 2.0 is not all that life changing
@@v_stands_for_value124 100% wrong in my line of work.
There are maybe 4 or 5 people in the whole world who are experts in what I shoot. Every single one of them is jealous of my 2.0 lens.
It may not be life changing for you, but if you ever shot the same indoor sport as me, you would realise how important it truly is.
I have this lens and it really is something else. Sharp wide open, barely any chromatic aberration, and gives a prime lens look while being a versatile zoom. This is an incredible lens for portrait and event shooters and perfect for me who does theatre photography.
That breathing, looks almost like a wide angle at 70mm focusing in close
Its unfortunate but their 24-70 f2.8 controls breathing much better
Considering that prime lenses mostly breathe forward, i think this lens can intersect with 50mm primes at some point near to minimum focus distance. And with such breathing it looks more like 60-65mm on real portrait distances. This is important to note. Experience with long end on such zoom lenses is much closer to 50mm primes than to 85mm. But "70mm" can be perceived by someone as almost a portrait focal length. Like "not 85, but long enough". And it will be a mistake. It's noticeably shorter than even 50mm lens on crop 1.5 experience, that many probably remember from their first DSLR
Yeah that for me would make it a sit down lens…no active focusing during video capture, Unless you wanted to zoom in effect
@@chanjeff4406 main reason I choose the RF 24-70 over this one
@@whiterock1865 That is why in about two years from now Canon will release a breathing corrected cinema version of this lens for the bargain price of approximately $15,000.
I’ve had this lens on the R5 for a year now. It’s amazing for image quality, I love the look of everything it produces. You just can’t handhold it though for very long as it’s far too heavy. I tried street photography once, a 4mi strolling walk, and thought i had carpal tunnel syndrome from it…
I have had mine about that long as well and its usually the last lens that I put on....I have worn out a few wrist straps during weddings LOL. I wouldn't walk one block with that lens on. Im too skinny
Time to do some more curls brother haha jk it's very very very big haha. I shoot Sony and Fuji but I rented the R5 with this lens and it's amazing quality but the weight is too much, would love a 24-50 f2, would also be big but at least smaller than this one, hopefully haha
@@TTWGD3 you are right. 🤣Every time I shoot with that lens I make sure to eat first so my muscles get bigger. I would definitely go for a lighter 24-70 f2.
Find a human brain and get some training done before your next photo walk!
@@bartjeej 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I own this lens and have used it extensively with the Canon R5. I didn't get the onion-skin specular highlights and haven't found that to be an issue. I will say that I've compared this lens directly against the RF 24-105mm f/4 as well as the RF 50mm f/1.2. It performs significantly better than the 24-105 in that it is noticeably sharper. But the 50mm beats it for sharpness. I studied the images, taken on a tripod, at 200% and 400% magnification and the 50mm is a beast! I had to add it to my kit, but I still love for the 28-70mm for most shoots because of its versatility.
Intenta con un sigma 40mm f/1.4, es incluso mejor que el 50mm que tienes.
Got that lens yesterday, love it! Can’t wait to use it on this Saturday’s wedding!
You were able to find one... And you didn't have to put up a kid to get it. I'm assuming of course you might be one child short.
Had this lens as a buy-in into the R system. The EOS R was a good pairing..but with the R5. This lens was really made for that body. As you say, this lens works great as a walk around lens. I also feel it had a very specific aesthetic - something the 24-70 F2.8 distinctly lacks, in my opinion. Extremely happy with mine, many memories already kept and immortalized.
That sunstar shot is super cool!
I’ve own this lens for over a year & it is always on my EOS-R!! I know people talk bad about the R, but it’s been a real workhorse for my business. Haven’t even given thought of replacing it, but I’m fascinated with what I’m hearing about the R3. For the record I’m a stills photographer & video isn’t my bag! Now let’s talk about the lens. There’s nothing that I can compare it too! It’s just that simple, if you can afford it buy it. You won’t regret it!
Do you struggle with stabilization?
As a wedding shooter, I have ran with this kens for 2 years. Speed kills in wedding industry. this is the lens to have for a canon shooter for events. What do you compare it to... easy EF 35Lvii, rf50 ... ops that is it. It is that good. My primes stay in the bag because of this lens. Weight... if you can hang with an EF 70-200 f2.8 all day... this lens is manageable. Actually balanced really well. BTW.... this lens has a fabulous look on an R6 with a little bigger pixel size for light gathering. Did I mention 70mm @f2 in a zoom lens. Good stuff.
the pixel size thing is a myth, stop spreading bs. Thanks!
@@proksalevente let me know when you have some actual knowledge to share. ......"thanks"
Chris... gear aside, the photo of your daughter (right? 4th photo in the gallery) in the DPReview sample gallery is the cutest and sweetest thing on the internet today!
Ah... I see it's at 9:41 in the video. Print that sucker and frame it!
I have this lens on my R6. I shoot mainly street photography and I also take it on hikes to waterfalls and a couple weddings. It is my favorite lens I rarely take it off I dont think the weight is a big issue at all. In fact I did a 4 hour street session took over 1500 pictures walking around a city. I was more tired from walking than anything. One of the best lenes I have ever had. Pictures are super sharp. great colors, I would put it up against my primes any day. I will say it does seem like the lens they tested in the video had way softer corners that what I have in mine. but yeah weight is not an issue for the performance you get.
Well yeah, you were tired of walking around with an extra 3 1/2 pounds with ya for 4 hours! lol
The R5 has more than twice the resolution of the R6, so it will *expose* (pun intended) softer corners way more blatantly. Other than splitting hairs though, I think absolute sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities with a lens.
@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 the lens and camera were not the problem at all. I honestly have not had a problem with the weight. But I'm 6 foot and 250 lbs. And what you would call not fit. Lol.
@@arnebischoff6732 that is really great info for me I was thinking of upgrading to the r5 but I don't like the 2 different card slots. So would the r6 be sharper over all or just the corners. Or are you say because there is so much data you can just see the corners soften more on the r5. Thank you for that reply btw.
@@bennetthodgins5499 ofc it is just as sharp (and sharper) on higher mpx camera if looking at the same size photo.
Shot almost an entire wedding on this - considering it was my only RF lens at that time and I only had my EF 85 1.4 as my secondary it held up amazingly well.
I have it, worth every penny! It's tack sharp wide open from my experience, no complaints and gives a very unique look to the images. I actually leave vignetting compensation deliberatelly off to preserve it for portraits. Bokeh is outstanding. Given the price of RF L primes and that there is no fast RF 24L or 35L yet, this lens might actually save you money and space in the bag. For on location portrait/wedding work it is excellent. I wish Canon would make more unique fast zooms, the RF mount has the best technical capabilities for that.
Two weeks ago I used it for 99% on my R5 on a, wedding day. Just switched to EF 100L only for photos of the rings. On my 2nd body 5d4 I used S85A, C35L, C70-200L2 and C16-35L2. Out of 3700 photos, 3300 photos were made with RF 28-70L
And did your hand quit on you? :-)
@@AjayMenonPHOTOARTIST with two cameras it is tough to used them for the whole wedding. First 4 hours it is ok, then im used to use only one camera and 2nd one only In the crucial moments.
I find that I can hand hold this lens easier with a grip installed on my R6/R5... as far as the lens performance is concerned I'll just have to say that the "look" which you get with this lens is different (and often unprecedented) than with anything that I've used before... and well worth the extra weight of carrying it around.
I'll 2nd that with the grip help balance both this lens and the 100-500 . but I love the look the 28-70 gives . the only down side is I wish the focus distance was closer
@@Tainted-Soul isn’t the focus distance a couple centimeters ?
@@kevinbouley 0.39m so 400mm I just wish it was 200mm lol for my style anyway I got the RF100 macro now so not that bothered as I can just use that for close ups
but that 100-500 @500 F8 at 1.2mtrs looks so good :D and a very short Death of field
When I made the switch to mirrorless, I went the other way - going from /2.8 to /4 lenses.
IBIS + modern sensor performance more than made up for the lost stop of light, and I'd rather a smaller, lighter lens that is more fun to use.
Those sunstars are beautiful!
If you just want a "record shot" of a static subject then sure, f/4 + IBIS is great (and that's why my travel lens is the 24-105/4).
If you want to freeze subject motion or achieve significant background blur then there's still no substitute for speed. This lens has its place. The only reason I haven't bought it is because I have a full set of f/1.4 primes, and I'd rather carry a few of those in my pack than have something this heavy hanging off the front of the camera.
@@patrickchase5614 It's sad that you assume the OP wasn't already aware of those considerations -when a more careful reading of his post might have saved you the effort.
Really enjoyed the measured, honest review of this lens vs. the (over) hype that is out there. To be clear, I own the 28-70, but it was a close call vs. the 24-70 2.8. I chose the 28-70 just to get that extra light when needed which suits my photography. It's an amazing lens for what it offers but doubt it will make me sell my 85 1.2. Great review DPR!👍
0:17 That's exactly how Lil Jon reacted when someone told him Crunk was dead.
I wish other companies would be a bit more adventurous with lens design like Canon and Olympus/Panasonic.
I mean, Sony did release a 12-24 f/2.8 GM, that's unique in another way!
Sony also produces a compact and an amazing 14mm f1.8 lens!
Tamron is coming out with a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens for E-mount this year, that's way more interesting than a bloated 28-70 to me
@@ericmeekey7886 yup, that's gonna be a monster as well but I am very curious where it changes from f2 to f2.8, if it does so around 90mm then that would be fine as f2.8 for telephoto is more than enough but if it changes very quickly around 50mm then it would still be awesome but not as cool as I hope it will be.
@@TTWGD3 Around 50mm as a cutoff for the large aperture is probably more realistic given its apparent size in the press release photo, and the words 'comfortably compact' in the description. Likely no optical stabilizer either. It can still replace a 70-200mm 2.8 zoom though, 'specially one that shortens its effective focal length to focus closer
I shoot 99% video on an R5. I own this lens, it is spectacular and heavy but since I use a monopod, no big deal.
A cheap trick for event videography, set C1 to full frame and C2 to cropped frame. Because it is an 8k sensor, you get FULL 4K resolution in both modes and broaden your focal length.
How do you find the focus breathing?
Hey mate! Is focus breathing a big problem?
8:15 nobody nor any tripods would be able to carry that 24-70 lens lmao
This kit costs 7848
euro's in the Netherlands. Undoubtedly great (and affordable) for pro's who will use it for many years as a workhorse, but anyone doing photography as a hobby should probably just get the Leica Q2 and spend the rest on travel.
First time I've ever seen someone say "just buy a Leica instead and save money"
Wow buy Leica to save money. Great advice there
I spent a short time in calgary (6 months) and the palomino was my favourite place to go eat. Great bbq, and they had metal concerts in the basement. I'm not really into that type of music but it was a great time.
I rented this for a shoot in the mountains this past spring and it was phenomenal. I shot it almost exclusively wide open at f2 and it created just the right amount of separation between the subjects and the visually busy forested background. I shot a lot into the sun and the flare-usually a weakness of zooms-was not bad at all. At $3K I think it would be worth it, but I did always find myself worrying about scratching that big front element. With a filter you just get too much ghosting in these situations. Now if Canon could only design a camera with a few more stops of dynamic range we'd be in business.
considering this to cover landscape and portrait, one and done lens. did you wish you had a wider lens at all?
I don't find weight that problematic either, but 805kg for the 24-70 f2.8 might be too much ;)
Yeah this one is only 1.44 in comparison. What a featherweight
Not kg, it's 805 g...
@@fatherofximingze I guess you're not carrying your brain right now lol
That intro is hilarious! Love this channel!
Owned it since 2019. Never leaves the R6. But I've never tried it on the Ronin-S...for good reason.
have you shot lanndscape? Wondering if I'd regret not going with a 16-35 or the new 14-35.
This lens focus breathing adds an extra zoom function😂
That was wild. Instaturnoff.
Excellent review
08:04 typo 805 Kgs, that heavy? :P
lol!!!
Hahahahahha
With full frame autofocus lenses only two really separate from others the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L and the Canon 28-70mm f/2 L. Both are great achievements.
Arguably two of the best lenses ever made. And Im talking about even lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad and others.
Thanks for the review! I would love a Panasonic 24-70 f2.8 review sometime, I know it gets mentioned a lot on the channel. If not a full review, a shootout with the other similar l-mount lenses would be cool as well.
It’s sold out everywhere online!!
Olympus had a similar lens back in the day for the Four Thirds DSLR system, the 14-35mm f2 SWD. Similar angle of view and aperture (of course not a similar DOF) and it's still one of the very best standard zoom lenses ever made!
They had a 35-100/2 as well. Shame the four thirds bodies themselves were big. People would say the lenses were big but this puts it into perspective, they are much smaller than full frame f2 zooms
@@beomon3449 There were very small FT bodies like the E-400 series. Those cameras were almost as compact as the mFT bodies, but the f2 line of lenses were way to huge for them of course.
So what is the point to compare if dof is not similar and so is not low light capability? 43 f2 is like f4 and nothing special.
They would need to make it f1!! to be comparable to this lens. 😃
The breathing is the main reason I choose the 24-70 over this. That's so crazy heavy breathing.
This video was GREAT…..and the photos were amazing.
Thanks!
Good luck trying to find one.
As of November 2021, they've been out of stock for several months.
Best opening ever “What!!”
As always, great post. Especially appreciate Jordan's assessment of video. Off topic, I'll respectfully request a video on how workflow and yow DPRTV processes video for different systems. Tough to understand the differences on workflow between one system or another (e.g., Panasonic GH5 II vs. S1H) as well as differences in quality. Thanks!
Thanks to both Chris and Jordan for using the full phrase "as far as... goes", instead of just "as far as...", as is popular these days.
We're often on the wrong side of grammar and syntax, so every little bit helps.
@@niccollsvideo , Kewl. By the way, multi-year fan, me. Since way back in the Camera Store era.
Awesome video thanks for the review. This lens looks pretty awesome.
I'm still waiting for the Canon 80-200mm f/2 after the launch of this lens.
WOAH that's insane focus breathing!!!
great review. thank you.
I tried this lens on an EOS R back at launch. Could tell right away that it was optically very good, but no matter how much you downplay it, it is a heavy lens for a small body. The only amateurs who do walkaround photography with heavy expensive pro-zoom lenses like this also wear photography vests and sling all of their gear into a backpack as they walk down the street. Otherwise it's brilliant for a working pro shooting events.
I'm fascinated with this lens but have absolutely no need or use for it, but I still want it. I'll definitely do a CPS evaluation loan with it one day to try it out in the future and maybe I'll find needs for it.
this lens stays on my R5 basically which now my back up is my 24-70 2.8 rf basically 😅. now many ask why do you keep it cause Incase anything happens to my 28-70mm which I hope it never does , I have a backup with my R6 and i dont have to miss any shootings. hopefully that never happens though. but shooting at f2 is a game changer not only is the bokeh beautiful but so much light is let in between the elements so it works amazing in many diffrent styles of photography. now the 95mm filter threads are kind of a pain because our market in good filters is very limited but this lens is still worth it.
I thought I would want it for shooting live music so I requested it from CPS and yes I loved it and if a budget was not an issue I would buy it. However for the most part my 2.8 gets the job done and I cant justify the cost.
I keep forgetting about the loaner benefit. I know what I'm requesting for my next senior session. Thank you!
I picked this lens up last week, it’s an absolute beauty! Unless you specifically want / need that extra percentage of bokeh look from a 1.2, this lens has that beautiful prime look through the range with amazing colour etc without a doubt. I completely get why it’s not a lens everyone would choose but if you’re considering it you won’t regret it!
I would add that yes, it’s ridiculously big and heavy FOR a standard zoom but if you’re used to handling longer lenses or the old 70-200s it’s perfectly manageable. The first ‘standard’ zoom lens I’ve been able to take out without feeling like I’m compromising artistically by not having my primes.
I respect your enjoyment of the lens, but it doesn't exactly have a prime look through the range as they showed in this review. Not a lot but it does have some LoCA, and it won't sharpen up in the corners at any f and F combination as DPreview mentioned here. It's good, but that is not quite prime performance. By trying to get close to prime performance you pay in bulk. Some will choose to, but certainly not a compromise free variable length prime.
@@artgreen6915 Completely agree with you regarding the compromise free statement and in terms of absolute look, primes like the RF 85mm f/1.2 etc are on another level. Obviously that's a lens which is arguably best in it's class though so a high bar for a zoom lens comparison! BUT, for a zoom lens which delivers fantastic quality through a very helpful range at an aperture and quality which is definitely the closest to a prime look I've used I think this is a fantastic choice. To me it's all about the look rather than that extra few % of corner sharpness and this lens has got it. f2 is a great sweet spot, substantially different to 2.8, and for both photography and video work having access to this at 28mm and 70mm is so versatile. It's well worth giving it a go if you're considering it, the images have got a fantastic pop to them - subjective I know but I've used 15 or so L lenses and this is definitely up there.
Reminds me of the Olympus 14-35mm F/2 ED SWD Zuiko Digital lens for standard 4/3 mount. Which, I believe, was the first standard zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. Weighed 915g or 2.19 Nocts or 2.02lbs.
I have the 14-35mm and still like it today! I thought it was heavy but looking at 28-70 this isn't bad at all
F4 equivalent 😁
@@lukazupie7220 The lens itself is still f/2. When you adapt an f/2 35mm mount lens to 4/3 mount, the lens itself is still an f/2 lens. Your shutter speeds at f/2 are the same as they would be regardless of sensor size. The apparent depth of field changes due to the fact that you have to move backwards to maintain the same framing with the 2x multiplier of the 4/3 sensor. If you shot from the same distance to your scene then the apparent depth of field would be the same between the two formats. An f/2 lens is an f/2 lens.
skipped the 24-70 because it wasn't as sharp as i had hoped compared to the 28-70. great lenses regardless but its not that much more money
Yeah I have the 24-70, it’s still a good lens, but even the 15-35mm seems sharper.
I love the cold opens!
It can't be long before Luminar or Topaz will introduce an AI-powered cat's-eye roundifier/onion-ring eliminator/sunstar enhancer, and then Chris's post-shooting evaluation segments will shrink by 20%…
This lens is almost like having Sigma trio in 1 lens.
28mm, 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm all in one.
The only focal lengths you are missing is 24mm and 85mm and you are not far off.
@@GrantSchwingle Cause I got it on my APS-C ;) and I hate switching lenses. It's kinda nice to have all 3 in one lens. They are F1.4 which is F2.1 FF equiv.
No it's. Not, Sigma are way sharper and infinitely more practical...
@@mralexlex
That literally makes no sense, unless you are doing prints or cropping HEAVILY no one gives a fuck how much sharper they are.
And "practical" yeah, you just contradicted yourself there mate.
@@SMGJohn I'm impressed that you missed the whole ball, totally comrade John!
Great critique of what sounds like, and looked like, a very useful lens which can produce some beautiful images - I liked the portraits especially. Thanks.
what a review.
Mentioned The IBIS at the begining ,and fully forgot later.
One of the very best zooms ever made IMO, easily top 3. It rivals most primes in sharpness and IQ.
No effing way. It’s not even close to most modern, well-corrected primes.
If I ever win the lottery this combo is what I would buy.
Fantastic lens but not sure I'd want to lug that thing around all day. Great lens for professional shooting but I much prefer the 24-105 F4 for all around shooting. Sigma Art 24 70 f2.8 is magnificent and more practical.
Thank you for this, I've been thinking about this lens a lot lately. I wake up and think about it. I go to bed and kiss my wife and think about it. ha
Buy it! And I hope your wife doesn't mind the shift in the relationship dynamic.
I’m sure your wife would be thrilled to know you’re thinking of lenses when kissing her hahahahaha! Mind you she probably already knows !
I love this lens. Amazing images by the way, great review. My dream lens would be 24-105mm f2. I wonder if we will ever see one.
If such lens exist (I doubt it will), you'll gonna hate the weight and price if the optical quality is top notch. But if it's compact and reasonably priced, you'll gonna hate the image quality. We live in inperfect world.
For such price its unacceptable to have not sharp lense, nice review as always here
I found one 35 mm shoot in sample images! Gotcha Chris! ))
I am a charitable kind of person after all. 😀
It is the right tool for me, one lens to do most of the things but that price and size though.
now, I wanna buy it
Wow, I did ‘t realize that Canon RF 24-70mm 2.8 IS L weighted 805 kg. Now I understand why Canon users like to drive big trucks.
Will it work with an RS2 if you’re using the full range of the zoom
Yes, it does! I tested it out
Great review!
The constant f2.0 aperture comes at a very high price…it’s bloody huge, heavy and impractical. You don’t gain that much light or bokeh from 2.8 to 2.0 anyways. The new DGDN from sigma 24-70mm f2.8 is a far better option.
True. But you do get double the amount of light. The lens is alright. I didn't love it.
You've clearly never shot this lens. It buries the Sigma in every way imaginable. I know several women who carry this lens 6-8 hours a day on portrait and wedding shoots. Sorry you are so weak.
@@obscurelines I rather reduce my shutter speed a bit than carry that overpriced behemoth
@@michaelbell75 fanboy alert! call the waaaahmbulance!
@@jaegerschtulmann Actually, only a clueless Sigma fanboy would call the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 "far better" than the RF 28-70 f/2 lol
I Loved this one, bro!
I had this lens for about 6 months and while it produced excellent results it is a working man’s lens . It really is. For wedding photography this would be must have for me… If you are just a hobbyist or do type of photography where you have time to swap lenses without missing critical moments do yourself a favor and skip this one. You will never want to take it out of the house or actually walk around and carry it for hours. It is a brick…
Clear, focused (heh, heh) review. Most importantly: USEFUL. Thanks.
This Font Modernization is Pretty Good.
Great review
I really wish you can shoot the video reviews with the lens being talked about. At the same time I perfectly understand a lot of efforts required to that.
Hi you two. I agree, for double the light I'd pay the extra. It's unique - a valuable selling point with some clients. Guess the optics were too heavy for effective built in stabilisation. To what extent can the in-camera controls deal with the highlighted optical challenges? BobUK.
Holy moly that breathing is horrific.
Yes, if you were using it for video. For still work, who cares? BobUK.
that example is so extreme and unrealistic, you camera even when shooting video will never focus to cover that range, who are you shooting? superman flying?
@@FeRoOOo71 Record Superman flying on a 70? What do you want him to look like! A fly?
@@harshithkramesh1543 i meant a flyby
They never said it was a cinema lens tho.
That focus breathing is extreme
people who complain how heavy this lens... y'all need to go to the gym lol
Thanks. I am gald i watched this video. Informative!
1:19 Chris is literally supporting a US$3000 lens on barbed wire lol
looks like you got a nice scratch on the bottom of the lens Hood
i personally chose the sigma 24-35mm F2 - i wanted the wide angle vs the telephoto
Plus with mirrorless you dont get any AF-Accuracy issues that some people had on DSLR.
I pair it with the samyang 85mm F1.4 for the longer telephoto option
Seems like if you’re a landscape photographer, it’s not really for you anyway. Portraits and events would be fantastic though.
28mm isn’t really wide enough unfortunately
@@jeremytheoneofdestiny8691 for portraits and events? Usually the difference between 24/28 is negligible. If you really want an ultra wide, most would add a 16-35 equivalent.
@@benjhaisch I disagree, for almost every use case the difference between 28 and 24 is huge. At 28mm you will find yourself always needing to back up to get a wide shot.
Which is better, Z50 vs cheaper m50 mk2 with additional lenses for photography (mainly portrait and occasionally landscape)?
Z50 :)
Have this lens for 1.5 years now and love it. I have lurked it to mountain tops and hikes and every outdoor walk ever, I just don't carry a camera bag. And if you get carpal tunnel syndrome, get a battery grip and it balances nicely.
Little note, you're overblowing the sharpness issue: sharpness at F2 is perfect with the sole but notable exception of 70mm at close distances
Unfortunate that with the industry sales shrinking they're focusing on high end heavy monster lenses like this to stay profitable. I wish there was more of a focus on making full frame gear lighter, without big sacrifices in image quality. There seems to be a mindset at the camera companies that if you want lighter (and as a consequence, smaller aperture or variable aperture lenses) you're just an amateur and they don't focus on great image quality for you, or in the current state of the industry, they may not make one of those lenses for you at all.
Rf 70-200 and 14-35 f4 are one of the lightest in their class right?
Great image quality typically requires lots of glass. If you want small and light, go APS-C.
@@michaelbell75 Yeah, that's why I specified full frame; I'm not interested in the drop down to APS-C, and I think there is a lot of room for lightening the gear, there's just no focus on it.
Great vid, do more lens review
I would have bought it if it would have been internal zoom but went with the F2.8 instead. The F2 would be the perfect lens on a gimbal.. insane lens indeed!
I want to sell my three EF lenses (EF24-70 f2.8L ii, EF85 f1.8, EF50 f1.4) and buy an RF28-70 f2.0L, do you think this is a good idea?
I think you have to be a photographer who shoots professionally and very dynamically, that is you might miss something swapping bag full of primes around.
Excellent..I have been waiting on this! This is the only lens I plan on buying once I make the switch from EF to RF…everything else is getting adapted! 😤
I like how chris mention it can be use for street and documentary work. Theres no way im carrying that behemoth of a lens for street lol
It's heavy but it wasn't that bad. Although from a visibility stand point, it does stand out.
I'm horrified you're not more horrified by that horrifying focus breathing.
I never knew 24-70 weigh 805kg lol
Aside of that nice review
Normally I leave my brains at home when light travelling.
I like your well balanced comments. It would be good if you give your location as you move throughout your city. Thanks.
8:06 I wonder what it is like to carry a 805kg lens around
I will save it as a favorite