RF 24-70mm F/2.8 L IS USM Question

So this new to just arrived. My first thought out of the box is that there is not enough savings in size and weight over the EF 24-70 II lens to matter.
I went through a half dozen copies with B&H to get an exception EF 24-70 II to get an exceptional copy, should I have just kept the old.

Here is the question:

I plug it in and start racking the AF to see how well it works and low and behold I learn that it the manual focus is electronic.
It does not work when you are in AF mode at all. I read Bryan's review and it says this "FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is supported in AF mode with the camera in One Shot Drive Mode, but the shutter release must be half-pressed for the focus ring to become active."

It doesn't work this way at all, either in servo or one shot mode. It only works in Manual. Does any one have a copy of the lens, can they confirm that it doesn't work unless in manual mode?

I am trying to figure out if this Copy is ok.

All RF lenses are focus-by-wire. I don’t have the 24-70/2.8 IS yet (mine arrives next week), but I have the 14-35, 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8 and 100-500, and FTM works on all of them even without the half-press.

I suspect you have electronic manual focus disabled in your settings. On the R, it’s in AF tab 4. I use back-button AF. I keep mine set to magnify, FTM works if I just pick up the camera, and if I’m pressing AF-ON and turn the MF ring the view magnifies at the AF point.

Also note that FTM doesn’t work during active Servo AF.

That is it, thanks.
It sounds like your full on switching to the R now.

I was holding out for the 28-70mm f/2.L but it hasn't been in stock but the more I thought about it I decided I would rather have the primes rather than a do all zoom. So I went with the 24-70. It seems like a nice copy but it is quit a bit of cost outlay for minor improvements. When Canon starts releasing the wide fast primes or Tilt Shift I think then I will switch those.

I am debating now if the 70-200 is a worthy change, I doubt the improvement in IQ would be significant enough to form the version II I have now. The collapsed length is appealing.

An easy fix is always nice.

Yes, I have the R3 on preorder. I far prefer the integrated grip form factor, and I didn’t find the 18 MP of the 1D X limiting. If I shot only birds I’d have bought the R5, but the R3 will be an excellent all-around body for me, and I’d like mostly native lenses when it arrives. I’ve had the R and RF 24-105/4L for ~2.5 years, bought the others after the R3 announcement as lenses have trickled in stock.

I’m still considering canceling my 24-70/2.8 order and getting the 28-70/2 instead, since I have the 24-105 as a general purpose zoom. I have a few days to decide.

I did swap my EF 70-200/2.8 II for the RF in large part for the form factor. It’s a bit better in IQ, but the difference isn’t huge. Ditto for the EF 16-35/4 to RF 14-35 – the latter is very small and light.

I have the EF 85/1.4, but don’t use it enough to justify the RF 1.2 version (and if I do opt for the 28-70/2, I may end up selling the EF 85). I’m not keen on the focus shift of the RF 100L macro, so I’ll stick with my EF there. The 1.4:1 mag is not a selling point for me, since when I want over 1:1 I use the MP-E 65. The RF 600/4 also doesn’t justify the cost of switching from my EF 600/4 II.

There is a rumored RF 10-24 and some rumors of RF TS lenses, but for my 11-24 and TS-E 17, the mount adapter with drop in filters is a big advantage. The salad plate filters I have for the TS-E 17 are a PITA, and I don’t have the dinner plate setup for the 11-24. So RF versions of those would have to be something really special to trump the easy filtering with the adapter. A 10-24 vs 11-24 wouldn’t do it for me. An RF TS 14mm would be tempting, though. We’ll see what happens there.

What convinced me to go with the 24-70mm instead of waiting for the 28-70 f/2 came down to just a few things.

The 28-70 would be like having several primes, but the only prime in that range that I really use is the 35mm F/1.4L II and I like using it at F/1.6-1.8. The 28-70mm would be like a slower prime all across the range.
In older versions of the 24-70 the lens wasn't as sharp as it is stopped down, but the 24-70 II was sharp at f/2.8 and I believed the RF version would be to. So at all the other lengths the f/2.8 will be fast enough.
The final tipping straw to order it over keeping my the EF 24-70 II is the fact it has IS. Without flash shooting family pics at night the IS might be nice, and the holidays are coming and the lighting will be by X-mas tree.

How about the 100-500mm, is it worthy?
Would it be similar to owning the 100-400mm, or substantially better?

I have only used the RF 100-500 (borrowed Joel's for awhile at Laguna Seca). So most of this is based on a review of specs, and reviews. Just to get this out there, but a common reason that will apply to all of these the fact that I still have the 5DIV as my second body and my wife shoots an 80D, and while she has a EFs 15-85 and a EFs telephotos but still borrows my EF glass, especially the telephotos, when she shoots. So I am not ready to exchange EF for RF. At this point, it would be in addition too in many instances.

The RF 100-500 is slightly sharper, gives you that extra reach, but the big selling point is that it is lighter in relatively the same size. I'll almost certainly upgrade to the 100-500 at some point, unless something faster/more reach but still versatile gets released. Was it "substantially" better? It was substantially lighter, that was noticeable the second I swapped lenses. Bryan's "in-use" weight is only 90 g different, that doesn't include the converter, so ~220 g w/ converter. I do wonder if the weight of the 100-500 is better balanced as it felt like more than 1/2 lb. The bit more reach was noticeable. In terms of IQ, I've seen comparisons, I can see it, the RF is sharper but on that day, both lenses generated great images.

Swapping the 24-70 f/2.8 (EF Mk II vs RF). The biggest things that have caught my eye are sharpness at 50-70 mm (win for the RF), IS and weight. Again, I've seen real world comparisons, I believe the RF is just a hair shaper at those focal lengths. That would be nice. Regarding IS, looking at Bryan's IS tests with the RF and they are only a little (~1 stop) better than I get with my EF lens (IBIS). Avalanche Falls (1.3 sec) in the monthly was not shot with a full tripod. Those shots were either using a tripod as a monopod or resting on the guard rail. From Banff, I already posted a 0.5 sec handheld image. I took 3-4, all were sharp. Weight, the RF is ~100 g heavier. With converter, they are essentially the same weight.

So, from above, you mention that IS was a primary reason for switching. I do think IS+IBIS is better, but maybe only ~1 stop. If you still have your EF 24-70 II, you might want to try IBIS only (making sure it is on, Picture/camera tab 7, mine was off when I received it). Or maybe the sharpness at 50-70 mm is noticeable? I'd be interested if it is.

If you have both 100-500 and RF 24-70, then, so, you can start leaving the converter at home, which saves 130 g.

I consider both the RF 24-105/4 IS and 24-70/2.8 IS to be viable choices for an R-series standard zoom. In the EF-DSLR world, the 24-70/2.8 II offered overall better IQ and better AF performance (on bodies with f/2.8 AF points) than the 24-105/4, at the cost of IS, zoom range and a stop of light. For RF, the lenses are fairly similar in IQ (Bryan indicates they trade off through the ranges), there’s no special AF performance advantage at f/2.8 on a MILC, and both have IS. So it really comes down to one stop of light vs. a broader zoom range. Even subject isolation is similar at 70/2.8 and 105/4, if you have room to back up (although perspective will be a bit different).

Now throw the 28-70/2 into the mix. On a body with IBIS, the lens delivers the same (specified) 8 stops as the two IS zooms. I agree that the 28-70 is more like a ‘collection of primes’ than a zoom lens, and with my f/1.2-1.4 primes, I generally shoot them between f/1.8-2.2, so the 28-70/2 would actually serve that purpose for me.

If I had to choose just one of the three, the 24-70/2.8 would be an easy choice. However, I already have the 24-105/4, and that doesn’t combine very well with the 24-70/2.8 because there’s lots of overlap. The 28-70/2 would make a better ‘partner’ for the 24-105, so at this point I’m leaning that way.

The 100-500 is an excellent lens. I think Brant nicely summed up the comparison to the EF 100-400. In my case, I sold the 100-400 soon after getting the 600/4 II, because I used that when I needed reach and used the 70-300L as a compact option. Swapping the 70-300L for the native 100-500 was an easy decision for me since I’ve been using the adapted 70-300 on family walks and feel the need for more reach while not wanting to carry the 600/4 and manage kids.

I agree with Brant's summary too.

When we swapped lenses for a while at Laguna Seca the images I took with his EF 100-400 II were perfectly sharp and I would not say there is enough difference in sharpness between it and the RF 100-500 to entice anyone to switch.

The primary advantage is the extra 100mm of reach and secondarily the weight and balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

So, from above, you mention that IS was a primary reason for switching. I do think IS+IBIS is better, but maybe only ~1 stop. If you still have your EF 24-70 II, you might want to try IBIS only (making sure it is on, Picture/camera tab 7, mine was off when I received it). Or maybe the sharpness at 50-70 mm is noticeable? I'd be interested if it is.

---

Initially the difference I see are so subtle that it might not be worthwhile for most people. The 24-70 II is going for about $1300 used, and it is an extra $1100 plus tax to switch.

The RF version actually feels a bit larger on the camera than the EF version with adapter even thought it is not. Size is a wash.
Looking at Bryans image charts I am not seeing much difference in IQ. Keeping in mind all the comparisons are either higher resolution or lower.
From what I have seen so far they are about equal as far as sharpness all the way through. I would have to set up some home made tests to compare.

Honestly it is a questionable upgrade for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

When we swapped lenses for a while at Laguna Seca the images I took with his EF 100-400 II were perfectly sharp and I would not say there is enough difference in sharpness between it and the RF 100-500 to entice anyone to switch.

---

It sounds like my debate to buy it is the same as I had with the EF 100-400 II. I gave the 100-400 I version to my brother when I bought my first 500mm. My thinking now is to upgrade to the 600mm f/4 and possibly buy the RF 100-500mm as a filler for the other ranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

It sounds like my debate to buy it is the same as I had with the EF 100-400 II. I gave the 100-400 I version to my brother when I bought my first 500mm. My thinking now is to upgrade to the 600mm f/4 and possibly buy the RF 100-500mm as a filler for the other ranges.

---

That is my current super tele set up. A few years ago I found a really good price on a used EF version II 600 f/4 and then added the RF 100-500 when I bought the R5. I still own all my other EF lenses too and I am very happy with their performance using an adapter.

Ok, so I've decided to get the RF 28-70/2. Now I just have to find one in stock...

I am sure there is a RF 28-70/2 floating off the coast in a cargo ship just waiting to come your way.

From your keyboard to Long Beach Harbor’s eyes.

28-70 f/2 for events, indoors, portraits....24-105 f/4 for travel/landscapes.

Seems like a pretty amazing combination.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

28-70 f/2 for events, indoors, portraits....24-105 f/4 for travel/landscapes.
Seems like a pretty amazing combination.....

---

I hope it will be...I'll find out on Friday. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I hope it will be...I'll find out on Friday. :D

---

:D That didn't take long. I have heard and seen nothing but good things. Look forward to hearing about it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

:D That didn't take long. I have heard and seen nothing but good things. Look forward to hearing about it!

---

It's reasonably large, but not as unwieldy as I anticipated. A lot like the EF 11-24/4 in terms of weight, a bit beefier but it will handle well on the R3. Looking forward to actually using it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I did swap my EF 70-200/2.8 II for the RF in large part for the form factor. It’s a bit better in IQ, but the difference isn’t huge.

---

I went down to the local camera shop and handled the RF 70-200mm, it was nice and small but I talked myself out of it because IQ improvement probably wouldn't be significant.
Then I went out to shoot the kids playing outside on Thanksgiving, went back in the house that night and ordered the 70-200mm and 100-500mm.
Size does matter when it comes to carrying around lenses and chasing Grand Children.

Fed-ex tried to deliver a day early yesterday and I missed signing, should have them today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Then I went out to shoot the kids playing outside on Thanksgiving, went back in the house that night and ordered the 70-200mm and 100-500mm.
Size does matter when it comes to carrying around lenses and chasing Grand Children.

---

:D

If it helps, the bokeh of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is being compared favorably to prime lenses. For example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

:D

If it helps, the bokeh of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is being compared favorably to prime lenses. For example.

---

Two new lenses are setting on the kitchen counter.

The points in the video were lost on me. He was attempting to compare bokeh of a 1.2 lens to a 2.8 lens. Bokeh is created by several factors such as the separation and distance of the background and distance to the subject. It is a narrow set of circumstances that a prime lens like this is optimum. For instance I love to shoot with the 35 F/1.4 L II, but there is a narrow range that you benefit form the faster prime. Close subjects with a bit of separation and it works miracles. Outside that range the 24-70mm will perform equally well. For portraits for years I have always thought my 180mm f/3.5L Macro was the best lens, a close subject with the creamy bokeh that lens could create I thought was awesome.

Curiosity of the comparison to the old version has found its hold.
I was hoping not to do this...but now I feel compelled. I will probably be setting up a test to compare just to see if there is any major variation from my EF versions.
I bet they are similar and will not see much difference at all.

First test will be the IS, its dark outside and some indoor shooting should provide a good test tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Two new lenses are setting on the kitchen counter.

---

Congrats!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The points in the video were lost on me........

Curiosity of the comparison to the old version has found its hold.

---

Perhaps I shouldn't have linked just that one video. You are absolutely right, it is not an apples to apples comparison. The only point I was going for was that here was an impression that the RF 70-200 f/2.8 was approaching prime quality in terms of sharpness/bokeh, etc, in addition to the size/weight advantage. The RF does have 9 aperture blades vs 8 in the EF. So, in addition to the latest optics/lens coatings, there is reason the RF should be providing better bokeh. Just something else to consider. I'd say the size/weight are the biggest advantages for most people.

But, I'd be interested in your impressions/comparisons.

Years ago I carried all primes because they were sharper than the zooms. With these lenses the only advantage of the prime IMO now is that they are faster. They really have become more of a "specialty" lens.

I did a few comparisons of the RF 24-70mm and the EF 24-70mm L II last night. I would say the IS does matter. The IQ seems to be just a better but not enough that most people would notice and really is not a factor. The specs on the RF 24-70 are misleading, the lens is actually bigger by volume than the EF 24-70. It is fat all the way through, most likely to allow for the IS system. It gives you the feeling that you are carrying a bigger lens.

I took shots at 1/80 at 70mm to get a comparison. In retrospect I should have probably shot slower to get a real comparison for the IS. The EF was the best of the group shot. But hand held with multiple shots the RF did better. You can see if you can tell which is which:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...87707359_c.jpg9C0A0619-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e205b538_c.jpg9C0A0622-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

Which is which is tough. But I do think the first image (0619) is sharper.

Also interesting, if the settings were the same, but the first image is also brighter.

Now...please excuse me, I am suddenly in the mood for hot chocolate and whipped cream..... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Which is which is tough. But I do think the first image (0619) is sharper.

Also interesting, if the settings were the same, but the first image is also brighter.

Now...please excuse me, I am suddenly in the mood for hot chocolate and whipped cream..... ;)

---

Strange I noticed the brightness to right away. All were taken the exact same spot and lighting just minutes apart. I had it in AV mode with Auto ISO. The camera choose different settings on each lens, one is ISO 1600 and the other is ISO 2000. 0619 is the RF lens. The difference in sharpness is my shaking and unsteady hand and IS.

For us non Pro's my personal opinion on all the RF lenses is they are not worth the upgrade cost if you live on a tight budget. You are a paying a substantial amount for the upgrade to get a very small fraction of improvement, if any.

I really like Pye, he is a great photographer and a good teacher. I liked his ring of fire video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

For us non Pro's my personal opinion on all the RF lenses is they are not worth the upgrade cost if you live on a tight budget. You are a paying a substantial amount for the upgrade to get a very small fraction of improvement, if any.

---

Eventually the rationale of having native glass for my camera bodies, not using adapters, etc, will win me over. But I am still happy with my EF glass waiting for something like an RF 50-135 f/2; 200-500 f/4, 14-20 f/2, 100 f/1.4 or smaller and lighter weight compared to what I have.

Barring the 50-135 f/2 type of lens, I expect the 70-200 f/2.8 to end up in my bag. If it has better bokeh than my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS, great. But, it'll primarily be about size/weight/native glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Barring the 50-135 f/2 type of lens, I expect the 70-200 f/2.8 to end up in my bag. If it has better bokeh than my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS, great. But, it'll primarily be about size/weight/native glass.

---

The older I get the more appealing the size-weight thing becomes.
With the 70-200mm versions I have had I have never remember saying I liked it for its wonderful bokeh. I could always do a quick test of sample pics of the two if any one was really interested in seeing it.
IMO size is the reason to buy it.

I agree with Brant. Just got my EF 24-10/ tuned up an ef 70-200 ii fixed. Very much enjoyed the cpl in the drop in.

I am going to be testing the 100-500 against the tamzooka. I know the tamzooka is weak at 600, but at 400 it is quite good.

Well oops. I didn't cancel my 24-105 order and it showed up yesterday. My tamzooka is on its way back from being flashed.

So this weekend will be some verrsion if a 'real world comparison' of the ef/rf 24-105 and the rf 100-500 vs the tamzooka.

Will post my conclusions.

For the pre test context.
The tammy is very good 150 to 400 gets a bit weaker the longer it goes and 600 is soft on the 5d3. Does the Rf100-500 over take it on the long end with a mild crop?

The 24-105 appears to be a contest of specific copy of each lens and size. I recall Bryans review being equivocal.

I do enjoy having the cpl drop in. I do have the empty/simple adapter as well.

And under the TMI heading... I do have some carpel tunnel, tendinitis creeping on my left wrist so weightbetc may become an issue

Re Tamzooka vs 100-500. Not a competition the Canon is clear winner.