RF Lens Wishlist

[DavidEccleston]

28-70 f/2.8 finally arrived. Super light, felt like I was shipped an empty box. Quick test shots of the dogs looked sharp w/ nice bokeh. Will post more detailed impressions when I've had a chance to use it properly.

[neuroanatomist]

I know what you mean. The other day I picked up my camera with that lightweight lens mounted and was surprised to find it was an f/2 zoom, I thought I just had the 28/2.8 prime on there.

[DavidEccleston]

Saw this 28-70 f/2.8 review pop up. He compares to 28-70 f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, and 24-105 f/4, then against a number of primes. Tests portraits then landscapes. The comparisons show you shouldn't worry about losing the 70-105 range, as you get more detail on the 28-70, and you're better off just cropping. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By7RwR7oqZA

[neuroanatomist]

The comparisons show you shouldn't worry about losing the 70-105 range, as you get more detail on the 28-70, and you're better off just cropping.

I'm not one for watching YT videos (help with DIY repairs notwithstanding), but regarding 'just crop' I would think that depends on now many MP you're starting with and what you need in terms of output.

[DavidEccleston]

Check it out at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/By7RwR7oqZA?t=449. This shows all the zooms at 50mm wide open, then at f/8, then at 70mm wide open, and f/8, then just the new lens vs 24-105 at 85 and 105 wide open (There weren't f/8 examples here).

The 24-105mm (his copy anyway) seems very soft compared to all the other lenses. Even in the 50mm and 70mm f/8 examples, the 24-105 was quite soft. You have far more details in the 28-70 @ 70 image than you have in the 24-105 @ 105... at least in the corners.

I'd posted the link before the video was done. Towards the end there's a test of "how far do I need to physically back up to replicate the 24mm view with 28mm". It surprised me with how far he had to move. While the shots at 28mm look fine, if you need the 24mm wide due to physical contraints this lens will be a problem.

[Kayaker72]

Looks like a nice lens. I am glad to see Canon adding a premium non-L lens. I think we have both David and Pierre that have picked it up. So, it’ll be interesting to get the first hand experiences.

I do wonder if something is off with his RF 24-105 F4. I have generally heard excellent things and Bryan’s test charts support that. At 50 F4:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=2&APIComp=2

Yes, a slight difference, especially at the corners. But, as I played around, the RF 24-105 F4 looks better to me at 70 mm and I don’t see an issue at 105.

That said, it doesn’t take away from the 28-70 F2.8. Looking good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavidEccleston]

The biggest obstacle to me providing any useful feedback is that it basically came when DST ended, and it's dark by the time I'm done work. Any comment I can give has been covered by reviews already...

It's light, it's sharp on both an R8 and R7. I have no idea what the unprocessed RAW looks like, but coming out of LR, yes there's less sharpness in the corners, but it's still good. I haven't tested all sorts of conditions, but the bokeh looks good to me.

Perhaps if you can say what you're hoping to get clarified I can try to take some shots to give you an answer. I'm sure my back-lit living room dog shots aren't what you're looking for, but I've posted them anyway. I think these are all exported at 4K, and I'm pretty sure Flickr lets you download these at full size.


28-70mm f/2.8 at 28mm on R8 by Dave E, on Flickr


28-70mm f/2.8 at 32mm on R8 by Dave E, on Flickr
(Note this one is heavily boosted shadows, if there's a loss of detail in Bran, don't hold that against the lens)


28-70mm f/2.8 at 70mm on R8 by Dave E, on Flickr


28-70mm f/2.8 at 70mm on R7 by Dave E, on Flickr

[neuroanatomist]

I do wonder if something is off with his RF 24-105 F4. I have generally heard excellent things and Bryan’s test charts support that.

I was also thinking that. It seems like there’s a fair bit of copy variation with the RF 24-105/4 (and its predecessors). My copy of the RF is very good. I don’t have (and have no plans to get) an RF 28-70/2.8, but at 70mm my RF 24-105/4 delivers IQ in the center and corners similar to my RF 28-70/2, both of which are slightly surpassed by my RF 24-105/2.8.

[neuroanatomist]

On a more general note, great images, David! The RF 28-70/2.8 does answer a lot of requests from customers – constant aperture, weather sealing, very good IQ, and at an 'affordable' (relatively) cost, still sort of in L-series territory but definitely at the low end of that.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I'm keeping all my EF lenses and will use the EF-EOS R adapter when it's time for me to upgrade to a Canon mirrorless. I have the 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS III, 85 f/1.2L II and 500 f/4L IS (November 2024). It's just that photography has been a very low priority on my list for the last 10 yrs and I just can't justify the high prices of the RF lenses. I'm keeping all my EF lenses not because they're special, it because they just work . Recently I looked at the RF lineup and the ones that stood out the most for me were RF 24-70 f/2L and RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS Z.