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

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kayaker72]

Two new lenses are setting on the kitchen counter.

Congrats!

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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:
9C0A0619-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

9C0A0622-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

[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.....

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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

[Kayaker72]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

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