Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,067

    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.


  2. #2
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,779
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,067
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,779
    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.
    Last edited by neuroanatomist; 11-06-2021 at 03:33 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,067
    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist View Post

    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.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    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.


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

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post


    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.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    Two new lenses are setting on the kitchen counter.
    Congrats!

    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,127
    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
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,127
    Re Tamzooka vs 100-500. Not a competition the Canon is clear winner.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •