Does anyone owns both the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 AND the 28-70mm f/2 L?


Also, to those who own the smaller lens, now that it's been over a year, how has been using it? Is the retractable design annoying, and do you find yourself going accidentally to "forbidden area" of the zoom ring, or is it not an issue at all?


I'm low key considering downgrading. The f/2 lens is incredible, but I don't think I take enough advantage of it - I shoot mainly at f/2.8, so I've been carrying extra glass that I rarely use.


To those who own both lenses: how do they compare in terms of colours, contrast and micro-contrast? I don't care for MTF charts (I do care, but I know these lenses are more than enough for my cameras).

And no, I'm not interested in the RF 24-70mm f/2.8.

I have my gear covered as a rider on my homeowner's policy.

Maybe you need a new agent/broker or a new insurance company? I've done this for many years with two different insurance companies, and I've had no issues with either company. The first was State Farm who we had since living in CA, but they have no agents in MA and stopped writing new policies here long ago. I dealt with their 'policy service office' to drop gear that I sold and add gear that I bought each year. We switched when we moved to a new house in the same town 9 years ago, and we're now with a different insurance company through a local insurance broker.

I'm sure you'd need to show your proof of purchases, regardless. I did when we switched insurers, and when I buy new gear I just send my insurance broker a pdf of the invoice (usually from B&H) and they add it to the policy (likewise, when I offload gear I just email them and they remove it).

I pay 1.3% of the value of the covered gear for full replacement coverage, worldwide including theft/loss. I don't put the small stuff on the policy, only gear costing >$1K is on the schedule, but the total is well north of $50K. My broker didn't bat an eye at that when we opened the policy, she just said send me a list and the receipts.

Gear coverage on a homeowner's policy is only possible if you don't make money with the gear. If you do, you need to look for 'inland marine' coverage. I suspect you're going to pay a substantially higher rate for that type of standalone coverage.

AlanF said:

7 posts in 2 years, each one complaining about Canon and your switching to Sony. Why do you bother to read a forum like this?

Click to expand...

As someone who runs a forum and entertain certain controversial subjects on other platforms you'd be surprised just how much astroturfing, shilling and botting is going on these days. Organic discourse is pretty much dead.

Sony has getting up with their game with the mobile apps. Dont you think should be doing the same or advance? Need a better mobile app for canon cameras since they releasing the V line up soon

*democratic republic

With Canon releasing an updated version of the Cine-Servo 50-1000 I thought I should bring this up again. I don't for the life of me understand why there would not be a market for a decent, modern, native glass lens that has something like a 50-500mm zoom range, built in Drop-in filter slot, and built in 1.4x tele-extender. It would not have to be fast, f/6.3 or so would be enough at the tele end, and not really have to be very light. It could sell for $7k or even anything up to almost $10k and people would really use it quite a bit for wildlife video. There really isn't anything that fits this niche now. Most people that don't have access to the $70k cine lenses use something like the Sigma 60-600 just because there really isn't anything in between.

mb66energy said:

for me a strange idea to have R6 iii, R6 V and C50 as three flavours of one basic camera "segment".

Click to expand...

It is exactly what Sony does.
ZV-E1, A7S III, FX3, and FX6.

It's very possible that Canon will take the current R8 mechanicals, remove the EVF and package it in a Video focused "V" style body shell. Job done. Does it need a R6III sensor? Probably not.

The legendary image editing software suite also introduces halation, glass textures, and chromatic shifts, as well as a host of workflow improvements that open up new artistic possibilities. Nik Collection 9 delivers the most ambitious update in the suite's history, combining powerful new Al-enhanced masking tools with a fresh approach to color grading and a […]

See full article...

A 20-70 (or even better 24-85) f2.8 VCM in the pricerange where the 35/85mm f1.4 VCM lays would be very interesting. Especially if it will have IS aswell

Chig said:

What a bargain ! Will it work with the new CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9 ?
For only just over $100K I'll be able to shoot video of kiwi and owls in the dark without any flash
I need to start buying those Powerball tickets

Click to expand...

In Canon's official video they pair it with the new 40-1200(?)! Your dreams can come true !

P-visie said:

The Sigma lens starts at 28mm, not 24mm.
See: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_28_105_28/

Click to expand...

Thanks and that was also going to be my comment. For me, 24mm is a much more useful starting point than 28mm because I use my 'walkaround' lens indoors as well as outdoors.

I think we can look to the past to get an idea of what Canon might do with the R7 Mk II.

The Canon 7D Mark II features advanced, pro-level autofocus tracking with a dedicated 150,000-pixel RGB + IR metering sensor to aid focus, similar to the 1D X's Intelligent Tracking and Recognition (iTR) system. While not technically a separate "coprocessor" chip dedicated solely to focus calculations, the 7D II uses dual DIGIC 6 image processors to handle high-speed 10 fps shooting and advanced AF calculations simultaneously.

Jaysheldon said:

I should clarify: I'd like an RF-S pancake lens equivalent to a 24, 28 or 35mm FF.

Click to expand...

I know its not rf-s, but there is already a 25.6mm equivalent 16mm full frame pancake, in case that interests you. No worries if you are wanting an exact 24 or 28, but just thought Id mention it.

Can I ask is it me? comparing he quick menu between the R5 II and the R6 II in the upper left corner is the Mode icon. But on the R5II that is been move Down one line down. is this Normal?

Mr. Warbucks said:

If the R7Ii gets an R6 body with cooling it will most probably grow weight. The birding set up requires low weight. The Rf100-400 is pretty light, but apenditure comprise at the long end.
If the price really would be around 2300$, would an OM1 mark II with their oly 100-400 lens not a better value proposition? Micro 4/3 gives crop factor 2. Is the lower MP an issue? The sensor is smaller, hence probably not? Probably same weight range, however a bit more expensive?

Click to expand...

I made exactly this evaluation when getting started in bird photography. The OM1 is a nice camera, but the M43 size advantage is undermined by the 100-400 lens being the same weight as the RF100-500. The R7 + RF 100-400 was substantially lighter *and* cheaper than the Olympus kit when I was comparing them - the Canon combo was only slightly more than the OM1 body and almost $1500 less when adding the lens. Furthermore, for birds pixel density is a better metric than crop factor since you're rarely 'filling the frame'. The OM1 and the R7 have basically identical pixel density, so in terms of 'pixels per duck' at equivalent focal length they're a wash. (that changes if you consider video though - crop factor will apply to video as it's typically full-width of the sensor)

The OM1 MkII does have better AF than the existing R7 (mostly in consistency rather than absolute capability). I think it's a working assumption that an R7II in line with these rumors will fix the AF weaknesses of the R7 and elevate it close to the R5II which is at least on par with the OM1. Of course, the rumored R7II seems like a mismatch with the RF 100-400 and pairing with the RF 100-500 will now likely end up being $1000-1500 more than the OM setup so the value question flips the other direction.

LSXPhotog said:

It's important to note that the "FCC Covered List" restricts DJI as a company from getting approval to register ANY new electronic device within the country. The products we've seen hit the market from DJI in the past 4 months were previously registered and approved before product launch. So the Pocket 4 will not be coming to the United States.

Click to expand...

I was wondering that. I haven't been paying close attention to the issues with DJI and the USA. What you're saying definitely makes sense.

I'll update the post, with credit.

To me this is a philosophical game changer - If quality and durability and user friendliness go with it, as GoPro seemed to be veering off. GoPro just revived the MFT lens market, if the market responds.

Canon Rumors said:

Ultima 25-600mm T4 S35 Broadcast Zoom

See full article...

Click to expand...

Whoa. Laowa is such an interesting company. To get 600mm T4 the front element of that lens is probably 165mm in diameter or maybe even bigger. That is a seriously large piece of glass and an interesting indication of where Laowa is going with lens design. I wonder how long before we see them add more fast supertele hybrid/mirrorless lenses to the 200/2 they released not so long ago!

ronbyram said:

Hello gang, first I know canon has these white lenses hoods designed for the RF 100-500 and 70-200 lens. But I dislike these larger white hoods.
But my question is can an older Black EF hood be used instead? Has anyone done this?

Click to expand...

I use the lenshood of the RF 50 1.2 on the 100-500. Perfect.
And a JJC copy of the 24-105Z hood on 70-200Z. Just physical protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hz8YBHDKsc

300mm f/2.0 Nikkor

USM was THE technology which tilted the majority of professional photographers shooting 135 format to switch from Nikon to Canon in the early 1990s.

Prior to the autofocus revolution in the late 1980s and early 1990s over 75% of pros (outside the Soviet Bloc) working in the 135 format shot Nikon. The rest were split between Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Leica, Contax, Konica, and a host of others. Keep in mind that much commercial and fashion work was being done with Medium and Large Format systems. But PJs and sports/action shooters were using Nikon 135 format film cameras in droves.

When Canon "abandoned" the old FD mount in 1987 and introduced the all electronic EF mount, Canon lost many of the few professional shooters they had. There was a lot of bitterness from those heavily invested in professional FD lenses that they would not be getting any improved bodies going forward. For the most part, the pro sector wasn't that excited about AF. They viewed it as a crutch for less skilled posers and amateurs. A good shooter could outperform the earliest AF systems.

Then along came the EF 300mm f/2.8 L USM in November of 1987 and the EOS 1 in 1989. With that combination, suddenly the potential of all electronic communication between camera and lens became apparent. USM was fast, accurate, and quiet. Did I mention it was fast and accurate? For the first time AF systems could outperform a seasoned pro focusing the lens shooting athletes moving erratically. And it could do it at 1.5-2 frames per second! Even faster with external Motor Drives.

Within 5 years of the introduction of the EOS 1, Canon had a majority of professional photographers working in the 135 format and then held that lead for the next three decades.

It's going to be sad to say goodbye to USM.

By God, Woodrow, It's been one hell of a party! - Augustus McCrae

Sing it Willie: ♫♪ Nothing lasts forever but old Fords and a natural stone ♪♫

Bob Howland said:

Neuro, once again you prove that you're an obnoxious bully.

Click to expand...

That he is, but on this point he is also correct.

AJ said:

Thanks! I'll give DLO a try on some of my old files.

Click to expand...

Sure thing! With my R6 and my general subjects I usually just keep in-camera DLO to max, and for serious editing on something special I run the image through DPP to get a DLO-ified TIFF that I then play with elsewhere.

Canon's DLO optimizes for the most interesting things, even with EF lenses. It will often correct lenses for fuzziness caused by weird stuff like field curvature. The primary reason the 20mm f.28 USM is "soft" is because its focal plane is very curved, and the likely reason people find f/8 or f/11 to be "sharp" is that at those settings on an UWA lens the DOF includes much of the area affected by the curve (the curve and DOF start to overlap relative to the focal point). You can actually test this for yourself by setting the lens to f/2.8 and shooting a scene with an arc of something — plastic cups, for an example — and adjust their relative arc until most are in focus; or alternatively place them in a line and keep bumping the f-stop. There are other factors, like how Canon struggled with corners for years, and so forth. Anyhow, Canon's DLO as of the R series knows of this fact and makes seemingly progressive sharpness adjustments to the image to better placate modern taste with a few tricks of illusion. DLO also deals with other shortcomings, such as the vignetting, coma to a degree, etc.

Playing in this manner also teaches one a lot about how Canon can / is using DLO as a sophisticated crutch for hybrid lenses like the VCM series, which by design make use of distortion correction as needed to keep barrels the same size across the series for consistent use with video equipment.

Again, this isn't a top-shelf L lens and never will be — DLO works with what it has — but with DLO I find it's a very pleasant personal interest lens for when the mood strikes.

Chig said:

Yes from what I've seen in reviews, Jan Wegener (who's highly regarded in the bird photography world and one of my favourite You Tubers) has tested it and said it's very good with 2x https://youtu.be/DYBNX16zIhw?si=yTqtOfKQ3DbILnkC

Click to expand...

Jan Wegener is one of the few reviewers I can take seriously.