Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM

[John Wilde]

Pardon my cheapness, but my definition of "affordable" is under US$1,000.

It may still be a good value on a quality-for-cost basis though.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Pardon my cheapness, but my definition of "affordable" is under US$1,000.

It may still be a good value on a quality-for-cost basis though.

The gray market is your friend - soon that lens will be there under 1000.

 

[Richard CR]

I think I'll go pick one up tomorrow. Everyone loves it.

but will it fit in the carry on?

Not for me. The small size, light weight and good IQ are definite strong points but personally I want a broader focal range in a standard zoom for travel, and I have little need for f/2.8. Had a look at the stats from my last few trips with the 24-105/4L, ~25% of shots were wider than 28mm and ~45% of shots were longer than 70mm.

I could see a personal use case for the 28-70/2.8 on an R8 as a second body when my primary combo is the R3 and 100-300/2.8. But so far, it's been working fine to swap lenses for the 24-105/2.8.

I get it. for me 28-70 was nearly where the 18-55's were and i was used to that range for the most part on the wide. so the loss of 4mm down there doesn't bother me that much.

if i go wide, i usually want far wider than 24mm

So I'd complement this with the 15-30 and still have 2mm of focal overlap.

for over here - I have *maybe* 3kg of wiggle room for camera gear on carry on.

 

[Richard CR]

Pardon my cheapness, but my definition of "affordable" is under US$1,000.

It may still be a good value on a quality-for-cost basis though.

then get a variable apeture STM or a used variant

fleabay a lot of EF lenses too like the 24-70/F4L or the 16-35mm F4L

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm going to laugh at any post that advocates for the death of f 2.8.

 

[Loswr]

I get it. for me 28-70 was nearly where the 18-55's were and i was used to that range for the most part on the wide. so the loss of 4mm down there doesn't bother me that much.

if i go wide, i usually want far wider than 24mm

So I'd complement this with the 15-30 and still have 2mm of focal overlap.

for over here - I have *maybe* 3kg of wiggle room for camera gear on carry on.

For me, it's the 24-105/4 and the 10-20/4. I really need to think about whether I should hang on to the 14-35/4, it was my travel UWA zoom when I didn't want the bulk of the EF 11-24/4. Mainly US/EU travel, I've never had a carry on bag weighed.

 

[YuengLinger]

Pardon my cheapness, but my definition of "affordable" is under US$1,000.

It may still be a good value on a quality-for-cost basis though.

Do I hear the 2010's calling?

 

[clearwaterphotog]

The price here is a tough pill to swallow compared to the 24-105/4L. As many have said, f/2.8 is nice but not necessary. The extra 4mm of width makes a big difference in versatility for travel, landscape, indoors, and the extra 35mm on the long end closes the bokeh gap and helps fill the frame. I often find 70mm is never long enough when I actually want reach, whereas 105mm gets me there, especially when cropping with the R5.

As far as a joint solution goes, this lens with an R8 is almost as small as it gets for a f/2.8 full frame travel kit. I know Sony has smaller bodies, but they don't have a standard zoom this small (even from Tamron/Sigma). You have the Sony 24-50/2.8 which is just slightly longer, about the size of the RF 24-105 STM, or the Sony 20-70/4 which is 7mm longer than that. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is 18mm longer than that, so it's not in the running. I personally think the 20-70/4 is a wonderful compromise on the Sony side and would make for the perfect travel kit using an A7CII, if your hands fit the small body.

But on the Canon end, again the R8 with this new 28-70/2.8 is the best fit if you must have f2.8, otherwise for the price the 24-105/4 is only slightly larger and heavier and offers much more versatility. The RF cameras are already large enough to be pretty conspicuous so an extra couple hundred grams and ~dozen millimeters in length is worth it for all that extra versatility... especially given the basically equal price.

Good on Canon for filling in a gap. I would've thought it more attractive starting at 24mm, and f/4, priced at $799 though.

Now, will they update the 24-105/4? Probably not for a year at least, after this release... or it'll be priced significantly higher than the mk1, like $1699, to set better price brackets, and maybe to pay for higher quality optics. One can dream!

 

[candyman]

For me, it's the 24-105/4 and the 10-20/4. I really need to think about whether I should hang on to the 14-35/4, it was my travel UWA zoom when I didn't want the bulk of the EF 11-24/4. Mainly US/EU travel, I've never had a carry on bag weighed.

I am in that boat (replacing the 16-35 f/4) But how to deal with filters below 24mm? That is why I keep the 16-35 for now. I invested heavy in LEE filters and like using it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Back in the 90s it was hard to find the clear answer but I did find it in writing somewhere, maybe in their book/catalog "Lens Work II" from around 1997. Their official definition was, from memory, that it had GROUND aspherical (not glass-molded aspherical, abbreviated as "GMO"), Super UD, and/or Fluorite elements. The definition they gave surprisingly did NOT include "pro build quality" or "luxury" as part of the meaning. However that's not to say you're wrong: I'm sure their definition changes every couple years, if they even have a definition, and ultimately, the most accurate definition of what "L" lens is, is the list of lenses that say "L" on them.

I won't go looking through the internet to find data points, but I THINK Super UD has moved down-market to the point maybe many "consumer" lenses have it. Meanwhile I THINK GMO might have moved up-market as they've gotten better at forming it. It's possible that the best differentiator now is whether or not it has weather sealing: I wonder if all L lenses do and all non-L do not? And yet that may change too: why NOT put that little rubber gasket on a 50/1.8 say?

This new "non - L" has a pair of UD elements and a pair of Asherical elements. I don't know if they are moulded or ground.
I can't think of any EF lens that has weather sealing but isn't a L lens....as someone here is fond of saying....we're all doomed....

 

[Loswr]

I am in that boat (replacing the 16-35 f/4) But how to deal with filters below 24mm? That is why I keep the 16-35 for now. I invested heavy in LEE filters and like using it.

I now use the Kolari magnetic ND filters that go inside the body, I got the 3-6-10 stop set. They work very well with all lenses including the RF 10-20/4, and on longer lenses combine well with a front CPL.

 

[candyman]

I now use the Kolari magnetic ND filters that go inside the body, I got the 3-6-10 stop set. They work very well with all lenses including the RF 10-20/4, and on longer lenses combine well with a front CPL.

I am somewhat hesitant about Kolari's solution. If you have to change the filter in certain weather conditions (open camera mount), you seem to run a greater risk of dirt getting into the camera. I sometimes change filters: 3 or 6 stops or together such as 3+10 or ND grad (soft or hard)
But the solution for the 10-20 is certainly interesting.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Pardon my cheapness, but my definition of "affordable" is under US$1,000.

It may still be a good value on a quality-for-cost basis though.

Agreed! Even 1.000 $ doesn't really count as "affordable". For me, "affordable" ends in the price range and the price tag of the 35mm F1.8 and 85mm F2

 

[Berowne]

then get a variable apeture STM or a used variant

fleabay a lot of EF lenses too like the 24-70/F4L or the 16-35mm F4L

The EF 16-35/4 L IS is a winner.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Preview is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO4t7wrWEtU

 

[Deleted member 383640]

I am somewhat hesitant about Kolari's solution. If you have to change the filter in certain weather conditions (open camera mount), you seem to run a greater risk of dirt getting into the camera. I sometimes change filters: 3 or 6 stops or together such as 3+10 or ND grad (soft or hard)
But the solution for the 10-20 is certainly interesting.

I suggest, since it seems to me that you are using the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM on the R body, that you try a drop-in adapter with a V-ND filter, and if you also need an additional filter, you can always use it in front of the lens.

 

[I_Miss_Minolta]

I absolutely refuse to own any RF lens with a gear type focusing motor -- they're slow and hunt. I'm glad to see this at least has a lead-screw type system, which is quick and silent in my experience. If you don't know, you can learn about the various focusing systems:

Canon lens focusing motor technology

Discover USM, STM and Canon's new VCM lens technology. Learn about the history of Ultra Sonic Motor and how the technologies enable you to achieve sharp and in-focus results.

www.canon-europe.com

 

[sanj]

This was a great read. Thank you for posting. I got to know how they think.

 

[Maximilian]

I think I'll go pick one up tomorrow. Everyone loves it.

I prefer to let photos speak for the RF100-400:
Dragonflies
BIF
more BIF
Bird portrait
Mammal

The RF100-500L is better, sharper, brighter, but also much, much more expensive, bigger and heavier.
I have and love both.

 

[John Wilde]

Do I hear the 2010's calling?

No, you hear economic reality calling.