It needs a body with built-in IS, and then it will make a very strong case for itself.
Yes, but it is also not heavier than carrying a bunch of primes. A 3k$ lens is obviously not targeted at the "general Canon user"...To whom is a ~3lb 28-70 f/2 lens targeted to? Event shooters that aren't walking miles between shots and who value the extra stop to decrease ISOs from 6400 to 3200 in dim venues and who would take a 1 stop penalty in lieu of carrying multiple primes. And for those users, flash is more important because subject movement will preclude the use of low shutter speeds. I can't imagine that the general Canon user will opt for this in lieu of a RF 24-70 f/2.8 especially if it has IS -- too expensive, too heavy, too much space in the bag.
I think a RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS makes more sense. It's a more general lens and lens IS > IBIS. The lens is what it is, and the RF 28-70 f/2 makes a strong case for itself regardless of the body.
Was this lens primarily a "head-turner" to help market the release of the EOS R? I think it has practical uses for event/photojournalism, but otherwise, what a chore to haul around. I'm generally in favor of faster is better, but in this case, I agree, a 24-70 2.8 with IS and IQ that edges out the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II would sell very well. The 28-70 f/2 has niche appeal, bringing to mind the 11-24 f/4, which, upon release, seemed more a "statement" than a practical option.To whom is a ~3lb 28-70 f/2 lens targeted to? Event shooters that aren't walking miles between shots and who value the extra stop to decrease ISOs from 6400 to 3200 in dim venues and who would take a 1 stop penalty in lieu of carrying multiple primes. And for those users, flash is more important because subject movement will preclude the use of low shutter speeds. I can't imagine that the general Canon user will opt for this in lieu of a RF 24-70 f/2.8 especially if it has IS -- too expensive, too heavy, too much space in the bag.
I think a RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS makes more sense. It's a more general lens and lens IS > IBIS. The lens is what it is, and the RF 28-70 f/2 makes a strong case for itself regardless of the body.
Yes, but it is also not heavier than carrying a bunch of primes. A 3k$ lens is obviously not targeted at the "general Canon user"...
Again, it is a very different lens in terms of the look in comparison to a 24-70/2.8 IS, so it is pointless to compare, at this point that is obviously more in line with what people are happy with, if there is no built-in IS in the body (it is still going to cost over 2k$ though and it may not be quite as sharp)
Maybe you haven't even used a camera that has it, but within its own limits, it works quite effectively at standard focal lengths for both photo and video (and for tele lenses it works in combination with lens IS).
Even at normal shutter speeds hand-held it helps utilising all the resolution the lens and sensor are capable of. Shooting at test charts is not the same as taking real-world images.
Was this lens primarily a "head-turner" to help market the release of the EOS R? I think it has practical uses for event/photojournalism, but otherwise, what a chore to haul around. I'm generally in favor of faster is better, but in this case, I agree, a 24-70 2.8 with IS and IQ that edges out the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II would sell very well. The 28-70 f/2 has niche appeal, bringing to mind the 11-24 f/4, which, upon release, seemed more a "statement" than a practical option.
Good points.I think the lens had several purposes. It does serve as a "head-turner" but it fulfills a niche that cannot be met by the EF lenses. I think it was smart for Canon to launch the R with lenses that don't have EF counterparts because it gets people to buy into the system. The RF 24-105 is the only lens that has a EF counterpart with similar performance and it's a kit lens. The RF 35 f/1.8 IS is a macro and is 1/3 stop faster than the EF 35 f/2 IS, the RF 50 f/1.2 has much better performance than the EF 50 f/1.2, and the RF 28-70 f/2 is something totally new. Except for the RF 24-105, the other 3 RF lenses offer something different than EF, which can be adapted onto the R with native performance. Going for something different than EF counterparts gives Canon the lens breadth to cover more use cases while minimizing duplication, an that is important at launch when the new system has so few native lens options.
Another way to think about it is this. I'd rather have had an R that had IBIS and the MP count of Nikon's Z7. But Nikon came out with lenses that had F mount counterparts: 24-70 f/4, 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8. The new lenses might be better than their F-mount counterparts, but they're not top glass and they cost more. Who's excited about those Z lenses? Not as many people as those that are excited by the RF 50 f/1.2 and RF 28-70 f/2. I expect the camera manufacturers to give new body options every two years, but lenses stay in the portfolio for many years and perhaps decades.
Some people use the 70-200 2.8 IS II handheld all the time (but for video, it is useful even on a monopod), and this lens is no different to use, IS would make it more useful in any case.It's true that I haven't used an IBIS-equipped camera but I've owned/used the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 16-35 f/4 IS, 35 f/2 IS, 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and at these shorter focal lengths, I haven't found IS to be worth that much. It has more value for still-life, but I often find the limit to be close to 0.25s handheld. And even if it improves or minimizes camera shake, oftentimes it's still not pixel sharp. Before I sold the 17-55 f/2.8 IS years ago, I did experiments seeing if IS improved pixel sharpness, and it typically didn't. For faster shutter speeds (less than 1/60s), IS had no benefit, and for the very slow stuff, IS wasn't pixel sharp, so it had a narrow range of usefulness. And with an ultrawide 16-35 f/4 IS, the shutter speeds required for live subjects (especially kids) minimize the usefulness of IS. I have IS in all my telephoto lenses where I find it to be more beneficial, but the user also has to let IS settle. I've had many shots at a beginning of a sequence where nothing is sharp, which I've chalked to IS response times.
I see the value of IBIS for video but again, in the case of the 3 lb 28-70 f/2, I can't see many people trying a run-and-gun style with that heavy a lens. When I'm taking video (kids concerts/plays), I'm usually using a 24-105 IS, but it's usually on a tripod, so again IS doesn't have much value.
And this is what I don't understand.....Some people use the 70-200 2.8 IS II handheld all the time (but for video, it is useful even on a monopod), and this lens is no different to use, IS would make it more useful in any case.
Again, this lens is an additional choice Canon gives its R system users, and people are complaining about it in another thread as well, which is a bit ironic I think, since it is only an option.
I think a lot of people start from the assumption that using an adapter is a problem and you want to be using native lenses.And this is what I don't understand.....
If you already have a 24-70F2.8, why would you want to buy another one in the R mount, when you can use the one you already own? Wouldn't it make more sense to get something a bit different?
And this is what I don't understand.....
If you already have a 24-70F2.8, why would you want to buy another one in the R mount, when you can use the one you already own? Wouldn't it make more sense to get something a bit different?
And this is what I don't understand.....
If you already have a 24-70F2.8, why would you want to buy another one in the R mount, when you can use the one you already own? Wouldn't it make more sense to get something a bit different?
Exactly!Yes, of course. Canon, isn't stupid, despite constant internet whining to the contrary.
I think a lot of people start from the assumption that using an adapter is a problem and you want to be using native lenses
My feeling is Canon deserves a fair bit of credit for managing to make EF lenses perform as well on the R as they would on a (similarly spec'ed) DSLR body, and making the transition to the R mount as painless as possible for EF lens owners. From the bits I've read, it doesn't sound like Nikon has done as well with the Z/F adapter.exactly. a significant portion of users were and are unable or unwilling to understand the differences between
1. solid, simple, glass-less "extension tube mount adapters" from Canon
2. thirdparty cross-brand lens adapters with various mechanical, optical and electronic issues (eg 5 versions of metabones adapters to use canon EF lenses on Sony A7/A9 E-mount cameras
3. telecom ertets and other adapters with optical elements inside designed to achieve optical effects (eg narrower angle of view)
typically those users are clueless but very vocal in their "total resistance against any stinkin' adapter" and they associate all potential or real disadvantages for adapters listed under 2. and 3. also with any OEM Canon-Canon adapters.
luckily reality is different.
And at some point in the future there will presumably be an RF 24-70/2.8 of some kind (improved IQ over the current EF? IS? a touch smaller and lighter than the current EF?) as an upgrade option.