Was Bryan also one of the first to say that the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II was "like having a bag full of prime lenses"? In my opinion, that lens is so much better than its predecessor that the claim wasn't just marketing hype. On the other hand, for those hobbyists willing to spend on L series fast primes, would they select a bag full of f/2 lenses?
From a practical perspective, I think the rf 28-70mm f/2L lens is a hard sell for anything other than events involving low light (including weddings) and photojournalism. Of course this is a large part of the truly professional market. And there is also a significant market of photographers who don't think about practical matters.
Bryan might be going a bit out on a limb to say, "It's a good choice for landscape photography..." It's hard for me to imagine more than a few landscape scenarios where one extra stop, the loss of 4mm at the wide end, the weight, the 95mm filter ring, and the awkwardness on a tripod (due to weight and size) would make this superior to the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Does it perform so much better with higher resolution sensors that at midrange f/stops it would prove its value? We might not know until an RF body has a sensor with more MP.
Does it seem to have a way to attach a tripod collar if desired?
Some active pros are going to work with the extra weight and accept the price, and they'll get a great, fast zoom. I'm glad Canon is serving this end of the market. But are many other photographers going to want this instead of the ef 24-70mm f/2.8 II?
I can see an argument for hearty travelers wanting to bring one or two large lenses, say the 28-70mm and a 70-200mm, and just leaving primes at home. Still, for many photographers, this will take some extra workouts to get used to as a walkaround lens. And, again, the lack of a tripod collar might be a concern.
Will the f/2 affect Canon's decision to put out an IS version of the f/2.8 on one mount or the other? I know Canon has overlapping lenses, but if a smaller, lighter rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS were released, would the 28-70mm lose too much stature?
One other aspect of the review is interesting. Bryan says, "IS can also compromise image quality and durability." This seems to be tossed in as an apology, defending Canon's decision not to include the feature. Does IS actually "compromise image quality" when used properly, or if it is switched off? And how common are IS failures on L-series lenses? (I've been lucky, so far. I do my best to turn IS off when not using the lens.)
I hope this doesn't come off as chiding Canon for making a spectacular lens. I'm just mulling over the pros and cons in comparison to the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II. (And I remember when that lens was released, some were commenting on its size and saying an IS version would simply be too big to be practical.)
Clearly this lens is turning heads and helping promote the new RF mount's potential.