Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM vs RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
111
33
55
italy
Hi all. I have a EOS R5 and I already own a RF 16-35mm f/2,8 and a RF 70-200mm f/2,8 along with the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF 8-15mm f/4 fisheye.

Now I have a question since I own also an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L I USM zoom lens. Is it worth accodording to your opinion to sell/upgrade this current zoom lens and get the either the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM or the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
I ask because not always newest products are necessary better. Price vs image quality is also an important factor to consider.

What is your opinion in this repect?

Thanks in advance.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,074
1,104
Hi all. I have a EOS R5 and I already own a RF 16-35mm f/2,8 and a RF 70-200mm f/2,8 along with the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF 8-15mm f/4 fisheye.

Now I have a question since I own also an EF 24-70mm F/2.8L I USM zoom lens. Is it worth accodording to your opinion to sell/upgrade this current zoom lens and get the either the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM or the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?
I ask because not always newest products are necessary better. Price vs image quality is also an important factor to consider.

What is your opinion in this repect?

Thanks in advance.
I suggest you take a look at the "Optical Limits" tests, they have proven to be quite reliable and objective! They have reviewed all 3 24-70s.
Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: puffo25

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
111
33
55
italy
I suggest you take a look at the "Optical Limits" tests, they have proven to be quite reliable and objective! They have reviewed all 3 24-70s.
Good luck!
Hi, I have checked the Optical Limits site. Thanks. However that site does not provide a side by side comparision. If I look the single test, probably the latest RF is better but cost a lot of money and the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM is probably the best solution overall (comparing the 3 lenses) but it is not stabilized. Anyhow, it is interesting to note that on Optical Limits they are almost preferring the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC. However if you do to the DxOMark lens testing site, Canon emerge as better lens... Mmmm, quite confusing decision here.
 
Last edited:

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,074
1,104
I guess it's simply opticallimits.com (easy to find with Google).
Then, on their website, go to "Canon Full Format", scroll a bit, that's all!
 

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
111
33
55
italy
I guess it's simply opticallimits.com (easy to find with Google).
Then, on their website, go to "Canon FF", scroll a bit, that's all!
Thanks. I have found it and just replied above....
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
839
281
I own both. I think the RF 24-70 is better overall than the EF 24-70 II. Sharper, better AF and more “character” than the EF version. Most noticeable for me is that the RF lens lacks serious weak points at various focal lengths. It is acceptably sharp (but not flawless) across the focal plane at every focal length and aperture. The EF version is mostly good, but has some serious weak points at certain focal length. I have had 5 versions of the EF lens, and all of them suffers to some degree from this issue. If you can afford it, you will be happier with the RF lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puffo25

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,432
303
I never owned the original EF 24-70 f/2.8L. Instead, I opted for a UWA zoom, a telephoto zoom and a 50mm prime. When the EF version II came out, I got the zoom. The II is significantly sharper than the original especially toward the center (you can look at the comparisons at the-digital-picture.com). The RF is similar to the EF II. The RF is slightly better at 70mm, but both lenses are significantly worse performers at that focal length than the EF or RF 70-200 f/2.8. Yes, the RF has IS but it also costs a lot more. If you are price sensitive, I'd suggest getting a used EF II. With the R5 and its IBIS, lens IS is less critical.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,250
409
Hi, I have checked the Optical Limits site. Thanks. However that site does not provide a side by side comparision.
The Digital Picture site has side by side [well, roll over] comparison of test charts photos.
If I look the single test, probably the latest RF is better but cost a lot of money and the EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM is probably the best solution overall (comparing the 3 lenses) but it is not stabilized.
The R5 has IBIS, which AFAIK works with EF lenses. I think that raises the question whether it works well enough for you, or would you pay extra to get optical IS.
Anyhow, it is interesting to note that on Optical Limits they are almost preferring the Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC. However if you do to the DxOMark lens testing site, Canon emerge as better lens... Mmmm, quite confusing decision here.
I would search for any compatibility between the R5 and third Tamron lenses in general, and the AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP in specific. IIRC, there were some reports of issues with 3rd party lenses, though I can't recall if those were with Tamron or other manufacturers.

And, yes, its a hard call.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,074
1,104
What I'm convinced of is: getting the RF can't be wrong int terms of quality and compatibility.
It all comes down, in the end, to the question of whether you want or can afford it.
This, I think, is the only real decision you'll have to take...
 

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
111
33
55
italy
Thanks all for your great support. So in essence I think I will sell my old EF 24-70mm first version and buy either the "upgraded" EF 24-70mm II or, if I find a good deal, the RF 24-70mm.
 

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,048
166
My EF 24-70 f/2.8 mkii became my "walk around" lens on a DSLR without IBIS. I usually did not miss IS and the output was great. Now, adapted to an R5 with IBIS, I think it is even better. To be fair, I am not considering moving from this to the RF version. The finances don't support that move. I would upgrade my EF 100-400 mkii to an RF 100-500 instead
 
  • Like
Reactions: puffo25

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
181
403
While online tests are interesting, the only way to know if any of these lenses will offer better IQ than the lens you have would be to try it out for yourself. If you can rent one, I would recommend that. I have found that if you are not a pixel peeper, there is rarely any noticeable difference between lenses as similar as these. Online test won't tell you. Your actual photos and experience will tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puffo25

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,074
1,104
While online tests are interesting, the only way to know if any of these lenses will offer better IQ than the lens you have would be to try it out for yourself. If you can rent one, I would recommend that. I have found that if you are not a pixel peeper, there is rarely any noticeable difference between lenses as similar as these. Online test won't tell you. Your actual photos and experience will tell you.
I agree!
LensRentals tests are only performed at full aperture, while TDP's sharpness comparisons are hard to evaluate, Opticallimits test one sample etc...
Yet, I found out that I could rely more on Opticallimits than on "competition". They test at various focal settings and apertures.
Example: if you rely on LensRentals, you'll only know that the EF 1,2/85 L is weak fully open, but not that it gets tack sharp at f 5,6. They don't do "special" lenses justice. If LR had tested the Summilux 1,4/75, I wouldn't have bought my favorite lens...
As you wrote, test in real life, and not on flat charts... and not only wide open, unless you shoot mostly portraits!
Nevertheless, if you're focused on mirrorless, the RF could be the choice of reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: puffo25

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,709
4,278
Regarding the EF 24-70 vs the MkII, I tested a couple of MkII's and didn't see the point in upgrading, the differences in IQ were minimal according to my data.

But again, if I was all in on RF there is no way I'd replace an EF 24-70 f2.8 with an EF 24-70 f2.8 MkII. The RF 24-70 is the only upgrade you should be looking at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
111
33
55
italy
If I only had RF cameras I wouldn't dream of buying another EF lens (assuming what I needed was made in RF mount).
Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,709
4,278
Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?
Hi puffo25, I wouldn't give a second thought to image quality or sharpness, both are superb lenses. I would go with the one that suited my style more, and personally for my day to day stuff that would be the 24-70 as I really like the wider than 28mm framing.

However if I could handle the size weight and cost and was going traveling I'd happily take just the 28-70 as I mostly use a 35 f2 when traveling and that one zoom would give me more flexibility.

Though honestly, as I have gotten older I use zoom lenses less and less because my shooting style has changed over time.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
296
226
Hi, btw the RF 24-70mm f/2,8 and the RF 28-70mm f/2,0 which one you would buy in terms of image quality/sharpness and so on?

I had the 28-70 for a short time, and since picked up the 24-70... both are superb lenses.

It pretty much comes down two things...
1. Do you want/need a f2 mid range zoom?
2. Are you willing to lug around a monster lens?

Quality-wise I consider the 28-70 to be the best of the best when it comes to lenses. Right until you have to pick it up and use it.

24-70/2.8 = 1.98lbs, 82mm filter
28-70/2 = 3.15lbs, 95mm filter
70-200/2.8 = 2.64lbs, 77mm filter
100-500 = 3.35lbs, 77mm filter (just for fun to show how heavy the other is)

For me both the 2.8's are a breeze to hold and walkabout for long periods of time. And the funny thing is even though the f2 is only marginally lighter than the 100-500 (and not by much). I would rather hold the 100-500 for long periods of time rather than the 28-70. The 28-70 ended up not fitting my use case (and I really wanted it to).

Arguably, unless you pixel peep both are great, and the 2.8 isn't really settling imo... especially if you have a fast prime to pair with the kit.
 

Soren Hakanlind

Professional photographer
Feb 1, 2020
5
7
Sweden
hakanlind.com
I think it's much more important what's behind the lens. :) If it's a Canon RF, EF, Tamron or Sigma lens doesn't matter so much. They are all good enough. For a professional it's more about building quality and weight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger
<-- start Taboola -->