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

[puffo25]

Hi all, thanks again for your feedback. Since I am already 56 years old and I am a bit overweight and I do like travel phtography, carry a monster/heavy zoom lens like the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 might be a big sacrifice that can affect my passion to take pictures. Maybe, as I like to walk around when I travel, a more compact and less heavier RF 24-70mm f/2,8 might be a better solution also because even if I like sometime to shoot on low light/critical conditions, with the R5 I can still get high ISO without much quality loss. An considering that the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 cost also a bit more, probably the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 might be the better and more natural choice. I think that most of you might agree with me?

 

[Random Orbits]

Hi all, thanks again for your feedback. Since I am already 56 years old and I am a bit overweight and I do like travel phtography, carry a monster/heavy zoom lens like the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 might be a big sacrifice that can affect my passion to take pictures. Maybe, as I like to walk around when I travel, a more compact and less heavier RF 24-70mm f/2,8 might be a better solution also because even if I like sometime to shoot on low light/critical conditions, with the R5 I can still get high ISO without much quality loss. An considering that the RF 28-70mm f/2.0 cost also a bit more, probably the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 might be the better and more natural choice. I think that most of you might agree with me?

The 28-70 is a great event lens... halfway between the f/2.8 zoom and the f/1.4 primes. It gets you closer to the DOF/subject isolation of primes while still giving you the flexibility of halving your ISO when doing indoor shots and/or balanced with flash. If I shot weddings to make a living, the 28-70 would be my most used lens. But it is heavy and takes larger filters. I would not like to hike with the 28-70.

The RF 24-70 matches better with the 15-35. Both use 82mm filters. It's too bad the RF 70-200 stayed with 77mm filters. Another possibility is looking into the RF 24-105. It shares the 77mm filter size with the RF 70-200. If you end up shooting in low light a lot, you'll end up with f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes in addition to the midrange zoom.

 

[YuengLinger]

I think it is all about the ergonomics and the need for lens IS. I use the ef 35mm f/1.4L II on the R6. AF is not only lightning fast, but very accurate. IQ amazing.

I had the 24-70mm 2.8L II and loved it, but when I bought the R, I really wanted the lens IS of the RF. Now that I have the R6, I'm not sure I'd bother. The adapter is no issue whatsoever with the 35mm.

But for somebody who doesn't already own the ef 24-70mm f/2.8L II, I'd say the RF version is an easy choice.

 

[SO8]

I had the Mk1 ef24-70f2.8 and then the Mk2 ef24-70f2.8 …. Followed by the Rf 24-70 f2.8 on my R5. Most recently I have tried an Rf 28-70 f2.

The Mk1 ef 24-70 was softer at f2.8 than the Mk2. Other than wide open it was as sharp as the Mk2. It weighed more and focus was quite a bit closer.

I preferred the Mk2 but disliked the fact I could not get as close as with the Mk1. The Mk2 was a lot nicer to handle and was IMO a much better lens … close focus aside.

The Rf 24-70 f2.8 is better still. It is as sharp as the ef mk2 but focus is close ! It takes it all on a notch from the ef versions and suits the R5 well.

the Rf 28-70 f2 is awesome and IMO subjectively the better for IQ … but I can’t put my finger on it. Others in reviews say the images have more ‘character’ than the Rf 24-70 f2.8 and I tend to agree. I can’t say why but the images seem more ‘live’. Sharpness wise they seem the same at f2 with the other at f2.8. I just prefer the f2 images. Take trouble with the f2 lens is the size and weight versus minimal real gains compared to the 24-70 f2.8 lenses.