RF 28-70 F2L vs RF 24-70 F2.8L IS vs EF 24-70 II

neurorx

EOS 90D
May 12, 2015
114
59
Hello I currently own the EF 24-70 II. For you that own the new RF zooms, are they worth the upgrade for IQ quality and focus speed? I shoot a variety of settings, but this would be sport sidelines (cheerleaders or bands or players BB or Football) or event (concert) or work occasional outdoor senior work (as a prime alternative). I alternate my 70-200mm IS F2.8L II with an 85mm IS 1.4L as needed for the situations.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
348
292
I've already made the decision that I'm upgrading to the 28-70 F/2 the second I get my R5. I primarily shoot night time breaking news for a newspaper and I can't think of a single bigger improvement to that work than adding a whole stop of light. I've had the 35mm f/1.4 for over a year and I always end up using the 24-70 instead because of the need for the versatility of a zoom. The 28-70 solves that problem while still letting me cut my ISO from 6400 down to 3200. During the daytime outdoors I may end up still using the EF 24-70 to save some weight and keep 24-28mm, though.

Everything I've heard suggests the 28-70 is the highest quality standard zoom Canon's made and definitely lives up to the task on autofocus.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,384
260
The IQ is more similar than different. According to TDP, the RF version is slightly sharper in the corners wide open over the entire focal length range, but I haven't noticed much of a difference in practice. When using it at f/2.8, I'm not too concerned about corner performance. Stopped down, the differences go away. I will note that the RF is slightly better than the EF resolution-wise over more of the frame than at other focal lengths (you can see it at TDP) and that is my experience as well. When using EF, I preferred the 70-200 at 70 to the 24-70 at 70mm. With RF, I don't have much of a preference as to which lens to use at 70mm.

In practice, the real advantages of the RF version is that it has IS and doesn't require an adapter. For your use cases, IS isn't a critical feature. I would say that the R is more of a limiting factor for focus tracking/frame rate more than the ability of the RF/EF lenses to perform. So is the RF worth the difference in price? If you have other holes in your lens lineup, I'd suggest filling those first. If you're happy with your lineup and want to switch to the RF, then go for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neurorx

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,019
650
EF 24-70 II vs RF 28-70 practical examples

I can confirm the 28-70 being very consistent with focusing.
 

Viggo

EOS R5
Dec 13, 2010
4,546
1,234
I needed a standard zoom for this summer at least and I went through all the options, and decided on a used, mint, EF mk2 version. Considering the RF new is three times the price it wouldn’t be worth it to me. I have an R5 in the future, so if I decided to keep the EF lens it would also have IS.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
Dec 20, 2012
2,931
1,212
Southeastern USA
How much is IS worth to you? One other advantage Rf has on the R: faster burst performance. I haven't heard if R5 will even things up with adapted lenses, though I think it will be pretty fast regardless.