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.
RF 28-70 F2L vs RF 24-70 F2.8L IS vs EF 24-70 II
- Thread starter neurorx
- Start date
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I have the II-version of EF 24-70 and I'm curious on getting the 28-70. Haven't got my EF/RF adapter yet, it's out of stock everywhere. I've used my 24-70 II approx 10 times, i use the 16-35 99% of the time I need wide.
Perhaps getting 28-70 would change things, don't know. Price isn't an issue, but it would be nice to try out. Unfortunately there's no lens rental service in Sweden (at lest that I know of) so perhaps I'll buy this and try it out and see if I will "fall for it"
Perhaps getting 28-70 would change things, don't know. Price isn't an issue, but it would be nice to try out. Unfortunately there's no lens rental service in Sweden (at lest that I know of) so perhaps I'll buy this and try it out and see if I will "fall for it"
Upvote
0
Using the 28-70 is like carrying another EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS III because their weights are similar. I'm more willing to lug that weight at the telephoto end because the other options have similar weights. I'm less willing to do that for the midrange zoom because there are several options that weigh and cost less. One option would be to bridge the 16-35 and 70-200 with a 50mm prime. Another would be a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom. The 28-70 also uses 95mm filters, so if you're already using 82mm filters for the EF 16-35 and EF 24-70, then they won't work with the RF 28-70.
I think of the 28-70 as a niche lens. It's great for events especially those at night. Balancing the exposure of the background with flash is easier when you cut the ISO in half. It's larger aperture also give a little more subject isolation than a f/2.8 zoom. The RF 24-70 is similar to the EF 24-70 II, except that it has IS and is native to the RF ecosystem and is a better general purpose lens than the RF 28-70.
Upvote
0
I agree. It's really a "want" lens, not a "need" lens. I think I'll stick around with my old 24-70 II
Upvote
0
