Deals on Gear

Stock Notice: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM at Adorama

This site contains affiliate links to products and services. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Adorama finally has stock of the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, which seems like it has been backordered since the day it was announced back in 2018.

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM Key Features

  • Bright, Constant f/2.0 Zoom Lens
  • L-series Lens with High Image Quality
  • Control Ring for Direct Setting Changes
  • 12 pin Communication System
  • Dust- and Water-resistant with Fluorine Coating
  • Air Sphere Coating (ASC) Minimizes Lens Flare and Ghosting
  • Two UD Elements and One Super UD Element
  • Lens Format: Full Frame

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM $3099

[tdp_random_reviews reviewstoshow=”5″]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,532
7,278
What are your thoughts on it though? What percentage of shots are

  1. f/4 or smaller aperture (higher numerically), or at least would have been as good photos if they had been
  2. bigger than f/4 and need to be (either for low noise/fast shutter, or for bokeh)
  3. bigger than f/4 and maybe you went too big? (I had this problem constantly my first ten years of shooting.)

I could easily afford one and usually geek out over speccy lenses, but for me it seems like bokeh's either key for a shot or its not. If it is I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes. If not, f/4 seems to be enough. The extended range of 24-105 trumps 28-70, if I don't need lots of bokeh, but if I do, f/1.2 or f/1.4 trumps f/2.0. Meanwhile the f/2.0 lens is just getting a bit big and heavy, not a major objection but it's not in the 2.0's favor...

Anyway that's how I justify my decision to myself :-D But maybe I should take another look at it?
I’ve had the EF 35/1.4L and 85/1.2L II, and I have the EF 85/1.4L IS. I typically used/use them at f/2 or so at the widest, in part for sufficient DoF (I like both eyes in focus, at least) and in part because there is a definite IQ benefit to stopping them down a bit.

I view my 28-70/2 as a ‘bag of fast primes’. It’s optically excellent right from wide open, which is where I often use it. It is big and heavy, but in a bag it’s less mass than three f/1.x L primes. It’s a comfortable balance on my R3, but it was ungainly on my R.

I do use my RF 24-105/4 more overall, but for portraits or an indoor event I grab the 28-70/2 and RF 70-200/2.8, which make an excellent combo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

mccasi

EOS M50
Oct 24, 2019
49
73
What are your thoughts on it though? What percentage of shots are

  1. f/4 or smaller aperture (higher numerically), or at least would have been as good photos if they had been
  2. bigger than f/4 and need to be (either for low noise/fast shutter, or for bokeh)
  3. bigger than f/4 and maybe you went too big? (I had this problem constantly my first ten years of shooting.)

I could easily afford one and usually geek out over speccy lenses, but for me it seems like bokeh's either key for a shot or its not. If it is I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes. If not, f/4 seems to be enough. The extended range of 24-105 trumps 28-70, if I don't need lots of bokeh, but if I do, f/1.2 or f/1.4 trumps f/2.0. Meanwhile the f/2.0 lens is just getting a bit big and heavy, not a major objection but it's not in the 2.0's favor...

Anyway that's how I justify my decision to myself :-D But maybe I should take another look at it?
I have the 28-70 f2 since 2019 :O. I cannot stand the 24-105 looks on the R5, all the imperfections show. I run around without a camera bag, these days or take the battery grip off and just put it in a peak design 5L. Or I swap the 100-500L in the PD 5L.

I’ve regretted every time that I only has the 24-105L!!! If you want quality wide angle at 28mm it has no distortion you got 28mm which I actually love… 28-50 has no real distortion so it always Stiches so you can basically get I believe 17mm equivalent panorama with a single row or multi row there’s no limit (just get a nodal rail).

If I need a bit more reach, well, it outresolves the 24-105L handily at 105mm… so cropping looks better.

Vs wide primes .. well, I would probably try an 35L prime or a 24L prime for daily shooting, but the 35mm non L has terrible bokeh and is not weather sealed. I’m awaiting reviews of the RF 24 1.8 but it’s not weather sealed and the bokeh looks crap - waiting on Astro performance.

Vs. 50mm L well it’s more versatile and 50mm is almost as heavy. Resolution at 2.8 is the same so no ultimate sharpness advantage. I cannot justify the extra cost of a lens I would use 1/10 as often as the F2.

Vs portrait primes. Well the 85mm L is many peoples livelihood .. and the 28-70 is not the strongest at 70mm close up (you have to stop down to 2.5 if you’re close up otherwise contrast is down). So there you have it, the 85mm has a great case left… but I do love the close portrait look that the 70mm gives you: nice separation and bokeh, analog look, nothing distracting. If you’re further than 2-3m then you can use 70mm F2 and it’s superb.

There are three types of people who trash it are:
- people who cannot afford it and looking for reasons
- people who pick it up once and say … oh that’s heavy… without giving it time to get used to it (and hook on it)
- people who use the 85mm L and maybe the 50mm L lenses for a living

I would say it’s tremendous value for money.. and I’m losing hope that canon will ever do another lens of its type (esp the rumoured 14-21 F2) and there is currently no 24-35m prime that even comes close on F2 zoom performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

CJudge

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 22, 2019
70
92
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
What are your thoughts on it though? What percentage of shots are

  1. f/4 or smaller aperture (higher numerically), or at least would have been as good photos if they had been
  2. bigger than f/4 and need to be (either for low noise/fast shutter, or for bokeh)
  3. bigger than f/4 and maybe you went too big? (I had this problem constantly my first ten years of shooting.)

I could easily afford one and usually geek out over speccy lenses, but for me it seems like bokeh's either key for a shot or its not. If it is I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes. If not, f/4 seems to be enough. The extended range of 24-105 trumps 28-70, if I don't need lots of bokeh, but if I do, f/1.2 or f/1.4 trumps f/2.0. Meanwhile the f/2.0 lens is just getting a bit big and heavy, not a major objection but it's not in the 2.0's favor...

Anyway that's how I justify my decision to myself :-D But maybe I should take another look at it?
When I had the EF 24-70 f/2.8, I would regularly find myself switching back and forth to a prime in that same range, even an f/1.8, because I wanted either the extra light, better separation, or a different "look" (I never really loved the rendering of the f/2.8) for certain shots.

Since I got the RF 28-70 f/2, I don't need to do that. What percentage of shots would I otherwise be taking on those primes? I don't know, maybe 20%? But on a shoot, the lack of interruption is valuable to me. The f/2 takes the promise of zoom lenses: that you don't need to keep switching glass, and actually delivers.

I basically just use the f/2, and the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro for my shoots. And very occasionally an 85mm prime. My other lenses are used mostly for video, where the size and weight of the f/2 can often be a problem.

Having said all that, if you are happy with what you're currently using, then save yourself the cost and don't bother with this lens. Spend the money on other things that you think would have a bigger impact on your shots or your workflow. A computer upgrade, a trip somewhere cool, access to an interesting subject, an assistant...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
262
164
What are your thoughts on it though? What percentage of shots are

  1. f/4 or smaller aperture (higher numerically), or at least would have been as good photos if they had been
  2. bigger than f/4 and need to be (either for low noise/fast shutter, or for bokeh)
  3. bigger than f/4 and maybe you went too big? (I had this problem constantly my first ten years of shooting.)

I could easily afford one and usually geek out over speccy lenses, but for me it seems like bokeh's either key for a shot or its not. If it is I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes. If not, f/4 seems to be enough. The extended range of 24-105 trumps 28-70, if I don't need lots of bokeh, but if I do, f/1.2 or f/1.4 trumps f/2.0. Meanwhile the f/2.0 lens is just getting a bit big and heavy, not a major objection but it's not in the 2.0's favor...

Anyway that's how I justify my decision to myself :-D But maybe I should take another look at it?
It's without question the best lens I've ever owned. Yes it's big, bulky and heavy but optically its stellar and it's fantastic for sports. It's my number one lens for near court basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Fran Decatta

EOS R6
Mar 6, 2019
91
100
What are your thoughts on it though? What percentage of shots are

  1. f/4 or smaller aperture (higher numerically), or at least would have been as good photos if they had been
  2. bigger than f/4 and need to be (either for low noise/fast shutter, or for bokeh)
  3. bigger than f/4 and maybe you went too big? (I had this problem constantly my first ten years of shooting.)

I could easily afford one and usually geek out over speccy lenses, but for me it seems like bokeh's either key for a shot or its not. If it is I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes. If not, f/4 seems to be enough. The extended range of 24-105 trumps 28-70, if I don't need lots of bokeh, but if I do, f/1.2 or f/1.4 trumps f/2.0. Meanwhile the f/2.0 lens is just getting a bit big and heavy, not a major objection but it's not in the 2.0's favor...

Anyway that's how I justify my decision to myself :-D But maybe I should take another look at it?

To me is very simply.

A lens is a tool if you earn money and live being photographer.

This lens fits in your work and style? If you work in wild life photography, of course you wont need it.
If you work in photojournalism and need enough DoF and lack of quality in case of rise your ISO over 12k, May be is not necessary either.
If you work closing the apperture to f4 or even close, may be other lenses do the same job with same IQ and less weight/money.

In my case, I've been working as wedding photographer since 2015 and I've been using the most common known primes and using two bodies at the same time.

This lens was a game changer: the 2.8 don't have enough light and the bokeh is not very notorious. Also, the quality vs prime, is behind of them. But the brutal IQ that this lens delivers, very fast AF, f2 that is enough for me (I was normally working in 1.8-2.2 if 1.4 wasn't needed) and having a zoom with this capabilities... It deserves the weight and price that you pay for it. Look other brands: the only similar lens that you can find is a 24-35 F2.

This made me get better moments with a great look that would be impossible using primes. No need to change parameters between camera bodies, constant light, and faster action, having almost 4 primes in one lens.

But as I said, is just a tool. The perfect tool for my work and style of work.

If I broke tomorrow this lens by accident, probably I would move the entire world just to had another copy even this same week. For the moment, I can't see myself working without it never again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Johnw

EOS R6
Oct 10, 2020
69
47
an indoor event

I don't have this lens anymore but when I did this is when I used it most. An indoor event with low lighting is great for this lens because it's a kind of setting where you might want to use a fast prime but this lens gives you more versatility if you need varying lengths.
 

Skux

EOS 90D
Feb 21, 2020
169
231
I'm lucky to have this lens, it's perfect for indoor theatre photography. I went from the Sigma Art 24-105mm f/4 and with a two-stop advantage I can shoot at the same shutter speed (1/200s) wide open and get shots at 800 ISO which used to be 3200 and it's such a massive difference. The images turn out so clean it's like I shot them during the day.

Yes it's heavy... just get stronger lol. The inconvenience of the additional weight is not nearly as bad as having to switch lenses mid-shoot and risk missing a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user