RF 24-105L and the RF 50 1.8. Best hiking setup for me. If there was a 20-50mm F2.8, that‘s the only lens I would need. I wish they would make such a lens
back when i had my canon m6 mark II, i came to that same realization you mentioned in the beginning. with 32 megapixels on APS-C, i almost always saw the imperfections of my lenses before i could see the pixels lol, it was oddly eye-opening. the only lenses i had that could resolve it were my 7artisans 25mm 1.8 and the laowa 15mm f/4. and the 7artisans was only that sharp in the center and the laowa had to be stopped down for that kind of sharpness. If I had to live with just two though... maybe my mieke 35mm 1.4 and my 18-55mm lmao. i have an 18-135 too but its so fuzzy its practically useless for quality photography.
How this man has any money left to even afford that lamp as a backlight remains a mystery. Lovely video btw. Very informative, concise, wonderfully made.
@@peterfritzphoto thank you, kindly, for replying. Can I ask your advice? I want to switch from my Nikon D610 to either a SONY or Canon mirrorless. I like the variety the variety of cameras and lenses that SONY has at different price point, however I'm concerned about all of info out there about SONY sensors being dust magnets. Also, I love the files that the Canon cameras produce (via dpreviews sample raw files). Only issue with Canon is that all of the L lenses are über expensive. The new 50 is like 1000 USD more than the EF version, etc. The 24-70, that you showcased looks great. You don't get that super shallow DOF of a prime, but you cover a very useful range, you get IS, superb colors for the price of that 50 1.2. What are your thoughts?
@@Daniel_Ilyich As you’d expect, I can’t offer buying advice with no knowledge of your skill level, usage type, priorities, etc. A good photographer can make brilliant images with a $500 camera. Most people won’t pick the difference in image quality (or bokeh) between an 50 1.2 and 1.8. And if you shoot RAW, you can adjust colours to your heart’s content, so Canon colours don’t really mean much. I reckon decide which camera feels right in your hand (try them), and buy it. Settle on three good lenses, and takes lots of photos. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto I agree. A good craftsmen never blames his tools. At the same time, you do suggest getting good gear. I enjoy shooting portraits and candid moments. I've been shooting on and off for 10 years. I'm not the second coming of Annie Liebowitz or Yousef Karsh, but I have some aesthetic sense. Can I ask what was the primary reason you went with your Canon? And (as you can tell, I'm a bit OCD) would rumors of sensor dust deter you from getting the SONY?
@@Daniel_Ilyich I don’t know about their sensors’ attraction to dust. Is it that the shutter doesn’t close when you shut down the camera? That’s certainly a plus with the R5 and R6 MKII (my two bodies). I shot Nikon for years. I only stumbled onto the Canons because I bought an M3 for my wife. I liked it so much, I bought an M6 for myself. I started shooting birds in our back yard with it. A mate who shoots birds and planes then suggested I buy an EF100-400 for it. I loved that so much, I started learning more about the Canon range of cameras. And then they announced the R5. By then, I was hooked on their amazing AF and UX.
I thought we were in for a rather cheeky video at first, Peter! :) Sounds like you sold your RF 24-105mm f/4L for the 24-70mm f/2.8L? Funny enough, I almost went the other direction. Two of the first lenses I got when I went mirrorless were the 24-70mm and 15-35mm L lenses. Both are fantastic, but last year I also picked up the 24-105mm L, which I love for the extra reach, and the smaller size and weight--it's an outstanding walkaround and vacation lens. I thought I might sell the 24-70mm, but I just haven't been able to part with it, because it IS so wonderfully sharp, and sometimes I want that extra bit of image quality, and/or the faster aperture for indoor shooting. That said, I find I don't use the 15-35mm as much as I thought I would, so now I'm considering selling it and getting the 14-35mm L instead. I think I'd prefer its size and weight, and for me the extra 1mm on the wide end would make up for the slower aperture. All that said, the RF 100-500mm L has become my absolute all-time favorite lens. It's bulky and f/7.1 isn't great, but damn is that thing SHARP, and the AF is snappy too. That one I won't be parting with anytime soon!
Yeah, the first RF lens I bought was the 24-105L, but I already had the EF100-400 at that stage, and it just dominated. I found myself leaving the big lens on the camera all the time, so I ditched the 24-105 and bought the EF16-35 and RF50 1.8. But again, I hardly shot the 16-35 at the widest end, and on and on it went. I think I've finally hit the sweet spot for me - the 24-70, the 50 1.8, and the RF 100-500. For now... :-)
If you have R series I’d recommend the RF28-70 f2. I sold my 24-70 after getting this lens. It renders like a prime. The quality is hard to describe. Having the faster f2 gives you more versatility. If you shoot a lot of events it is the Gold Standard zoom for Canon RF cameras.
I have the RF 24-70mm and the RF24-105mm lens. The 24-105 is a very good lens, but to my eyes the 24-70 is another level. The combination of contrast and sharpness is special.
I think this is spot on. This is by far my most used lens. And I couple it with the 100-500 and the RF 50/1.2. That gets fairly light use because the zoom is already pretty fast at 2.8 and has shallow enough depth of field if you get in close to your subject. The 50 does have that extra smidgen of sharpness and color depth and detail that makes it so satisfying to use, but the 24-70 never leaves me feeling like something is missing.
What do you mean "the zoom is already pretty fast at 2.8?" Are you referring to the speed of the focusing motors on the RF 50/1.2 lens? I believe the 24-70/2.8 zoom is technically a faster zooming lens. Or are you referring to the larger aperture? It's extremely confusing when some refers to the sizing (larger/smaller) of the aperture as the "speed" of the camera, when there is an actual difference in speed, and SIZE of aperture.
@@garrettstevensen2467 Fast as in large aperture. I agree this can be confusing. And the term “depth of field” is also confusing, don’t you think? I read “deep” depth of field to mean small aperture, but some people say that a fast lens gives you “lots” of depth of field. You have to read between the lines.
I’ve owned multiple 24-70 f/2.8 lenses over the years and it’s, by far, my least favorite pro-level lens. It’s a utilitarian workhorse, but makes the most bland, uninteresting images. I have the 28-70 f/2 and it’s incredible. I doubt I’ll ever buy the RF 24-70 f/2.8.
I used this lens for both photo and video purposes, and to be honest, I ended up returning it to the store. For photography, prime lenses are still way better. For videography, the movable part just hit my matte box filter, making it impossible to use it for different focal lengths, which rendered this lens useless to me. I deeply believe Canon made a mistake by making a movable part that protrudes from the body. So, as a photography and videography business owner, I have come to a conclusion: it’s useless stuff, and I’m waiting for the second RF generation.
Two outcomes of this video for me: 1. Your bank account must be infinite 2. Almost every lens is a 9 or 10 for you. That's a bit strange to me and gives me no value as a viewer. However its still an interesting video. I don't do landscapes but I like that you to tele shots in landscapes.
1. I only own 3-4 lenses at one time. Right now, I have 4. 2. I did say it was an unscientific review. They’re also just my opinions based on my usage and my experience. They all happen to be very good lenses - in my opinion.
Useless video. I thought he going to share his experience worth of using 10 best lenses. But upon watching the video. He was just fighting his point for that particular lens and using telephoto lens for landscape photography. I believe Lens is one of the important aspect of photography but there is more to it. He doesn't go to woods so he uses telephoto that's the only point what i got from this video. And I don't find that reasoning well engineered and beautifully finished, almost all lens are well engineered and beautifully finished. I don't find any laziness to manufacture those lenses.
Interesting video Peter. I cured my GAS by selling the dozen cameras and god knows how many lenses I had. I discovered minimalism and now have 2 cameras. For the most part I shoot micro four thirds and use just the Lumix GX85 and an Olympus 14-150mm lens (FF 28-300mm). Quite often this is all I take on many hikes and walks. I also have an Olympus 75-300mm lens (FF 150-600 mm) that I mainly use for shooting nature and wildlife/birds. I also have some prime lenses that I use periodically. My other camera is a Canon m200. The lens that is on the camera 80% of the time is the 22mm f2.0 prime lens. Beautiful setup and fits in my pocket. Occasionally I drop the 15-45mm kit lens in the bag, just in case. This setup I use for landscapes, street, and travel. I have come to love the idea of just having one camera and one lens when I go out. It can be challenging but also very liberating. Thanks for sharing Peter.
Sounds glorious, John. I’ve been through waves of minimalism - at least with respect to the stuff I own. Nowadays, I have just one stills camera, one video camera, and five lenses between them. The M200 is gorgeous. I still have a little M3, but it’s really my son’s camera. Single lens wanderings are utterly delightful. I really must do more of it. Thanks for chiming in, John. I always appreciate your insights.
Im on the same strategy, lenses are good but managing many of them pushes you out of the real thing. I’m carrying 35mm and thats it. I learned that there will be missed opportunities, but I can enjoy life more.
The Sigma 24-70 Art is a cracking lens, but is a significant lump of glass - so much so that when fitted to the small and light fpL it actually became an issue. As a result I've gone back to the Contemporary 28-70 f/2.8 which is a cracking lens, but not weather sealed. I've invested in one of those cheap rain covers for those 2 or 3 times a year when I'm out in wet weather. I also use the Canon EF 16-35 through an EF-to-L-mount adapter, and have an f/4 EF 70-200 - both of which work just fine as options and are as "cheap as chips" here in the UK. I'd love to get the new Sigma 16-28mm Contemporary, but the EF 16-35 does such a good job that I don't see the need to make myself £700 lighter! The one lens I would go and buy is the a 70-200 f/2.8 Contemporary - but at the moment it is not available and I'm not even aware that Sigma plan to bring it out. Hope so! Hope you are keeping well sir
I loved my Sigma lenses when I was shooting the Canon M6 MKII. They’re so beautifully made. Weather sealing - for 95% of us - is unnecessary. I think I’ve only shot in the rain once in the last three years. The old EF lenses are stellar. I wish I could justify keeping my 16-35 and 100-400, but I sold them to help pay for my current kit. Ah… GAS.
Canon R5 with RF 24- 70 f2.8 and RF 70- 200 f4, two piece kit for a month in Sicily and Italy 2022. Shot most with the 24- 70, but did appreciate the lightweight reach when needed. For me, no need for anything more!
profile in LR improves looks, not the image itself. Data is data, you can't fix vignette (physics) with a move of a slider (making this part brighter). That's my 3 cents regarding vignetting
The 24-70 has a few issues I've seen on RU-vid... A "L" series lens at $2k plus dollars with issues just goes to prove that Canon's brand of professional grade lenses isn't any better than a Tamron or Sigma. Don't shoot the messenger here (me!) about this sour note... I'm just making a simple statement.
No worries, Will - and thanks for the insight. I’ve owned a few Sigma lenses, and they’ve all been stellar. Would you happen to know what issues were reported on the 24-70?
Hi Peter, very interesting summary. I must admit to sitting on the fence over this lens for a while now , not least because of its price here in NZ $4200. I have the RF 16, 24 and 50 small primes all of which I’m very happy with for their small size and my often use case (indoors) . I also have the 85 which I’m pretty ambivalent about because of its slow focusing and tendency to hunt. I have the 14-35 4L, which I really like and use a lot , the 4L 24-105 (my take one lens travelling choice) and the 4L 70-200 . I still have my old EF 100 macro. All on the R5. You’ve put the 24-70 back on my agenda. In terms of sharpness how do you rate it against the 24-105 and the difference one extra stop makes ? Cheers Chris.
That’s a very nice collection, Chris. The 24-105L is really good, but the 24-70 just feels like another level of special. I don’t do technical comparisons, so I can’t quantify the difference in sharpness, contrast or colour, but the extra stop is nice when hand-holding, or for maximum bokeh. I’m sure Christopher Frost, Jared Polin and Dustin Abbott have articulated this far better than I can.
@@Chris-NZ Except for today, the recent weather has been textbook autumn. The light, the foliage, the temperature, the fog. All magnificent. And I’ve failed to shoot any of it. Ugh…
The RF100-400mm and my RF 85 F2...If I had too chose 2. But using a Sigma 150-600 + 1.4tc for wildlife lately, tripod is recommended tho compared to the very light RF100-400, and a wider angle lense could be useful for astronomy etc.
@@NoDoSwLa I tried the Milky Way a few weeks back with my 14-35 - on both the R5 and R6 MKII, and the R6 did a much better job of it, thanks to those big fat pixels!
@@peterfritzphoto oh that's interesting. Two fantastic cameras for sure. I'm using a R8. My first "real" camera and having a blast so far. Try to get my hands on a R5 in the future too for landscape and croppinf capabilities. Do you have an instagram?
The RF100-400 is one of the most surprising lenses I've ever used - it's way better than it's price would suggest. But yeah, the 100-500 feels a little more special, for sure. But it's bloody heavy too, so swings and roundabouts...
Okay Okay I admit it, I still laugh at fart jokes. Two favourite lenses is a difficult choice but for landscapes it would have to be my Canon EF 16-35mm F4L and my Sigma 70-200 F2.8. I don't think I can live with just two though because I also love wildlife photography for which I have the RF100-500. I haven't tried the 100-500 for landscapes but I might just give it a crack one of these days. Anyway Peter, another great video. Keep up the good work. All the best. Oh by the way, charcoal tablets will help with gas.
LOL. Fart jokes never get old. You must try the 100-500 on landscapes. It’s sooo good, and you’ll find amazing subjects and compositions you’d never otherwise have considered.
If you were a teacher im assuming all students would receive As only… tbh to call the canon rf 24-105 so good (when its bokeh is so bad) is a massive overestimation…but i guess this is just my opinion and i can respect yours!
Great video! It sounds like you went on the same journey I did! My 10/10 lenses: 24-105 f4 70-200 f4 (+ 1.4 converter) 50 f1.8 135 f2 (+ 1.4 converter on crop sensor = 302mm f2.8!) I use full frame and crop sensor, so I essentially have a range of 24mm - 458mm (200mm + 1.4 converter). I rarely need to shoot wider than f4, and my shutter speeds are routinely above 1/500, so this is the perfect set up for what I do. You are right, the 50mm 1.8 is an amazing lens, and it takes care of the occasional low light situations. If I had to get rid of everything and could only keep one lens, it would most likely be the 50mm. I once did and entire vacation using ONLY the 50mm.....life is far simpler with just one focal length. A close second would be the 24-105 for it's versatility and sharpness. Thanks for posting!
Had this lens and the 15-35 2.8, let friend go to fuji with them and they didn't survive ugh, he got his taxes and got me the 15-35 2.8 first because I got to a lot of museums and 24 won't cut it, still waiting on the 24-70 :(. And yes I have the 100-500 which is great for wildlife and landscapes which ppl think is weird but it is great for isolating landscapes.
For me its the sigma 28-70 is the most used because its small enough that I do carry it. The most beautiful for me its the sigma 85mm 1.4. Its small and looks amazing
I ' am using the new Canon EOS R5 Mark II with my EF 70 - 200 2,8 III USM with the EF - R adapter for photos and videos but I ordered the RF 24 - 70 2,8 a few days ago. I hope the quality will be great.
Great review and love your photo samples. You just gained a new subscriber. I have RF16, RF35, RF50 and RF 70-200. Thinking of getting this and wondering whether to trade in my 35 and 50 if I get it or just hold on to them? Still waiting to see if Canon brings out that RF35 1.2 that's been rumoured for years.
Thank you, Jonathan. I like to keep one ‘natural perspective’ fast prime lens, and for me, that’s the 50. But the 35 is just as good, and probably more versatile. So the 24-70 could definitely replace one of those two - or both. Mind you, the 35 is also a semi-macro, so if you shoot close up, you might want to keep that. I can’t really speak to the 16. I had one, sold it, then bought one again (for in-car video only). I don’t use it for stills, since I also have the 14-35.
24-70mm F2.8 lenses are overrated and overprised, F2.8 is not that great. Ofcourse its more light transmitting than F4 but it is nothing compared to a nice dedicated portaitlens like a 50mm or 85mm F1.4 or F1.2 or even F0.95 And for landscape or street photography a smaller aperture is almost always needed. Therefore the 24-105mm F4 is more functional and way more affordable, especially now with highly capable censors with High ISO / Low Noise.
@@peterfritzphoto No I don't agree with your review because your entire video dous not make sense, you rate the RF 24-105 F7.1 and the 24-105 F4 both with a 10 and state that they are both as good. 😳 Wel that's eather a lie or you didn't really test it, because the F7.1 version gets so much correction at the 24mil end that it blurs the corners and objects are really stretched, things that the F4 version dous not suffer from. And you give the maximum score toe the 50mil F1.8?😳 How and why? The how I really don't understand, it's quite a soft lens with low contrast. What score are you going to give to the 50mil F1.2? 10/10 with Diamonds? 🤔 The why is probably because you get heavily sponsord by Canon. It just dous not make sense. Yes the 24-70 lens is a great lens but it is overrated and overprised, and that opinion you didn't like.
@@theaudiofool5475 Haha! Sponsored by Canon! That’s funny. I buy all my gear. My opinions are my own. The review was unscientific (pretty sure I said that).
Hi Peter - I enjoyed your video. I was curious - it doesn’t look like you’ve shot with a lot of fast lenses. F.28 or better. Is it because you primarily do landscape? The Canon 24-70 f2.8 it’s probably my most often used lens. But after experiencing F2.8 I could never go back to f4 lenses. Do try the 15-35 f2.8. I absolutely love that one when I do landscape.
Hey John. Yes, you’re right - because I shoot mainly landscapes (and now, cars), I usually shoot at f8 to f16 - or I’ll focus-stack. That said, I love a fast lens (as evidenced by my lust for the RF50 1.2)! Thanks for dropping by.
@@peterfritzphoto - the majority of my car photography is done with 24-70 f2.8. I also use an adapted Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 because it’s taking Cannon so darn long to come out with their 35 mm prime. If you like 50mm, check out the TTArtisan 50mm f.95. I recently did a review on my channel. I use it on the R5. Super fun lens to use.
@@ThruMyLens100 I used to shoot for car magazines in the 80s and 90s (check my 911 and latest Boxster videos), so I’m only just getting back into it now. I plan to use the 24-70 and 50 1.8 for just about all of it. I looked at that 0.95 lens just a few days ago. Gonna check out you review now. 👍
LOL - probably. But I remember shooting Ektachrome and Velvia on mechanical cameras with slow, manual-focus lenses that were soft everywhere - especially in the corners. We are spoiled for functionality, quality and price these days. So much so that some photographers now add diffusion filters and soften their images in post. It's very hard to buy a sh*t lens these days.
I wanted to love the RF 24-70, but didn’t like the longitudinal chromatic aberrations at 70mm/MFD. I ended up with the 15-35mm, 24-105L and a few others.
@@SeguraCine I haven’t used the R8, but I do own the R6 MKII, which has the same sensor. It’ll be brilliant. It’s a great lens, and I’m sure you’ll love the results it delivers. 👍
Mr Peter what a presentation ! Wow wow wow , i really liked your style of presentation. Fantastic I wish to give you millions of likes. Yes sir you are right 24-70 one lense is enough for most of the work especially as a hobbyist. All your clicks ate super awesome. Thank you !
I just got the 24-70mm and used it at a football game last night. I am so glad to have a wider lens in my bag now. It is a very nice lens. Also, I LOVE my little nifty fifty! I saw yours and now I have to get me that hood you have for it! Thanks for this video.
I'd hate to think how many photos my EF 24-70 F2.8 USM II has taken. Now in front of my R6. Travel, people, walk around. Maybe not sports - the RF100-400 5.6-8 does that now for me as it is light and sharp.
Great video! I didn't see you mention the RF 85mm 1.2 in your long list and its probably for the best if you haven't had a chance to use it because the sharpness and resolving power is unrivalled and has genuinely ruined my outlook on the rest of my RF collection. It's just on a totally different level imo
The 85 1.2 is a very special lens. Love it. The 50 1.2 is essentially the same. Hard to beat those lenses. I sold my 24-70 in favor of the 24-105 f4 which I prefer in part because I am lucky to have the 15-35 f2.8 as well which covers the wide/medium stuff very well and it is small and light, a great knock about lens.
@@robgerety The 24-105 L is the first RF lens I bought for the R5. I probably should have just kept it, but there’s something extra special about the 24-70. I would LOVE to have the 50 1.2, but I still can’t convince myself to spend the 3.8k AUD.
I just bought it and I agree, This lens does it all! Some would say canon Rf 28-70 is better just because of f2.0 but f2.8 it's not a big difference. This is why this lens is better than Rf 28-70. This is 24 mm instead of 28mm = Wider Weights 1.98 Lb instead of 3.15 Lb = no pain in your neck iI's smaller = take it anywhere Has a stabilizer = no shaky photos & videos No breathing & vignetting Costs about $1000 less Filters cost $400 less who Would you give up all these amazing qualities just for 1 F stop lower?
I use 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 35mm F1.4. I also have a 70-300mm but would like a longer lens. If I could only have one lens it would be the 24-70mm. There's a reason why it was invented.
@PETERFRITZPHOTO I am transitioning from EF to RF lens for my R5. The 28-70 f2 is my first RF lens, and my second is the RF 16mm f1.8, replacing my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 and my Tamron 15-30mm f2.8. The 28-70mm is quite heavy!
@@PaulDharmaratne I just bought the RF 16 2.8 for video, but realised I don’t like the lack of IS (I need all I can get for in-car video). I have an RF 14-35, so I’ll stick with that. Yes, the 28-70 looks huge.
Im in the process of changing from my 5Dmk4 and a whole ranger of EF lenses most of the L series and changed to an R8 particularly for the weight. EG the 5Dmk4 with the L100-400 mk 2 is twice asheavy as me new R8 with the R 100-400. Now the L series 100-400 was my favourite lens (with a mk 3 1.4 extender) and i was worrried about the aperture range on the new RF 100-400 but so far im delighted (im 76 now, so the weight is important) the L 24/105 F4 was my other go to lens . having both the :L series 70/200 the f4 and f2.8 i ised the F4 more because again it is half the weight of the 2.8, and very hard to tell the difference in pic quality. Now its nice to have those 2.8 versions of the lenses but Ive had in the past and the f4 versions and frankly im not willing to pay generally twice the price. The times ive needed that istop advantage i can count on 1 hand, With better tolerances exposure wise just bumping up the ISO 1 stop does the job. I now have a range of vintage primes a canon 20mm f2.8 , pentax 50 mm f1.4 , Helios 58mm f2 (2 versions) Helios 135 f2.8, and a Pentax f3.5 135mm and ive been trying to buy (for the right price a Nikkor 180mm f2.8 which I used to own decades ago and loved it. Going against the downsizing or weight a Canon F4 300mm, just bought today, but the f2.8 is just too expensive. Almost bought a Pentax Takumar 300 f4 , was a good price but nowhere near as sharp as the canon. So chosing just 2 is difficult The new R F 24 /70 f2.8 and the RF 100 /400 f2-8 would be my choice of just 2 . But the old L series with an adapter is what I had and now sold.
Peter you make that lens sing. Fabulous images. I am prone to suffering from GAS (both varieties) but my wallet is a great andidote for one affliction. I have the R6 with lenses from 14 mm to 400mm covered in various teles and primes, mostly EF. Have you used the EF 24-70 2.8 which I have, and if so how much of a difference in quality etc is it from the RF?
LOL. Like you, I suffer both, too. Actually, I wouldn't characterize the bodily version as 'suffering'. I come from a long line of farting Fritzes who think they're hilarious (my kids included). My dad is 85, and we both still piss ourselves when we let one rip. But... onto your question! No, I haven't used the EF version, I'm afraid. But it seems that so far, all the RF versions of EF lenses seem to be a step up in image quality. The only EF lenses I've owned and used in anger are the 16-35 f4, 100 macro, and 100-400 II. Thanks for dropping in, Bill. :-)
I totally agree with you Peter. When i upgraded from the R6 to the R5 last fall, I bought it in a kit with the RF 24-70 after a lot of hesitation. It is pretty much a perfect lens but I've always had ambigous feelings about the 24-70 or 16-55 APSC, or 12-40 m4/3, it's just too obvious, too mainstream, too logical hence, too boring, although I'm finally content with this lens, I guess I'm growing up after all. If I had to only choose 2, it would be the 24-70 and the 100-500. I can live without the 14-35 although it is absolutely brillinant as a travel lens in large cities. Both the 14-35 and 24-70 has incredible minimum focusing distance which I love to exploit.
You nailed exactly how I feel, Magnus. The 24-70 and 100-500 are my two stills lenses (with the occasional use of the 50), and the 14-35 sits on my R6 for video. I guess I’m growing up, too!
14-35 and 16-35 - is that 2mm difference that big of a deal? Im new and see a lot of overlap on these lenses and not sure if what the significant differences would be, especially when in comes to price.
I'm new to photography but so far I ahve gotten the 50mm 1.8 which I agree with everything you said about yours. I then got the rf 70-200 f4 which again, like you said.. awesome lens. A few weeks ago I got the rf 28-70 f2 and holy smokes that thing is a heavy girthy boy! But i love just holding it and appreciating the engineering and precision that went into it. It makes my 70-200 feel like a feather lol.
Bob Holmes won travel photographer of the year three times. The only person to accomplish that feat. He used a 24-70 lens for the lions share of his work.
I bought an R5 a few months ago at an excellent price from Canon. While researching lenses Peter's video convinced me that this 24-70 was the way to go. It is the perfect lens for what I like to shoot.
For landscapes I have 3 lenses. The 28mm F1.4 Sigma Art series lens, the 40mm F1.4 Sigma Arts series lens and the 135mm F2.0 Zeiss Apo lens. They are all magnificent lenses.
The EF 24-70L is s great lens too and is the one I use the most. One lens i think you would like is the EF 180 f3.5L Macro lens. It really shows the difference between zoom and prime lens. Good telephoto too.
24-70, its alright for photos on an RX100... I prefer the 24-105 OSS 4.0, Viltrox 13mm, 10-20-pz - that's it' Why are you even using Canon? Their RF lens selection is terrible, no bright wide lenses, a lot of stuff you'd have to use a clunky adapter. And Canon's lens road map is even worse... The zombie apocalypse will be in full swing before Canon gets some more lenses out.
I ended up going with the 24-105 F4L myself. I got a pristine used copy for $300, can you blame me? I also love the IS, which would have made the 24-70 a for sure winner if it had it.
The 24-105L is a brilliant lens, and $300 is CHEAP. But just to clarify, the 24-70 does have IS. You might be thinking of the 28-70 f2, which doesn’t. Have fun with your new lens! 👍
I am hoping canon will bring out a RF 24 to 70 f4 L IS no doubt half the weight /price but with all the quality and its been some time since the EF version was released
If (nearly) every lens you show is a 10/10, you've already told me that you don't have a critical eye for evaluating gear. The nifty-fifty 1.8 is a good lens, especially for the price, but no way is it a 10/10. More like 7.5/10 at best.
For landscape and architecture, I opted for a 5Ds R used, plus the 16-35 f4 EF, plus the 24-70 f2.8 EF II, plus the 90 TS-E and 24mm TS-E II - that combination still outresolves almost anything else available outside of medium format - at a fraction of the price. Heavy? Yes. But proven. And easy to work with. And there is no replacement for the TS-E lenses, only Canon offers something like this at that quality level. Maybe I will get the 100-400mm EF II when a good deal pops up - I don't need it often, the 90mm TS-E is all the reach I need. For primes, I got the EF 40mm pancake, the EF 35mm f2 USM IS and the EF 50mm f1.2 (which I might sell, not a fan). 4:31 Interesting that you're considering the 100-400mm EF a sharp lens for high resolution camera bodies - Canon did not include the original 100-400mm Mark I in their official list of recommended lenses for the 50MP 5Ds and 5Ds R, only the Mark II made that list. Is the Mark II the lens you're using?
The 5Ds R is a beast of a camera. I seriously considered one a couple of years ago, but sold a kidney for the R5 instead. Yes, it’s the MKII EF 100-400 I owned. I replaced it with the RF100-500.
Yeah, it turns out this video was ALL about my G.A.S.! These two lenses, plus a good prime (35 or 50), is perfect for me - and I suspect many other photographers. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto no you're actually helping many people realise they don't need more than 2 lenses. I've even started using my phone for ultra wide shots that don't need much depth of field but mine is a hobby. Great video helped me narrow some things down
@@lammysdv Thank you, Lammy! I must admit, I’ve been using my iPhone 14 Pro quite a bit, lately, too. The dynamic range is extraordinary - especially when shot in RAW. 👍
Nice content, thx for sharing. Everyone's mileage varies, I never needed a 24-70. I started with the EF 4/17-40 and EF 4/70-200, added the 2.8/40mm (8/10) pancake and later a 1.8/85mm (5/10). I swapped the 17-40 (7/10) with a 4/16-35. Later I added a 3.5/24mm T/S (10/10) and a Tokina 150-600mm (9/10).
It is like a cycle. I started with purposely avoiding 24-70 bought lenses wider and longer, leaving the mid range out. I got inconvenience. I got annoyed. I tried to use 24-70. I used 24-70 more and more. It became a default choice. I felt bored with 24-70 because the fov lacked impact and eye catching. Then I abandoned 24-70. I used only primes for a long time. Then I convinced myself all lenses have their places. Now I am about to reenter the dilemma in RF mount. Shall I buy RF24-70? I guess the answer depends on where I am at emotionally in the circle.
I feel your conundrum, Frank. As you saw, it took me ten lenses to realise that this focal range is - for me, at least - perfect for everything below 100mm. And this RF version is incredible.
@@peterfritzphoto just watched two of your other videos, one is to buy the good gear and get the best out of it, the other being the life goal simplification. Great content. Respect
How about the 28-70 f2? I know is a heavy lens, but the shallow depth of field and character of that lens is amazing. Not to mention the sharpness. I usually use the 28-70 in combination with a 70-200mm f 2.8, a sigma 40mm art and an 85mm 1.2 for portraits.
That sounds like a dream set of lenses. I love the look of the 28-70 and the 85 (and of course, the 50 1.2), but for my shooting needs (mostly landscapes and now, some cars), they're all a bit hard to justify. And of course, they're very heavy. I think my bag already weighs almost as much as my 12-year-old son...
I bought r6 mark ii with rf 24-70 2.8 and the combo is brilliant. Feels like several 1.8 prime lenses, so if I will add some primes I will use something like 1.4 or 1.2. But currently trying to buy my first tele lens. Can’t decide yet, thinking between EF 70-200 2.8 ii (rented several times before, EF 70-300 L (no experience) and RF 70-200 f4 (no experience). Love the 2.8 IQ, doubting that RF f4 could give the same, especially talking about object separation. Thanks for the video!
@@lsagidullin I have the R6 MKII, also. Love it. The RF 70-200 f/4 is brilliant. Watch my video on this lens - there’s plenty of subject separation available. 👍
I own a Canon EF 24-70 F2.8 USM II, and it is an absolute work horse. It's super sharp and the focal range it handles just about every situation from weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc. I'm saving up for the RF 24-70 F2.0 which will likely replace my 50mm and 35mm primes.
@@peterfritzphoto I agree, it's really heavy. My first time using it at an event, after 5 hours, my arm was sore. Not immediately after the event but a few hours later when I was at home watching a movie. I'm used to it now. A side benefit is video is so stabilized because of the weight. When you have a light lens, the camera shake is noticeable even with image stabilization. But this lens doesn't have it and the video is still smooth. It's also my travel lens. I leave all my primes at home and take just the 28-70 and my 24 prime to save space, weight, and room in my carry-on. And to avoid airport security headaches. One guy made me take out my lenses once and my 85 1.2 rolled! Never again after that. My 85 1.2 is my pride and joy. When I'm local to my area, I still use primes when possible. But when I know I have no time to change lenses or am traveling, I go with the versatile and still beautiful 28-70 f2.
I'm still a bigger guy. So I bring too much anyways, lol. I currently sling around a RF 24-105L and a Sigma 150-600 adapted for my R6. For some really unique shots, I also often bring my EF 135 f/2. Of course, for astro, I use my RF 15-35 f/2.8. If I'm on a trip, I pack a lot. If it's a quick excursion, I pare down. If the R5 successor comes out eventually, I may jump to that or get an R5 for less. Just for the cropping ability. But I love these R bodies...
I’m waiting for the next R5, too. Not that I need it (few of us do). But if it had 100MP, that might be fun. Do you still have that beastly Cadillac featured on your channel? It sounds amazing.
For me that range of 24-70 is where I normally shoot most of my images. It's a balance though with such a lens of having the convenience of not having to move to and from a subject which happens with a fixed in that range - but also missing the ability to shoot at an f1.4 or 1.8 for more pronounced foreground/background blur, also handheld lower light.
I've cycled through the majority of RF lenses. My current personal RF lens ranking: - RF 35mm f/1.8 = 8/10 (very sharp past 2.8) - RF 50mm f/1.8 = 7/10 (great cheap lens, again, super sharp past 2.8) - RF 16mm f/2.8 = 7/10 (love this lens for landscape shots and fun to walk around with). - RF 50mm f/1.2 L = 10/10 (Insanely beautiful shots) - RF 85mm f/1.2 L = 10/10 (My favorite lens ever) - RF 24-105 f/4 L = 8/10 (very good lens but f/4 in lowlight isn't a good time, even on an R6) - RF 24-70 f/2.8 L = 10/10 (I sold all of my lenses when I bought this one, it's that good) - RF 70-200 f/2.8 L = 10/10 (battles the RF 85 1.2 L as one of my favorite lenses of all time) - RF 70-200 f/4 L = 9/10 (almost perfect but I feel the IQ is slightly lower than the 2.8 somehow) -RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 = 6/10 (very cool lens for the price but just too dark for my desired style of shooting (sunset/natural light) -RF 24-105 (kit) = 6/10 (I might have liked it more if I never shot with the L zoom's, good for what it is).
Wow, that’s quite the list. I’d love to try the 1.2 lenses someday. They look amazing. I’m also tempted to re-purchase the 70-200 f4. I miss Little Stumpy.
I totally concur with you Peter. 24-70mm - first lens put into my bag, every time (almost). Overseas travel I take the 24-105mm f4 for flexibility and weight.
Very interesting video. The 24-105F4 stays on my EOSR and EF100-400 II on my R7 for almost all my photography. However, I have had some focussing issues with the latter. I have just got the RF100-400 and agree with you. I am surprised how well the IQ compares with the EF100-400 and is so much lighter. Definitely agree re with a supplemental third lens like the 16 F2.8 or 35 F1.8 because they are light so easy to carry and handy when the speed/FOV/shallow DOF are required. I often will shoot a hand held panorama with the 24-105 with great success. From my limited experience of the non-L RF primes, they are very good indeed as long as they are looked after carefully.
