If you were wondering why you got so many thumbs down, like 20% of the votes… It’s not because of your content. It’s because of your lack of conclusion. When somebody does a comparison with a lot of details and specs but then the reviewer noncommittal he basically just says “I’ll leave it up to you guys!” It kind of makes me think well thanks but I could’ve done that before I came here to watch the review... my objective was to get someone’s opinion on which was better. Not trying to be a jerk. If somebody takes the time to leave you a review with a thumbs down I thought you deserve to know why, because as a content producer I would probably want to know what I could do better. I wish you all the best and thank you for taking the time to construct a video.
Even worse is that he did not reply to your message, and your comment is very fair and spot on and I do wish in future he could improve on it give his comment first and then ask people opinion afterwards
I ended up with 28-70/2. I ve bought before wedding season 2019, so even before 24-70 came out. Previously, I had 24-70 II, which was really god. But after experience with 28-70, I would never go for 24-70. Mostly because of f2. I m using it on one body for wedding ceremony and look is from my point of really different, when I compare f2 vs f2.8. Yes it is heavy, but for me worth it. I don t regret any spent penny on that lens. I m using that lens even for travel photos. It is really replacing primes for me and I m able to shoot some lowlight shots (mostly portraits), because of f2. Simply, I love that lens.
@@monicaalvarez9686 I dunno, how to describe it properly. But pics has more like 3D look with shallower DOF. Also IQ is better even @ f2. And especially low light is much better. Still it is 1 stop of light
I wonder if you use a single camera all day? 2 cameras 2 lenses, one being the 28-70 is just way to much weight to carry. For portraits you would normally use the 85 or 135 or 70-200 anyway, for groups the 28mm is often not enough indoor and packed spaces and the single stop you gain in bokeh is often useless as you can only shoot f2 for reportage and details which almost looks identical on f2.8. I went with the RF24-70 for these reasons and I saved £1000 :) I think the RF28-70 is only great for weddings if you use a single camera all day, and even that, i hardly see how you wont get hammered after shooting 2-3 14 hours wedding in a row regardless of your fitness, your joints will give in.
The 28-70mm has a minimum focus distance of 1.28 feet, not inches. Not sure if you got them mixed up when you said you weren't able to get certain shots on the 24-70, because it focuses almost twice as close.
Ever since it was announced , I always thought I’d want the RF 24-70 f2.8 . It had everything I wished for in a standard zoom lens. Once it released though, and after looking at sample and test images, the sharpness and bokeh didn’t blow me away - exactly like you described. It didn’t look like a big leap vs my adapted EF 24-70 F4. And then I checked out that “crazy exotic launch zoom” aka the RF 28-70. And it *did* blow me away! Sharpness beyond the resolution of my EOS R. Buttery smooth bokeh. Enough speed to keep my shutter speed at 1/160 all the time - no IS needed. I made the jump and never looked back. Events are a joy to do, this lens is a real people-person. Thanks for your comparison!
i did similar. i first got rf 24 70 and it was really good, felt good in hands and i felt it like a part of my body, i could been walk around with it as long as i could walk. but the moment i got 28 70,, i said wow.. it is heavy... focus is not so great,, but still great.. ut does not feel great in hands, it s hard to handle it... but i will do! and after 24h i updated... havent tested it so far... i still miss fitnes of 24 70 but as you said.. no turning back for it.. unless! keeping 28 70 and get also 24 70 just for street and easy walk
Thank you , like the tutorial. You have one mistake, minimum focus distance for RF2870 is 1.28 ft. (39 cm). Not 1.28 inch. And for RF 2470 is 8.27 inch, ( 21 cm) . so, min. focus distance for 2470 is much closer (18 cm more close , then 2870 ) thank you again
When you read book one day before exam. I did not trust any of his word after that. Its not mistake its because he never used it or experience it. RU-vidrs
@@TheSugish haha mate bear the truth. You may be borrowed from someone for review and you dont know what is in your hand. Take care dont drop it or you ends up with your kidney cost to the real owner. Minimum focus distance hahahaha. Man use at least few hour before you give suggestions. What a gem i found
@PHaRRuQH VaXeeM atleast slow down and type sentences that make sense. 🤡 I didn't understand a single thing you said, and most other people probably won't either bruv.🤣🥱 sound like your drunk. You said he never used it and i said he is literally using it as you can see in the video. Idk if you have some mental health issues or trouble with english, but i hope you find help cro
@@TheSugish you edited your comment, who is drunk bhaha. Dear UNDERSTAND its lens, you cant give feedback about it immediately after you have it in your hand, especially to other people you must have to use and experience it master it then give a shit about it. Yes English is weak same as your knowledge about the borrowed lens but I am not teaching English to others.
I never hold a camera body with both hands. I always put my left hand under the lens and support the entire weight of the camera and lens that way so balance is irrelevant.
I got the 28-70mm. The 24-70mm EF was my walk around lens for 5 years so I wasn't looking for the IS but I'm hedging my bets in favor of IBIS in an R pro body. If that happens, the 28-70mm investment will make me look like a genius. I NEVER miss the 4mm gap between the lenses. Almost everything I shoot is 35mm or higher. Plus, a big point here is that the 28-50mm easily allowed me to stop carrying around the EF 50mm and EF to RF converter. That helped make up the weight difference in my bag.
@@JaySellers Too funny given everyone has always bashed canon from the point they started making camera that EVERYONE used/loved ;-) As is usual I bought the R with eyes wide open for a very specific reason (usb-c tethered shooting with the fantastic live-view response and handy manual focus guides + DPAF from the cine line) which made me 100% more productive in boring product still-life shots. What I ended up with (as usual) was a fantastic product that just worked, surprised me in more ways than one, was comfortable and practical to use in actually making pictures... so much so that my 5D bodies are now retired (one exception = 5DsR when I REALLY REALLY REALLY need a couple more megapixels = rare). As usual I am really glad Canon is as conservative as they are and delivers products that just work really well for 99% of real world picture making instead of delivering 5000 new products a year each with a feature I don't care about. I specifically ran across this video looking for someone that has actually used the 24-70 RF and 28-70 RF for some extended amount of time in circumstances I typically use a standard zoom. I am in no hurry to buy either but will probably end up with one of those. I have been gravitating towards the 28-70 f2 but... but... but... can't quite decide yet. My typical choice has been the 24-105 in studio given it allows me to shoot a look book with zero lens changes and zero body changes (I hate the 24-70/70-200 combo in the studio for fast diverse shots/look books/etc as it feels like I am changing lenses or bodies every 30 seconds) And for bokeh/shallow shots in outdoor ambient or mixed ambient / strobes I use 24/1.4 50/1.2 85/1.2 primes I guess what I was really looking for is if the 28-70 f2 would really really be a viable replacement for my 3 prime kit.
Finally went with 24-70mm. I would have loved the bokeh of 28-70mm. But the price, IS, weight was my main considerations. But if you are professional with certain requirements I could see 28-70mm add more value in certain situations.
I think it is a really nice review but I disagree on lots of things. The release of the R5 and R6 changed the game and the RF24-70 and RF28-70 are exactly sharing the same sharpness thanks to the better sensors and better focus cameras.
Thanks for review. But street style photography comparsion is pointless for these two lenses. 28-70 start to shine when you shooting people. Half-lenght, 50-70 mm and wide open - there you will see the main difference. Portaits and events/weddings - that's what it's made for
We agree! Unfortunately, we weren't able to get subjects for portraits. These lenses would most definitely be perfect for portraits and weddings. Thanks for watching!
The 2870 is an odd lense. But not unlikeable. It's huge and awkward to use. It's not very easy to whizz from 28 to 70 or quickly adjust to frame a shot. I found myself adjusting slowly, and it's more like owning 28, 35, 50 and 70mm primes in one camera. The lens element is huge and when pointing at people for a portrait they really noticed they were having to pose. As a wedding lens, it's pretty good. Sharp, and really quick to focus but slightly slower to operate than a 24-70. 70mm isn't quite long enough and 28mm isn't quite wide enough so in a perfect world you'd have something like a spare body with either a 20mm or a 105mm to hand (maybe 3 bodies if like me you hate changing lenses during a busy wedding. The pics I took with it were nice (though my one test wedding was mostly in dark and I missed having stabilisation, the pics I took the next day of my family were really great and very distinctive). Would I recommend? Not sure, in the UK it's still retailing for 2k and for that you could get 3 sigma lenses. But it does solve a problem - having prime-like experience in one lens.
The RF 28-70 f/2 has a close focus of 1.28 FEET (aka 20.48”) and a max magnification of 0.18x. The RF 24-70 f/2.8 has a close focus of 8.27 inches and a max magnification of 0.3x. I understand getting the numbers wrong but when you follow it up saying you just weren’t able to get those same close shots with the 24-70 that you were able to get with the lens that has a much worse close focus ability is silly. You should probably edit this review to be accurate and not make oddball claims.
Yeah, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he clearly lied about shooting with the lens. He loved taking closer shots with the lens that you can't shoot closer with?! Ridiculous.
Jesse Evans I thought it was a bit odd myself. I got the 24-70 as I was impressed by its close focusing ability and I was thinking there has to be no way the 28-70 is a macro lens lol
1..28 inches? LOL. He obviously doesn't know close focus range is measured from the sensor and not the front of the lens. He focused on something an inch+ from the front of the 28-70 and took down that number and he never bothered to do a close focus test with the 24-70 and just looked up the number online which, of course, measures from the sensor.
Thank god I'm not the only one that noticed all the inconsistencies and bull crap throughout this video. Check out the couple of obvious mislabeled shot specs etc... Bottom line = useless video that provides zero guidance on buying one of three very difficult to choose between RF zooms = 24-105L 24-70L and 28-70L. Hmmm a video that shows a bunch of pictures in a bunch of circumstances that can competently be shot with zero stress of any of those 3 and provides no real world subjects/opinions/different results where any of the 3 would either shine or fail (relatively speaking). I kind of remember an internet where there were actually real photographers giving real opinions in real situations with some degree of expertise in a particular genre/shooting conditions.
The 28-70mm f/2.0 is worth it over the 24-70mm f/2.8, but the main reason isn't so much the bokeh - although it IS better - but because of the sharpness. I have compared the 28-70mm to the RF 24-105mm, which is also amazing, and the RF 24-70mm and it is noticeably sharper. With that said, between the latest smart phone alchemy to create bokeh, better, more modern lenses, etc. bokeh is more easily obtained than it once was. All that to say, you will still want that RF 85mm f/1.2 or RF 50mm f/1.2 in your bag, even with the 28-70mm f/2.0. It's sad to say, but I now own this lens and still rent those other primes when I really want that something extra on a shoot.
It's been more than half year since I have the 28-70 F2 and did some weddings and works with this lens... Zero Regrets. I was worried about the weight, but was more tolerable than I expected! The quality and AF is superb, having in mind that is a zoom lens.
For me the 24-70 is a clear winner for everyday use, since the the 28-70 is way too heavy for me to carry it around all day. The „missing“ sharpness can easily be corrected in tools like Topaz Sharpen AI, which most of the time isn‘t even necessary…
there is no sharpness difference between them. I shot both. if anything it is the 28-70 that is less sharp at 70mm F2.0 setting than 24-70 at f2.8 wide open. It's hard to tell the difference between these two lenses when you shoot the same subject from the same distance. If you can't see it, the customer definitely won't either. Just shoot the 24-70 at f2.8 deliberately and you will be just as blown away.
agree! i went from the EF 24-70 with an adaptor to the RF28-70 I was so excited and really loved the lens. But fast forward three months, and i wasn't carrying the camera around as much, and my thumbs were blistering after a few hours. It is just SO HEAVY. i'm selling it tomorrow and going back to the 24-70, but RF this time. I'm glad you feel the same! it's validating my decision :)
@@srinyacharya That ruined the comparison for me. I would have thought it was a small oversight until he tried to sell the short minimum focusing distance of the RF 28-70 as such a great feature, since he obviously didn't use it.
28-70 missed the mark by not having IS. I compared them both as well (own they 24-70) and I felt like the slight sharpness and bokeh wasn’t extreme and unnoticeable at times. I went with the 24-70 because it’s wider, it has IS, it’s cheaper, lighter, easy to pack, handles well and super versatile. I guess the idea was to build a zoom lens with “prime like” look but the lens should’ve gone to 85mm with a constant aperture of 1.8 at least, which I know that optically design wise is not possible without making the lens enormous (even more) The 2.0 vs 2.8 bokeh is not a huge difference and you need to peak the same image side by side to tell.
Canon knows what they are doing. They are going to define a new set of trinity which none other will be able to (probably Nikon because of the mount size). The new trinity lenses are: 14-28 f2, 28-70 f2 (which is brilliant) and 70-135 f2 (coming soon). With R5, all future R will have IBIS, not the new trinity with such high IQ will have no competition.
The 28-70 f2 is a wedding, portrait, product, and event lens. For street photography or general purpose and video the 24-70 2.8 is ideal and the better option.
I don't understand why so many people complained about this review. Both lenses are great and this is what he wanted to tell. Is the 28-70 heavy? Of course, does it have better optics? No doubts about it! Is it a reason to choose over 24-70? Of course not, because it really depends on the situation and the person.
Like the other commenters here, I too, came from using the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II before selling it and getting the RF 28-70 f/2. Won’t go into a diatribe of how awesome this is, effectively replacing 4-5 prime lenses in my bag. What I want to share is how I made the setup look more balanced using the RP body. I made use of the available grip extension available for the RP and it made entire rig more balanced. Not perfect but a whole lot better. I also used the Peak Slide strap with one anchor on the tripod socket and other on the side. This allows carrying it with the lens pointing directly downwards, which makes it the most comfortable way (for me) to carry.
I have been flip-flopping on the 28-70 f2 since I bought the R. I typically use a 24/1.4 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 as my shallow DOF outdoors with ambient or ambient + strobes (or indoors when I want a location vibe with shallow DOF). I really am undecided on if if if the 28-70 can really replace my 3 prime kit for that purpose as it's not quite as wide (I actually LOVE 28mm but canon has never made a decent one) and I deliver A LOT of 4:3 vertical shots where the 24 is very appropriate cropped... I can probably get buy. In any case I was curious which 5 prime lenses did it replace for you and did it REALLY replace them or only kind of replaced them (as in you actually still use some of those primes for specific results in the. real world). Also what kind of pictures do you shoot? Me = mostly portraits/fashion/lifesytle
Robert Boyer I shoot street and travel so I cannot make a remotely valid point regarding portraiture and use of strobes. It effectively replaced (for me) the focal lengths of 28, 35, 40 (my fave), 50, and 70. My intial concern prior to investing in it is will it be sharp wide open at f/2? It is razor-sharp at f/2 throughout its entire focal length range.
@@DragonEye1911 thanks for the reply... alas I am still on the fence. I wish I knew someone local that had one so I could do a test drive not just for the results/look in a real world situation but also for how it feels to shoot with it. For me and my situations the two most important things are how the results look overall and how the camera actually feels in my hands when using it. I actually "need" very little in terms of features, etc, etc... I guess I'll have to rent one or buy one and see for myself... issue with renting at the moment is frigging covid and how unpredictable actual people related work is at the moment... Everything is sort of up in the air at the moment.
I find the sweet way to hold the 28-70 with R5 is left hand cupping the lens, so can work the zoom etc. I didn't get fatigued by it with EL-1 flash on it for over 8 hour wedding day.
The 28-70 does NOT have a Nano USM focus system. It has a ring-type USM system, that's significantly noisier than the Nano USM focus system employed on the newer f2.8 trinity lenses (15-35, 24-70,70-200).
I loved your comparison for these lenses. I've been holding out for the 28-70 for months now but in Australia you just can't get them and now I'm not so sure if I should continue to hold out due to the price and lack of IS and may just head for the 24-70. Anyhow thanks for the breakdown, love the format and delivery. Keep up the good work!
I went with the 24-70, like you said I didn't like the feel of the 28 and was too heavy for my liking. I do way more video than portrait work so going with the IS is what made my decision
I thought this comparison was right on the money. More than anything it helped me make a decision on which one of these to buy - if at all I decide to take the plunge. Sharpness and bokeh appeal to me a lot. Being a casual (non-pro) photographer I have come to believe, in the recent years, that I can blissfully use my latest iPhone for all walkabout, candid and normal photography in the wide/medium focal length range. And this is working well. Now if I have to switch from that mode and invest $$ is some serious glass, I would much rather go for ultimate sharpness and bokeh that the 28-70 F/2.0 offers.
@@camera-exchange Yea, I'm still confuse as to what to get. I will be doing both photography and cinematography, unboxings, soccer challenges w/ friends, vlogs and travel vids. I'm planning on getting the Canon r6 so the 28-70 not having IS isn't a big deal.
@@Kris_413 Consumers are baking on the new canon to have IS which most of us think, it will. We think the 28-70 would be a solid option even it does not. If you do decide to get one, order it here : www.camerax.com/product/canon-rf-28-70mm-f-2l-usm-lens-2/
Nice comparison video. I have had a 24-70 for so many years and I really didn't utilize the 24mm end that much so I'm waiting to get my hands on the 28-70mm for something different and magical!
how's the 24-70 for video? do you think its sharper than the 24-105 f4?? thanks deciding between these two. 24-105 paired with the 100-400 rf or 24-70 2.8 paired with the 70-200 f4 awesome combos
This review is wrong. RF24-70 has closer minimum focus distance and if your RF24-70 is not tack sharp at wide open, its a bad copy. RF 24-70 is on par with RF28-70 as far as sharpness goes. It almost seems like this isnt review but more of making assumptions. It doesn't look like you tested these lenses throughly.
@@mattgericke4537 Not sure why but my reply got deleted, so I'm posting it again. Modern Canon lenses are all good in terms of sharpness they can produce. Resolution wise, it's really hard to distinguish them unless you are a pixel peeper. but my personal experience does tell me RF 24-70 f2.8 is just tad sharper at the wide end at maximum aperture. But because both are such sharp lenses, copy to copy variation matters more when comparing these two great lenses. but if you are comparing good copy to copy, RF 24-70 f2.8 is just tad sharper at wide end. If you need some resource on this, check the website link in my below comment
I can't post a link, I think it's a youtube thing. Google "The Digital Picture" and go to the first website and go under "Lens Image Quality" and select both lenses and just compare for yourself
Think I got lucky with my 24-70, images are so sharp I mix up with my 85 prime similar shots. for now I’ll stick with this over the 28-70. Maybe one day
The real difference is Video. The 24-70 has almost no focus breathing while the 28-70 has a lot of it .. unfortunately.. (I bought the F2 because I wanted the light (wich I got!) bUt I now think the 2.8 would have been the better choice with my C70 (IS and almost parfocal without focus breathing)
I also just got the 24-70 for the IS because I shoot mostly sports videos. but I notice how everyone is raving about the 28-70 . The only thing is they only comment on how good it is at photos and not videos.
Find the reviewer kind of annoying. Repeatedly saying, “This was better than this, but I was expecting that”. NO really!!! Should have shown more direct comparison shots of same view. Net net a less than stellar review that did nothing to help me decide which is better for me.
Dear fellow female photographer reading this: I really need help choosing between the RF 24-70 and the RF 28-70! I just went to a shop to buy the 28-70 f 2.0 but was really put off by its size and heavy weight and went home without it. I really really want it for the low f number but I‘m scared that I won‘t be able to hold it up for many hours during an event. Its shape also feels so front heavy and awkward. I tried the 24-70 f 2.8 and it felt way more comfortable. I‘m so torn between performance and usability now. I also don‘t have the option to try the lenses for longer. I want the 28-70 but I‘m just really unsure if I can carry its weight as a woman with limited upper body strength. Any advice appreciated!
Eddy Scott you’re so right! I got the 28-70 and tried it out over the last days. I’m not used to the weight and it makes me uncomfortable and slow, so I miss many perfect moments which is very problematic:/ now I can’t return it and have to learn to handle it... I hope, I’ll get used to it
@@viennabooks741 I have the 24 to 70, i’ll trade with you if you want. I was looking at getting a 28 70 70 but I wasn’t sure if I would miss the 4 mm. If you are seriously interested I guess send me a message or reply to me here.
@@monicaalvarez9686 actually yes! I pretty much got used to the weight, so that’s not an issue right know. Due to covid I haven’t had any events where I had to hold it up for hours though. It’s still a lot of money and I’m debating reselling it in order to buy 2 prime lenses. Since I only do planned shoots at the moment, I don’t really need a zoom. But if you’re completely sure that you need a zoom, then it’s totally worth it over the 24-70 in my opinion!
Thanks!!! I have the 24 70. It beats in video though. The IS is sublime. I pair it with the 50 1.2 for the special bokeh shots. But i have to admit it is a ongoing dilemma that the 28 70 has the special look. But at the end of the day, lightning and composition also have big influence on your look of the photo, so I stopped thinking about a 28 70
Appreciate your thoughts, you're right, those are very important factors when it comes to photography. It also boils down to what your exact needs are. Thanks for watching!
So sharpness-wise, either lens is just as good? I'm probably going to eventually go with the 24-70mm because it's lighter, has IS and also cheaper....great review!! :)
in our testing, the 28-70 was a bit sharper but only by a razor thin margin. You will not be able to tell in real world use. Thanks for watching! Here's the link, if you decide to purchase through our website. www.camerax.com/product/canon-rf-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-usm-lens-2/
For a general zoom why wouldn't any professional photographer want anything less then great sharpness and bokeh??? It's a no brainer purchase. I own & Love love lovE this lens!
I wonder which lens would be better for hand held low light shots. Most camera have IBIS now and promise up to eight stops of stabilization for the 28-70, but I wonder if IBIS will only work very well at 28mm, while at 70mm it would need help by an IS in the lens. That could be an advantage for the 24-70, but at the same time the 28-70 gives you twice as much light and better sharpness. What if I only use an R3, which has a much lower resolution than the R5? Will sharpness differences still be visible? During daytime I wonder if even the 24-105 would be an alternative, because that one would much better fill the gap to a 100-400 lens and I could leave the 70-200 in the hotel during daytime. As I am getting older, weight becomes more and more of an issue. I walk many hours per day and carry three to four lenses with me all the time and if the standard zoom weighs 1.4 kilos, that adds a lot of weight, although I would never use f/2 during the day. So im stuck between three options from Canon and quite a few options that I could use with an EF adapter.
I was waiting to see comparison of a same composition from two lenses, so we can see difference. I dont know why you out photos that we cannot see any difference. 👎
And so is the non-information/mis-information ;-) But I agree, I was going to ask if he could make the canned elevator music even louder during the parts he's not talking... ha ha ha
Honestly good info but the pics can't be compared, no side by side, no tripod use, background artifacts are the essence of this comparison. I'm not able to see apples to apples comparison... wanted to like but it's not possible to compare in your video accurately.
I have the tamron 24-70mm G2 F2.8 Lens....but when I get the new canon eos R5 I want upgrade to this lens....would u do a comparison video between both of these lens.
The 28-70 is not a nano motor drive lens only the 24-70 just correcting you on that and the 28-70 suffers from focus breathing making it not good for video
Yeah this review is not helpful at all. Basically you say, "Yeah the more expensive lens is nicer." Duh. You need side by side comparisons of the same shot so we actually have something to compare.
I saw this video the day before i bought the 28-70 2.0 im glad I didn't listen to the crap he is telling here. It heavy yeah but boy keep 70-200 in mind, same weight, but wow what a lens, never taking it of my R6 lol.
rubbish review the guy has no idea what he is talking about and why could you compare these two lenses as they offer totally different results for different shooters, the 28-70 F2 is a mind-blowing piece of glass, right up there with the 200 mm F2, which apparently they are planning an RF version. compare like for like images and also perhaps plan your shoot so that there is variable light so people can actually see what you getting.
Вашу мать, почему все эти обзорщики всегда снимают какую-то дичь, которая никак не связана с работой за которую платят деньги. То, что аффтор показывает в ролике можно и на айфончик отфотать. Нахуя для этого иметь стекло за 200 тыс. непонятно. Ах да, те кто реально зарабатывают, им некогда обзоры снимать
