Few fun facts about "Old Car City" I neglected to share in the video. This junkyard has been around for over a hundred years, and is the final resting place for nearly 5,000 vintage cars from the mid-to-early twentieth century. The owner (who I spoke to) said he inherited the land and all the cars on it from his parents, and he continues to grow his family's collection to this day. Photographically, it was overwhelming. The place just seemed to go on forever through miles of dense Georgia woodland. I loved photographing and exploring Old Car City, but I couldn't help but feel a bit melancholy at times, for not only were many of these cars once beautiful, but who knows what happened to all the people who drove them. I especially thought of people when seeing the cigarettes in the ashtray, frozen in time. This was such a fun video to put together, I just wish I had more time to make it longer. :) Hopefully the images help illustrate the qualitative difference between these two fantastic variable zoom lenses.
For a test this close, and subjective, shooting studio test patterns under variety of light and stops would add quantifiable results for consideration.
I'm a professional photographer and videographer, and I watch a lot of tutorials, feedbacks, and reviews-not just about photo equipment. Love what you do! As a straightforward person, I particularly appreciate how you present information in a stylish and interesting manner without all the useless stuff that other RU-vidrs include. Precise, stylish, and informative. I especially like that you skip the 30% time-wasting introductions and avoid the annoying, outdated intros. Instead of telling us what you ate this morning or how your wife or cat is doing, you focus on providing useful, practical information in an elegant and tasteful manner. Thumbs up!
Heyyyyy! I've shot there! That place is amazing...the way I found out about it is because I used to work about 3 miles down the road! I need to go back up there. it's only 20 minutes North from mw...Great review by the way and fantastic photos! When I go back up, I'll be bringing my EF 24-70mm instead of a prime like I did last time!
I have both EF and RF version. The RF does have more contrast and depth. It is a better lens. It is not huge difference but enough to see the difference.
Hi, I have both lenes, I said there are some situation that RF is worst!! you can see results! drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sTIeiFosdlPQAqvBf7PtJfC2NINRMe3Z?usp=sharing
When I upgrated from EF 24-70 I to EF 24-70II on 5DM4 I was shocked how sharp that lens is. Now I am on R6 with way less megapixels and this lens is still amazing. No sense to upgrade to RF lens for me ;)
New to your channel and enjoyed the video. When you were talking about the slight differences between both lenses and how the RF version had that slight edge over the older EF version when it came to the detail and depth I would definitely have to agree with you. So in my situation I was using an R6 with an EF 24-70 F4 version (so a bit different than the EF F2.8 that you were using). I decided to buy the RF 24-70 F2.8 and I did notice the RF was better in a few ways and I do agree that there’s better detail and depth to the images. That being said, I decided to return the RF lens because it was hard to justify the difference in quality to the difference in price. The EF F4 version is about $600 CDN 🇨🇦 (used) vs. $3,390 CDN with tax (new) and it’s just very difficult to justify the price difference when I’m not a professional. I enjoyed the RF version while I had it but for now I’m going to put that money towards another longer zoom lens since I don’t have one but can’t decide which zoom would be best for me yet so I’m sitting on the sidelines until I can make a decision.
I shoot with the r5 and ef 24-70 2.8 II and its been my workhorse lens for years. But I've been blown away with the image quality of all my RF glass so much, that's I'm now considering the upgrade. The RF L glass is simply on another level as it relates to sharpness and contrast. Great review!
Great video. I’ve been using mostly my EF L lenses with my R and R5 for work, mixed in with RF 16 and 35. Bought the RF24-70 yesterday (last week my trusty 24-70 EF started having that common issue with an error message on anything outside of 24mm wide open - sending it to CPS for a fix), and I love it. I shoot a lot of indoor events and concert stuff that will definitely benefit from the in-lens stabilization.
What an amazing place to shoot! Love the photos. I found a great deal on a used EF 24-70 ii ($750). Using the RF adapter is no issue for me on the R5. I wouldn't even think about upgrading to the RF 24-70 f/2.8 for the foreseeable future. An excellent and much more budget friendly alternative in this focal range is the RF 24-105 f/4 L. A good compromise for about half the price of the RF 24-70 f/2.8. Another "budget alternative" for the EF mount that easily adapts to RF is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2.
I have the Same EF lens and I found a used one in excellent condition, not even a single scratch for less than £400.00. My editing style doesn’t involve additional contrast and so for that reason I decided to avoid purchasing the RF 24-70 2.8. The price is utterly ridiculous. Yes, it is sharper and has faster auto focus but I just couldn’t justify why I would pay £2.200.00 more just for that.
Damn Todd, I started following you when you had 5k Sub now going for 40K sub. I knew you'd blow up from the start with your content and the quality of your video and explanation. Keep it up!
Thank you Todd for the practical review. The take away from here probably is: - If someone has EF mark II, then the price vs benefit ratio of upgrade is not that high - If someone has EF mark I, then worth considering the upgrade Wondering what would be your thoughts for someone who does not have a 24-70 at all, and planning to get their first L lens (kids' portraits and other indoor settings being the most compelling reason, which is why not going for 24-105 f4). Just got an R6, and comparing between "used EF 24-70 mark II" and RF 24-70 since the EF option saves crucial funds to put into any other gear if required(another prime, flash, batteries etc). Your testing does show that a ten year old Lens stands the test of time, but again, RF is designed for R6 (no adapter needed, has IS, has control ring etc). What would you have done?
With R6 at 20MP the small difference in performance between the two will be even harder to distinguish than it is with the 45MP of the R5. The EF Mark II is already a top-tier lens. I own one, and am considering upgrading my body from a 6D Mark II to an R6 soon. The only reason I'm attracted to the RF version is for the lens image stabilization, but it seems that the EF version performs quite well relying on IBIS alone - for most photography applications at least. I think I will hang onto my EF version for the time being and just upgrade the body.
Thanks for the presentation/comparison. It was great and candid. I gave up my 6D dslr + the ef 24-105mm f4L ver. 1 + the ef 70-200mm f4L, and went for the R6 and using the ef 40mm f2.8, ef 50mm f1.8, & ef 200mm f2.8L. The next lens will be rf even though I am no professional and I have been happy with the ef lenses.
Hey Todd, Thanks for the wonderful video! I'm a portrait photographer considering this zoom. Your insights are very informative and helpful to me in my considerations! I've subscribed and liked! All My Best! Scott Sater Photography :)
I love this video. Would you be able to provide 2 raw files? one from each lens with the same picture? Would love to see the details you're talking about. Thanks!
Very interesting comparison! I'm using a 5Dmk4, but think about buying a R5. In my opinion the question here is... is the RF really 'that much' better than the EF or is the R5 firmware the 'game changer' here? Is probably the camera processing the RAW data differently depending on the lens?
I have a mark 3 and from what I've found: the difference is there but it's marginal. If you're still on EF glass it would be better to spend the money on RF glass if you plan on going to an R series eventually but right now the difference isn't great enough to warrant the cost of a whole new system. That way you can use the better glass now and if you do jump you'll have it already. Plus the new 24-70 L is a beast.
If you're into new (restored) classic cars, be sure to also stop by the Savoy Auto Museum just down the road too (although "Old Car City" is a bit of a taboo subject there -- there is some controversy over them letting some of the old cars rot in the forest, but people also have to realize the origins of Old Car City too. This place is definitely a place to spend some time. Been there twice so far, and tend to go when ever I'm in the area. There's also a VW graveyard in PA as well, that's worth checking out.. similar to OCC we'll say, but for VWs.
I did go with the new RF and just in case any one has the old one, there are camera shops that will take trade ins. I went to Samy's Camera in Southern California direct and they were able to give me a very good discount on old lenses which make the RF purchase much lighter on the wallet
Great video as always. Would you consider doing a comparison between RF 24-70 f=2.8 and the RF 28-70 f=2.0 ? I would love to hear what you think about these two lenses. Thank you again. Keep it up please I am confident that the number of subscribers will continue to grow more and more as more of us talk about the consistency of your great content. All the best.
As far as physical controls, I prefer using the EF lens with the adaptor where the control ring (of the adaptor) is closer to the base of the camera. RF lens control ring is positioned at the tip of the lens where it is more prone to unintentional accidental control function change.
Thank you so much Todd for the detailed comparison and all the precious information you generously shared with the world! I loved the video and it was very helpful for me. God bless you and good luck!
Hi Tood, did you notice any difference in exposure compensation when changing one lens to another? and the pictures used on both for comparison are they raw or post process ? TIA.
I no longer have the EF version to test with, but I don't recall their being any difference in compensation. This video is an older one of mine so I can't recall how the images were edited, but if they were, they would have received the same settings. I wouldn't present them differently.
I noticed that RF lens is noticeably sharper in your first image comparison. In the low-light image, the IBIS helps a lot for EF lens. Otherwise, it would be out of focus handheld at 0.5 shutter speed.
I also noticed this at first, but on second glance I realised that the focus point was different resulting in the gear lever being soft in one and more detailed in the other. I think the focus on the EF lens rested on the steering column.
Thank you Todd for a great review. I would like to know if the images were out of camera jpegs or Compressed RAW or RAW and how were they processed? Thank you.
Good video. Yeah not everything is about high resolution. But about distinction and character I love my 24-70 mark 1 on 7D body. Gives my images so much personality.
Great insight as always. Thank you so much. I have a TAMRON SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 that I've been walking around with. Have you ever used one? I'm sure it's not as good as either of these 2 but it seems to be fairly sharp for me. I read somewhere shooting in electronic mode also produces sharper images (if they're not moving of course). Have you heard that?
Great job! Best regards from Saudi. What a demanding hobby. I’m confused between the two lenses, after watching your video I might go for the rf. In regards to the mega pixels size I have the r6 which is only 21 mp, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily has to be better quality when it gets higher mp, according to my research i found that the pixel pitch can also help getting better image quality.
Appreciate you putting in the effort to do this comparison. Did you happen to compare the RF 24-70 to the RF 24-105 f4? I have an R6 with the RF 24-105 f/4. What are your thoughts on what differences one might see on the R6's lower resolution sensor? I'd imagine any image resolution/detail differences would be less or non-existent. But maybe the RF24-70 is enough higher resolving to show improvement over the 24-105 f/4? And then, what about the other aspects you highlight, i.e. the 'hard to define' tone, depth nuances. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Maybe i’ll rent the RF for a few days to compare.
EF 24-70mm F2.8 mk2 is a lot more decisive in subject acquisition in low light than RF 24-105 F4. I shoot events, The old EF 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 is very still very impressive and sharp at F2.8 on R6 or R
I believe that after using Lightroom, the quality of the 2 final photos would be very close and very hard to tell which pic is taken by RF and which one is taken by EF. So I Would save money by buying EF lenses. Unless you are a professional photographer and get money from clients, just spend for the better one.
Very good review! I think the RF version has a little more contrast in the details, one can see it in the dry weed picture, and probably a tack more sharpness. But I thinks it‘s the contrast that makes the little difference. I like character in a lens. Maybe the little more contrast and sharpness helps to build a "look", maybe it doesn‘t matter.
The issue with the RF is that it has very pronounced longitudinal chromatic aberrations, to a degree that is rarely ever seen on modern lenses. This actually contributes to lowering contrast as is shown in several chart tests online. The RF is more accomplished in terms of features, but the EF is probably optically more accomplished.
Thanks for the video because I was at a crossroads. not having all those megapixels having only one r6 and having found a used ef at 1100 € in excellent condition I think I'll take her. not having excellent English being Italian you have remarked many times the image stabilization. is it still not possible to obtain a good stabilization directly from the camera? thanks if you want to answer me. as for the quality of the images I even thought that the ef was even better looking at the images ....
Bought this lens yesterday and returned it today because the image qaulity didn't match the 2300$ price. Not saying the lens isn't sharp and doesnt produce good image qaulity because it does but its just not 2300$ worth imo. Definitally buy this lens used or go with the EF version if you want a 24-70.
I think if you already concluded that RF lens has soft corners and edges, then at higher MP camera than R5 this would just be amplified. It will be a fine lens for portraits but not one at all for landscapes. I'm afraid it's top end primes only at and past 45MP or you may as well stick with 20-30mp bodies
Nice video. Be carefull of 2nd hand well used EF 24-70 lenses. The aperture electronics wear out and stops working after a number of years. Err01 Only the f2.8 then works
The question that I have is is the lens really better or is the camera pushing the lens to perform better. I have not upgraded to the R5 or R6 currently using the R and happy with getting RF lenses.
The way you look at your digital images makes a big difference. Nice photography, let that be clear. You probably shot raw and then used a program that does raw processing. This covers two aspects. (1) Raw processing makes guess about the missing colors. The sensor is colorblind and you get color from filters over the sensor that allow one color ban through: red, green or blue. So, the data element from each photosite lacks information on two colors. The red filtered photosites only result in an RV for red, so green and blue are missing. Yet, we need RGB for our monitor pixels and prints. Raw processing in a way invents color noise and luminance noise and if done really badly it gives Moiré when the subject holds regular patterns. To me, the older approaches are mathematically precise and repeatable forms of wild-assed guessing. Better algorithms, with AI, have made this better, but it depends on application versions as well as camera and lens profiles. We prefer raw as we can influence the wild-assed color guessing. We do not prefer JPEG as this results from lossy compression of raw processing. For gradation resolution we might be happier if our cameras could generate PNG instead of JPEG. (2) Raw processing deals with the depiction of edges or lines that are not parallel to the photosite grid in the sensor. Such lines become jagged edges and we may know this as aliasing. It's the result of square pixels. Here too, forms of AI help identify such lines and if the AI can correctly understand the subject then it will do a very fine job. When we do sharpening-associated adjustments in our raw processing software this is what we influence. As the algorithms here depend on profiles for specific cameras and lenses, for example Lightroom (Classic or Camera Raw) has two approaches: the Adobe versus the camera brand approach. If you look in the folder C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Lightroom Classic\Resources\LensProfiles\1.0\Canon (of a Windows PC installation) you'll see lens profiles. Some of them pure lens specific, some in combination with a specific camera even. Such profiles determine your options and the results. And quality. Depending on a camera's resolution, the sensor may have an additional filter called anti-aliasing or low-pass - I call these "fuzzy filters". These were devised to make raw processing easier - in times when compute power was more expensive than today. The effect of the fuzzy filter may be more fluent lines and edges or an easier color guessing but images have less contour sharpness and you loose color space as well as dynamic range and low light performance through these. So to check the way your raw processing software works for you, it would be good to compare it with a few alternatives. Topaz's GigaPixel AI is specialized at upsampling and can take your image to 32,000 pixels at the longest side. It does its own raw processing and the results in terms of detail resolution may be shockingly better than what you had. Or try DxO's PhotoLab. These allow for a free trial, usually a month. And, knowing where to look, check out what is actually supported by your software. Adobe does not have lens profiles for my camera brand prime lenses - as the profiles come with the raw shots.
I adapt the EF mark 2 on the R7. Optically, it’s FANTASTIC! Sadly, the ibis and the lens don’t get along as it jitters and jolts. Definitely saving for RF. The EF mark 2 has ugly bokeh effects.
Small margins between them but the EF build quality is unmatched and the RF build is like a toy. I guess I am happywith my EF lenses because the RF dos not differentiate itself with the EF compared to the price and I don't like getting ripped off.
There is far too much of this gear comparison discussion. My firm belief is to choose the glass that suits your goals, style and budget and then buy a corresponding body. If landscapes are your thing then high res glass is important given the time you spend hunting for an excellent shot. If it's portraits less so unless it's fashion 😃. Glass lasts 10+ years, while you can pick up a used on sale body every few years, knowing you will likely want, not necessarily need to upgrade. Glass lives a long time. If you are in the RF system, look to slowly build out your collection of favorite glass as it will last a long time and there is a good market for used ef glass. You can also pick up some excellent used rf glass now. I rarely regret buying good glass.
Я думал Кенон надежный... Но обьектив EF 24 - 70mm 1:2.8 L USM в широком угле с 28 YF 24 не хочет идти дальше... И Егг 99 ошибка... Автофокус не может ловить хотя пытается... И... Кто мне подскажет что... С уважением...
Pretty much only really should get the rf version if you have the R5 with its 45mps or are like a rich professional though by then the 28-70 f/2 makes more sense
The rf is sharper ,better auto focus and faster ,has great i.s ,better color that's pops more ,all which are way way worth spending $1000 more for the rf version even if you find a used ef version unless ..that's unless .... you shoot video on cameras that have a crop like the eosr ,c70 ,or red komodo because with canon speed booster .71 you can turn only ef glass into a full frame type look.. ..If not for this buy rf version of canon glass sell your ef now ....even if you can only buy only one rf at a time do it and rent the other rf lenses you may need on a job till you complete your new rf set ...you'll be more happier in the long run . Rf is superior to the ef like a King that took over a Kingdom in fact it's the best glass over Nikons Sony gmasters, Tamron ,and sigma.Rf Reigns supreme !!
