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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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... :-)
I’ve got an older 70-210mm that I like plus the 400mm zoom that I enjoy. I like to reach out for shots, but it’s nice to zoom in to close subjects like wildlife I stumble across - another great video here.
@@chriscummins4282 I had no AF back then. I shot all my car and motorcycle pics for magazines with an F3 and a Mamiya 645. Autofocus makes it so easy, now, but back then, I shot MotoGP with a manual focus 800mm lens on Ektachrome 100 and 400 film!
@@chriscummins4282 Nope. Fond memories, though. I should dig out some of my old magazine covers. I shot the cover and the whole feature story for the first MotoGP at Phillip Island in 1989. It was an awesome race; won by Wayne Gardner.
@@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 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.
Hi Peter- Just rewatched this video and wondered why a 'wide-angle lens is ideal for shooting in very close quarters? Thank you for all of the thoughtful videos you produce. Cheers!
Hi Tom. I was referring to areas like densely wooded areas, creeks, and the like - where it might otherwise be difficult to position yourself far enough back from your subject to capture it the way the scene requires. All of this is very subjective, of course, but it helps to explain the popularity of the 14-20mm focal range in these environments.
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks again, for your thoughts. Much of my shooting in North Carolina is dense woodland. I don’t live that near mountains so I go to State or National parks and preserves where you often find tangling trees and bushes. I’m going to try using a wide-angle lens and see how it goes. Thank you, again.
Absolutely agree. I shoot all of my work with the RF 24 - 70 and the RF 70 - 200 f2.8. The RF 50 f1.8 is great for casual walking around., street, travel. The Bokeh I get from a f2.8 lens is the perfect amount for me to give some separation yet still give the subject context. Combined with the excellent sharpness of the RF lenses... there's no more need for primes for me other than in extreme low light which I don't really shoot anymore. I prefer using flash for that anyways.
No I never used or got that lens. That f4 aperture seems really boring to me. I'd rather use a prime for travel than this. And other than travel I don't know what to do with a f4 24 - 105 really. But that's just me.@@cosmindanes9435
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.
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!
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 bought the 14-35 for real estate use and had to return it based on the camera raw profile which still ended up with bent edge lines no matter what i did. Wonder if the profile is improved now. EF 16-35 is solid.
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.
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?
Stunning photos! The Australian landscape photos and trees are beautiful. Second video of yours I've enjoyed. I subscribed after seeing those photos. I shoot with a Nikon Z50 and I'm trying to find the best lenses now for storms, lightning and landscapes(including the wider range f mount lens) and potentially for a used Z full frame later. Needs to be wide enough now as moving storms won't stitch well (I don't think) Cheers
Thank you, James! Yes, you’re right - you’ll want something pretty wide to capture storms. A great channel for storm photography is Nick Page’s channel. 👍
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. 👍
Nice presentation! Looks like you’re upping your videography. The 24-70 is my most frequently used lens. I think it’s the most versatile focal length for landscape photography. Take care, buddy!
It only took me three years to figure that out!! Yeah, it’s a brilliant lens. As for the video, I realised my office is a great place to film - mainly because of my pics in the background. I also might get back to more walk and talk stuff in future (though, maybe not up and down the stairs). Damn, I’m so unfit…
@@ScottymanPhoto It ain’t easy, that’s for damn sure. One thing I’d suggest is to be a lot more subtle asking for likes/subs/comments. Oh, and a good thumbnail is about 50% of the job. I spend AGES on my titles and thumbnails. Still learning!
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.
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.
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 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.
I currently own 25 lenses, of which 12 were made by Canon for full-frame cameras. I think three of them were mentioned in your video. Undoubtedly the single best all-round lens I've purchased, just after Christmas, has been the RF 24-105mm f/4, but I recently added the EF 24-70mm f/4 because I still own three EOS 5D models (i.e. every one bar the 5D4). That particular model went under most reviewers' radar, but based on your scoring system it's a solid 9 at least. For landscapes with faraway detail, I miss out time after time by leaving my telephoto zooms at home, because they're quite heavy to carry around on the off chance of me ever actually using them. The EF 100-400mm f/4-5-5.6 has been by far my most expensive lens purchase in absolute and relative terms - it's brilliant but has in truth spent five years on the shelf. Your compressed scene images do encourage me to give it an overdue outing though, so thanks for the inspiration.
That’s quite to collection, Michael. The 5D is a brilliant machine, that’s for sure. Many seasoned pros still swear by it. I came across from Nikon to Canon just as the RF bodies were gathering steam. But first, I bought the little M3, then an M6, and then an M6 MKII (awesome camera). I actually shot the EF 100-400 II with that for a while, which looked funny, but worked a treat. After that, I went straight to the R5. If the EF 100-400 is a bit unwieldy, try the RF 100-400. It’s just about as sharp, but light as a feather.
@@peterfritzphoto Thank you for the suggestion Peter. It makes sense and that would make a baker's dozen of Canon lenses. Canon gets a lot of criticism, but their lenses just work and never let you down. And I knew when I picked up a new 5D3 back in 2014 that it suited me perfectly. To this day it remains my favourite, although technically there are many far better and coming from Nikon you'd know that better than most.
@@MichealSeaghdha At the end of the day, and as I’m sure you’ll know, you can make beautiful images with almost any camera. If the glass is half decent, and you have a good eye for composition, subject choice and light, you can make magic.
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 !
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.
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 have the Canon R5 and I have the RF24-105mm f/4L and I have gravitating to the EF70-300mm. I also have the RF50mm f/1.8 which Ted’s threw in as a freebie when I bought the R5. I am sensitive to the weight of my gear.
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?
Great video and I’m pleased you got a good copy of the RF 24-70 lens. I purchased the 24 -105 L because the 24-70 lens I sampled was a mediocre performer on a Canon R5. Beautifully made but not sharp. Maybe the lens was an off spec production copy but I could not see the value at double the price of the F4 alternative. Happy to revisit this lens after seeing your video because you are right it ticks all the boxes - assuming you get a good one!
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).
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
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.
Hi Fritz. haven't been on your channel for a while. Gorgeous images! I'm surprised not to find the RF 85 f/2 on your list. I bought it after selling my macro EF 100L. I am very much into macro, and was waiting for the new RF 100 macro. But the 85mm does a great job. It only goes to 1:2, so I take an extension ring with me, but only seldom use it. So small, so light, also cheap. And enough distance, even for skittish insects. I do have the Canon MP-E 65mm 1x-5x, but that's on a different level.
G'day, Hans. I actually have considered that lens - and the RF 100 macro, too. For now, the RF 100-500 does a surprisingly good job if I want to get up close and personal with something like a butterfly. It's bloody heavy, but it works.
@@peterfritzphoto I'm really getting old! Will call you Peter next time. Your suggestion to take 3, 4 or 6 shots to make up for a missing super wide-angle is good advice (as long as nothing is moving in the scene). Another point on the RF 85: the autofocus is not the best, but for macro it is best to use manual anyway. It is also a great portrait lens. Yes, for butterflies the RF 100-500 is unbeatable - if you can handle the weight.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Haha - that's okay! I agree that manual focus is best for macro, for sure. I just bought the monstrously heavy Sigma 105mm f 1.4 lens, which is incredible for portraits. For me, though, it'll be pointed mostly at cars. 🙂
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.
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...
Thank you! It depends how close you can get to the aircraft, but any late model mirrorless camera body from Canon, Nikon or Sony paired with a quality zoom lens in 100-400 or 100-500 focal range would be the place to go.
@@MetaFootballTV Anything released in the last 3-4 years. Autofocus, and especially subject selection autofocus (person, animal, vehicle, etc.), have really advanced in the last few years.
Great video, I'm watching this because I have the RF24-105, I then added the EF70-200II, now I'm thinking the 24-105 doesn't quite do enough, that faster aperture of the 24-70 would be so much more useful that going to 105 since I have that, and more, covered by the 70-200. The 105 has been a fantastic lense and I would highly recommended it to someone picking up a camera and a single lense as part of a kit, but like you said, when you add to your collection, even just a little bit, the 24-70 just starts to make much more sense very quickly. And an edit just to say you gained a subsciber. Really nicely put together video with great images 👍
I am new to full frame. So far I have a 28-70mm f2, 16mm f2.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. The 28-70 should be my favorite but so far I am getting used too the weight. It might be too heavy for me. Oddly it doesn’t overwhelm the R8. I like the balance and feel - just not the weight. Usually I only go out with two lenses at a time and try to use only one. That way I concentrate on the images and not the gear.
I agree with you in almost everything. I started with rf 50 1.8, super versatile. Then I bought the rf 24-105 L. It was the perfect companion for travels. Finally I bought the rf 24 70 2.8. Colors and focusing is on another level. I will buy the 70-200 2.8 eventually for portraits. I love canon for its glass and usability of the camera. Think about the dials, joystick and ergonomic of the camera. It hasn’t really changed since the canon 5D which I still have. I love shooting with canon
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
I am waiting on the delivery of my 27th lens, the Canon EF 24-105, today for my Canon R7. I strongly prefer the EF mount because of the added versatility of using an adapter (basic, drop-in filter, and Speedbooster versions). I only have 2 RF mount lenses; the kit lens which never gets used, and the 800mm which I do love. I have a 300-800m "Sigmonster", but the odd Canon RF 800mm f11 is Sooo much easier to travel with. And I have taken a surprising number of great Landscape shots with it. This started when I would be out shooting birds and noticed a "scene" flash by while panning, a scene I never would have noticed if I was not looking through such a long telephoto lens.
Awesome video and an awesome style of photography. Using a tele lens is great, I love it using the "non-typical" lenses. Keep up your great work and your nice styles of videos, I will deffinitlly check out the RF100-400 cheap Review:)
Thanks Peter I did a closet clean out today suits and shoes I haven’t worn in years literally took your advice unclutter your life and do a massive clean out! I need that deck lid light and spaces for my 981 and that steering wheel looks sick! And your right the Cayman and Boxer are value for money especially me having the last production 2016 flat six 2.7. I love. I would love to get a camera for my channel any suggestions as I’m an avid Harley rider and Porsche for Sundays. Thanks for all your great videos they are very inspirational thank you! You rock!
Many thanks, Frank. Jumped over to your channel - your black Cayman looks awesome. As for cameras for your channel, there are soooo many options. First off, if your phone is less than three years old, it'll be more than enough to get some good videos, providing you also get a small microphone with a 'dead cat' windscreen on it. For that, look at the options from RODE and DJI. Quality audio is actually more important than video quality. Up from there, I'd look at the DJI Pocket 3 - it's bloody amazing. Just make sure you get the Creator Combo so you get the incredible wireless mic with it. Up from there - if you want a lens that zooms properly, consider the Sony ZV-1, or if you want to change out lenses, the Sony ZV-E1. I use a Canon R6 MKII in my office, and the DJI Pocket 3 out in the field, but I also had a Sony ZV-1, and it was great. On the car and in the car, I use the DJI Action 4, and the Insta360 GO 3. Lots of options, I know, but in order of priority, focus on: 1. A good story. 2. Good audio. 3. Good video.
Thanks Peter that is absolutely fantastic advice. More than I can ask for! I really appreciate that and thanks for taking a look at my channel it’s not much it’s just some bits and pieces that I started off with just a corporate guy who likes to ride a Harley and has a Porsche pretty much the same as you just need some tips and those tips are great! I should do an update on the Cayman as I’ve done a couple of things like I changed out the exhaust to fab flow plus dual exhaust tips changed out the side lights to clear and as you seen car came with 20s already which I was happy with thanks for the tips on the cameras and the mic I will definitely take you up on that Thanks! again answering good stuff mate appreciate it!
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. 👍
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.
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! 👍
Haven't seen your video yet but the RF 24-70 is the only lens I purchased along with my R6MK2 simply because I thought it would cover most scenarios for me from portrait to family photos to street photography and anything else I can think of really as I won't be getting another RF lens for quite a while so seemed like the best choice.
@@peterfritzphoto I had a few Pentax's prior and then didn't have a camera for a good number of years and decided to go for Cannon for the first time with the R6MK2, I recall at the time I had my Pentax, Cannon was THE brand but now I've come back to the camera World it seems like Sony has taken top spot?
Hi Peter, I came across your videos just this week while checking for the RF100-400mm lens reviews. I must say I have since learned a lot from your videos in short space of time (and subscribed). Thank you.
Newbie here. I Will be and have been shooting mostly sports (lacrosse) and want to get into travel/city, adventure photography. This is a great video. Can you explain how distances from the subject translate to the focal length of a lens. How far away from a subject, will each lens be best at. Example: the 24-70mm how far will 70mm cover (10ft, 45ft, 118ft?)
Sorry, mate - I can't do that for you. I'm sure Google can help. Or start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length, and here: www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/understanding-focal-length.html.
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 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
Sony have the 20-70 f/4 as I find 24mm a bit limiting on the wide end. I’ll be taking that one as my hiking lens for the Everest Base Camp, with two primes - a lightweight cheap f/1.8 50mm prime, and Sonys 14mm f/1.8 for some Astro photography.
I agree that the Canon 28-70 f/2 is perfect. I have been using it for about 6 months and it takes super high-quality images. Especially in low light. At f2 the depth of field is still deep. I just got the 100-500 as well. It is a beast. I was able to photograph the moon with craters handheld. Never been able to do that before.(I'm using the R5 body as well)
It really depends on the landscape - like you said. For forests, the 24mm is not quite wide enough, I prefer the 16-35mm f4 L EF for that - or even the 24mm TS-E II L EF as it allows me to shift and stitch panoramas very cleanly. I do have the 24-70 f2.8 L II, but I should have gotten the f4 version, the f2.8 version is just too heavy.
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 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
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…
Very useful and well put together vid, thank you! You have a left-hand grip on your R5 Can you please tell me what that is as it looks perfect for someone like me that has arthritis in many hand joints. Thanks again for some great info!!!
Thanks, Graham. I recently sold the R5 with the L-bracket to buy a Hasselblad, and I don’t recall the brand of the bracket. I think it was from Vietnam. Any L-bracket with an adjustable sliding L section will give you that left-hand ‘grip’. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto Thank you for your reply. I did some googling and Smallrig do something similar, I love their gear and packaging, it's just nice. However I I now realise there are a few options which is cool. But lucky you, that's a nice camera. I hire if needed but would LOVE to own one!!
@@grahammartin3514 Yes, the SmallRig products are excellent. The X2D is a dream, but lenses are super-pricey, and almost impossible to get at the moment, with crazy wait times. I’ve had to resort to buying two 40-year-old full manual Leica lenses and an adapter. They’re outstanding lenses, but I have no autofocus or aperture.
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.
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.
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.
Ooh, I’d love to try something like that 600. The last time I shot a big prime was the ‘89 MotoGP at Philip Island. Back then, it was a manual focus 800 on a Nikon F3!
I have the RF 100-500 for wildlife but it has reinvigorated my landscape photography being able to pick out elements of the landscape and it's close focus means you can get almost macro shots. I am thinking about getting the 27-70. I like a wide open lens to isolate my subject. I have an EF 70-200 f2.8 which I use for portraits and landscape.
Good to hear. Yes, a good long lens can really transform a mundane landscape into multiple interesting images. And the RF 100-500 is one of the best, for sure.
@@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. 👍
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.
@@peterfritzphoto both lenses are superb 28-70 has IS while the 28070 has f/2.0. obviously the 28-70 is heavier and has a larger filter size... but.... hey.
Wonderfully made video Peter, I love your take on your own photography and how it relates to your equipment. If I look at my most used focal lengths (and I've just done that) I find that I don't use that range too often, maybe I aught to force myself to give it a go. I suspect I would just end up missing the distortion or the compression 😂. Thought provoking as always, have a great week 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks, matey. I'm slowly learning there's no point in forcing any style of photography (or anything at all, for that matter). I keep wanting to try more wide photography, but it just doesn't seem to suit my environment or my style. So the 14-35 stays on my video camera, and the 24-70 and 100-500 do all my stills. I think I'm finally settled. At least until Canon releases an 18-80, or Fuji releases a GF 500mm lens... then I'll have to rethink that statement!
Newbie here. What’s best canon lens for filming RUclips and make up tutorials? Something that won’t distort my features and keeps everything so clear 🙏
@@L0ve-Chiara Assuming you’re using a Canon R-series camera, the 24-70 2.8 set to 35mm or higher is about as good as it gets. Otherwise, consider the 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8.
I also recently bought the RF50/1.8 and it's such an underrated little lens. I bought it for my R6 to use it on vacations only, I also own an RF24-70 but it's too big and heavy to carry all day. The RF50 is so sharp and it's got a wonderful character, images look wonderful and I can carry it around my neck all day long. Best 160 bucks I ever spent on a lens.
@@brianmcpartlan8664 Maybe a tiny bit better than the old STM one when you pixel peep the images side by side, but it's not so noticeable. I'm very happy with the sharpness level on my R6. It's been sitting at f1.8 since I bought it.
@@peterfritzphotothanks Peter. I sold my r7 but the 24-70 is phonemenal on the r5 and r6 ii. So flexible for events. Not as exciting as primes or the 28-70 f/2 (which im yet to use) but not too heavy and good for video too
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.
Hi! Really nice video, but still need 2 ask.. why did you rate the 35mm f1.8 hardly 9/10? i've read almost al the comments anyway.. the thing is some people say that's not a big difference in terms of image quality, contrast and sharpness , but you say it is.. and some other guys here too, which you agreed with them.. i 'Ve looked all over YT and i dont find the answer i need because there is no such a video.. i would rent a 24-70 and do this by myself but i can't rent one unfortunately. How dramatic do you say it is? What about cropping from 70 to 105mm look? Is it still better the sharpness on the 70 with the crop factor? Cheers and greetings!
@@peterfritzphoto thanks for your answer! but in a real world test, is a big difference of image quality when shooting to 24-70 against the 24-105? that's all i need to know :D
@@cosmindanes9435 It feels like there is, yes. Most people who experience the RF24-70 witness a step up in sharpness, contrast, and colour reproduction. It’s one of those things that doesn’t diminish the other, but feels like a different level in quality.
Great content, thank you Peter. I've just got into photography now that I'm retired. I chose the R6 body and my first lens investment was the 70-200 2.8 which is amazing! I'm now torn between the 24-70 and the 28-70 for my next lens. My heart is telling me 28, it gets some very positive reviews but head says 24, half the weight and much lower cost. Can you help me decide?
Haha - great problem! I have an R6II myself, and I love it. If you plan to walk a lot with your lens on camera, the 24-70 makes more sense, but if weight isn’t an issue, and/or you really want the epic 28-70, you must get it. 👍
Hi Peter, I have the 28-70 now and very happy with the choice! Thank you again for helping my decision. I have a further question as I'm about to buy the 200-800 lens for wildlife and moon. I think I remember you saying that you use the r6 more than r5. I'm.considering 'upgrading' to the r5. Can you explain why you favor the r6 please? The main reason I'm thinking of upgrading is resolution where i could get better detail from cropped images.
I love my 100-500 it may favorite lens to use. I have been saving to get the 24-70 2.8 but now I’m on the fence with the new 24-105 2.8 that’s been released. I could make me ditch my 70-200f4 😂 so many choices. Great video thanks
It's a kit lens. A very high end kit lens that performs well, but it can't do anything AMAZING. I'd recommend saving for a 50 f1.2, 70-200 f2.8, and a 14-35 f4.0. Edit was changing 15-14. It's currently on my camera now lol but the lower range I barely use. Just got to use it for some shots of my son being born!
@peterfritzphoto hell yeah man glad to hear it! Hope life is treating you well. How do you like medium format compared to FF? Is it really THAT noticeable?
@@CudChewingCattle Hi Jason! I don't think full-frame on its own is noticably better than full-frame, and so I didn't buy it for its sensor resolution. I bought it because I wanted a much simpler, purer experience (the X2D is much easier to use than most modern high-end mirrorless cameras, it has lovely industrial design, and it doesn't do video). I also wanted the X2D's amazing colour science, dynamic range and image stabilsation. In all these areas, it truly excels. I did a video on my reasons for buying here: ruclips.net/video/qkpk3To3x6w/видео.html
I have four L lenses now: 16-35/4, 35/1.4 mk ii, 24-70/4, 100/2.8 macro and all of them produce similar perfect output on my 6D mk ii... no need to compare them exactly, they just work as needed...
What are your favourite two lenses? Can you live with just two?
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
@@ynkkruse That’s a good setup, Yannik. A 20-80 f4 would be my perfect lens. Thanks for watching. 👍
For me 2 lenses just doesn't do the trick...
I use a sony 200-600 G, a 16-35 f4 Zeiss and an 85mm 1.4 Samyang
@@silasstruss4317 Sounds like a good combo, Silas. I was always curious about the 85mm Samyang (I used to own the 14 f2.8). What's it like?
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.
Mind blowing pictures with perfectly complementing music. Makes me feel all dreamy and hopeful!
Thank you, Ram!
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.
Lol. I don’t own all those lenses now. I sell than almost as fast as I change my underwear! Right now, I have four lenses.
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 agree, Paul. 👍
Maybe you can help find this out paul.. if you're nice
I bought A7S3 a month ago. The only lens I have is 24-105 f4. So far I’m pretty happy with it
Yep - it’ll do 90% of everything really well. 👍
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.
Same here. I just spent three days shooting in the desert with the 24-70 and 100-500, and they're incredible.
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.
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!
Yep - that’s RF perfection. If I didn’t need so much reach, that would definitely be my kit, too. Sicily and Italy… how idyllic.
For my 5D I have the EF 24-70 2.8 L, and the EF 70-200 F4 L. Quite pleased.
That's a very smart combo.
The 70-200 f4 is wonderful, razor sharp and very easy to work with
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.
Interesting. I’ve only tried the EF 100mm macro. Thanks for that.
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.
Thanks Peter for the info. I’m coming back to canon. Just ordered a used R5 and yes I know the mkii is just around the corner but it was a good deal.
Good stuff, David. An extra 15 megapixels won’t make a bit of difference to the brilliant R5. You made wise choice.
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.
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... :-)
I’ve got an older 70-210mm that I like plus the 400mm zoom that I enjoy. I like to reach out for shots, but it’s nice to zoom in to close subjects like wildlife I stumble across - another great video here.
Thanks as always, Chris. My very first non-standard lens was a 70-210! I was so excited when I got it.
@@peterfritzphoto if it was a Nikon they are pretty quick focussing . Would have helped with Motorsport perhaps ?
@@chriscummins4282 I had no AF back then. I shot all my car and motorcycle pics for magazines with an F3 and a Mamiya 645. Autofocus makes it so easy, now, but back then, I shot MotoGP with a manual focus 800mm lens on Ektachrome 100 and 400 film!
@@peterfritzphoto gee’ that’s interesting . I don’t think I’ve heard or watched anything with you describing that gear before . Thanks
@@chriscummins4282 Nope. Fond memories, though. I should dig out some of my old magazine covers. I shot the cover and the whole feature story for the first MotoGP at Phillip Island in 1989. It was an awesome race; won by Wayne Gardner.
The 28-70 is a unicorn. Twice the light of a 2.8 lens. Sharp, beautiful rendering
I agree. I really must try it someday. The trouble is, my bag already weighs a tonne with the Sigma 105 1.4 and RF 100-500!
@@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.
@@procarepharmacy2931 I have to try it someday. For now, my ‘special’ lens (purchased after my ‘10 Lenses’ video) is the beastly Sigma 105 f/1.4.
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.
@@pacocreates Thanks, Paco. 👍
My two favorite are the RF 24-70 f2.8 and the RF 100-500L,… and I like B&W speakers, too. Thanks for sharing your awesome photos,… truly beautiful!
Haha - that's amazing!! Thanks for that! 🙂
I've owned and tested most RF glass and to be honest the best one to me was the RF 28-70 f2. Its just heavy and pricey lol.
I'd love to try that lens. It looks amazing.
Hi Peter- Just rewatched this video and wondered why a 'wide-angle lens is ideal for shooting in very close quarters? Thank you for all of the thoughtful videos you produce. Cheers!
Hi Tom. I was referring to areas like densely wooded areas, creeks, and the like - where it might otherwise be difficult to position yourself far enough back from your subject to capture it the way the scene requires. All of this is very subjective, of course, but it helps to explain the popularity of the 14-20mm focal range in these environments.
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks again, for your thoughts. Much of my shooting in North Carolina is dense woodland. I don’t live that near mountains so I go to State or National parks and preserves where you often find tangling trees and bushes. I’m going to try using a wide-angle lens and see how it goes. Thank you, again.
@@TLM823 Anytime, Tom. 👍
Absolutely agree. I shoot all of my work with the RF 24 - 70 and the RF 70 - 200 f2.8. The RF 50 f1.8 is great for casual walking around., street, travel. The Bokeh I get from a f2.8 lens is the perfect amount for me to give some separation yet still give the subject context. Combined with the excellent sharpness of the RF lenses... there's no more need for primes for me other than in extreme low light which I don't really shoot anymore. I prefer using flash for that anyways.
Thanks for sharing, Jonas. I like your channel art, BTW.
@@peterfritzphoto thanks :)
@@jonashuckphotodo you got the f4 24-105 either?
No I never used or got that lens. That f4 aperture seems really boring to me. I'd rather use a prime for travel than this. And other than travel I don't know what to do with a f4 24 - 105 really. But that's just me.@@cosmindanes9435
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.
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!
Thanks for dropping by, Robert. I have to agree, the 50 is just brilliant. I think I need to do another 50-only shoot! 👍
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.
Super tempting, but hard to justify with my main genres - landscapes and cars.
I believe is it big, heavy, and super expensive.
By hard to describe do you mean amazing?
third day with this guy - I do not know what to say - as good as the best primes!
RF 28-70 has no IBIS that’s a deal breaker
I bought the 14-35 for real estate use and had to return it based on the camera raw profile which still ended up with bent edge lines no matter what i did.
Wonder if the profile is improved now.
EF 16-35 is solid.
Yeah, straight lines are definitely a must in real estate and architecture.
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.
Sounds perfect. If Canon made a 24-300 f2.8, I could almost be a one-lens shooter!
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.
Very nice. I must admit, I wouldn't mind a fast 14mm to try some astro again...
@@peterfritzphoto Shot the Milky Way with my Canon 16mm F2.8 and that worked quite good.
Would love me a 14mm tho too
@@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?
Stunning photos! The Australian landscape photos and trees are beautiful. Second video of yours I've enjoyed. I subscribed after seeing those photos.
I shoot with a Nikon Z50 and I'm trying to find the best lenses now for storms, lightning and landscapes(including the wider range f mount lens) and potentially for a used Z full frame later. Needs to be wide enough now as moving storms won't stitch well (I don't think)
Cheers
Thank you, James! Yes, you’re right - you’ll want something pretty wide to capture storms. A great channel for storm photography is Nick Page’s channel. 👍
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. 👍
Nice presentation! Looks like you’re upping your videography. The 24-70 is my most frequently used lens. I think it’s the most versatile focal length for landscape photography. Take care, buddy!
It only took me three years to figure that out!! Yeah, it’s a brilliant lens. As for the video, I realised my office is a great place to film - mainly because of my pics in the background. I also might get back to more walk and talk stuff in future (though, maybe not up and down the stairs). Damn, I’m so unfit…
@@peterfritzphoto Haha! I think I need to rethink my goals on RUclips. Not sure yet 🤔
@@ScottymanPhoto It ain’t easy, that’s for damn sure. One thing I’d suggest is to be a lot more subtle asking for likes/subs/comments. Oh, and a good thumbnail is about 50% of the job. I spend AGES on my titles and thumbnails. Still learning!
@@peterfritzphoto thanks for tips, buddy! I think you’re right!
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.
I don't know if you'll see too much difference in optical performance, but your AF speed will likely improve, and you'll be able to ditch the adapter.
I have 5DMIII + 70-300 L + 16-35 F/4 L. I don't feel like I ever need anything else except more sensor resolution (rarely). Have a good day.
And you're right. Those items are MORE than enough.
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.
It’s not, really. It only makes a difference if you’re always shooting at 16mm and wish you could go wider - otherwise, the 16-35 is brilliant.
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 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.
Yeah, I’m still loving mine. Just note the F2.0 lens is 28-70 (not 24). 👍
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks for catching that! My bad! :)
I currently own 25 lenses, of which 12 were made by Canon for full-frame cameras. I think three of them were mentioned in your video. Undoubtedly the single best all-round lens I've purchased, just after Christmas, has been the RF 24-105mm f/4, but I recently added the EF 24-70mm f/4 because I still own three EOS 5D models (i.e. every one bar the 5D4). That particular model went under most reviewers' radar, but based on your scoring system it's a solid 9 at least. For landscapes with faraway detail, I miss out time after time by leaving my telephoto zooms at home, because they're quite heavy to carry around on the off chance of me ever actually using them. The EF 100-400mm f/4-5-5.6 has been by far my most expensive lens purchase in absolute and relative terms - it's brilliant but has in truth spent five years on the shelf. Your compressed scene images do encourage me to give it an overdue outing though, so thanks for the inspiration.
That’s quite to collection, Michael. The 5D is a brilliant machine, that’s for sure. Many seasoned pros still swear by it. I came across from Nikon to Canon just as the RF bodies were gathering steam. But first, I bought the little M3, then an M6, and then an M6 MKII (awesome camera). I actually shot the EF 100-400 II with that for a while, which looked funny, but worked a treat. After that, I went straight to the R5. If the EF 100-400 is a bit unwieldy, try the RF 100-400. It’s just about as sharp, but light as a feather.
@@peterfritzphoto Thank you for the suggestion Peter. It makes sense and that would make a baker's dozen of Canon lenses. Canon gets a lot of criticism, but their lenses just work and never let you down. And I knew when I picked up a new 5D3 back in 2014 that it suited me perfectly. To this day it remains my favourite, although technically there are many far better and coming from Nikon you'd know that better than most.
@@MichealSeaghdha At the end of the day, and as I’m sure you’ll know, you can make beautiful images with almost any camera. If the glass is half decent, and you have a good eye for composition, subject choice and light, you can make magic.
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 !
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.
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.
Very true. Matter of fact, I just bought a 1.4 lens a few days ago for that very reason.
I have the Canon R5 and I have the RF24-105mm f/4L and I have gravitating to the EF70-300mm. I also have the RF50mm f/1.8 which Ted’s threw in as a freebie when I bought the R5. I am sensitive to the weight of my gear.
I’m the same. I went shooting on Thursday, and packed only what I needed into a much smaller shoulder bag, and it was sooo liberating!
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 have to agree on all counts. 👍
Great video and I’m pleased you got a good copy of the RF 24-70 lens.
I purchased the 24 -105 L because the 24-70 lens I sampled was a mediocre performer on a Canon R5.
Beautifully made but not sharp. Maybe the lens was an off spec production copy but I could not see the value at double the price of the F4 alternative.
Happy to revisit this lens after seeing your video because you are right it ticks all the boxes - assuming you get a good one!
Yeah, it's funny how, even with modern production techniques, a dud sample can still make its way onto the shelves.
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).
Thank you, and of course, you’re right. Great collection you have. Thanks for dropping by, Klaus.
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
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.
Good for you, mate. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto You should get the RF 50mm f/1.2L, it’s excellent.
@@martyn420 One day.
Hi Fritz. haven't been on your channel for a while. Gorgeous images! I'm surprised not to find the RF 85 f/2 on your list. I bought it after selling my macro EF 100L. I am very much into macro, and was waiting for the new RF 100 macro. But the 85mm does a great job. It only goes to 1:2, so I take an extension ring with me, but only seldom use it. So small, so light, also cheap. And enough distance, even for skittish insects. I do have the Canon MP-E 65mm 1x-5x, but that's on a different level.
G'day, Hans. I actually have considered that lens - and the RF 100 macro, too. For now, the RF 100-500 does a surprisingly good job if I want to get up close and personal with something like a butterfly. It's bloody heavy, but it works.
@@peterfritzphoto I'm really getting old! Will call you Peter next time. Your suggestion to take 3, 4 or 6 shots to make up for a missing super wide-angle is good advice (as long as nothing is moving in the scene).
Another point on the RF 85: the autofocus is not the best, but for macro it is best to use manual anyway. It is also a great portrait lens.
Yes, for butterflies the RF 100-500 is unbeatable - if you can handle the weight.
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Haha - that's okay! I agree that manual focus is best for macro, for sure. I just bought the monstrously heavy Sigma 105mm f 1.4 lens, which is incredible for portraits. For me, though, it'll be pointed mostly at cars. 🙂
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.
Bugger! It seems we have similar tastes in glass. And using the 100-500 for landscapes is a smart choice. If some think it’s weird, even better. 😄
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...
Loved this.
Thinking of taking up photography for aviation.
Would you care to recommend any gear ?
Thanks and keep up the smashing work 💯👍
Thank you! It depends how close you can get to the aircraft, but any late model mirrorless camera body from Canon, Nikon or Sony paired with a quality zoom lens in 100-400 or 100-500 focal range would be the place to go.
@@peterfritzphoto Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'late model' ?
@@MetaFootballTV Anything released in the last 3-4 years. Autofocus, and especially subject selection autofocus (person, animal, vehicle, etc.), have really advanced in the last few years.
@@peterfritzphoto Ok, I understand.
Thank you ever so much for your time and patience 🤗
Let's see how things go 🫡
@@MetaFootballTV Good luck. 👍
Great video, I'm watching this because I have the RF24-105, I then added the EF70-200II, now I'm thinking the 24-105 doesn't quite do enough, that faster aperture of the 24-70 would be so much more useful that going to 105 since I have that, and more, covered by the 70-200. The 105 has been a fantastic lense and I would highly recommended it to someone picking up a camera and a single lense as part of a kit, but like you said, when you add to your collection, even just a little bit, the 24-70 just starts to make much more sense very quickly.
And an edit just to say you gained a subsciber. Really nicely put together video with great images 👍
Thank you, Jayen - that’s really nice of you.
I am new to full frame. So far I have a 28-70mm f2, 16mm f2.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. The 28-70 should be my favorite but so far I am getting used too the weight. It might be too heavy for me. Oddly it doesn’t overwhelm the R8. I like the balance and feel - just not the weight. Usually I only go out with two lenses at a time and try to use only one. That way I concentrate on the images and not the gear.
Sounds wise. That 28-70 is a beast - I must try it someday. Thanks for watching. 👍
I agree with you in almost everything. I started with rf 50 1.8, super versatile. Then I bought the rf 24-105 L. It was the perfect companion for travels. Finally I bought the rf 24 70 2.8. Colors and focusing is on another level. I will buy the 70-200 2.8 eventually for portraits. I love canon for its glass and usability of the camera. Think about the dials, joystick and ergonomic of the camera. It hasn’t really changed since the canon 5D which I still have. I love shooting with canon
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
@@frankluo230 Thank you, Frank. I appreciate that very much.
Damn I thought you'd mention the 28-70mm f2 somewhere
I know it’s a stellar lens, but I don’t have any personal experience with it (yet).
I am waiting on the delivery of my 27th lens, the Canon EF 24-105, today for my Canon R7. I strongly prefer the EF mount because of the added versatility of using an adapter (basic, drop-in filter, and Speedbooster versions). I only have 2 RF mount lenses; the kit lens which never gets used, and the 800mm which I do love. I have a 300-800m "Sigmonster", but the odd Canon RF 800mm f11 is Sooo much easier to travel with. And I have taken a surprising number of great Landscape shots with it. This started when I would be out shooting birds and noticed a "scene" flash by while panning, a scene I never would have noticed if I was not looking through such a long telephoto lens.
That’s a hell of a collection, Ray! Long lenses are awesome for landscapes. My most used landscape focal length is 500mm.
Awesome video and an awesome style of photography. Using a tele lens is great, I love it using the "non-typical" lenses.
Keep up your great work and your nice styles of videos, I will deffinitlly check out the RF100-400 cheap Review:)
Thank you - that’s very kind.
Thanks Peter I did a closet clean out today suits and shoes I haven’t worn in years literally took your advice unclutter your life and do a massive clean out! I need that deck lid light and spaces for my 981 and that steering wheel looks sick! And your right the Cayman and Boxer are value for money especially me having the last production 2016 flat six 2.7. I love. I would love to get a camera for my channel any suggestions as I’m an avid Harley rider and Porsche for Sundays. Thanks for all your great videos they are very inspirational thank you! You rock!
Many thanks, Frank. Jumped over to your channel - your black Cayman looks awesome. As for cameras for your channel, there are soooo many options. First off, if your phone is less than three years old, it'll be more than enough to get some good videos, providing you also get a small microphone with a 'dead cat' windscreen on it. For that, look at the options from RODE and DJI. Quality audio is actually more important than video quality. Up from there, I'd look at the DJI Pocket 3 - it's bloody amazing. Just make sure you get the Creator Combo so you get the incredible wireless mic with it. Up from there - if you want a lens that zooms properly, consider the Sony ZV-1, or if you want to change out lenses, the Sony ZV-E1. I use a Canon R6 MKII in my office, and the DJI Pocket 3 out in the field, but I also had a Sony ZV-1, and it was great. On the car and in the car, I use the DJI Action 4, and the Insta360 GO 3. Lots of options, I know, but in order of priority, focus on: 1. A good story. 2. Good audio. 3. Good video.
Thanks Peter that is absolutely fantastic advice. More than I can ask for! I really appreciate that and thanks for taking a look at my channel it’s not much it’s just some bits and pieces that I started off with just a corporate guy who likes to ride a Harley and has a Porsche pretty much the same as you just need some tips and those tips are great! I should do an update on the Cayman as I’ve done a couple of things like I changed out the exhaust to fab flow plus dual exhaust tips changed out the side lights to clear and as you seen car came with 20s already which I was happy with thanks for the tips on the cameras and the mic I will definitely take you up on that Thanks! again answering good stuff mate appreciate it!
@@NorthHoustonCityLimits Very happy to help, Frank. You seem like a properly nice guy.
Great review straight to the point and really homed in ok key benefits to the 24-70 I’m aiming to get a 50mm after hearing some good reviews on it
Thanks, Roz. The 50 is brilliant.
So you could end up with 2 lenses only or 3, 24-70 ,100-500 and maybe a prime. I use sony but just as a hobby and im leaning towards the same setup
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. 👍
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.
You have excellent taste in lenses, Zach! And yes, that 28-70 f/2 is like me after two Kebabs.
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! 👍
Haven't seen your video yet but the RF 24-70 is the only lens I purchased along with my R6MK2 simply because I thought it would cover most scenarios for me from portrait to family photos to street photography and anything else I can think of really as I won't be getting another RF lens for quite a while so seemed like the best choice.
Great pairing. I use an M6MK2 as well. I often prefer it to the R5.
@@peterfritzphoto I had a few Pentax's prior and then didn't have a camera for a good number of years and decided to go for Cannon for the first time with the R6MK2, I recall at the time I had my Pentax, Cannon was THE brand but now I've come back to the camera World it seems like Sony has taken top spot?
@@smeshfactory3992 It doesn’t matter who’s on top spot, much less what that even means. They all make amazing gear and brilliant glass. All of ‘em.
I have purchased R5 with 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 and 70 200 f2.8. it crossed my budget. Will add 15 35 2.8 in my arsenal in future.
@@thelaststand1977 That’s quite a kit, there!
Hi Peter, I came across your videos just this week while checking for the RF100-400mm lens reviews. I must say I have since learned a lot from your videos in short space of time (and subscribed). Thank you.
Thank you, Xolani. That’s very nice of you.
Newbie here. I Will be and have been shooting mostly sports (lacrosse) and want to get into travel/city, adventure photography. This is a great video. Can you explain how distances from the subject translate to the focal length of a lens. How far away from a subject, will each lens be best at. Example: the 24-70mm how far will 70mm cover (10ft, 45ft, 118ft?)
Sorry, mate - I can't do that for you. I'm sure Google can help. Or start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length, and here: www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/understanding-focal-length.html.
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. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto many thanks, I will definitely do it. Love my r6 ii too!
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
Yes, I imagine that would be very popular.
Sony have the 20-70 f/4 as I find 24mm a bit limiting on the wide end. I’ll be taking that one as my hiking lens for the Everest Base Camp, with two primes - a lightweight cheap f/1.8 50mm prime, and Sonys 14mm f/1.8 for some Astro photography.
Oh, wow - sounds amazing. Take care up there.
Great video mate, that lens is a beast & the image Q is terrific! I mostly use my 35mm f/1.4 & 100-400 II ( not counting macro😛 ). Cheers
Thanks, Pete. I had fun making this one.
I agree that the Canon 28-70 f/2 is perfect. I have been using it for about 6 months and it takes super high-quality images. Especially in low light. At f2 the depth of field is still deep. I just got the 100-500 as well. It is a beast. I was able to photograph the moon with craters handheld. Never been able to do that before.(I'm using the R5 body as well)
I just spent a few days shooting with those two lenses in the desert - this time with the R6 MKII, and they continue to impress. 👍
Do you mean the 28-70 f/2?
You are correct. I missed typed@@mynameisben123
you are correct. I mistyped. Edited to reflect Thank you@@mynameisben123
It really depends on the landscape - like you said. For forests, the 24mm is not quite wide enough, I prefer the 16-35mm f4 L EF for that - or even the 24mm TS-E II L EF as it allows me to shift and stitch panoramas very cleanly. I do have the 24-70 f2.8 L II, but I should have gotten the f4 version, the f2.8 version is just too heavy.
It is bloody heavy, for sure. But since I shoot talking head videos and portrait stills with it, too, it’s quite a versatile tool for me.
This should’ve been your first lens! Wonder what would you say about “RF 28-70mm F2 L USM” lens!!
Many have asked the same question.
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.
@@peterfritzphoto Sadly, no. Sold it about 10 years ago. Had to simplify, but am content. Except when it comes to GAS, lol.
Know the feeling. On all counts.
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’ve owned a few Sigma lenses, and they’ve all be brilliant. I wish I could buy a Sigma RF lens.
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.
@@peterfritzphoto Thanks Peter, I’ll search around YT 😀 cheers. Hope you Autumn is going well, ours is better than our soggy summer 😀
@@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…
Very useful and well put together vid, thank you!
You have a left-hand grip on your R5 Can you please tell me what that is as it looks perfect for someone like me that has arthritis in many hand joints. Thanks again for some great info!!!
Thanks, Graham. I recently sold the R5 with the L-bracket to buy a Hasselblad, and I don’t recall the brand of the bracket. I think it was from Vietnam. Any L-bracket with an adjustable sliding L section will give you that left-hand ‘grip’. 👍
@@peterfritzphoto Thank you for your reply. I did some googling and Smallrig do something similar, I love their gear and packaging, it's just nice. However I I now realise there are a few options which is cool. But lucky you, that's a nice camera. I hire if needed but would LOVE to own one!!
PS I'm ordering the RF 24-70 at the end of the week. Your information was the very much part of the decision making so thanks again 😊
@@grahammartin3514 Yes, the SmallRig products are excellent. The X2D is a dream, but lenses are super-pricey, and almost impossible to get at the moment, with crazy wait times. I’ve had to resort to buying two 40-year-old full manual Leica lenses and an adapter. They’re outstanding lenses, but I have no autofocus or aperture.
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.
@@jamUSA24 Great to hear, Joel. It’s one of the GOATs, that’s for sure. 👍
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
No, I haven’t been seduced by that lens, yet! I’ve watched a couple of videos, though, so understand the allure. 👍
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 that’s great to hear Rob. I’ve been eyeing the RF 24-105 L lens for some time as a all-rounder, are you happy with its performance?
@@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.
@@SeanNeale yes, it is a very good lens. Sure, you miss the speed a bit - but really not an issue for the kind of things I do with a mid range.
I like that you make owning non-L glass cool.... I am going to go shopping
LOL.
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.
The RF 100-400 is a fantastic lens. I had one, sold it, bought the RF 100-500, sold that lens, and then bought the RF 100-400 again!
RF24-70 is my modt used lens (EF before that). My second is Canon 600 ii IS f4 for animals
Ooh, I’d love to try something like that 600. The last time I shot a big prime was the ‘89 MotoGP at Philip Island. Back then, it was a manual focus 800 on a Nikon F3!
I have the RF 100-500 for wildlife but it has reinvigorated my landscape photography being able to pick out elements of the landscape and it's close focus means you can get almost macro shots. I am thinking about getting the 27-70. I like a wide open lens to isolate my subject. I have an EF 70-200 f2.8 which I use for portraits and landscape.
Good to hear. Yes, a good long lens can really transform a mundane landscape into multiple interesting images. And the RF 100-500 is one of the best, for sure.
Hi friend, I bought the Canon R8 and now I have bought the 24 105 F4 RF, it will arrive tomorrow. How does the camera behave with that lens? Thanks
@@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. 👍
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.
They really are. And the RF 100-400 is amazing. It’s as though they’re incapable of making a bad RF lens.
I had thr 24-70 but sold it and stayed with my 28-70 f/2. Both are beautiful lenes but nothing beats that 28-70mm f2.0
I really must try that lens one day.
@@peterfritzphoto both lenses are superb 28-70 has IS while the 28070 has f/2.0. obviously the 28-70 is heavier and has a larger filter size... but.... hey.
Wonderfully made video Peter, I love your take on your own photography and how it relates to your equipment. If I look at my most used focal lengths (and I've just done that) I find that I don't use that range too often, maybe I aught to force myself to give it a go. I suspect I would just end up missing the distortion or the compression 😂. Thought provoking as always, have a great week 🙏🙏🙏
Thanks, matey. I'm slowly learning there's no point in forcing any style of photography (or anything at all, for that matter). I keep wanting to try more wide photography, but it just doesn't seem to suit my environment or my style. So the 14-35 stays on my video camera, and the 24-70 and 100-500 do all my stills. I think I'm finally settled. At least until Canon releases an 18-80, or Fuji releases a GF 500mm lens... then I'll have to rethink that statement!
Newbie here. What’s best canon lens for filming RUclips and make up tutorials? Something that won’t distort my features and keeps everything so clear 🙏
@@L0ve-Chiara Assuming you’re using a Canon R-series camera, the 24-70 2.8 set to 35mm or higher is about as good as it gets. Otherwise, consider the 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8.
@@peterfritzphotoyou are the besttttt!! This is so helpful! Thank you!!
I also recently bought the RF50/1.8 and it's such an underrated little lens. I bought it for my R6 to use it on vacations only, I also own an RF24-70 but it's too big and heavy to carry all day. The RF50 is so sharp and it's got a wonderful character, images look wonderful and I can carry it around my neck all day long. Best 160 bucks I ever spent on a lens.
I couldn’t agree more, mate. I’m planning to do another 50mm only video soon. Thanks for dropping by.
Is it any better in image quality than the EF 50 1.8 nifty fifty?
@@brianmcpartlan8664 I don't thinks so, but for a better answer, look to someone like Dustin Abbott or Christopher Frost.
@@brianmcpartlan8664 Maybe a tiny bit better than the old STM one when you pixel peep the images side by side, but it's not so noticeable. I'm very happy with the sharpness level on my R6. It's been sitting at f1.8 since I bought it.
Just ordered the RF 24-70 2.8 for my APS-C Canon R7 with 32.5 MP. How do you think it will do for me? Looking forward to watching this
Extremely well. The R7 sensor is stellar.
@@peterfritzphotothanks Peter. I sold my r7 but the 24-70 is phonemenal on the r5 and r6 ii. So flexible for events. Not as exciting as primes or the 28-70 f/2 (which im yet to use) but not too heavy and good for video too
@@car_88i I agree. I've used it a tonne on my R6II, and it's brilliant.
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.
Yes, that RF 100-400 is a brilliant lens.
Hi! Really nice video, but still need 2 ask.. why did you rate the 35mm f1.8 hardly 9/10?
i've read almost al the comments anyway.. the thing is some people say that's not a big difference in terms of image quality, contrast and sharpness , but you say it is.. and some other guys here too, which you agreed with them.. i 'Ve looked all over YT and i dont find the answer i need because there is no such a video.. i would rent a 24-70 and do this by myself but i can't rent one unfortunately. How dramatic do you say it is? What about cropping from 70 to 105mm look? Is it still better the sharpness on the 70 with the crop factor? Cheers and greetings!
My review is completely unscientific. I leave the real testing to Gordon Lang and Chris Frost.
@@peterfritzphoto thanks for your answer! but in a real world test, is a big difference of image quality when shooting to 24-70 against the 24-105? that's all i need to know :D
@@cosmindanes9435 It feels like there is, yes. Most people who experience the RF24-70 witness a step up in sharpness, contrast, and colour reproduction. It’s one of those things that doesn’t diminish the other, but feels like a different level in quality.
@@peterfritzphoto have a good day sir!
I'm highly considering th 28-70 f/2 my dream lens.
Yes, it looks awesome, that lens.
Nice overview! Thanks for this video.
Thank you.
Great content, thank you Peter. I've just got into photography now that I'm retired. I chose the R6 body and my first lens investment was the 70-200 2.8 which is amazing!
I'm now torn between the 24-70 and the 28-70 for my next lens. My heart is telling me 28, it gets some very positive reviews but head says 24, half the weight and much lower cost.
Can you help me decide?
Haha - great problem! I have an R6II myself, and I love it. If you plan to walk a lot with your lens on camera, the 24-70 makes more sense, but if weight isn’t an issue, and/or you really want the epic 28-70, you must get it. 👍
Thank you, 28 it is, else I risk regret.
@@kevinlancaster3200 Exactly. And at our age, we’ve probably accumulated enough of that already. 👍
Hi Peter, I have the 28-70 now and very happy with the choice! Thank you again for helping my decision.
I have a further question as I'm about to buy the 200-800 lens for wildlife and moon.
I think I remember you saying that you use the r6 more than r5. I'm.considering 'upgrading' to the r5. Can you explain why you favor the r6 please? The main reason I'm thinking of upgrading is resolution where i could get better detail from cropped images.
Always wanted a 24-70, still away from the hold. Awesome pictures taken in it.
Many thanks. I just used it again this weekend, hand-held in a very dark forest. It’s sooo good.
Just curious if you had ever considered the "beast" i.e., the RF 28-780 f2., or would that be too much of a portrait lens for your style?
If I shot portraits, I'd be very tempted to get this, for sure. But for me, I think the 24-70 is ideal.
I love my 100-500 it may favorite lens to use. I have been saving to get the 24-70 2.8 but now I’m on the fence with the new 24-105 2.8 that’s been released. I could make me ditch my 70-200f4 😂 so many choices. Great video thanks
Thanks, Michael. I was really looking forward to the 24-105 2.8… until I saw its dimensions.
Next week the new owner of a r6// stil thinking to get the adapter and use my Sigma art lenses 35 en 85 1.4 or get a RF lens??
It's a kit lens. A very high end kit lens that performs well, but it can't do anything AMAZING. I'd recommend saving for a 50 f1.2, 70-200 f2.8, and a 14-35 f4.0.
Edit was changing 15-14. It's currently on my camera now lol but the lower range I barely use. Just got to use it for some shots of my son being born!
@@CudChewingCattle I’ve since bought a Hasselblad X2D. Now that’s got some amazing glass. 👍
@peterfritzphoto hell yeah man glad to hear it! Hope life is treating you well. How do you like medium format compared to FF? Is it really THAT noticeable?
@@CudChewingCattle Hi Jason! I don't think full-frame on its own is noticably better than full-frame, and so I didn't buy it for its sensor resolution. I bought it because I wanted a much simpler, purer experience (the X2D is much easier to use than most modern high-end mirrorless cameras, it has lovely industrial design, and it doesn't do video). I also wanted the X2D's amazing colour science, dynamic range and image stabilsation. In all these areas, it truly excels. I did a video on my reasons for buying here: ruclips.net/video/qkpk3To3x6w/видео.html
@peterfritzphoto thanks man I'll check it out!
This 24-70 could be better also for portraits?
It's brilliant for portraits.
EF 16-35mm f/4 10/10? Maybe I’ve got a bad copy but it’s distinctly average on my old DSLR.
Have you tried RF28-70?
I loved the EF 16-35 f4 on my R5. No, I haven’t tried the 28-70 yet. I’d love to.
I have four L lenses now: 16-35/4, 35/1.4 mk ii, 24-70/4, 100/2.8 macro and all of them produce similar perfect output on my 6D mk ii... no need to compare them exactly, they just work as needed...