Interesting. The RF 28-70mm f/2L has been one of the RF lenses that has most tempted me to migrate to, or add the RF system. (The other would be the Macro L.) You have, however, made a good case for parting with the RF 28-70/2L. Age is catching up with me, so, I can certainly agree with the weight aspect. I can still shoot well enough with a heavy lens, but, carrying cumulative weight, very far, is becoming a problem. Well-done; thanks!
This is a good example of why YT can be a waste of time. No offense please, but sometimes the yt algorithm reminds me of first world problems. PS: What kind of Tripod are you using? You just have to install it correctly and it wont tip over.
No offense taken…haha. The 28-70 is an amazing lens for many people. I am just sharing my personal preference. If you like smaller gear, using primes and value a lighter kit over the versatile focal length (depends what you are shooting) then some may favor the 24-70.
Will never rid myself of the RF 28-70 F2.0. Such an amazing, useful and unique lens!!! Will never trade image uniqueness/quality for supposed QoL non-sense.
Most of people I hear purchasing the 28-70 F2.0 do so for "non-sense QoL issues" complaining it's too inconvenient/difficult to carry primes around. To that end I could claim "I will never trade image uniqueness/quality of primes for supposed QoL non-sense you get with the RF 28-70 F2.0."
Totally! I have a Sigma EF 35mm f/1.4 and a Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS -- They're both really solid lenses, but I tend to favor the Canon 2.0 over the Sigma 1.4, because the Canon is nearly as sharp, is stabilized, and is much smaller (fits in the bag easily.) Thanks for your take on this. I already have a Tamron 28-70 zoom, but I've never liked how it performs. And now that I'm on the RF mount system (R6 mk II), I may just pick up a Canon RF 28-70 f/2.8 per your recs. Thanks!
I have the same two lens but favor the 2.0 on my old DSLRs because of IS followed by the smaller size. My Sigma is maybe a tick sharper but both are great.
Same reason I ditched the art 35 1.4 in favor of the tamron 35 1.8 with inage stabilizer. Also use an r6. Makes a much bigger difference in actual low light and focuses better near infinity.
Interesting. The RF 28-70mm f/2L has been one of the RF lenses that has most tempted me to migrate to, or add the RF system. (The other would be the Macro L.) You have, however, made a good case for parting with the RF 28-70/2L. Age is catching up with me, so, I can certainly agree with the weight aspect. I can still shoot well enough with a heavy lens, but, carrying cumulative weight, very far, is becoming a problem. Well-done; thanks!
Hopefully sigma releases their 28-70 2.8 for RF mount. I like that lens on my Lumix L mount cam especially at the 700 price tag.
This is a good example of why YT can be a waste of time. No offense please, but sometimes the yt algorithm reminds me of first world problems.
PS: What kind of Tripod are you using? You just have to install it correctly and it wont tip over.
No offense taken…haha. The 28-70 is an amazing lens for many people. I am just sharing my personal preference. If you like smaller gear, using primes and value a lighter kit over the versatile focal length (depends what you are shooting) then some may favor the 24-70.
Get to the point, man. Waste my time
Will never rid myself of the RF 28-70 F2.0. Such an amazing, useful and unique lens!!! Will never trade image uniqueness/quality for supposed QoL non-sense.
Most of people I hear purchasing the 28-70 F2.0 do so for "non-sense QoL issues" complaining it's too inconvenient/difficult to carry primes around. To that end I could claim "I will never trade image uniqueness/quality of primes for supposed QoL non-sense you get with the RF 28-70 F2.0."
@mikede2464 I have and respect the primes for those reasons also. I'm talking about the uniqueness and IQ of the 28-70 F2 in respect to other zooms.
Totally! I have a Sigma EF 35mm f/1.4 and a Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS -- They're both really solid lenses, but I tend to favor the Canon 2.0 over the Sigma 1.4, because the Canon is nearly as sharp, is stabilized, and is much smaller (fits in the bag easily.) Thanks for your take on this. I already have a Tamron 28-70 zoom, but I've never liked how it performs. And now that I'm on the RF mount system (R6 mk II), I may just pick up a Canon RF 28-70 f/2.8 per your recs. Thanks!
I may take a look at that EF 35 2.0. What do you think of the RF 35 1.4?
I have the same two lens but favor the 2.0 on my old DSLRs because of IS followed by the smaller size. My Sigma is maybe a tick sharper but both are great.
Same reason I ditched the art 35 1.4 in favor of the tamron 35 1.8 with inage stabilizer. Also use an r6. Makes a much bigger difference in actual low light and focuses better near infinity.
I was thinking to get in to canon just not sure how it would compare to Leica in terms of colors and lenses I’d like to know your take on it thank you
I’ve heard from others that shoot Leica and Nikon that the for colors are the closest. But I’m happy with Canon colors.
You either want convenience, or you want the shot. Decide and purchase accordingly.