Glad I watched this video, I plan to take a mixture of photos and videos for my upcoming apparel brand. Seeing that you in that SBD tshirt gave me some relief. Other reviews had me questioning if to get the 24-70mm over the 24-105mm since I only own 3 prime lenses. 35, 50 and 85
Oh man, this lens is my all-time favorite work lens for photo and video. If I had to sell everything else I owned and keep one kit, it'd be this combo. The versatility is unmatched and Canon really outdid themselves with this thing.
I have one. Fast and sharp but heavy and long. But there is a bonus with this. If you're late lining up photographers and cameramen and have no way to squeeze into the center of the presser, this lens is long enough that you can squeeze it between heads and cameras to achieve a clean wide angle. Very helpful and I have taken advantage of this odd feature many times.
I’m not in the Canon system any more but enjoyed this discussion! Impressive, you really know your stuff. My only two cents: I never liked the kit RF 24-105, the F/4. But maybe I’d like this one.
i got the power zoom attachment. I mainly use this lens on the rs 3 pro with the zoom ring provided from dji. but if you are hand helding this thing and want that buttery crisp zoom, thats what you would get it for
@@Quickguideformoding do you think it's worthwhile for handheld shooters, or is it primarily a rigging tool? Being able to zoom in without losing a few seconds of footage to my hand jumbling things around to do so had me looking into it but I know zero people who have even seen it in my personal life.
If anything ever happens to your 24-70, it's 1000% worthwhile. Can't justify it if you already own one unless you regularly need 2 50mm lengths on a dual cam setup for video.
I'm righting a whole script about this damn servo zoom grip. WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE?! Wait you just said it isn't parfocal... it IS functionally parfocal. You have to zoom in all the way, set focus and then the focus is locked throughout the zoom range. If you set the focus anywhere else in the zoom range it'll loose focus. Works the same way on pro video zoom lenses. I say functionally because the lens uses it's super fast and silent servo motors to hold the focus instead of larger zooms that are mechanically parfocal. Cropping works well for video too, if I'm trying to get proper coverage, I'll crop into 2K on my Red KX and the lens is sharp enough to hold really good detail that you would NEVER KNOW unless you were editing.
@@TotalRADandMORE I absolutely did something wrong if that's the case and now I need to check it out when I get home. Thank you so much for mentioning that because that'll save me some finger strength at competitions 🙏 Also PLEASE let me know when you have a video on that servo zoom. I want to at least try it but I'm not rich enough to drop a grand to satisfy my curiosity.
I have this lens. It has parfocal, (electronic) but you'd never know. This is a bad ass lens. I have it on a C70 but it's waiting to trade up on the C400.
@@scottievee330 it could be me racking it fast since that's typically how I use it when there are a lot of things in front of who's recording, but I did a simple test at home it it definitely held up perfectly. Probably user error on my part. Also the C400 looks incredible. I can't justify even looking at...yet, but I'd love to hear your thoughts after using it on a few jobs.
@@davidwells6525 They will, probably sooner than later. I heard they're already working on a 24-70 F2 or similar so their iteration of this lens can't be far behind.
@@omarknowsphotos I already have the 24-70 GM II, I don't need that, I need something with more focal length at F2.8 or lower... I'm constantly switching between the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200... My dream lens would be a 16-200 F2.8... I would never take that lens off my camera and I would happily carry around that behemoth of a lens.
@@davidwells6525 10000000% with you there. Just make the damn lens and sell it, we will buy it and be done with this switching out nonsense that plagues us all.
@@omarknowsphotos Even if they covered 16-70 or 24-200 I would be happy... but evidently it can't be done. There's too much money to be made parting out the focal ranges.
@@omarknowsphotos doin great on lenses is more important than doin great on cameras. The 800mm f11 and 600m f11 are great and affordable. Then 100-300 f2.8 its jusa versatile lens for sports wildlife
Canon are goblins who don't let third parties make lenses on the RF mount unfortunately, otherwise I think that would be what's in my bag instead simply due to price.
don't be offended, but you have the same composition everywhere (model in the center) - this is very banal and does not require buying expensive equipment. you need to complicate the composition and do complex shooting, otherwise the photos will look very cheap!
@@atanovroman This was more a technical evaluation (same shot wide/zoomed) but I strongly agree on the composition. My issue making these videos I that I focus so much on the things I need to put the videos together that I forgot to actually pay attention to the photos. I did another video afterwards that got better and I think for the next one I might just do a recap after shooting normally and just go over afterwards. You pointed out something that really does bother me so I'd love to get your feedback every few videos if you happen to see them. The sports ones coming up are probably not good ones for that but I'm going to try in 2-3 weeks to get a portrait session in with someone.
@@Psyclonus7 depends on what you're shooting. Indoor sports, low light events and similar settings have the 2.8 outperforming the F4 substantially. It's why I say it's a great tool for professionals but to pass otherwise.
@@axidrain I stop down to F4 or F5.6 a lot for video when we have plenty of light but it's worlds apart from F2.8 when it's time to start cranking the ISO up for sure. For photos, it makes enough of a difference on isolating people in shots for it to be worthwhile to me.
Glad I watched this video, I plan to take a mixture of photos and videos for my upcoming apparel brand. Seeing that you in that SBD tshirt gave me some relief. Other reviews had me questioning if to get the 24-70mm over the 24-105mm since I only own 3 prime lenses. 35, 50 and 85
Oh man, this lens is my all-time favorite work lens for photo and video. If I had to sell everything else I owned and keep one kit, it'd be this combo. The versatility is unmatched and Canon really outdid themselves with this thing.
BEST LENS EVER. I a couple cameras and this one is glued to one 24/7. Made me switch from Nikon.
It hasn't left my A-cam since the day I bought it.
What are your thoughts on the Tamron 35-150mm for Z mount? Did you use this lens when you shot Nikon?
I have one. Fast and sharp but heavy and long. But there is a bonus with this. If you're late lining up photographers and cameramen and have no way to squeeze into the center of the presser, this lens is long enough that you can squeeze it between heads and cameras to achieve a clean wide angle. Very helpful and I have taken advantage of this odd feature many times.
@@konradhenrykowicz1859 actually dying laughing because I did exactly this on Friday at a press event.
I’m not in the Canon system any more but enjoyed this discussion! Impressive, you really know your stuff. My only two cents: I never liked the kit RF 24-105, the F/4. But maybe I’d like this one.
🙏🙏🙏
i got the power zoom attachment. I mainly use this lens on the rs 3 pro with the zoom ring provided from dji. but if you are hand helding this thing and want that buttery crisp zoom, thats what you would get it for
@@Quickguideformoding do you think it's worthwhile for handheld shooters, or is it primarily a rigging tool? Being able to zoom in without losing a few seconds of footage to my hand jumbling things around to do so had me looking into it but I know zero people who have even seen it in my personal life.
I have to stop watching RUclips so I can stop buying gear. You made me want this lens.
If anything ever happens to your 24-70, it's 1000% worthwhile. Can't justify it if you already own one unless you regularly need 2 50mm lengths on a dual cam setup for video.
10:56 how many watts did u use on the flash ?
Don't know, but I very rarely go above 1/32nd and that's the old AD400pro.
@@omarknowsphotos how many watts is that around ? will it get full body at that wattage ?
Damn man! This lens looks great!!!
Wouldn't be surprised if they made a photo version of it that was lighter and less expensive in the future
I'm righting a whole script about this damn servo zoom grip. WHY IS IT SO EXPENSIVE?!
Wait you just said it isn't parfocal... it IS functionally parfocal. You have to zoom in all the way, set focus and then the focus is locked throughout the zoom range. If you set the focus anywhere else in the zoom range it'll loose focus. Works the same way on pro video zoom lenses. I say functionally because the lens uses it's super fast and silent servo motors to hold the focus instead of larger zooms that are mechanically parfocal.
Cropping works well for video too, if I'm trying to get proper coverage, I'll crop into 2K on my Red KX and the lens is sharp enough to hold really good detail that you would NEVER KNOW unless you were editing.
@@TotalRADandMORE I absolutely did something wrong if that's the case and now I need to check it out when I get home. Thank you so much for mentioning that because that'll save me some finger strength at competitions 🙏
Also PLEASE let me know when you have a video on that servo zoom. I want to at least try it but I'm not rich enough to drop a grand to satisfy my curiosity.
I have this lens. It has parfocal, (electronic) but you'd never know. This is a bad ass lens. I have it on a C70 but it's waiting to trade up on the C400.
@@scottievee330 it could be me racking it fast since that's typically how I use it when there are a lot of things in front of who's recording, but I did a simple test at home it it definitely held up perfectly. Probably user error on my part.
Also the C400 looks incredible. I can't justify even looking at...yet, but I'd love to hear your thoughts after using it on a few jobs.
This really is a dream lens
@@hunterhart1 It just makes event coverage so much easier tbh
@@omarknowsphotos I mean yeah having that 105 for a wedding would be so much better than a 70
Excellent information.
I wish Sony offered something similar.
@@davidwells6525 They will, probably sooner than later. I heard they're already working on a 24-70 F2 or similar so their iteration of this lens can't be far behind.
@@omarknowsphotos I already have the 24-70 GM II, I don't need that, I need something with more focal length at F2.8 or lower... I'm constantly switching between the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200... My dream lens would be a 16-200 F2.8... I would never take that lens off my camera and I would happily carry around that behemoth of a lens.
@@davidwells6525 10000000% with you there. Just make the damn lens and sell it, we will buy it and be done with this switching out nonsense that plagues us all.
@@omarknowsphotos Even if they covered 16-70 or 24-200 I would be happy... but evidently it can't be done. There's too much money to be made parting out the focal ranges.
@@davidwells6525 BINGO
canon has been doin some innovation thta is less apprreciated. The 28-70, the smaller 70-200 and this lens are good innovation
@@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision They've been leading the pack and based on upcoming lens rumors, others are feeling the pressure.
@@omarknowsphotos doin great on lenses is more important than doin great on cameras. The 800mm f11 and 600m f11 are great and affordable. Then 100-300 f2.8 its jusa versatile lens for sports wildlife
interesting maths. Awesome video
Nobody asked for it but here we are, lol
Tampon 35-150 F2! Yes F2-F2.8.
Canon are goblins who don't let third parties make lenses on the RF mount unfortunately, otherwise I think that would be what's in my bag instead simply due to price.
Ha you typed "Tampon" 😁
what about the rf/lf adapters
FREE PALESTINE 🇵🇸
@@tiagobambinivasconcellos7874 🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸
don't be offended, but you have the same composition everywhere (model in the center) - this is very banal and does not require buying expensive equipment. you need to complicate the composition and do complex shooting, otherwise the photos will look very cheap!
@@atanovroman This was more a technical evaluation (same shot wide/zoomed) but I strongly agree on the composition. My issue making these videos I that I focus so much on the things I need to put the videos together that I forgot to actually pay attention to the photos. I did another video afterwards that got better and I think for the next one I might just do a recap after shooting normally and just go over afterwards.
You pointed out something that really does bother me so I'd love to get your feedback every few videos if you happen to see them.
The sports ones coming up are probably not good ones for that but I'm going to try in 2-3 weeks to get a portrait session in with someone.
Came here (also) for Palestine 🇵🇸
Love it when my people make it here 🇵🇸🙏
Are you mental? Go make politagitation somwehere else.
Totally defeats the Point of mirrorless?
The size thing? That ship sailed ages ago. Now it's all about performance.
Mirrorless is not just about the small size. Look at the Fujifilm GFX lineup. If you want more compact option look elsewhere.
I have the F4 and spending $$$ for a 2.8 is a waste of money.
@@Psyclonus7 depends on what you're shooting. Indoor sports, low light events and similar settings have the 2.8 outperforming the F4 substantially. It's why I say it's a great tool for professionals but to pass otherwise.
f2.8 on the long end vs an f4 is such a big difference. and thats not even taking account into low light benefits. F4 is pretty useless in low light
@@axidrain I stop down to F4 or F5.6 a lot for video when we have plenty of light but it's worlds apart from F2.8 when it's time to start cranking the ISO up for sure. For photos, it makes enough of a difference on isolating people in shots for it to be worthwhile to me.
Also own the 24-70 f/2.8. So, this new lens is a waste of money for me. Now, I'd be interested if it was like a 17-70mm f/2.8. Just crop peeps.