Can't believe they charge 1200 pounds and still continue with their ancient antics of not including a lens hood for non-L lenses. Come on Canon! It costs you 3 quid max per hood!
It will be, remember that Canon often offers rebates between $200-$300 after 1-2 years of a lens being released. They do that for tax purposes for themselves in countries that allow companies to do that. It's why a couple years ago, the cost of certain lenses went up, only to see them have instant rebates later. So give it time, if you're an early adapter, you won't care about price, if you're price sensitive, you'll purchase this lens when it has instant rebates.
@@TigaWould Stop trying to justify anti-consumer practices by companies. It is the same with samsung and apple and their ridiculous dongle crusade and now also charger crusade Canon needs to stop doing shit like this, and also open up for third party lens makers Sony needs to stop firmware nerfing stuff; especially on their flagship models, and also allow for third party teleconverters and 15+ fps shooting. I have no idea what Nikon needs... Panasonic needs to further upgrade their phase contrast AF and make a small m4/3 camera Fuji just aces it, except their prices...
100% with that the price should be under $1000. I think this lend should be somewhere between $700 and $800 max maybe after a few years. I’m very happy with the Tamron version over on the Sony side.
The comparable Sigma 28-70mm and Tamron 28-75mm clock in at $800 and $700 for Sony, so I don't feel too upset at a $300 premium vs Sigma, since this RF lens is optically superior and adds stabilization. I'll be buying it to pair with an R8. I needed a video lens with more light gathering and less weight vs the 24-105mm RF L.
Mirrorless is more a marketing joke than a technical innovation. I should both on Nikon. The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 on dslr was maybe the sharpest in it's range and was $800.
And for those citing prices from years ago that don't understand inflation and what's happened in the world the last couple of years, this release price is actually about equal to what the Tamron lens was released at.
They often bring out the same lenses for EF mount a few months later. Not saying that EF is better than the RF mount but I enjoy being able to us an EF-RF adapter that also houses quick switch filters. So I can go without or on sunny days I can put a ND filter in and keep the aperture wide open.
I have this for my R8 and it replaced all my prime lenses and all other lenses except telephoto. Fantastic lens for every day use. Dead silent focus and IS. And its very compact. Love the twisting to make it travel compact. And it is super sharp. I have simple nothing negative to say about this. This and R8 is a great combo.
I also shoot with an R8 and am considering this lens to replace my 35 and 85mm STM lenses, which I'm very pleased with. I figure this gives me a 50 as well and the 70 might just be enough to get away from the 85, with the added bonus of not having to swap lenses. Np gripes or regrets?
@@luparente8269 I sold my 50, 24, 28 lenses and zero regrets. It does all of those and has IS. I hate bokeh it still has it a lot of but I can manage that. Seriously it counts all of the prime lenses and has IS which is fantastic. Simply fantastic IS. And lens is dead silent compared to primes. And for R8 body it weights nothing compared to L lenses. I don't have any negative to say this lens. It really feels that it is made and designed in 2024. No plastic feelings either it is made with good materials and feels great in hand. Only when I change of this lens is for my 100-400 telephoto. You can carry this whole day. Yes it was expensive and I got protector for it but worth every euro because I'm out of the need to change lenses now.
Same for me. After using this lens for a month, I sold all my prime lenses. Now I only carry this 28-70 and the 100-500. Absolutely fantastic combo for traveling along with the R8.
Thank you for the thorough review. This lens is a compelling option for me to pair with an R6 as I look for lenses to take advantage of the mirrorless concept, specifically the weight savings. I travel and hike often carrying a small sling backpack, so weight is a factor. In my opinion any weight savings has to be experienced over time to fully appreciate. I already have a fast ultrawide prime for dramatic landscape images so this is a great all-purpose option.
i´d say similar sharpness at the long end, sharper at the wide end especially in the corners. its quite a nice upgrade especially when you count in size and weight.
The bar for this lens category (in my view) is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 for Sony/Nikon, and especially if they are going to price their option at $1k+, Canon needed to exceed the performance of that lens. Based on this review, it looks like they've fallen a bit short. It's disappointing that Canon continues to fall behind in the market when it comes to mid-range lens options for RF. As more time goes on, Sony and now Nikon's decision to open up their mounts to third parties looks like it will pay major dividends for them. If you're a mid-range shooter, the lens options for both E mount and now Z mount are really compelling, while Canon basically wants you to fork out more money for L series lenses if you want anything beyond a kit lens.
Agreed, granted price shift here and there but the Tamron G2 can be had for 600. Even at equal performance, 1000 is too much for this performance. Looks good though but canon users are mostly tied into canon's variety of lenses. Canon has some of the best L lenses but can't be spoken in the same subject as this "budget" lens.
@@dima1353 Oh believe me I still think it has way too much distortion, but at least the corners aren't completely black on the wide end if you for some reason decided not to correct it.
Watching this Video while I have a sony Camera. Always look forward to what Chris has to say about new lenses. I purchased 3 lenses based on his reviews.
@verzivull My main decision when deciding what my first camera should be was the third party lens options. I have Tamron G2 28-75 and 70-180 brand new, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Samyang 18mm 2.8. Just imagine how much I would spend in lenses to get the same level or performance with Canon; it would be ridiculously expensive.
@@verzivull Canon has an entire EF-Lineup that can be adapted (both Canon and 3rd party lenses), if you look at the comments section, you'll see that there are a lot of Canon RF body shooters that are fine with adapting lenses. I don't think 3rd party lenses matter to Canon shooters as much as 3rd party RF lenses mean to Sony Shooters, because most of the times in the comments section of any videos, it's Sony shooters that are commenting more on Canon's lack of RF lenses more than Canon shooters are commenting on Canon's lack of 3rd party RF lenses. lol
@@TigaWould Canon doesn't have anything like the Sigma 14mm 1.4, Viltrox 16 1.8 or Tamron 35-150. And then the fact that there is nothing in-between the half-*ssed RF 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 VCM or 50 1.2, or between 85 f2 and 85 1.2, while all other brands have full sets of in-between options. Your comment builds on the fallacy that allowing 3rd party lenses would somehow be a compromise for Canon or that 3rd party lenses are mutually exclusive to 1st party ones. I'm still waiting for a Canon apologist to provide an actual sensible argument against 3rd party lenses that aren't based on outright false logic. The funniest thing is that the large lens selection and excellent range of 3rd party options was touted as the most attractive factor for Canon EF during the DSLR era. Now that it has turned to the complete opposite, apologists are suddenly flip-flopping to twist the lens limitations as some kind of exclusive luxury. Oh and this so supposedly superior brand is also the only one to not include the lens hood, when even Chinese lenses do.
I am just a photography novice but I would have a hard time believing that old Canon EF lenses adapted to RF bodies can give the same level of performance as the latest third party lenses on Sony. Just my opinion.
Thank you for the review😃. I use the Canon R8 with the RF24-105 IS STM and RF24mm F1.8 IS STM for my product photography and Vlog. I am thinking of getting the RF28-70mm F2.8. Canon could provide us with a hood or fix the price at 999 USD. However, at the wider end, Canon also needs a budget zoom lens like the RF15-30mm F2.8. The APS-C needs a good kit lens instead of a night-blind RFS 18-45mm F4.5-6.3.
I bought this lens in preference to the 24 to 105 f4L because of its faster aperture, smaller size and lighter weight. I use it for hillwalking and travel. It never gets left behind for these reasons. After 3 weeks I am delighted with the results on my rp and r6 cameras. Much better than my old ef 24 to 105 f4L mk1.
Thanks for the full review! I'm thinking about buying this one or the 24-105 f4 and I think I'll simply wait for the price of this lens to drop a bit. About the review itself, it was a bit speedy compared to other reviews from you, and I hope it's not because you're getting stressed or something. I appreciate your work very much and I wish you all the best!
Having been a years-long, happy user of an R5-F2 28-70 - this f2.8 is a third the price, weight and girth. It’s a no brainer on the R5 and R6, especially for travel. It’s ridiculously good, really
I wonder which affordable lens is good enough for the hi-res APS-C sensor of the R7. Many reviews give disappointing results and it seems only very good primes are a fit for the R7. Then I wonder if the R7's 32 Mpixel is useful at all in practice for the budget it lives in. Isn't 24 Mp an APS-C sweet spot then and the best resolution to do tests at? For hi-res the step is to go to full frame 45 Mp. There the budget allows expensive good lenses too.
This lens will hopefully be considered for inclusion as a “kit” lens moving forward for all cameras like the R8 and R6…heck, even the R5 Mark II wouldn’t be hurt by this being a kit option. I’ve really enjoyed it a lot and I truthfully think it’s a magnificent alternative for users who possibly favor more budget friendly options, or even professionals looking for a smaller lens to bring around. I preordered one up at launch and have been very happy with this lens. Especially considering that this uses the same filter size as the new VCM primes, 67mm. Meaning I can toss this in my small sling back with the RF 35mm and have a pretty great combo…but once that 24mm and 50mm come out, I may have to consider what other lenses need to go! I’m really enjoying the balance of size/weight with this and the 35mm. It’s almost like these are the first focus that Canon made on delivering very small and light quality optics.
I have the older version, the EF 28-70 f/2.8L.It's my most used and beloved lens. When I will switch to the mirrorless, this will be the first lens I will buy, the second will be the 28-70 f/2 L
Canon's lower price range lenses are extremely good if you use in-camera DLO and DPP for CR3 processing. I have compared them in DPP and Lightroom and the DPP processed versions are noticeably sharper in the corners with colour that exactly matches what I see in the viewfinder or back screen (this is important to me for the work I do). Just something to consider if you see reviews claiming the corners could be sharper but the reviewer is not using DPP for Raw processing. I am not exaggerating when I say my cheapie 24-105mm RF F7.1 is sharper on my R6 than my old 24-70mm F2.8 ii with EF to RF adaptor when processed through DPP. It's actually quite noticeable.
I would love a comparison of this lens with some of the more popular EF 24-70mm F2.8 lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc), since they are all roughly in the same price range.
@@cas818028 Very good point. Like others, I do not need this since I have the EF adapter and other lenses. But if I didn't, it is still a pass for me because of its performance, price, low saturation, and poor contrast. Only PRO is size.
You are very smart and you your lenses , I use my 28 pancake RF ,40 mm Ef 2.8 with RF Adapter ( this lens is something else !!! ) and the RF 85 f2.0 mm ( best for the money ) this are my 3 favorite street lenses. I'm thing adding the Laowa 15. F5.0 cupcake pancake etc.. for RF mount and that will finalize my lightweight setup. Great reviews as usual thank you.
Thanks for the review, sold my r8, it would have been a good lens for this one, bit pricey. Went back to 100% apsc as sigma does offer now good options for canon. That said: if I would go back to Canon FF, this would be my goto lens. Compact, good enough image and video quality. The one and done small travel lens. Not bad. Thanks for sharing and have a great week, Chris 😊🙏🏻
@ Right now I have all I need with canon. I considered especially Sony. But what kept me continuing with canon is the better screen (colour accuracy: you get what you see), better touchscreen and Menue structure. Better grips on the body, colour sience is better too. I do get to my final results faster, with canon, especially as I do a lot of run and gun. And especially with the sigma lenses now available, I do not need more. 😊 And size is a big topic, too. Sony FF bodies are smaller, ok, but lenses, especially when we compare apples with apples, you end up with a small body and a huge lens.
I was going to buy this lens when it was announced for my wife. I am a very good husband. Then I saw the price tag in Canada ($1500+tax) and I am NOT THAT GOOD, nor rich. Yikes! Besides size there is nothing wrong with her Canon EF 24-70mm f4 IS L. That lens besides kinda slow is still amazing in 2024.
A different reviewer did a very detailed four way comparison between this, the RF 24-105 4L, RF 24-70 2.8L, and RF 28-70 2.0L. The results were that this new lens basically edged out all of the L’s in terms of sharpness! And it stomped the RF 24-105L, which kind of shocked me TBH, as previous head-to-head comparisons indicated that lens is more or less in line with the other L’s in terms of sharpness. I am suspicious that his copy had become decentered / soft over time, though, and intend to find out for myself what the difference is. That, and vs. the RF 85 2.0 to determine which one is the best budget portrait RF lens right now. Fun times!
I think i saw that, do you have a link? I saw something similar that said the 24-105L they usually remember being sharper than the one in the review so said they cant rule out that being a bad copy. how does decentering happen? is it a risk on a new lens? how can you tell or check? For example, I have heard some say this lens is too soft in the corners at 28mm F2.8. If you ordered online, you would think the lens performs poorly if you didnt know
Chris, would you swap the EF 24-70 f2.8 II L for this one? (considering that I absolutely don't care for the 24vs28 mm loss). I was thinking about doing it as soon as the RF's price drops a bit, but those corners at 70mm scare me; it can be ok not to be perfect wide open, as in real life scenario that part would be out of focus anyway, but what I don't like is corners never get better even when stopping down, which isn't good in the studio when I may need good corner to corner sharpness for certain close-up portraits and /or details.
If i would not already own the RF 24-70 2.8 i would prefer this lens now. frankly the image quality is absolutely more than fine enough for what a standard zoom should do for me, its also lighter, smaller and despite the high price tag only costs half of the bigger brother. they even included IS which is very handy vor video work on an R5C or lower end R8 and on a gimbal the lower weight is also very welcome. i would actually be tempted to sell the 24-70 if its price stays relatively high and the 28-70 can be had for less than 1000€ at some point.
Its sunstar capability at f8-f22 is perfect for xmas markets. Hopefully canon announces a 14-28 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8 for around $1K to complete these affordable trinity for the masses.
Appreciate your time reviewing this lens. Just doesn't make send to buy it when the 24-105L is like 100.00 more. Yeah, the 2.8 is nice but for the money I'll manage with the F4 and enjoy the range more of the RF24-105L. Canon was out of their mind when making and pricing this lens...
That looks quite well I was tempted with a preowned ef 24-70 f2.8 L ii adapted onto the R6ii &R would like to know which way you would go for weddings and portrait shoots along side 85mm f1.2
While i would not trade in my 24-105 f4 , i like this lense. I own the 24-70 2.8 and thought looooooooong and haaaaard about either the 2.8 or the 28-70 f2 and from shooting a couple events and a wedding with the 2.8 i think this one is a nice choice if someone has a .... say R6 and wants something with 2.8 but not as big or as weighty. Kinda like a travel lense for someone not yet that addicted to be willing to carry around the heavier lenses. I think the size and weight is something that multiplies its features and you need to use it to apprechiate that.
Nice that you named the alternative primes at the end. Already own the rf 35mm and 85mm. Looking to upgrade the kit lens 24-105mm f4-7.1. This could be it or indeed get the 28mm and 50mm primes from Canon. Seems this one has faster autofocus or is there no difference? If it has I'm thinking of purchasing this lens when it drops in price.
Seems tempting, but every zoom lens I've ever owned except the 70-200 II L 2.8 broke in some weird way, Either ribbon cable or zoom ring. I even have the last EF 24-70 2.8 & the aperture blades stopped working when I mostly shoot indoors & mostly food. Hence why all my lenses except the 8-15 f4 are Primes.
I'm interested, but won't pay the full MSRP price. Will wait for special seasonal discounts or even used copies. This should do well on my 24mp R8. On R7 it's soft probably because the lens cannot resolve higher megapixel count, as in higher pixel density. 32mp on R7 is the equivalent of 83mp full frame.
I have an EOS RP and this lens on such a small camera body is appealing to me for travel, it packs a pretty good punch for its size! I wish it was $800-900 though
Ah! Here is Chris again with his brutal honesty! You are still my light in the dark when it comes to lens testing. James Reader liked the lens a lot, as you do, and also found it a compelling proposition, though on the expensive side. This lens has the same price range as the 24-105 f/4 L. Say one made up ones mind about zoom or primes and decided zoom is the answer, the question here would be: what is the better choice, this 28-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 L ? The 28-70 probably has the better IQ, is the brighter also. And would also probably work better on the R7. The L is more versatile. And on my R8 it works really well. If I am shooting portraits for showing on an iPhone screen or in a photobook, I will probably not even see the difference. But granted, if I wanted to make a protrait of my wife to print on A3, the 28-70 would be ahead... but my wife won't allow me to enlarge her wrinkels like that anyway :-). So Chris, comparison video?
Thank you for your very detailed review! How good is the weather sealing? You mentioned that it's sealed around the rear and the control rings. Does it mean that the extending lens barrel and the switches are not sealed? How does it compare to the weather sealing of e.g. the 24-105 f/4 L?
Reminds me quite a bit of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I think the IS really is a critical feature to justify the price, actually pretty rare on a 2.8 standard zoom. Still though... hugely pricey for a lens I'd feel a little insure using for pro work as it looks very budget.
This lens, a bit expensive may be, finally gives Canon a travel option on FF. If I can find it under 1000€ it's something I might consider for my super light RP.
Is the corner softness seen on the R7 at wider angles visible on full frame images further away on the corner? The results suggest you would expect to see it go sharp -> soft -> sharp moving from the centre to the corners?!
It's vital to remember that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor is much higher resolution than a 45mp full-frame one - the sensor is so much denser. That's why the corners / midregions don't look soft on the FF camera: they're not soft enough to be a problem at that resolution
@ True, though that doesn’t explain why the 28mm & 45mm corners are “poor” on the APSC, while on full frame it seems that 70mm is poorest. Pixel density doesn’t really explain that “inversion” in performance. It suggests that sharpness/contrasts aren’t monotonic moving away from the optical axis. I’ll see if the MTF shows any evidence of this. Thanks very much for the review! I would love to see a comparison with the 24-105mm f4 and the 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve never really loved the 24-105mm f4 and I’m tempted to change to something more “fun”.
@@adrianrcarr It does explain the inversion: at 28mm and 45mm the midregion and corners are sharp enough to satisfy a 45mp FF sensor, but not quite enough for the 32mp APS-C sensor. But at 70mm, it's the other way round, because the midregion is sharp enough for 32mp APS-C, but the very edges on FF (which are cropped out on APS-C) are a lot softer, which is what shows up on full-frame (if that makes sense!). All of this to say...never assume that the APS-C sweet spot advantage will automatically apply! Glad you enjoyed the video.
@@christopherfrost I notice almost all the new lenses struggle on the R7. So now I am planning to sell my R7 and buy a FF. The new sigma RF 56mm also doesn't perform well on R7 while on Sony it is razor sharp from your reviews. But I wonder how the optics will work on the other fuji apsc cameras that have above 40 megapixels with higher resolution than canon R7😢😢.
Hi Chris, many thanks for this review! I purchased the Canon EF counterpart in top mint condition, however without IS. I’m very happy with it. Could you make a review of this one, too? Best wishes from Germany, Ralf
Nice review as always! Looks like a fun lens, and I was not convinced when you posted your preview either. Now it's looking like a great lens to just walk around with. I find corner sharpness at 70mm to not be as important as at wider focal lengths. Might add this to my xmas shopping list, but not recommended for APSC lol
That depends a bit on the application. I find myself using my "standard" zoom for landscapes more than bokeh style shots at its long end and sharpness across the frame at least stopped down is quite important. This lens seems a bit dubious in that regard.
Could you do an extensive comparison between this lens and the RF 24-105mm F4 L? The lenses might not be entirely the same, but their similiar prices do make it an interesting comparison.
Sigma has to offer an affordable 28-70 f2.8 lens as well, belonging to the contemporary series, with good sharpness in relation to its price for E and L mount
Tamron has a cheap but good 28-75 f2.8 if only Canon would allow (even if I'd prefer to get the Tamron/Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8 as it would suit better for my needs)
now this is a good lens for traveling, although I would still use it as a backup, that would lie down in the hotel, waiting for the next day, just in case my 50 or 35 1.8 wouldn't be enough
That's because the sensors are higher in resolution. On a 24MP the diffraction starts at f/11, while on a 45MP sensor it is already diffraction limited at f/11.
Thanks. I just got the R7 and Im a bit concerned about how poorly RF and RF-S lenses perform on it, even the higher end ones. Every review of yours I have seen with these lenses on the R7 perform like crap to be honest, soft in the middle and terrible in the corners, even when stopping down. I shot with my new Sigma RF 18-50 2.8 and the new RF 30 1.4 and honestly, the 18-50 looked better on my R100. Are there any lenses that perform well on the R7? Im beginning to think Canon really screwed up with this sensor. I think I may be returning this R7, shame.
I'm really hoping this one goes on sale for maybe $50-$100 off on black Friday. Otherwise may hold off. I think the $1100 is an alright price, but it could be better. A $999 price tag would make this a lot better deal.
@@answeris4217 yep, you are right and I agree. I have two 24/70 f2.8 and the 24/120 f4 (f-mount). I know the difference but I can understand who would prefer the wider focal range
I don't understand why they went away from the 24-70 range. I know it's only 4mm but for me I mostly go ether all the way to the widest or all the way zoomed in and 24mm seems to me like a great place to start with landscape.
@@Skux720 If the build quality is average, the materials average and the optical quality average, what are you paying such a hefty premium for? Personally, I prefer the lenses I purchase perform well optically rather than rely on digital chicanery, which in my estimation limits the longevity of the lens and, thus, its value.
Because the EOS R7 has a higher pixel density than the R5, despite having less total pixels. Canon's APS-C crop factor is 1.6x, shooting in APS-C mode cuts the EOS R5's 45MP sensor down to a 17MP output. EOS R7's 32MP sensor is almost double the resolution. Put it another way, if you scale the R7's sensor up to full frame size, the resolution would jump to 82MP.
Looks good, especially since the bokeh seems and it works well at night. Still, all things considered it really does seem a bit overpriced. Great review as always !!!!
that's correct! that's like Sony doing the same thing with their Mirrorless lenses being corrected by in body correction (the new Sony G-Master 28-70 f/2 is almost $3000 before taxes and does most of the correcting in body and automatically in post with adobe Lightroom). the only lenses in the mirrorless world for Sony and Canon that don't use in-body corrections are the L-Series and G-Master Primes. the same can be said for Nikon, FujiFilm, OM-Systems, Panasonic and so on. this is the norm if you want a mirrorless system and lighter, smaller glass. so anything too small or too good to be true more than likely is! because the physics in creating these lenses hasn't changed! So you have to factor what others things could possibly be different!
I see no point of picking this over the 24-105 F4L. It's priced similarly, and 1 Stop of light cannot outweight the wider + longer focal lenght. I mainly use my 24-105 at daytime (for low light, I use 1.4 primes). I was waiting for this lens, as it war romoured previously, but for this price, it's a huge let down. For 600-700€, I would buy one, but for this price, it's definitely not worth it
You're a saint to publish this before Black Friday. Many thanks!
The bokeh is very hard. The lens is not worth the money.
I just sold my old friend 24-105 F4 L to buy this len and very happy with it.
It matches all my needs: sharp, compact and lightweight
I'm thinking the same. How much did you pay?
Can't believe they charge 1200 pounds and still continue with their ancient antics of not including a lens hood for non-L lenses. Come on Canon! It costs you 3 quid max per hood!
You calculated it wrong. The lens hood not included will give them +$35 each.
Yeah that's clearly ridiculous
It will be, remember that Canon often offers rebates between $200-$300 after 1-2 years of a lens being released. They do that for tax purposes for themselves in countries that allow companies to do that. It's why a couple years ago, the cost of certain lenses went up, only to see them have instant rebates later. So give it time, if you're an early adapter, you won't care about price, if you're price sensitive, you'll purchase this lens when it has instant rebates.
@@TigaWould Stop trying to justify anti-consumer practices by companies.
It is the same with samsung and apple and their ridiculous dongle crusade and now also charger crusade
Canon needs to stop doing shit like this, and also open up for third party lens makers
Sony needs to stop firmware nerfing stuff; especially on their flagship models, and also allow for third party teleconverters and 15+ fps shooting.
I have no idea what Nikon needs... Panasonic needs to further upgrade their phase contrast AF and make a small m4/3 camera
Fuji just aces it, except their prices...
Costs £3 to make but they can sell it for £60. Where is the business if they give it for free?
Thanks for including the R7 in your tests
Just bought mine this afternoon and i am satisfied with its performance!
100% with that the price should be under $1000. I think this lend should be somewhere between $700 and $800 max maybe after a few years. I’m very happy with the Tamron version over on the Sony side.
The comparable Sigma 28-70mm and Tamron 28-75mm clock in at $800 and $700 for Sony, so I don't feel too upset at a $300 premium vs Sigma, since this RF lens is optically superior and adds stabilization. I'll be buying it to pair with an R8. I needed a video lens with more light gathering and less weight vs the 24-105mm RF L.
Mirrorless is more a marketing joke than a technical innovation. I should both on Nikon. The Tamron 24-70 f2.8 on dslr was maybe the sharpest in it's range and was $800.
@@swawekvandermeer99 You're citing prices from almost a decade ago...
And for those citing prices from years ago that don't understand inflation and what's happened in the world the last couple of years, this release price is actually about equal to what the Tamron lens was released at.
They often bring out the same lenses for EF mount a few months later. Not saying that EF is better than the RF mount but I enjoy being able to us an EF-RF adapter that also houses quick switch filters. So I can go without or on sunny days I can put a ND filter in and keep the aperture wide open.
I have this for my R8 and it replaced all my prime lenses and all other lenses except telephoto. Fantastic lens for every day use. Dead silent focus and IS. And its very compact. Love the twisting to make it travel compact. And it is super sharp. I have simple nothing negative to say about this. This and R8 is a great combo.
I also shoot with an R8 and am considering this lens to replace my 35 and 85mm STM lenses, which I'm very pleased with. I figure this gives me a 50 as well and the 70 might just be enough to get away from the 85, with the added bonus of not having to swap lenses. Np gripes or regrets?
@@luparente8269 I sold my 50, 24, 28 lenses and zero regrets. It does all of those and has IS. I hate bokeh it still has it a lot of but I can manage that. Seriously it counts all of the prime lenses and has IS which is fantastic. Simply fantastic IS. And lens is dead silent compared to primes. And for R8 body it weights nothing compared to L lenses. I don't have any negative to say this lens. It really feels that it is made and designed in 2024. No plastic feelings either it is made with good materials and feels great in hand. Only when I change of this lens is for my 100-400 telephoto. You can carry this whole day. Yes it was expensive and I got protector for it but worth every euro because I'm out of the need to change lenses now.
@@juhaaavalaakso455 what about the corner at 70mm, is it really bad ?
Same for me. After using this lens for a month, I sold all my prime lenses. Now I only carry this 28-70 and the 100-500. Absolutely fantastic combo for traveling along with the R8.
yessss
babe wake up Christopher Frost posted
Thank you for the thorough review. This lens is a compelling option for me to pair with an R6 as I look for lenses to take advantage of the mirrorless concept, specifically the weight savings. I travel and hike often carrying a small sling backpack, so weight is a factor. In my opinion any weight savings has to be experienced over time to fully appreciate. I already have a fast ultrawide prime for dramatic landscape images so this is a great all-purpose option.
I'd love to see a comparison to the EF 24-70 f2.8 L ii for those of us adapting our EF lenes!
I have the 24-70 f4 ii EF lens adapted onto R6, works perfectly fine so far😊 (don't know how it compares to the new lens, but hey, it's good as is!)
i´d say similar sharpness at the long end, sharper at the wide end especially in the corners. its quite a nice upgrade especially when you count in size and weight.
@@appalingbehaviour No you don’t - They never made a MK II of the f/4 version 😊
@Amddurin oh yes quite right! That's me having a daft moment 😁 it is indeed the mark I, if it can be called mark I without a mark ii existing!
@@Digi20you’re comparing this new lens to the EF 24-70 2.8 L ii? The weight alone would get me to switch if sharpness is comparable.
The bar for this lens category (in my view) is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 for Sony/Nikon, and especially if they are going to price their option at $1k+, Canon needed to exceed the performance of that lens. Based on this review, it looks like they've fallen a bit short. It's disappointing that Canon continues to fall behind in the market when it comes to mid-range lens options for RF. As more time goes on, Sony and now Nikon's decision to open up their mounts to third parties looks like it will pay major dividends for them. If you're a mid-range shooter, the lens options for both E mount and now Z mount are really compelling, while Canon basically wants you to fork out more money for L series lenses if you want anything beyond a kit lens.
Agreed, granted price shift here and there but the Tamron G2 can be had for 600. Even at equal performance, 1000 is too much for this performance. Looks good though but canon users are mostly tied into canon's variety of lenses. Canon has some of the best L lenses but can't be spoken in the same subject as this "budget" lens.
Kudos to Canon, they made a lens that covers a full frame sensor at the wide end.
Lol 🤣
Blah blah, same as all their other lenses...
Moreover, it is obvious that she barely does this.
Not really. Correcting profile is quite severe and cuts a lot. Tamron and Sigma is much straighter
@@dima1353 Oh believe me I still think it has way too much distortion, but at least the corners aren't completely black on the wide end if you for some reason decided not to correct it.
Watching this Video while I have a sony Camera. Always look forward to what Chris has to say about new lenses. I purchased 3 lenses based on his reviews.
canon still doesn't have samyang small collection, unfortunately. I wouldn't be that disappointed if I had picked sony several years ago
@verzivull My main decision when deciding what my first camera should be was the third party lens options. I have Tamron G2 28-75 and 70-180 brand new, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Samyang 18mm 2.8. Just imagine how much I would spend in lenses to get the same level or performance with Canon; it would be ridiculously expensive.
@@verzivull Canon has an entire EF-Lineup that can be adapted (both Canon and 3rd party lenses), if you look at the comments section, you'll see that there are a lot of Canon RF body shooters that are fine with adapting lenses. I don't think 3rd party lenses matter to Canon shooters as much as 3rd party RF lenses mean to Sony Shooters, because most of the times in the comments section of any videos, it's Sony shooters that are commenting more on Canon's lack of RF lenses more than Canon shooters are commenting on Canon's lack of 3rd party RF lenses. lol
@@TigaWould Canon doesn't have anything like the Sigma 14mm 1.4, Viltrox 16 1.8 or Tamron 35-150. And then the fact that there is nothing in-between the half-*ssed RF 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 VCM or 50 1.2, or between 85 f2 and 85 1.2, while all other brands have full sets of in-between options. Your comment builds on the fallacy that allowing 3rd party lenses would somehow be a compromise for Canon or that 3rd party lenses are mutually exclusive to 1st party ones. I'm still waiting for a Canon apologist to provide an actual sensible argument against 3rd party lenses that aren't based on outright false logic.
The funniest thing is that the large lens selection and excellent range of 3rd party options was touted as the most attractive factor for Canon EF during the DSLR era. Now that it has turned to the complete opposite, apologists are suddenly flip-flopping to twist the lens limitations as some kind of exclusive luxury. Oh and this so supposedly superior brand is also the only one to not include the lens hood, when even Chinese lenses do.
I am just a photography novice but I would have a hard time believing that old Canon EF lenses adapted to RF bodies can give the same level of performance as the latest third party lenses on Sony. Just my opinion.
Not including a lens hood should be criminal. But that's Canon for you.
I agree. Asking £1200 for a lens like this without the hood and a £10 pouch is criminal.
Thank you for the review😃. I use the Canon R8 with the RF24-105 IS STM and RF24mm F1.8 IS STM for my product photography and Vlog. I am thinking of getting the RF28-70mm F2.8. Canon could provide us with a hood or fix the price at 999 USD. However, at the wider end, Canon also needs a budget zoom lens like the RF15-30mm F2.8. The APS-C needs a good kit lens instead of a night-blind RFS 18-45mm F4.5-6.3.
I bought this lens in preference to the 24 to 105 f4L because of its faster aperture, smaller size and lighter weight. I use it for hillwalking and travel. It never gets left behind for these reasons. After 3 weeks I am delighted with the results on my rp and r6 cameras. Much better than my old ef 24 to 105 f4L mk1.
no big surprice... the old 24-105 was really poor lens, not sharp enough on any aperture...
Thanks for the full review!
I'm thinking about buying this one or the 24-105 f4 and I think I'll simply wait for the price of this lens to drop a bit.
About the review itself, it was a bit speedy compared to other reviews from you, and I hope it's not because you're getting stressed or something.
I appreciate your work very much and I wish you all the best!
I hadn't planned to so much as touch this lens until I saw your review. Thanks!
Having been a years-long, happy user of an R5-F2 28-70 - this f2.8 is a third the price, weight and girth. It’s a no brainer on the R5 and R6, especially for travel. It’s ridiculously good, really
Been waiting for this review.
Me 2
I wonder which affordable lens is good enough for the hi-res APS-C sensor of the R7. Many reviews give disappointing results and it seems only very good primes are a fit for the R7. Then I wonder if the R7's 32 Mpixel is useful at all in practice for the budget it lives in. Isn't 24 Mp an APS-C sweet spot then and the best resolution to do tests at? For hi-res the step is to go to full frame 45 Mp. There the budget allows expensive good lenses too.
This lens will hopefully be considered for inclusion as a “kit” lens moving forward for all cameras like the R8 and R6…heck, even the R5 Mark II wouldn’t be hurt by this being a kit option. I’ve really enjoyed it a lot and I truthfully think it’s a magnificent alternative for users who possibly favor more budget friendly options, or even professionals looking for a smaller lens to bring around. I preordered one up at launch and have been very happy with this lens. Especially considering that this uses the same filter size as the new VCM primes, 67mm. Meaning I can toss this in my small sling back with the RF 35mm and have a pretty great combo…but once that 24mm and 50mm come out, I may have to consider what other lenses need to go! I’m really enjoying the balance of size/weight with this and the 35mm. It’s almost like these are the first focus that Canon made on delivering very small and light quality optics.
I have the older version, the EF 28-70 f/2.8L.It's my most used and beloved lens. When I will switch to the mirrorless, this will be the first lens I will buy, the second will be the 28-70 f/2 L
First gen? I also have it. IMO the best zoom the humanity ever made.
Canon 28-70 2.8 vs 24-105 f4 ? Which is the best?
Curious how this compares to the RF 24-105 L since they are really close in price. Guess I’ll have to watch that now for a refresh
Canon's lower price range lenses are extremely good if you use in-camera DLO and DPP for CR3 processing. I have compared them in DPP and Lightroom and the DPP processed versions are noticeably sharper in the corners with colour that exactly matches what I see in the viewfinder or back screen (this is important to me for the work I do). Just something to consider if you see reviews claiming the corners could be sharper but the reviewer is not using DPP for Raw processing. I am not exaggerating when I say my cheapie 24-105mm RF F7.1 is sharper on my R6 than my old 24-70mm F2.8 ii with EF to RF adaptor when processed through DPP. It's actually quite noticeable.
I would love a comparison of this lens with some of the more popular EF 24-70mm F2.8 lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc), since they are all roughly in the same price range.
Same here. I have the Tamron G2 and I keep wondering omit I should sell it and “upgrade “ to this
@@cas818028 I just priced the Sigma 18-50 (28-80), and it's coming in at $514.00 or about half the Canon lens.
@@cas818028 Very good point. Like others, I do not need this since I have the EF adapter and other lenses. But if I didn't, it is still a pass for me because of its performance, price, low saturation, and poor contrast. Only PRO is size.
You are very smart and you your lenses , I use my 28 pancake RF ,40 mm Ef 2.8 with RF Adapter ( this lens is something else !!! ) and the RF 85 f2.0 mm ( best for the money ) this are my 3 favorite street lenses. I'm thing adding the Laowa 15. F5.0 cupcake pancake etc.. for RF mount and that will finalize my lightweight setup. Great reviews as usual thank you.
Thanks for the review, sold my r8, it would have been a good lens for this one, bit pricey. Went back to 100% apsc as sigma does offer now good options for canon. That said: if I would go back to Canon FF, this would be my goto lens. Compact, good enough image and video quality. The one and done small travel lens. Not bad. Thanks for sharing and have a great week, Chris 😊🙏🏻
about the "good enough image and video quality"... good enough??... Jesus...
@ more than enough…
@@mb-watches Or just switch to a brands that gives you a greater lens selection like Nikon or Sony.
@ Right now I have all I need with canon. I considered especially Sony. But what kept me continuing with canon is the better screen (colour accuracy: you get what you see), better touchscreen and Menue structure. Better grips on the body, colour sience is better too. I do get to my final results faster, with canon, especially as I do a lot of run and gun. And especially with the sigma lenses now available, I do not need more. 😊
And size is a big topic, too. Sony FF bodies are smaller, ok, but lenses, especially when we compare apples with apples, you end up with a small body and a huge lens.
I was going to buy this lens when it was announced for my wife. I am a very good husband. Then I saw the price tag in Canada ($1500+tax) and I am NOT THAT GOOD, nor rich. Yikes! Besides size there is nothing wrong with her Canon EF 24-70mm f4 IS L. That lens besides kinda slow is still amazing in 2024.
A different reviewer did a very detailed four way comparison between this, the RF 24-105 4L, RF 24-70 2.8L, and RF 28-70 2.0L. The results were that this new lens basically edged out all of the L’s in terms of sharpness! And it stomped the RF 24-105L, which kind of shocked me TBH, as previous head-to-head comparisons indicated that lens is more or less in line with the other L’s in terms of sharpness. I am suspicious that his copy had become decentered / soft over time, though, and intend to find out for myself what the difference is. That, and vs. the RF 85 2.0 to determine which one is the best budget portrait RF lens right now. Fun times!
I think i saw that, do you have a link? I saw something similar that said the 24-105L they usually remember being sharper than the one in the review so said they cant rule out that being a bad copy. how does decentering happen? is it a risk on a new lens? how can you tell or check? For example, I have heard some say this lens is too soft in the corners at 28mm F2.8. If you ordered online, you would think the lens performs poorly if you didnt know
@@irishRocker1 That's James Reader's recent video.
Expensive but that AF is lightning fast. 😮😮😮
Christopher, you surely have considered making your database of test images available to the public?
good point at the end with the three primes as an alternative. Difficult decision! Nice video, thanks.
I won’t be giving up my 24-105 but with its size, range, and aperture this 28-70 might be the perfect travel lens.
Is that the old DigitalRev jingle at the end of the video ?
Chris, would you swap the EF 24-70 f2.8 II L for this one? (considering that I absolutely don't care for the 24vs28 mm loss). I was thinking about doing it as soon as the RF's price drops a bit, but those corners at 70mm scare me; it can be ok not to be perfect wide open, as in real life scenario that part would be out of focus anyway, but what I don't like is corners never get better even when stopping down, which isn't good in the studio when I may need good corner to corner sharpness for certain close-up portraits and /or details.
To be honest, I probably would make the swap. I'd miss 24mm but I'd enjoy the weight and size saving
Nice review as always... at 35 mm the IQ is similar to the RF 35 1.8 in your opinion? I'm thinking to sell 35 and 85 and switch to this zoom
If i would not already own the RF 24-70 2.8 i would prefer this lens now. frankly the image quality is absolutely more than fine enough for what a standard zoom should do for me, its also lighter, smaller and despite the high price tag only costs half of the bigger brother. they even included IS which is very handy vor video work on an R5C or lower end R8 and on a gimbal the lower weight is also very welcome. i would actually be tempted to sell the 24-70 if its price stays relatively high and the 28-70 can be had for less than 1000€ at some point.
Its sunstar capability at f8-f22 is perfect for xmas markets. Hopefully canon announces a 14-28 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8 for around $1K to complete these affordable trinity for the masses.
Appreciate your time reviewing this lens. Just doesn't make send to buy it when the 24-105L is like 100.00 more. Yeah, the 2.8 is nice but for the money I'll manage with the F4 and enjoy the range more of the RF24-105L. Canon was out of their mind when making and pricing this lens...
Not the 28-70mm review I was expecting, but still, a very compelling option.
That looks quite well I was tempted with a preowned ef 24-70 f2.8 L ii adapted onto the R6ii &R would like to know which way you would go for weddings and portrait shoots along side 85mm f1.2
While i would not trade in my 24-105 f4 , i like this lense. I own the 24-70 2.8 and thought looooooooong and haaaaard about either the 2.8 or the 28-70 f2 and from shooting a couple events and a wedding with the 2.8 i think this one is a nice choice if someone has a .... say R6 and wants something with 2.8 but not as big or as weighty. Kinda like a travel lense for someone not yet that addicted to be willing to carry around the heavier lenses. I think the size and weight is something that multiplies its features and you need to use it to apprechiate that.
This will be perfect for my R8
Nice that you named the alternative primes at the end. Already own the rf 35mm and 85mm. Looking to upgrade the kit lens 24-105mm f4-7.1. This could be it or indeed get the 28mm and 50mm primes from Canon. Seems this one has faster autofocus or is there no difference? If it has I'm thinking of purchasing this lens when it drops in price.
What are we thinking Chris 28-70 2.8 or 24-105 f4?
Seems tempting, but every zoom lens I've ever owned except the 70-200 II L 2.8 broke in some weird way, Either ribbon cable or zoom ring. I even have the last EF 24-70 2.8 & the aperture blades stopped working when I mostly shoot indoors & mostly food. Hence why all my lenses except the 8-15 f4 are Primes.
I'm interested, but won't pay the full MSRP price. Will wait for special seasonal discounts or even used copies. This should do well on my 24mp R8. On R7 it's soft probably because the lens cannot resolve higher megapixel count, as in higher pixel density. 32mp on R7 is the equivalent of 83mp full frame.
I have an EOS RP and this lens on such a small camera body is appealing to me for travel, it packs a pretty good punch for its size! I wish it was $800-900 though
Ah! Here is Chris again with his brutal honesty! You are still my light in the dark when it comes to lens testing. James Reader liked the lens a lot, as you do, and also found it a compelling proposition, though on the expensive side. This lens has the same price range as the 24-105 f/4 L. Say one made up ones mind about zoom or primes and decided zoom is the answer, the question here would be: what is the better choice, this 28-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 L ? The 28-70 probably has the better IQ, is the brighter also. And would also probably work better on the R7. The L is more versatile. And on my R8 it works really well. If I am shooting portraits for showing on an iPhone screen or in a photobook, I will probably not even see the difference. But granted, if I wanted to make a protrait of my wife to print on A3, the 28-70 would be ahead... but my wife won't allow me to enlarge her wrinkels like that anyway :-).
So Chris, comparison video?
Thank you for your very detailed review! How good is the weather sealing? You mentioned that it's sealed around the rear and the control rings. Does it mean that the extending lens barrel and the switches are not sealed? How does it compare to the weather sealing of e.g. the 24-105 f/4 L?
Reminds me quite a bit of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I think the IS really is a critical feature to justify the price, actually pretty rare on a 2.8 standard zoom. Still though... hugely pricey for a lens I'd feel a little insure using for pro work as it looks very budget.
This lens, a bit expensive may be, finally gives Canon a travel option on FF.
If I can find it under 1000€ it's something I might consider for my super light RP.
Is the corner softness seen on the R7 at wider angles visible on full frame images further away on the corner? The results suggest you would expect to see it go sharp -> soft -> sharp moving from the centre to the corners?!
It's vital to remember that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor is much higher resolution than a 45mp full-frame one - the sensor is so much denser. That's why the corners / midregions don't look soft on the FF camera: they're not soft enough to be a problem at that resolution
@ True, though that doesn’t explain why the 28mm & 45mm corners are “poor” on the APSC, while on full frame it seems that 70mm is poorest. Pixel density doesn’t really explain that “inversion” in performance.
It suggests that sharpness/contrasts aren’t monotonic moving away from the optical axis. I’ll see if the MTF shows any evidence of this.
Thanks very much for the review! I would love to see a comparison with the 24-105mm f4 and the 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve never really loved the 24-105mm f4 and I’m tempted to change to something more “fun”.
@@adrianrcarr It does explain the inversion: at 28mm and 45mm the midregion and corners are sharp enough to satisfy a 45mp FF sensor, but not quite enough for the 32mp APS-C sensor. But at 70mm, it's the other way round, because the midregion is sharp enough for 32mp APS-C, but the very edges on FF (which are cropped out on APS-C) are a lot softer, which is what shows up on full-frame (if that makes sense!). All of this to say...never assume that the APS-C sweet spot advantage will automatically apply! Glad you enjoyed the video.
could be a winner for lighter capacity gimbals event work
@@christopherfrost I notice almost all the new lenses struggle on the R7. So now I am planning to sell my R7 and buy a FF. The new sigma RF 56mm also doesn't perform well on R7 while on Sony it is razor sharp from your reviews. But I wonder how the optics will work on the other fuji apsc cameras that have above 40 megapixels with higher resolution than canon R7😢😢.
Hi Chris, many thanks for this review! I purchased the Canon EF counterpart in top mint condition, however without IS. I’m very happy with it. Could you make a review of this one, too? Best wishes from Germany, Ralf
Nice review as always! Looks like a fun lens, and I was not convinced when you posted your preview either. Now it's looking like a great lens to just walk around with. I find corner sharpness at 70mm to not be as important as at wider focal lengths. Might add this to my xmas shopping list, but not recommended for APSC lol
That depends a bit on the application. I find myself using my "standard" zoom for landscapes more than bokeh style shots at its long end and sharpness across the frame at least stopped down is quite important. This lens seems a bit dubious in that regard.
Looks like my R8 just met its forever lens 😊
I agree that this lens is mostly for FF users. Specifically, the R8. Though the R6(II) and R5(II) look fine as well.
wonder how this lens compares to EF 24-70mm 2.8 ii
Hello Chris please do review on fujifilm 16-55 f2.8 mark 2
Could you do an extensive comparison between this lens and the RF 24-105mm F4 L? The lenses might not be entirely the same, but their similiar prices do make it an interesting comparison.
2:39 At the starting point there is still some space until 28 mm. Why?
As I mentioned in the video, so the lens can collapse down to a smaller size
Sigma has to offer an affordable 28-70 f2.8 lens as well, belonging to the contemporary series, with good sharpness in relation to its price for E and L mount
Tamron has a cheap but good 28-75 f2.8 if only Canon would allow (even if I'd prefer to get the Tamron/Samyang 35-150 f2-2.8 as it would suit better for my needs)
now this is a good lens for traveling, although I would still use it as a backup, that would lie down in the hotel, waiting for the next day, just in case my 50 or 35 1.8 wouldn't be enough
Imagine if that lens is offered as a kit on select camera bodies
Nowadays diffraction kick in faster. Back the dslr days, f11 is when lens reach best sharpness.
That's because the sensors are higher in resolution. On a 24MP the diffraction starts at f/11, while on a 45MP sensor it is already diffraction limited at f/11.
Christopher, would you recomend this lens or 24-105 f/4 for my Canon R6MII?
Really strugling to decide 🙈
We need rf mount tamron 28-75 f2.8 G2 to release 😭😭
Not until Canon sells enough of their lenses.
I hope that more people buy this actually decent STM weather sealed lens, it will push Canon to put weather sealed in more STM lens.
Thanks. I just got the R7 and Im a bit concerned about how poorly RF and RF-S lenses perform on it, even the higher end ones. Every review of yours I have seen with these lenses on the R7 perform like crap to be honest, soft in the middle and terrible in the corners, even when stopping down. I shot with my new Sigma RF 18-50 2.8 and the new RF 30 1.4 and honestly, the 18-50 looked better on my R100. Are there any lenses that perform well on the R7? Im beginning to think Canon really screwed up with this sensor. I think I may be returning this R7, shame.
I feel like a lot of people will cross shop this with the similarly priced 24-105 F4 L. Which would you prefer?
I'm really hoping this one goes on sale for maybe $50-$100 off on black Friday. Otherwise may hold off. I think the $1100 is an alright price, but it could be better. A $999 price tag would make this a lot better deal.
Compared with the Canon RF 35 f1.8, which lens is more suitable for street photography?
At that price I'd go for a RF 24-105 F4 L all day
The 24-105 is like $1300 these days even though it launched at $800...
But you are getting an f4 not an F2.8. There's a huge difference there.
@@answeris4217there 's a similar difference at 24 and 120 mm. To each his own.
@@ilmatanela1816 It's a significant difference. It a full stop so it lets in double the light. You can double your Shutter or half your ISO settings.
@@answeris4217 yep, you are right and I agree. I have two 24/70 f2.8 and the 24/120 f4 (f-mount). I know the difference but I can understand who would prefer the wider focal range
IT'S ABOUT TIME 🤷🏿
I don't understand why they went away from the 24-70 range. I know it's only 4mm but for me I mostly go ether all the way to the widest or all the way zoomed in and 24mm seems to me like a great place to start with landscape.
Because people like me rarely use 24.
@@narongpontemcharonsub2566 what people???
I use it all the time.
Good to see Canon is digging in on overcharging for lenses with under corrected geometric distortion. This lens is worth $800 max.
I'd say you are generous
Corrections are done digitally and distortion and vignetting are marginal once applied.
@@Skux720 If the build quality is average, the materials average and the optical quality average, what are you paying such a hefty premium for? Personally, I prefer the lenses I purchase perform well optically rather than rely on digital chicanery, which in my estimation limits the longevity of the lens and, thus, its value.
Can you explain why lens is sharper on higher resolution FF sensor vs lower resolution crop sensor?
Because the EOS R7 has a higher pixel density than the R5, despite having less total pixels.
Canon's APS-C crop factor is 1.6x, shooting in APS-C mode cuts the EOS R5's 45MP sensor down to a 17MP output. EOS R7's 32MP sensor is almost double the resolution. Put it another way, if you scale the R7's sensor up to full frame size, the resolution would jump to 82MP.
Looks good, especially since the bokeh seems and it works well at night. Still, all things considered it really does seem a bit overpriced. Great review as always !!!!
In the UK you can get this lens for under £900, which i think is great value.
No surprise, Canon only makes beta lenses available for initial launch videos to avoid revealing their crazy in-camera corrections.
that's correct! that's like Sony doing the same thing with their Mirrorless lenses being corrected by in body correction (the new Sony G-Master 28-70 f/2 is almost $3000 before taxes and does most of the correcting in body and automatically in post with adobe Lightroom). the only lenses in the mirrorless world for Sony and Canon that don't use in-body corrections are the L-Series and G-Master Primes. the same can be said for Nikon, FujiFilm, OM-Systems, Panasonic and so on. this is the norm if you want a mirrorless system and lighter, smaller glass. so anything too small or too good to be true more than likely is! because the physics in creating these lenses hasn't changed! So you have to factor what others things could possibly be different!
Giving the 24-70 f2.8 a big run for its money
I don’t get the focus breathing comment. Zoomed it focus breathing was similar to zoomed out???
So basically i should buy all ef lenses at this point, if i dont have in camera correction 🤔🤷🏿
怎么和 适马28-70 2.8的结果这么像
Did you forget to mention that it is sealed?
No, I mentioned it
@@christopherfrost Oh, I forgot to listen to it. ❤
Good review. I opted for a second hand (excellent condition) 24-105 F4 for £900. This 28-70 is overpriced.
Canon made a great $600 lens, the extra $500 is for the RF tax.
I see no point of picking this over the 24-105 F4L. It's priced similarly, and 1 Stop of light cannot outweight the wider + longer focal lenght. I mainly use my 24-105 at daytime (for low light, I use 1.4 primes). I was waiting for this lens, as it war romoured previously, but for this price, it's a huge let down. For 600-700€, I would buy one, but for this price, it's definitely not worth it
Always pissed me how Canon treats lens hood as a premium accessory.
Feels too expensive for what's on offer. Maybe in 1-2 years we'll see good deals on it in the used market.
How much??????????????????????????????????????????
Watch the video, and you'll find out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@christopherfrost exactly - far tooooooo much!!!
tamron 28-75g1 without purple fringing
If only the manufacturers would stop issuing new lenses then this guy wouldn't post a new video every five minutes.
Is it me or does it zoom even cheaper than it looks.
That`s some cheap ass looking lens with the huge barrel extention and the crappy zoom turn.
Very strange, my copy is sharper at 70mm and softer at 28mm, anyway very good good lens for the size.
$500 Canadian more than the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2, yet somehow worse image quality. Shame Canon still won't open the RF mount for full frame.
best sony 28-70 f2 gm o/
I Love this lens on my C70! 15-35 F2.8 + 28-70 F2.8 is a Dream setup!