Here's my take on it as a street/cityscape/portrait photographer, I've owned the EF 35 1.4L II , SIgma 35 1.4, Tamrom 35 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4, RF 50 1.2, RF 15-35 2.8L & RF 24-70 2.8L. I'll only speak on the 35-50mm side in terms of image qaulity & sharpness because that is what most people are going to be interested in when it comes to buying this lens. The 28-70 is shaper than all of them at 35 & 50mm except for the RF 50L 1.2. At 50mm's on the 28-70 its very close to the RF 50 1.2 ,I would say like 90% IMO. In terms of bokeh the primes will produce that better since they can be stopped down to 1.4 & 1.2 BUT If you want a versatile lens that has the image qaulity like a prime then the 28-70 is definitally worth the investment if you don't mind the weight, no IS and the price. Hope this helps.
Great review, thanks for doing it. I asked myself if I should trade in my 15-35 f/2.8 AND 50 f/1.2 for the 28-70 f/2. I shoot outdoor adventures like fishing and hunting from locations like moving boats, tree stands, blinds, etc. Based on your assesment, I think getting the 28-70 is the right thing to do. Now if I did portraits, I would drop everything and get that 85. That thing is absolute BUTTER!🧈✊
Great review - and yeah, the 28-70 won't stack up to the primes side-by-side very well (especially the 85 f/1.2)... but its versatility is awesome, and the f/2 is WAY better than your standard f/2.8 zoom. They're different lenses for different uses. Like comparing In 'N Out and Five Guys. They're completely different burgers, and they're both really good depending on what you're looking for. But put them next to each other... Five Guys wins all day. 😮🤣
To be fair, 28-70 is not trying to replace the 85 f1.2, that be the job for 70-200 f/2.8. Sadly, since I HAVE to have the 70-200 for shooting sports, and I am not a pro who makes money of off photography, I will probably never be able to justify getting the 85.
Amazing bro! Quick opinion on this! The 28-70 is definitely a 28-70, the 50 is more like a 56 and the 85 is more like a 90! I had them all hahaha and the RF 24-70 and RF 28-70 are equally in focal length (except 24mm obviously). But the 50 is 56mm and the 85mm is like a 90mm
Good time. I previously sold my Canon 5D MkIII and I still have fixes 24 1.4 II, 35 1.4 II, 50 1.2 , 85 1.2, 135 2.0. The time has come and I want to buy an R5. I don't make money by photography, it's my hobby. Does it make sense to buy new fixes 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, or buy 28-70 and use your fixes with an adapter. Thank you for your opinion and wonderful video.
Excellent information. So which will be the best combination as per you? 85mm 1.2 of course , if I go for 50 mm 1.2 along with 85 mm 1.2 completely ditching 28 70 is that will be a good decision as per you?
That really depends on how much you value convenience. If you shoot weddings and have no time to switch lenses that could be problematic. If not you will have better rendering in my opinion. But you would still need something on the wide end if you plan on shooting wider than 50
Mindy is one of most beautiful ladies I’ve ever seen. Inside and Out. Thanks Mindy for making an old man feel good about the world. 😊Beautiful Work Marcus .
This thing on my R5 is my bread and butter lense for dance performances and documentary stuff. This and a 70-200. I normally don't have time to switch lenses or even grab a second body, so a zoom means I get more moments. And if I really need it, I still have f2 to save me in low light. Having said that, I use my GFX anytime I can get away with it in the studio, because that's just next level. But you know that ;-)
I owned the 50 1.2, 28-70 f2, and the 85 1.2. The convenience of the 28-70 made the 50 stay in my bag. I eventually sold the 501.2 due to lack of use. The 85 1.2 although is in a different stratosphere.
Nice comparison man, I've always wondered about this very test you've just done. Where the H. E. Double hockey sticks have you been? Those F1.2's look crazy up close with a very "airy" soft look but the F2 zoom definitely has more contrast. Welcome back Bro!
Thank you! Yes I really can’t give up my primes.. they are magic to me. Thank you for tuning in! I’ve been working on my online course, about to do an ad campaign soon
Thanks for taking the time to produce this excellent review and can't agree more. Having owned the 28-70 and now replaced it with 50 & 85mm f1.2 the difference in quality is unmistakable taking nothing away from the 28-70 which as a stand alone lens is fabulous. It's just not as sharp and the bokeh even at f2 is not as good as the primes for wedding and portrait work. This sounds like I am knocking the zoom, absolutely not as I wish I could have afforded to keep it as well, given its versatility and allows you to just use one body with only small sacrifices. My dream however would be a 24-35mm f1.8 coupled with a 50 & 85mm f1.2 primes....delicious combo. 😀
i love this comparison, i got the 85mm a while back thanks to you. NOw i'm needing a standard zoom for taking my children's photos with a more unique look (and like you mentioned, won't want to carry a bag of primes and miss the shot switching lens) and i think adding the 28-70/f2 will give me that over the 24-105 /2.8 or 24-105/4, and if i need to bokeh everything, i'll pull out the 85 1.2 or 200 f2. what's your opinion?
Thank you! Well if I needed a zoom lens this would be it, if you can get past have gigantic it is for a walkable lens. Colors are amazing! It’s really special if you already have the 85 then you’ll be set. Have you tried to 50rf 1.2? It’s not as versatile obviously but it’s small and excellent
wow thanks for taking the time to reply, i really appreciate it.!@@SNAPAVELI I think for children photos indoors, candids, i'll need a zoom, i've been using my 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 and it's been fine, but i think a zoom will give me more looks and easier than switching lens so looking for a zoom over a prime. As for size and weight that's not a problem, i tried one for a bit yesterday at the camera store and it's not an issue, like a bigger 85 1.2 by a little, i really like the 50 1.2, i have't tried it, but i think 50mm and 85mm is a bit too close for my taste eg. i'll use one and neglet the other one. thanks for taking time to reply, great channel!
i was also eyeing the new 24-105 f2.8 but at 105mm 2.8 the 85 1.2 is more bokeh, according to some dof emulators, what's your take 105mm at 2.8 vs 85mm at 1.2 @snapaveli@@SNAPAVELI
Sheesh that 85mm is ridiculously gorgeous! But for a zoom lens the 28-70 isn’t a slouch. For an all around zoom I like the 28-70 especially for a zoom in low light. Not bad overall, but it won’t replace that 85mm the other two are so close. Thanks for the video.
@@SNAPAVELI you’re a bad influence, just pulled trigger on RF 85mm 1.2, 😂 didn’t get DS cause I couldn’t see paying more for loss of 1+ stop of light for better more smooth bokeh that most folks won’t notice.
@@CFLDumpsters I think you will be very happy with it! I opted for the non ds as well. I found the bokeh to look a little fake at times on the ds version
@@SNAPAVELI what do you think best low light zoom is? I’m on the fence for rf 70-200 2.8. I take photos of my daughter on stage, she is heading towards a professional ballerina, I need fast cause the lighting typically sucks in the venues. Shooting r6 mkii, iso is not an issue I just need fast shutter.
@@CFLDumpsters if you need a zoom , you really have no other alternative to a 70-200 2.8 , 135 1.8 would be good but then you have to move around which isn’t ideal
On my full-frame cameras, I shoot with the following fast prime lenses: 21mm f/1.4 24mm f/2 28mm f/2 35mm f/1.4 50mm f/1.4 85mm f/1.4 135mm f/2 180mm f/2.8 On my full-frame cameras, I also shoot with the following fast zoom lenses: 20-35mm f/2.8 28-70mm f/2.8 80-200mm f/2.8 My fast zoom lenses cannot replace my fast prime lenses. However, my fast zoom lenses do serve as a backup to my fast prime lenses.
As always, excellent content, and a great in-depth analysis. I'm always surprised though when I hear many people use 35mm as their main portrait lens, because it really is not a flattering focal range, unlike say the 70 - 200 focal range group. The 70-200 2.8 is my main workhorse for wedding photography, it gives me amazing flexibility and just that wonderful compression. But the RF 85mm 1.2 sure is a beautiful lens, which I am sure I'll get eventually.
35mm lenses are much harder to master portrait wise. I always find 85mm + focal length portraits very boring. It's the usual subject plus ton of background blur stuff. Also the photos are often really flat ( especially true with 70-200 lenses) Getting a nice environmental portrait is much more challenging and rewarding.
@@Makta972 yes, that’s why I sold my 200f2. Everything looked the same. I’m always excited when I get to use my 35 with an old car or abandoned location, it does take a lot of planning though
This was a very good comparison, which answered very well if the 28-70 can replace those primes. Thanks for putting it together! I think *maybe this could replace 28-50 range - if you don't need that 1.2/1.4, but most certainly cannot, as you said, replace the 85 1.2. It just can't! LOL Another commentor mentioned a comparison between the 85 1.2 and 135 1.8. I've done this myself and those 2 lenses are almost indistinguishable now, except there's a considerably more compressed look with the 135.
I really hate to say this. I like the 28mm 1.4E/85mm 1.2 pairing. I compared the 28-70 f/2 on the R5 to this setup, and it’s close, but it’s really not that close.
Great review and thanks for taking the time to shoot and show the comparison, big question and this is a $3000 dollar question, I have the 28-70 F2 lens so I am thinking to buy another lens do you recommend the 85 1.2? as the next lens or jump to 70-200 lens ? I want to shoot portraits. Thanks for your input. Do you own those lenses?
No problem at all! Well I’ve rented 70-200 for weddings, it’s a great lens but really has no character, more of a utilitarian lens. The 85 1.2 just has magic. It would be my choice
@@davidadsfasdf806 I borrowed the 28-70 from a friend, I own the 35 1.4 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 personally so I didn’t need it. I would say the 85 is a totally different look
@@klaudijuskairys I would say yes! Since you already have the 85 you’d still be switching lenses quite a bit anyway. I shot a wedding with 35 ef 1.4 , 50rf 1.2 and 85 rf 1.2 and it was amazing. It just takes some planning or 2 bodies
@@SNAPAVELI No,I use it mostly around 100mm or 135mm. I'll reframe my question. If we ignore 70-200, Which one is better 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.2. I'm more interested in 50 f1.2 as it is lighter weight, but everybody says 85mm has that extra magic in the photos. Does 50mm perform like 85mm or there is a big difference?
@@gauravgoel8092 I would definitely agree with that. The 85mm 1.2 wide open is one of the nicest renderings you will find. I think the 50 just has less wow factor than the 85 personally. I use the 50 more in the studio but not outdoor.
@@SNAPAVELI ok. Thanks a lot for your information. I'll try to demo both the lens on rent if possible now to avoid wrong purchase as I plan to buy only one of these primes. But thanks again for your help.
You are comparing the world's best primes (Ken Rockwell) against the world's best zoom made by the same people. Physics dictates that the primes win every time@@SNAPAVELI
Exactly! I’m using my RF 24-70 99% of the time for photo and video, and NO client has ever told me “Oh, that looks like a 24-70 and not a prime” 😂😂😂😂 Although, I still love and prefer my RF 85 1.2 when I have the space needed hahaha
There is no way in hell the 28-70 replaces any "L" primes. The bokeh and subject separation is not even close. I've used all of those. 28-70 may replace the cheaper primes (the 1.8s)if that is what people mean. But it's not at all in the league of of the "L" primes in the overall "look." The only time I would use that lens is for a wedding, where you don't want to be changing lenses on the go. Other than that, it's heavy, expensive and overrated.
Here's my take on it as a street/cityscape/portrait photographer, I've owned the EF 35 1.4L II , SIgma 35 1.4, Tamrom 35 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4, RF 50 1.2, RF 15-35 2.8L & RF 24-70 2.8L. I'll only speak on the 35-50mm side in terms of image qaulity & sharpness because that is what most people are going to be interested in when it comes to buying this lens. The 28-70 is shaper than all of them at 35 & 50mm except for the RF 50L 1.2. At 50mm's on the 28-70 its very close to the RF 50 1.2 ,I would say like 90% IMO. In terms of bokeh the primes will produce that better since they can be stopped down to 1.4 & 1.2 BUT If you want a versatile lens that has the image qaulity like a prime then the 28-70 is definitally worth the investment if you don't mind the weight, no IS and the price. Hope this helps.
The best comparison on the web, well done Marcus.
Thank you so very much!!
Great review, thanks for doing it. I asked myself if I should trade in my 15-35 f/2.8 AND 50 f/1.2 for the 28-70 f/2. I shoot outdoor adventures like fishing and hunting from locations like moving boats, tree stands, blinds, etc. Based on your assesment, I think getting the 28-70 is the right thing to do. Now if I did portraits, I would drop everything and get that 85. That thing is absolute BUTTER!🧈✊
Great review - and yeah, the 28-70 won't stack up to the primes side-by-side very well (especially the 85 f/1.2)... but its versatility is awesome, and the f/2 is WAY better than your standard f/2.8 zoom. They're different lenses for different uses.
Like comparing In 'N Out and Five Guys. They're completely different burgers, and they're both really good depending on what you're looking for. But put them next to each other... Five Guys wins all day. 😮🤣
Thanks a lot for your work. for my eyes, nothing better than 35 1.4 + 85 1.2. Yes two lenses and perhaps two bodies but what a difference !
The 85 1.2 is in a league by itself. A better comparison would be the 85 1.2 vs.. 135 1.8.
I’ll see if I can make that happen!!
I would hate to buy the RF 28-70mm and then Canon comes out with a second version with better optics and lens coatings for flaring. Cheers!
To be fair, 28-70 is not trying to replace the 85 f1.2, that be the job for 70-200 f/2.8. Sadly, since I HAVE to have the 70-200 for shooting sports, and I am not a pro who makes money of off photography, I will probably never be able to justify getting the 85.
Amazing bro!
Quick opinion on this! The 28-70 is definitely a 28-70, the 50 is more like a 56 and the 85 is more like a 90! I had them all hahaha and the RF 24-70 and RF 28-70 are equally in focal length (except 24mm obviously).
But the 50 is 56mm and the 85mm is like a 90mm
That makes more sense!! Thank you!
I have the 28-70 mm F2, so now that you have them would you buy the 85 mm 1.2? or do you think the 70 mm focal length will replace the 85 mm
Good time. I previously sold my Canon 5D MkIII and I still have fixes 24 1.4 II, 35 1.4 II, 50 1.2 , 85 1.2, 135 2.0. The time has come and I want to buy an R5. I don't make money by photography, it's my hobby. Does it make sense to buy new fixes 50 1.2 and 85 1.2, or buy 28-70 and use your fixes with an adapter. Thank you for your opinion and wonderful video.
Welcome back bro! Been awhile, always appreciate you awesome content!
Thank you brother!! I’ll be back in full swing soon!
Great video, do you have a similar video comparing the RF70-200 2.8 to the 85 1.2?
Excellent information. So which will be the best combination as per you? 85mm 1.2 of course , if I go for 50 mm 1.2 along with 85 mm 1.2 completely ditching 28 70 is that will be a good decision as per you?
That really depends on how much you value convenience. If you shoot weddings and have no time to switch lenses that could be problematic. If not you will have better rendering in my opinion. But you would still need something on the wide end if you plan on shooting wider than 50
@@SNAPAVELI thanks for your opinion.
Mindy is one of most beautiful ladies I’ve ever seen. Inside and Out. Thanks Mindy for making an old man feel good about the world. 😊Beautiful Work Marcus .
Not discounting the 28-70, but primes just have more 'oomph', a very specific look.
Totally agree, I don’t think there is any way around it.
This thing on my R5 is my bread and butter lense for dance performances and documentary stuff. This and a 70-200. I normally don't have time to switch lenses or even grab a second body, so a zoom means I get more moments. And if I really need it, I still have f2 to save me in low light. Having said that, I use my GFX anytime I can get away with it in the studio, because that's just next level. But you know that ;-)
I owned the 50 1.2, 28-70 f2, and the 85 1.2. The convenience of the 28-70 made the 50 stay in my bag. I eventually sold the 501.2 due to lack of use. The 85 1.2 although is in a different stratosphere.
Nice comparison man, I've always wondered about this very test you've just done. Where the H. E. Double hockey sticks have you been? Those F1.2's look crazy up close with a very "airy" soft look but the F2 zoom definitely has more contrast. Welcome back Bro!
Thank you! Yes I really can’t give up my primes.. they are magic to me. Thank you for tuning in! I’ve been working on my online course, about to do an ad campaign soon
Thanks for taking the time to produce this excellent review and can't agree more. Having owned the 28-70 and now replaced it with 50 & 85mm f1.2 the difference in quality is unmistakable taking nothing away from the 28-70 which as a stand alone lens is fabulous. It's just not as sharp and the bokeh even at f2 is not as good as the primes for wedding and portrait work. This sounds like I am knocking the zoom, absolutely not as I wish I could have afforded to keep it as well, given its versatility and allows you to just use one body with only small sacrifices. My dream however would be a 24-35mm f1.8 coupled with a 50 & 85mm f1.2 primes....delicious combo. 😀
I can shot the whole wedding with 35 1/4 and 85 1.4. The focal difference between 50 and 85 is too small to have both lenses imho
I run dual Camera with the 28-70 f2 and the 85 1.2, its a great combo
That 85 is just butter!!! That 50 too.
Yes!!! The primes are some of the best !!
I appreciate the in depth on this!!!
No problem at all!!
Good to see another video from you, hope you're doing well brother.
Yes doing good! Thank you for checking in on me!
i love this comparison, i got the 85mm a while back thanks to you. NOw i'm needing a standard zoom for taking my children's photos with a more unique look (and like you mentioned, won't want to carry a bag of primes and miss the shot switching lens) and i think adding the 28-70/f2 will give me that over the 24-105 /2.8 or 24-105/4, and if i need to bokeh everything, i'll pull out the 85 1.2 or 200 f2. what's your opinion?
Thank you! Well if I needed a zoom lens this would be it, if you can get past have gigantic it is for a walkable lens. Colors are amazing! It’s really special if you already have the 85 then you’ll be set. Have you tried to 50rf 1.2? It’s not as versatile obviously but it’s small and excellent
wow thanks for taking the time to reply, i really appreciate it.!@@SNAPAVELI I think for children photos indoors, candids, i'll need a zoom, i've been using my 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 and it's been fine, but i think a zoom will give me more looks and easier than switching lens so looking for a zoom over a prime. As for size and weight that's not a problem, i tried one for a bit yesterday at the camera store and it's not an issue, like a bigger 85 1.2 by a little, i really like the 50 1.2, i have't tried it, but i think 50mm and 85mm is a bit too close for my taste eg. i'll use one and neglet the other one. thanks for taking time to reply, great channel!
i was also eyeing the new 24-105 f2.8 but at 105mm 2.8 the 85 1.2 is more bokeh, according to some dof emulators, what's your take 105mm at 2.8 vs 85mm at 1.2 @snapaveli@@SNAPAVELI
Sheesh that 85mm is ridiculously gorgeous! But for a zoom lens the 28-70 isn’t a slouch. For an all around zoom I like the 28-70 especially for a zoom in low light. Not bad overall, but it won’t replace that 85mm the other two are so close. Thanks for the video.
No problem!! Yes canon has set it up so you need both.
@@SNAPAVELI you’re a bad influence, just pulled trigger on RF 85mm 1.2, 😂 didn’t get DS cause I couldn’t see paying more for loss of 1+ stop of light for better more smooth bokeh that most folks won’t notice.
@@CFLDumpsters I think you will be very happy with it! I opted for the non ds as well. I found the bokeh to look a little fake at times on the ds version
@@SNAPAVELI what do you think best low light zoom is? I’m on the fence for rf 70-200 2.8. I take photos of my daughter on stage, she is heading towards a professional ballerina, I need fast cause the lighting typically sucks in the venues. Shooting r6 mkii, iso is not an issue I just need fast shutter.
@@CFLDumpsters if you need a zoom , you really have no other alternative to a 70-200 2.8 , 135 1.8 would be good but then you have to move around which isn’t ideal
On my full-frame cameras, I shoot with the following fast prime lenses:
21mm f/1.4
24mm f/2
28mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
135mm f/2
180mm f/2.8
On my full-frame cameras, I also shoot with the following fast zoom lenses:
20-35mm f/2.8
28-70mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
My fast zoom lenses cannot replace my fast prime lenses. However, my fast zoom lenses do serve as a backup to my fast prime lenses.
As always, excellent content, and a great in-depth analysis. I'm always surprised though when I hear many people use 35mm as their main portrait lens, because it really is not a flattering focal range, unlike say the 70 - 200 focal range group. The 70-200 2.8 is my main workhorse for wedding photography, it gives me amazing flexibility and just that wonderful compression. But the RF 85mm 1.2 sure is a beautiful lens, which I am sure I'll get eventually.
I agree, if I was shooting weddings , 35 wouldn’t be my lens unless the place is tiny or I’m trying do get a cool angle. 70-200 is a workhorse!
I use the 35 for portrait when I need to include the environment and don't need to isolate the subject with any bokeh.
@@locsbcn me too! Especially for indoor shots
35mm lenses are much harder to master portrait wise. I always find 85mm + focal length portraits very boring. It's the usual subject plus ton of background blur stuff. Also the photos are often really flat ( especially true with 70-200 lenses) Getting a nice environmental portrait is much more challenging and rewarding.
@@Makta972 yes, that’s why I sold my 200f2. Everything looked the same. I’m always excited when I get to use my 35 with an old car or abandoned location, it does take a lot of planning though
Such a great video Bruv. Kudos
Thank you so much!
This video earned you a sub from me. Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
Thank you so much!! & You are very welcome!
Well you solved that problem for me, thanks.
This was a very good comparison, which answered very well if the 28-70 can replace those primes. Thanks for putting it together! I think *maybe this could replace 28-50 range - if you don't need that 1.2/1.4, but most certainly cannot, as you said, replace the 85 1.2. It just can't! LOL
Another commentor mentioned a comparison between the 85 1.2 and 135 1.8. I've done this myself and those 2 lenses are almost indistinguishable now, except there's a considerably more compressed look with the 135.
I really hate to say this.
I like the 28mm 1.4E/85mm 1.2 pairing. I compared the 28-70 f/2 on the R5 to this setup, and it’s close, but it’s really not that close.
2 really nice lenses! What would you use in between, 50mm rf?
@@SNAPAVELI Don't need an in between. Just move your feet. Two bodies.
@@Tap-a-roo that works!
@@SNAPAVELI You already know this --- but these comparison videos you do with these lenses (like the 200mm f2 videos you've done) are fantastic.
@@Tap-a-roo I really appreciate that! I hate to see people waste money on gear they don’t need
Great review and thanks for taking the time to shoot and show the comparison, big question and this is a $3000 dollar question, I have the 28-70 F2 lens so I am thinking to buy another lens do you recommend the 85 1.2? as the next lens or jump to 70-200 lens ? I want to shoot portraits. Thanks for your input. Do you own those lenses?
No problem at all! Well I’ve rented 70-200 for weddings, it’s a great lens but really has no character, more of a utilitarian lens. The 85 1.2 just has magic. It would be my choice
@@SNAPAVELI so owning the 28-70 F2 you will still get the 85 mm 1.2? for portraits?
@@davidadsfasdf806 I borrowed the 28-70 from a friend, I own the 35 1.4 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 personally so I didn’t need it. I would say the 85 is a totally different look
@@SNAPAVELI So better to get EF 35 1.4 ii instead of RF 28-70 f2 for weddings, if I have RF 85 1.2 allready?:)
@@klaudijuskairys I would say yes! Since you already have the 85 you’d still be switching lenses quite a bit anyway. I shot a wedding with 35 ef 1.4 , 50rf 1.2 and 85 rf 1.2 and it was amazing. It just takes some planning or 2 bodies
Dear Marcus, in case I have RF 70-200 f2.8, should I get 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.2 as prime for portraits. Please help
That’s such a tough question to answer! Do you use the 70-200 on the long end a lot?
@@SNAPAVELI No,I use it mostly around 100mm or 135mm. I'll reframe my question. If we ignore 70-200, Which one is better 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.2. I'm more interested in 50 f1.2 as it is lighter weight, but everybody says 85mm has that extra magic in the photos. Does 50mm perform like 85mm or there is a big difference?
@@gauravgoel8092 I would definitely agree with that. The 85mm 1.2 wide open is one of the nicest renderings you will find. I think the 50 just has less wow factor than the 85 personally. I use the 50 more in the studio but not outdoor.
@@SNAPAVELI ok. Thanks a lot for your information. I'll try to demo both the lens on rent if possible now to avoid wrong purchase as I plan to buy only one of these primes. But thanks again for your help.
You need more exposure. And I don’t mean the camera
Thank you John!! I wish I had more time to devote to RUclips!
Ain't fair to the zoom. But, there is NO better zoom in this class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed! If I needed a zoom this would be it, but it’s still not replacing prime lenses for me.
You are comparing the world's best primes (Ken Rockwell) against the world's best zoom made by the same people. Physics dictates that the primes win every time@@SNAPAVELI
Check out @dannybatista on Instagram
, he uses a zoom 2.8 and gets amazing shots. Just gotta use what your comfortable with
Exactly! I’m using my RF 24-70 99% of the time for photo and video, and NO client has ever told me “Oh, that looks like a 24-70 and not a prime” 😂😂😂😂
Although, I still love and prefer my RF 85 1.2 when I have the space needed hahaha
@@Francisfphoto_ right! The clients just want great photos!
actually you should compare 50mm 1.2 vs 70mm 2.0.
The 35 1.4 is still money. Wow.
Agreed!! It’s so nice , I can’t wait to see if they drop a 35 rf 1.2
👍👍👍
There is no way in hell the 28-70 replaces any "L" primes. The bokeh and subject separation is not even close. I've used all of those. 28-70 may replace the cheaper primes (the 1.8s)if that is what people mean. But it's not at all in the league of of the "L" primes in the overall "look." The only time I would use that lens is for a wedding, where you don't want to be changing lenses on the go. Other than that, it's heavy, expensive and overrated.
You talk way too much while saying nothing at all.
Lol must be a character flaw 😉
Nobody begged you to come here either viatminb4869.
Haters gonna hate.
Not apples to apples though. Same pose and light would tell more. I own rf 28-70 and the rf85 1.2 . And could take either one to any job
Nice comparison. What's the girls instagram?