Let me know your thoughts about these lenses below! My takeaway is that they are all incredibly sharp, with high quality and it all comes down to your situation. They definitely don't take bad pictures.
Thanks a lot for your thoughts and good examples! They helped me choose the right addition to my Canon RF 85/1.2 & Canon R5 for shooting portraits and so on. Now I own the Canon EF 35/1.4 II and sometimes need both wider (24mm or 28mm) and longer (about 50mm) focal distances. Though I'm a prime lens lover, now I decided to sell my 35/1.4 and to go with the 28-70/2.0 which would in the end be lighter and less expensive then having 3 L primes in this focal range. And when I want to add some magic to the shot, I will take my RF 85/1.2, which is technically a slightly better solution than the RF 50/1.2 and has a longer focal distance for magical bokeh, love this lens! Thank you again, Kevin!
I‘m a wedding Photographer, i shot nearly everything with the RF 28-70, also have the RF 85 1.2 for special moments, the EF 135 2.0 when I need range and the RF 35 for macro. If something happens to the 28-70, I go with to Bodys with the 35 and the 85 :-)
I use the 28-70 mainly for events for its versatility. Have used it a couple times for portraits, but as mentioned, it just doesn't achieve the same look as the 50 1.2, and especially the 85 1.2. I ALWAYS end up switching to those for "that look."
That has been my experience as well. It gets a little closer to the 50 than the 85, but still noticeable enough for me to justify owning all three lenses for different needs. Thanks for watching!
I have Canon R5 and RF 85 1.2 and I love it, I even use it at weddings pairing it with 24-70 F2.8, but now I wonder if I should get 28-70 F2 or wait for RF 35 1.2 when it comes out.
I needed lenses to shoot weddings with my new R5 w/batt grip. I read people really liked the RF 28-70. While I prefer f1.2 primes, I thought well I still can get good shots with f2 and I wouldn't have to carry two bodies with heavy primes. Also it's better for my budget as I'm only buying one pricy lens and not three or four. I bit the bullet and bought the lens. I'm so happy with this decision. I can just carry one body with me and leave the backup DSLR in the bag. My camera with the battery grip and lens is a tad over 6 pounds it's a workout. So I now have a iFootage Cobra 2 monopod I use to rest my camera on. It even helps me to shot longer videos without shaking and stressing out. As for a macro, I figured out that I could just shoot at 70mm and crop in as my R5 is 45MP. I'm not shooting for advertizing so the 28-70 works well for me at this time. Later I'll be buying the RF85, RF 70-200, and RF50. Maybe the RF35 for it's macro. I need to see of my current solution out preforms the RF35 for detail shots.
Thanks for watching! Personally I think the RF35 does an excellent job of detailed shots. But the 28-70 will do just fine for detailed shots as well. I found myself at a wedding doing detailed shots and decided to see if the 28-70 would work for that. No surprise. It did great.
The best lens compare video i've seen in a while. Thanks. I have 35 EF 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L, thinking what should be my first RF lens.. your video is directing me into 85L :)
The 35 1.4 is solid. So is the 135L. The difference between your EF85 1.8 and the RF85 1.2 will drop your jaw. I absolutely recommend going with the 85 first, especially if you find yourself shooting at that focal length often. Whenever a prospective portrait client reaches out to me, I always ask them to pick their favorite shots I've done so I can get some insight as to how they want to be shot. The RF85 1.2 shots are by far the most picked. Thanks for watching! I'm doing an in depth look at just the 28-70 and in the next few weeks, I will be putting up a video on the RF 85 1.2.
I got the 28-70 yesterday!! I thought the weight would bother me but I'm loving. Missed focus a few times, so I'm trying to figure out why. Otherwise the versatility is just so useful.
Fantastic photos to back up your assertions! I’ve been telling people the 28-70 f2 at 70mm, at it’s minimum focusing distance mimics the 50mm f1.2 quite convincingly for that more fine art look. And further to that point, I agree the 28-70 has an editorial look that is beautiful but you’ve got to know the art to make images pop. Whereas the 50mm and 85mm f1.2 just ooze elegance. What are your thoughts on the rf 70-200 lenses? I adore them both.
Yeah. The 28-70 is definitely closer to the 50 and 35. The 85 is its own beast. I don’t have a ton of time on the 70-200 yet. My initial impressions are that the image quality is close to the EF70-200 III, but with a smaller footprint. I will need to put it on my list of lenses to review. I don’t own one (yet)…. I actually don’t own a 70-200 of any kind at the moment. I am “in between 70-200s.” Lol. Thank you for taking the time to watch my video!
Always great thoughts. Struggling with my first lens (non-kit, got the 50mm 1.8 STM just so I could use it knowing I would upgrade soon) purchase in this range and might lean 28-70 just for the versatility, but the 85mm is absolute worth hat I want
Hi Kevin. Your overview is helping clarify things for me. I am an 80% portrait photographer, 20% events. Portraits: 80% outdoors, 20% studio. I have the R5, rf 85 1.2 (agreed it is in its own category), rf 35 1.8 macro, rf 16 2.8 (for funky weird wide stuff) and a few old ef lenses for backup. I am struggling between the 28-70 and the 50 1.2. When you said the 50 was your least used, but when you need it it shines... could you give an example of the types of uses you find it optimal for? This would greatly help me make my decision... Thank you in advance. (yours was the most helpful of the 100 hours of videos I have watched on this subject)
First and foremost, thank you so much for the kind words and it is a great honor that of all the videos you watched, mine was the most helpful. Let me go into some more detail.... We have a lot of overlap in our set ups. I am 90% portrait, 10% events. 60% outdoors, 40% studio. I own the 16 2.8, 35 1.8 Macro, 28-70 f2, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. If I go into the studio, I almost always choose the 28-70 over the 50. I just don't really see a huge difference between the two when I'm shooting at like f8 and f11. In that case, the versatility of the 28-70 wins. The only real scenario in which I always reach for the 50 over the 28-70 is when I do an environmental portrait where I absolutely want to liquify the background. Much in the same way I do it with my 85 1.2. Even though I mainly use my 50 1.2 in outdoor environmental portrait situations, my 28-70 tends to be a more useful lens. F2 (hopefully demonstrated in the examples I show in the video) is wide enough for me and produces good enough bokeh / separation. Therefore the versatility of focal ranges is more important to me than 1.2 and slightly more sharpness. If you want to see further examples of the 50 1.2 in environmental situations, I posted my in depth review of that lens a little over a week ago. Perhaps that video will help you out further in regards to environmental portraits. My summary is that the 28-70 was a more useful lens to me and the 50 1.2 was more of a luxury / situational lens. As much as I love my 50 1.2, if you put me on the spot and made me get rid of one of my L lenses, it would be the 50 1.2. I'd miss the hell out of it though. lol Being that you do more events than I do, I think the 28-70 would make a lot of sense for you, assuming you're cool with the weight.
A great reply by Kevin. While you can’t lose with either on I will say this. I have shot events with nothing but the 50mm 1.2 and it has been wide enough and all the pics had the magic to them. Of course when it’s more than two I am stopping down the lens. But when I can single out a person this is where I would have to shot double camera if I used the zoom. With the 50mm I just get the cream. A small event probably couldn’t do it with the 50. But bigger venues I love the 50mm.
@@KevinDeal I have been thinking a lot about this, this week. I experimented at a small event (100 people, indoors, 5 hours long) using ONLY my 85mm 1.2. What I found is that when not switching to my 35 1.8 and old nifty 50, my hands took a beating. Wondering if I am capable of holding the 28-70, as I have really really small hands. I am so appreciative of your detailed response. Of course I watched your video on the 50 1.2 and that almost made the decision harder. I still don't know what I will do, but am grateful for peers like you that are willing to help. Thanks again.
@@HeatherOC5000 hehe. Sorry about that. Being a man with average-sized hands, I really have to concentrate on what I am doing when I swap the 28-70. I've never lost my grip changing it, but in a hurry, I could see it happening. With small hands, it's definitely something I would recommend changing at a slow pace, at your bag, close to the ground. I definitely you recommend putting your hands on one (really difficult) right now if you can. That will likely answer a lot of your questions. Of all the "larger" L lenses, the 50 is the easiest to handle. Thanks for watching my videos!
Probably the first review of the RF 28-70 that I agree with the most (I have had my RF 28-70 since last August). Probably, over 90% of my best photos have been taken with this lens on my Canon EOS R6 (which is really quite an endorsement).
It is absolutely my workhorse lens. I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video and I am happy that the 28-70 is producing excellent results for you!
I completely agree. I use the 28-70 in situations where there is less predictability and changing the focal length on the fly matters. But if I know I will be in an environment where I can move around, zoom with my feet and control the outcome, the 85 1.2 is my choice 100 times out of 100. Thanks for watching!
@@alex_knight BTW. If you want to geek out on more RF85mm stuff, I am dropping my premiere for my review of over two years of my work with the 85 right.....now ruclips.net/video/CbcoMmARTPc/видео.html
I shoot 11, 16, 35, 50 and 85mm in the studio. Since having the 28-70 f2 I leave it on one body and use the 16 and 11mm on another body. Much faster workflow and great results.
28-70 F2 is just massively heavy. I rented the Lens. On long day shoot outdoor this start to burn the shoulder and arms. Heavy to carry the camera on the shoulder. Its super crisp and fast, but the weight of the lens is super annoying and its very bulky. My go to lens is 24-70 f2.8 and 85mm 1.2 which is the king. 24-70 f2.8 has remarkable results, has stabilization and cost $1100 less than 2.0
The 85 is so amazing! The 28-70 is a beast as well. The great thing is they are all fantastic lenses. We are spoiled with our lens choices these days. Thanks for watching!
It does it's job on weddings and events but it can't reach the look of the RF 50 1.2. So if i want that look i have to switch back. Never would replace my RF 50 for the 28-70.
Thanks for the watch. Yeah. The nifty fifty isn't bad for the money, but the focus hunting alone disqualifies it for serious professional work for me. I can't afford to miss.
@@omranmohammed8134 Excellent. Just zoom with your feet and enjoy the sharper images on the 50mm. Thanks for watching! If you want to learn more about the 50mm, here is a link to my review. ruclips.net/video/T7yu4kfRLqo/видео.html
I will be doing an in depth episode on the 85 1.2 that addresses this very question. However, since you asked, I will give you my opinion. I went with the non-DS for the extra light. The bokeh on the regular 1.2 is incredible. Slightly more football shaped, but I am completely fine with that. Almost two years in with the 85 1.2 I have no regrets. I am posting one episode next week on street photography, but the one after that will be my deep dive on the 85. Look out for it! Thanks for watching!
Thank you for the kind words! I appreciate it. I am going to do a deeper dive into all of the lenses soon. I will start with the 85 1.2. Look for that video soon!
Of course it won't replace 50 L and 85 L; a more balanced comparison would have been with 50 f1.8 and 85 f2, which are, like the 35, of the same aperture of the 28-70. Comparing it with f1.2 lenses is a nonsense.
I don't agree with that at all. I have the ability to look at files one at a time and draw conclusions. Most people watch this channel on their phones. Two really small pictures next to each other being scaled to a single 16:9 aspect ratio would be so tiny for them to view it would be even more pure garbage for them.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Let me know your thoughts about these lenses below! My takeaway is that they are all incredibly sharp, with high quality and it all comes down to your situation. They definitely don't take bad pictures.
Thanks a lot for your thoughts and good examples! They helped me choose the right addition to my Canon RF 85/1.2 & Canon R5 for shooting portraits and so on. Now I own the Canon EF 35/1.4 II and sometimes need both wider (24mm or 28mm) and longer (about 50mm) focal distances. Though I'm a prime lens lover, now I decided to sell my 35/1.4 and to go with the 28-70/2.0 which would in the end be lighter and less expensive then having 3 L primes in this focal range. And when I want to add some magic to the shot, I will take my RF 85/1.2, which is technically a slightly better solution than the RF 50/1.2 and has a longer focal distance for magical bokeh, love this lens!
Thank you again, Kevin!
I’m so glad my video helped you out! The 28-70 and 85 combination is perfect for what I do. Thanks for watching!
I‘m a wedding Photographer, i shot nearly everything with the RF 28-70, also have the RF 85 1.2 for special moments, the EF 135 2.0 when I need range and the RF 35 for macro. If something happens to the 28-70, I go with to Bodys with the 35 and the 85 :-)
We have all the same lenses. Love them. Thanks for the watch.
I rarely use my 50mm 1.2, but when I need it, it's incredible. If I was starting out I'd definitely go this 28-70 route. Great examples!
Thanks for watching! 50 1.2 is probably my least-used as well, but it shines when I need it.
I use the 28-70 mainly for events for its versatility. Have used it a couple times for portraits, but as mentioned, it just doesn't achieve the same look as the 50 1.2, and especially the 85 1.2. I ALWAYS end up switching to those for "that look."
That has been my experience as well. It gets a little closer to the 50 than the 85, but still noticeable enough for me to justify owning all three lenses for different needs.
Thanks for watching!
I have Canon R5 and RF 85 1.2 and I love it, I even use it at weddings pairing it with 24-70 F2.8, but now I wonder if I should get 28-70 F2 or wait for RF 35 1.2 when it comes out.
Apparently the 35 is in the next announcement. In the meantime I've been using the 28-70 for the last three years. It has been making me money.
I needed lenses to shoot weddings with my new R5 w/batt grip. I read people really liked the RF 28-70. While I prefer f1.2 primes, I thought well I still can get good shots with f2 and I wouldn't have to carry two bodies with heavy primes. Also it's better for my budget as I'm only buying one pricy lens and not three or four. I bit the bullet and bought the lens. I'm so happy with this decision. I can just carry one body with me and leave the backup DSLR in the bag. My camera with the battery grip and lens is a tad over 6 pounds it's a workout. So I now have a iFootage Cobra 2 monopod I use to rest my camera on. It even helps me to shot longer videos without shaking and stressing out. As for a macro, I figured out that I could just shoot at 70mm and crop in as my R5 is 45MP.
I'm not shooting for advertizing so the 28-70 works well for me at this time. Later I'll be buying the RF85, RF 70-200, and RF50. Maybe the RF35 for it's macro. I need to see of my current solution out preforms the RF35 for detail shots.
Thanks for watching!
Personally I think the RF35 does an excellent job of detailed shots. But the 28-70 will do just fine for detailed shots as well. I found myself at a wedding doing detailed shots and decided to see if the 28-70 would work for that. No surprise. It did great.
The best lens compare video i've seen in a while. Thanks. I have 35 EF 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L, thinking what should be my first RF lens.. your video is directing me into 85L :)
The 35 1.4 is solid. So is the 135L. The difference between your EF85 1.8 and the RF85 1.2 will drop your jaw. I absolutely recommend going with the 85 first, especially if you find yourself shooting at that focal length often. Whenever a prospective portrait client reaches out to me, I always ask them to pick their favorite shots I've done so I can get some insight as to how they want to be shot. The RF85 1.2 shots are by far the most picked. Thanks for watching! I'm doing an in depth look at just the 28-70 and in the next few weeks, I will be putting up a video on the RF 85 1.2.
I got the 28-70 yesterday!! I thought the weight would bother me but I'm loving. Missed focus a few times, so I'm trying to figure out why. Otherwise the versatility is just so useful.
I don’t lose focus on it often. I wonder what it could be. Congrats on your purchase!
Fantastic photos to back up your assertions!
I’ve been telling people the 28-70 f2 at 70mm, at it’s minimum focusing distance mimics the 50mm f1.2 quite convincingly for that more fine art look.
And further to that point, I agree the 28-70 has an editorial look that is beautiful but you’ve got to know the art to make images pop. Whereas the 50mm and 85mm f1.2 just ooze elegance.
What are your thoughts on the rf 70-200 lenses? I adore them both.
Yeah. The 28-70 is definitely closer to the 50 and 35. The 85 is its own beast.
I don’t have a ton of time on the 70-200 yet. My initial impressions are that the image quality is close to the EF70-200 III, but with a smaller footprint. I will need to put it on my list of lenses to review. I don’t own one (yet)….
I actually don’t own a 70-200 of any kind at the moment. I am “in between 70-200s.” Lol.
Thank you for taking the time to watch my video!
6:55 that shot is out of this world
Thanks. That lens is a gem wide open.
Always great thoughts. Struggling with my first lens (non-kit, got the 50mm 1.8 STM just so I could use it knowing I would upgrade soon) purchase in this range and might lean 28-70 just for the versatility, but the 85mm is absolute worth hat I want
85 and 28-70 are my two favorites.
Hi Kevin. Your overview is helping clarify things for me. I am an 80% portrait photographer, 20% events. Portraits: 80% outdoors, 20% studio. I have the R5, rf 85 1.2 (agreed it is in its own category), rf 35 1.8 macro, rf 16 2.8 (for funky weird wide stuff) and a few old ef lenses for backup. I am struggling between the 28-70 and the 50 1.2. When you said the 50 was your least used, but when you need it it shines... could you give an example of the types of uses you find it optimal for? This would greatly help me make my decision... Thank you in advance. (yours was the most helpful of the 100 hours of videos I have watched on this subject)
First and foremost, thank you so much for the kind words and it is a great honor that of all the videos you watched, mine was the most helpful.
Let me go into some more detail....
We have a lot of overlap in our set ups. I am 90% portrait, 10% events. 60% outdoors, 40% studio. I own the 16 2.8, 35 1.8 Macro, 28-70 f2, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2.
If I go into the studio, I almost always choose the 28-70 over the 50. I just don't really see a huge difference between the two when I'm shooting at like f8 and f11. In that case, the versatility of the 28-70 wins.
The only real scenario in which I always reach for the 50 over the 28-70 is when I do an environmental portrait where I absolutely want to liquify the background. Much in the same way I do it with my 85 1.2.
Even though I mainly use my 50 1.2 in outdoor environmental portrait situations, my 28-70 tends to be a more useful lens. F2 (hopefully demonstrated in the examples I show in the video) is wide enough for me and produces good enough bokeh / separation. Therefore the versatility of focal ranges is more important to me than 1.2 and slightly more sharpness.
If you want to see further examples of the 50 1.2 in environmental situations, I posted my in depth review of that lens a little over a week ago. Perhaps that video will help you out further in regards to environmental portraits.
My summary is that the 28-70 was a more useful lens to me and the 50 1.2 was more of a luxury / situational lens. As much as I love my 50 1.2, if you put me on the spot and made me get rid of one of my L lenses, it would be the 50 1.2. I'd miss the hell out of it though. lol
Being that you do more events than I do, I think the 28-70 would make a lot of sense for you, assuming you're cool with the weight.
A great reply by Kevin. While you can’t lose with either on I will say this. I have shot events with nothing but the 50mm 1.2 and it has been wide enough and all the pics had the magic to them. Of course when it’s more than two I am stopping down the lens. But when I can single out a person this is where I would have to shot double camera if I used the zoom. With the 50mm I just get the cream. A small event probably couldn’t do it with the 50. But bigger venues I love the 50mm.
@@KevinDeal I have been thinking a lot about this, this week. I experimented at a small event (100 people, indoors, 5 hours long) using ONLY my 85mm 1.2. What I found is that when not switching to my 35 1.8 and old nifty 50, my hands took a beating. Wondering if I am capable of holding the 28-70, as I have really really small hands. I am so appreciative of your detailed response. Of course I watched your video on the 50 1.2 and that almost made the decision harder. I still don't know what I will do, but am grateful for peers like you that are willing to help. Thanks again.
@@jamesjackson4264 definitely. If you can zoom with your feet, the 50mm is DEFINITELY appealing. That extra isolation is definitely special.
@@HeatherOC5000 hehe. Sorry about that. Being a man with average-sized hands, I really have to concentrate on what I am doing when I swap the 28-70. I've never lost my grip changing it, but in a hurry, I could see it happening.
With small hands, it's definitely something I would recommend changing at a slow pace, at your bag, close to the ground. I definitely you recommend putting your hands on one (really difficult) right now if you can. That will likely answer a lot of your questions.
Of all the "larger" L lenses, the 50 is the easiest to handle.
Thanks for watching my videos!
Probably the first review of the RF 28-70 that I agree with the most (I have had my RF 28-70 since last August).
Probably, over 90% of my best photos have been taken with this lens on my Canon EOS R6 (which is really quite an endorsement).
It is absolutely my workhorse lens. I appreciate you taking the time to watch the video and I am happy that the 28-70 is producing excellent results for you!
I have the 28-70 and the 85 1.2. They're both fantastic lenses but the 85 is just on a new level, even wide open. 👌🏻
I completely agree. I use the 28-70 in situations where there is less predictability and changing the focal length on the fly matters. But if I know I will be in an environment where I can move around, zoom with my feet and control the outcome, the 85 1.2 is my choice 100 times out of 100. Thanks for watching!
@@KevinDeal 💯
@@alex_knight BTW. If you want to geek out on more RF85mm stuff, I am dropping my premiere for my review of over two years of my work with the 85 right.....now ruclips.net/video/CbcoMmARTPc/видео.html
I shoot 11, 16, 35, 50 and 85mm in the studio. Since having the 28-70 f2 I leave it on one body and use the 16 and 11mm on another body. Much faster workflow and great results.
Pretty easy workflow, for sure. Thank you for watching!
28-70 F2 is just massively heavy. I rented the Lens. On long day shoot outdoor this start to burn the shoulder and arms. Heavy to carry the camera on the shoulder. Its super crisp and fast, but the weight of the lens is super annoying and its very bulky. My go to lens is 24-70 f2.8 and 85mm 1.2 which is the king. 24-70 f2.8 has remarkable results, has stabilization and cost $1100 less than 2.0
It is a beast and it’s not the right solution for everyone.
I can’t wait to try the 28-70. But this video made me want an 85 1.2! 😍 My go to is of course my 35 but definitely loved the 50!
The 85 is so amazing! The 28-70 is a beast as well. The great thing is they are all fantastic lenses. We are spoiled with our lens choices these days.
Thanks for watching!
06:45…Honesty…Pass it on 😝😝
Can't separate me from that 85mm. lol
Also, the RF 50mm is actually more like a 56mm like the RF 85 is more like a 88mm
Exactly. They go long, so not exact comparisons.
It does it's job on weddings and events but it can't reach the look of the RF 50 1.2. So if i want that look i have to switch back. Never would replace my RF 50 for the 28-70.
Primes are primes. RF primes are on another level. Thanks for watching.
Nice review. The 50mm 1.8 focus hunting is pretty annoying too.
Thanks for the watch. Yeah. The nifty fifty isn't bad for the money, but the focus hunting alone disqualifies it for serious professional work for me. I can't afford to miss.
Love 28-70 it’s cover almost all situation on my works except for a few situation
I agree. The takeaway for me is that we are spoiled with all these new lenses!
Amazing! I love my RF 28-70 🤟🏻 but also love my RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2
They all have their places in my work! Thanks for watching!
I returned my RF 50 F1.2 L & RF 24-70 F2.8 L in favor of the 28-70 F2. No regrets.
Understandable. It’s a killer lens.
Good job Kevin!!:)
Thank you Jason. Keep up the great work yourself!
Kevin ❤️ Is the 50 mm1.2 sharper than then 28-70 ?
The 50 is sharper than the 28-70. Yes.
@@KevinDeal thanks alot ❤️ becuase i want to start shooting video cars but they will be parked so i will go for it thanks alot again
@@omranmohammed8134 Excellent. Just zoom with your feet and enjoy the sharper images on the 50mm. Thanks for watching!
If you want to learn more about the 50mm, here is a link to my review.
ruclips.net/video/T7yu4kfRLqo/видео.html
@@KevinDeal thanks kevin i just saw the comment i will check the link now😍
What do prefer 85mm 1.2 ds. Is it worth it?
I will be doing an in depth episode on the 85 1.2 that addresses this very question. However, since you asked, I will give you my opinion. I went with the non-DS for the extra light. The bokeh on the regular 1.2 is incredible. Slightly more football shaped, but I am completely fine with that. Almost two years in with the 85 1.2 I have no regrets. I am posting one episode next week on street photography, but the one after that will be my deep dive on the 85. Look out for it! Thanks for watching!
I own the 28-70 f2 and to me it only replaces non L series lenses. I rate the lens a 7.5 out if 10
It definitely replaces non L lenses. I might go more to an 8, but it’s definitely not a 10.
Great video
Thank you. I hope it was helpful! Thanks for watching!
Nice video!
Thank you for the kind words! I appreciate it. I am going to do a deeper dive into all of the lenses soon. I will start with the 85 1.2. Look for that video soon!
i would rather buy 2 cameras R7,R6 with 2 prime lenses
24mm 1.8 on R6
50mm 1.8 on R7
2800+1800+700+200 = 5500 vs 24-70 F2 on R6 with 3500+2800 = 5800
Whatever works for you is all that matters. Thanks for the watch.
Of course it won't replace 50 L and 85 L; a more balanced comparison would have been with 50 f1.8 and 85 f2, which are, like the 35, of the same aperture of the 28-70. Comparing it with f1.2 lenses is a nonsense.
Thanks for watching.
It is the best lens ever.
Certainly the most useful
so punctual, great video
Thanks for the kind words and watch!
Without side by side photo companies this comparison is a pure garbage.
I don't agree with that at all. I have the ability to look at files one at a time and draw conclusions. Most people watch this channel on their phones. Two really small pictures next to each other being scaled to a single 16:9 aspect ratio would be so tiny for them to view it would be even more pure garbage for them.