I'm baffled as to why you have so few subs, compared to some other creators. Straight forward, comprehensive but concise, joke-free, useful information. Always valuable. Please keep going.
I have both of these lenses. For Portraits, for me, the 28-70 f2 is the most versatile lens ever made. It's my most-used lens for studio work. The 24-105 is now pretty much glued to my R5 for outdoor shoots. These two lenses replace 4-5 prime lenses for me.
how do you like the balance/length of the 24-105 for on-the-go outdoor shoots? looks pretty ergonomic, but always hard to tell until you spend some time with it.
@@kernzilla I hang my camera from a Peak Design Slide strap with a Falcom F38 shoulder strap, so the lens hangs down just behind my hip when I'm not shooting. Easy to bring up and shoot in an instant. I would hate to use a standard strap with a heavy/long lens. The lens is not top heavy at all, if you know how to handle it.
ah valid point, could see where it would be bit more cumbersome dangling off a strap. i'm on the spyder strap system and prob see similar results in the field. appreciate the info here sir, still on the fence about this thing but my gosh it's got sooo many upsides, thanks! @@stew_redman
I'm selling my 24-105L f4, and buying the 28-70 2.0. The f4 is so bad in low light I can't get the quality I need. It's a very good value RF lens however, and quality is excellent in good light.
You wouldn’t think f4 to 2.8 would be that bad until you’re shooting at 10,000 ISO when you could be at 5,000 ISO. Then you realize that at f2 you would be at 2,000 ISO 😂.
@@TheFilmCouple_ in same position but i need the lens for gimbal work and not sure if it will have balancing issues for my RS3. The 24-105 F4L already has issues balancing.
Is it just my imagination or do these lenses have very different color rendering? The F2.8 lens looks more on the red side, and the F2, more on the yellow/green side. I just think the rendering on the F2 is much better overall.
I think he just didn't white balance on the 24-105. It's a huge colour difference - I thought it'd be the first comment. The colours are much better with the 28-70 white balance, so it's impossible to really make a fair choice.
I personally decided to get the 28-70 f/2. 24-105 has such incredible versatility but considering I have two bodies, I have 28-70 + 70-200 as my setup and it covers just about everything for me from studio, events, general portraits, etc.
I preferred the 28-70 on every image. Every image. I am always surprised that my opinions are so different than everyone else's. I don't own either of these lenses, but definitely looking to get the 28-70 f2.
I know many wedding photographers who would agree with your statement. The 24-105 seems like an excellent single lens if that's all you can afford, but most Wedding photographers I know use the 28-70 and 70-200.
Its funny, I do have both of these lenses along with the 24-70 F2.8 that I had previously bought before the 24-105 came out, and in all my testings the 28-70 pulled ahead in sharpness, not by much, but it is noticeable sharper, specially in close distances.
I just ordered the 24-105 f/2.8. I photograph a lot of roller derby and want to replace my EF 24-70 f/2.8 that I have had for 16 years which still does great. With the price difference of the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and this one, I decided to go with this one. I also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and will have some overlap.
I see it this way: either you have a bad copy of the 28-70 f2, or! I have an exceptional copy… because my 28-70mm F2 is INCREDIBLY sharp through the entire range. 🤷🏽♂️
Why won't they make a 24-85 f2.8 and ditch 24-70, 100-200 additional grams won't make a big of a difference, but 85 is far more satisfiable compared 70. 70 is about nothing. Meanwhile verything after 85 looks the same, so it won't matter much if it's 105 or 135.
I agree. I was thinking that focal length makes more sense especially seeing as Canon prefers(?) to have a bit of overlap with their lenses. 15-35, 24-85 & 70-200 just looks better on paper to me.
I love my 28-70. Just like you mentioned, the lens has a certain “look” and “character” to its photos. It’s glued to my R5. It’s even great for traveling, it seems like overkill but the street photography images are simply lovely. One use the 24-105 f2.8 would be better for me, is for events. The extra reach in lecture halls and extra width for group shots where space is limited can make a big difference in those circumstances. Thanks for the great video!
I like the idea of the 28-70 f/2, but I think the sharpness differences are enough to keep me on the primes. I have the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85 f/1.2, as well as a Sigma 105 f/1.4 Art and Tamron 35 f/1.4. Those are some seriously gorgeous primes. It does bother me a little to switch lenses when I'm working with a model, but it doesn't bother me *that* much.
noticed the same, crazy amout of color shift! looks like in the BTS shots he's got two bodies going. guessing one was awb while the other was set to specific color temp or something.
Definitely a colour shift between the two lenses. The 24-105 consistently warmer. I preferred the 28-70 rendering too. Both R5s were set to Daylight WB.
I like how you didnt touch up the image with the 28-70 but you did with the 24-105 on your thumbnail of the video to try and make it seem like one is better over the other just by using LR...
I was trying to make the same decision as well. The 24-105 2.8 sounded so versatile and would probably be awesome for video, but the 28-70 F2 is so highly reviewed. The 24-105 isn't immediately available where I am, and wont be until March for most camera stores, so that played into my consideration. Saw the 28-70 refurbished from canon for $2,200 and it felt like a deal I couldn't pass up. It comes tomorrow and I'm excited to put it to use
@@mbrick I don’t know how they compare optically, but so far I almost never shoot at F2 That may change as my style/interst changes. But if that’s the determining factor for you I think you just have to decide if the bit of extra light is worth it
@@cartertowner Ok, good to know. I did rent a 24-70 and it was optically fantastic so I think I'll go that way. If you said you are almost always using the extra light I may have thought otherwise.
you're one of the best in the business with your content, "look & feel" of your vids and your thoughtful approach to each video - great job on this comparison/review!
Forgot to add, that I own the 28-70 and was looking forward to the 24-105....like you, I was thinking it be so useful for events and portrait work....it's too bad the weight and handling make it so hard to use for longer shoots.
Such a great review! Many thanks! I have both, and I am not sure that the 2.8 zoom is much more difficult to work than 2.0 - for me, 2.0 zoom large diameter is making it difficult to hold in hand. On the other side, 2.8 zoom is absolutely too long and that is a problem since you have to hold your hand much more out from the body. I like 2.8 more due to better microcontrast.
Thank you for such a good review. I traded my 28-70 for the 24-105 f/2.8. As a wedding photographer, I was missing the extra 4mm, especially when doing bridal party group shots indoors. Also didn't like the weight. I didn't think the 2.0 X 2.8 tradeoff was worth it. I haven't used the 24-105 f/2.8 in a wedding yet but I believe it will be very versatile during ceremonies. Cheers.
I’m very glad you did this comparison. I have the 28-70 and the f/4 version of the RF 24-105. I love both for different types of shoots. When the f/2.8 came out I’ve been considering selling the old 24-105 and getting the new one. Based on your review I’m not sure it’s the right move for me to get the 2.8 version. Outstanding review as usual, James!
@@JamesReader The length of the 24-105 f/2.8 has always been the sticking point for me. It just looks unwieldy with so much weight distributed to the front of the lens. Since I’m not in situation where I “need” the lens I feel like I can be picky for something that I know will annoy me. Your review helped me confirm my thoughts. I will still likely rent it out to see for myself, but I’m thinking that I won’t buy the f/2.8 version. The 24-105 f/4 is the perfect travel lens. Light, sharp and capable. Not sure I want to give them up for an unwieldy beast of a lens.
Although this is not related to the topic of this video, I am very grateful to you for purchasing the RF 70-200/4, and I have been shooting with it for several months now. good luck to the channel
I have both of those lenses and the 28-70 is actually heavier than the 24-105 and to me, is more comfortable to hold than the 28-70. But to each their own.
I have the 28-70mm f2 and hate it, big stupid brick on my camera, also I would stop down in the studio anyway, you dont just want eyes in focus and nothing else in photos! Not to mention higher quality stopped down with canon id buy the 24-70 2.8 and the very compact 70-200 2.8 if I was buying again
Thank you for the comparison, I was wondering which one would be best for my workflow. 28-70 is definitely my future go-to for photos. I was thinking the 24-105 2.8 would better suit my wedding videos. It feels like you just confirmed that in this video. I will rent it first to make sure of that. Thank you for all your hard work in putting this together.
I was surprised at how soft the 28-70mm looked on a large screen at 70mm in your test. I think mine is sharper wide open than what that one appeared to be. 🤷🏻♂️
Mine is like having f2 primes at the marked focal lengths and everywhere in between. I really prefer the more traditional 85-135mm range for portraits though so the 2.8 lens is a winner for at least getting into that range.
I've had the 28-70mm f2 for around a year now, and it's absolutely my #1 go-to lens for my Canon bodies. If you're still iffy on the 28-105mm, but you want a longer focal length than the 28-70, why not try out the RF 135mm f1.8? Bought it when it released, and it might be the solution you're looking for. And if you really want to telescope-in, pair it on an R7 for 216mm @ f1.8...
I got them both. Events, run and gun, corporate, headshots, video it’s the 24-105. When I can be artsy tartsy shallow dof then it’s the 28-70. So many times have I wished to have more reach with the 28-70 when shooting bts, etc.
@@JamesReader yeah big selling point for me too was the tripod collar. Using the 28 to 70 and the 85 1.2 with no lens support just kind of gives me an uneasy feeling. this 24-105 fit the bill in many ways.
Thanks a lot James, for putting all the work in these comparisons. I was surpirsed to see such intese colour differences between the two lenes, so I uploaded some raw sample images from the previous video (THANKS for uploading these, I recently got an R5 after comparing some of your RAWs: these were a big help with decision making). My impression is that, apart from the slightest magenta tint (which is easy to correct), the 24-105 shows much better colour separation and intensity than the 28-70. Sharpness wise, it's no slouch, but certainly not a prime lens killer, either, at 45mm - especially on the R5's 45MP. At 105mm, your sample pic looks tack sharp, though. Colours are excellent with this lens - another sign it seems to have been designed with mainly video applications in mind?
Thank you Tom! Glad to hear the RAWs helped. It really is a great lens, if you can look past the heavy corrections and weight it really has no down sides. I’m hoping to put a video together using the lens for video as I think, especially for full frame users, this is a dream lens for video.
There is some kind of trick on the 24-105. look at the light switches at the right of the model. Bokeh keeps getting blurrier as you increase focal lenght up to 70mm, this is good, but meyond that point, is the opposite, background gets less blurred at 85mm and even less blurred at 105mm...
The vignetting & color shift may be due to Canon not releasing a new firmware update for the Canon R5 with RF 24-105 2.8 lens support like they did for the Canon R5C in December 2023.
I definitely feel like the 24-105mm f2.8 was made for a yet unreleased RF cinema camera. Like the 18-80 T4.4 before it, this lens would be PERFECT for a C300-style cinema body. I agree that even on something like the C70, this lens is going to feel a bit too front heavy/long. But will buy it instantly once they release an RF cinema body to go with it. Going to be the ultimate documentary lens.
Thanks so much! I own 28-70 f2, your photos are pretty straightforward, f2 does make difference even compare with 105mm@2.8. Decide to keep my f2 lens.
I sold my 28-70 for the new 24-105 as I’m doing more sports. But, the 85-105 compression at 2.8 isn’t really making me miss the 28-70 at this point. However, I did like how the 28-70 felt in the hand compared to the 24-105.
Nice follow-up video, James! My comparisons between these two lenses were pretty much the same. I shared the same dilemma of which lens should I keep. If the 24-105 had a bunch of compromises, I would have kept the 28-70. But since it doesn't, I couldn't quite justify owning both of these, and I ended up selling my 28-70. I'm not doing too many portraits anymore, so the 24-105 does everything I need. However, if I do end up doing any portraits, that 85mm and especially 105mm at 2.8 can definitely make for some great portraits! *Edit: thought I was subscribed to your channel, but apparently wasn't, so I subscribed 😊
The way you hold your camera and lenses when shooting will make almost any lens outside of a small prime difficult to handle. Need to allow that lead elbow to brace against your torso. But amazing video and channel. Keep up the great work
I have enjoyed using the 28-70mm. I realize I can’t shoot a f2 for everything. However the results have been amazing. I have adjusted for the weight. I also use the 24-70m which is the best all around lens.I don’t see the real value proposition of the 24-105 2.8. Great review. I also still live my 24-105 L F4. Super sharp stabilized and reasonably $$
Depending on the usage. For portrait still photography, the 28-70 is more effective despite the shorter tele end IMO but for video it doesn't even get past my first test, focus breathing.
Nice shots!! I think either lens requires a certain attitude, that quality is paramount and everything else comes second-hand. Hard to choose really which I would choose for a portrait shoot... Both deliver stunning renderings. I rented an RF 70-200 2.8L IS for an event shoot, I experienced it heavy after a while about the same weight or maybe a bit less as these lenses. My impression - If video is of importance then 24-105 is a great choice. Just for portrait then 28-70 I think is best, most faces looks better at 70mm than 85mm or longer.
I've been using the 28-70 since the day it was on the market, I love it, also having the EF 85 1.2 for 7 years Iknow what I need for portaits the 105 mm I will never use because you'll have to find space in your studio ;-) I,m fond of the zoom on the 28-70 so I can make more wide angle shots.
wild seeing such a prominent color shift between these two lenses. it's so drastic, it makes me wonder if there was a setting between these comparisons that was not consistent? really shocked to see the 100% crops at 7:16 // 7:54, confirming there wasn't some motion blur on the 28-70? the IQ here just doesn't make sense. I've seen some great images out of that lens wide open, and something seems off here. 28-70 is kinda famous for being incredibly sharp wide open, and these shots imo would not be usable/submittable. sidenote: always love when creators include dropbox folder with some raw test shots for viewers to compare, def adds lot of value to a proper comparison like this.
There was definitely color shift between the two. Generally the 24-105 is the warmer lens. They were both shot under consistent lighting and and daylight WB the only change was the lens it's self. I agree - I was fairly shocked too, there's always a chance the lens I hired isn't the best example of the 28-70 but I found this to be consistent at 70mm with this lens on the day.
Mine is rather soft with pretty bad CA. Atleast compared to other lenses I own. Also useless for video with the loud focus motor, heavy focus breathing and no IS. F2 is nice but thats the only advantage it has. I would definitly go for the 24-70 mm instead if I had to choose.
Using the 15-35 2.8 looking into these 2 lenes or the 85 1.2 for portraits might have to rent them since they so close and using the R5 as well. I'm used to the 100-500 so the length doesn't bother me nor does the weight but portraiture is finicky.
I’m debating if I should get this lens or the new rf 24-105 f2.8. I’ll be using it for portraits and hopefully weddings. But I’m worried about the f2.8 vs the f2.0. Will that be a noticeable difference? Also, which lens did you end up choosing? Thank you.
I've had the 28-70mm now for a year and love the look, but it's heavy and no IS, I do both wedding video and photos, if I just did photos I wouldn't be tempted but for video I miss the IS and reach of my 24-105 f4. I've been waiting for canon to give in to third party and then tramron can release the 35-150mm f2-2.8 but we have been waiting a while now with little hope. This new lens looks like a dream for video but it cost so much, I got my 28-70m for 700 less then this. Might have to wait for it to show up used in a year's time.
Thank you for your review. Funny I greatly prefer using internally zooming lenses over extending zooms because there is no weight shift and they are a lot quicker. However I shoot a lot of sports and the need is different there. For portrait session I prefer using primes anyway unless it is a very dynamic shoot. 50, 85 or 105 are the choices in general, I shoot with a 105/1.4 as much as I can for portraits :-)
I know there are some differences in 28-70 copies. My copy has almost the same sharpness as my RF 85 f/1.2 L, (I made a test for that) while my friend's copy is tending to be on a softer side.
The 24-105 is so much more versatile. That said, it's really big and heavy. I would use the 24-105 more for video (there also looks like it's a bit more pink too).
Hand-holding any camera, with no strap, tripod or studio stand, for four hours is going to be exhausting, plus the very real risk of dropping the camera. I have an old Linhof Minimatic Studio Stand, hard to find now.
great video and great comparison. I was considering a standard zoom in this range and these were my 2 choices. I did notice quite a bit of colour difference of the photos between the two lens? I'm guessing it's because it's SOOC or was it edited that way (probably not) love the final thoughts, it has me leaning more towards the 28-70 f2 for my style of shooting
Both SOOC colours. The 24-105 was quite a bit warmer consistently. Easily corrected but I just left both at daylight kelvin in Lightroom to be fair as possible. It’s a hard choice, probably the two best standard zooms on the market!
i was also considering the 24-105/f but the f4 won't cut it for me, or so i think, in your video, you showed and mentioned f2 vs f2.8 at various lengths, although subtle, it's a big difference for me, i'm loving the f2@@JamesReader
Another amazing video full of useful facts ! You are people's go to when it comes to lenses and comparisons... You are amazing. Also, we are still waiting for your presets to be finally available. That will be an instant purchase.
Tried the canon RF 24-105 2.8 on my r3 at a Long Beach dub Allstars concert it was very dark and the 24-105 wouldn’t focuse at all the 28-70 f2 is my got along with the RF 70-200 2.8 I shoot 2 cameras both R3s with black rapid double my option this lens is a looser for me and I’m returning it
When you did the 70mm vs the 105mm shot, it can be clearly seen that the f2 is super soft compared to the f2.8. Hands down, 24-105 is a way better lens.
Thank you for the comparison. It is very informative. I would like you to do one, if possible, but instead of 28-70 F2, compare 24-105 F2.8 with 24-105 F4. Regards
Interesting comparison, thank you for your effort. You do things really very detailed and tried to make the comparison as exact as possible. I appreciate. But wouldn’t you just go with your 24 to 70 f 2.8 lens since both lenses tested are very heavy and for me it seems that your 24 to 70 is the winner for portraits in order to hand holdable …?
I'll definitely stick to the 24-70 for now, I just liked the idea of having the extended zoom range to 105mm at 2.8. I might end up picking up a 24-105 F4 to be honest.
Great video, James. Thank you for the comparison. I want to ask you a question. Which lens is best for full body portraits, Canon RF 50mm F/1.8 STM or Canon RF 28-70mm F/2 L USM ? Thanks in advance.
Thank you! Both are great but the 28-70 is more versatile for full body. Personally I find 28-40mm a little more useful for full body shots over a fixed 50mm lens.
For some reason, that 28-70 just doesn't look sharp anywhere in your first set of shots of the model on the chair. I expect a shallower DOF, but (assuming it's focusing on her eye) nothing is really tack sharp on the 28-70. Is it possible there was some sort of issue with that lens? I get that YT compression ruins everything, but there should be excellent center sharpness on the 28-70 based on other shots I have seen from it. I'm just feeling rather confused.
Could be YT compression as it’s a very sharp lens. The only flaw in my copy was at 70mm, and even then it’s only next to the 24-105 that it looks “softer”. But in reality without that comparison I would never have complained. In fact 70mm on the 28-70 produced my favourite shots of the day.
@@summonedfist I ask because I have used the lens to cover a wedding... its was very sharp on 70mm, and this was even the reception with people dancing. It was on the R5.
Hi James, many thanks for this video - most interesting. However, I can absolutely not confirm, that my copy of the RF28-70mm would be visibly worse at 70mm than at eg. 50mm (100% Crop). Maybe you should test another copy for yourself. Best regards!
I'm baffled as to why you have so few subs, compared to some other creators. Straight forward, comprehensive but concise, joke-free, useful information. Always valuable. Please keep going.
That really means a lot Anthony - thank you so much 🙏
I have both of these lenses. For Portraits, for me, the 28-70 f2 is the most versatile lens ever made. It's my most-used lens for studio work. The 24-105 is now pretty much glued to my R5 for outdoor shoots. These two lenses replace 4-5 prime lenses for me.
how do you like the balance/length of the 24-105 for on-the-go outdoor shoots? looks pretty ergonomic, but always hard to tell until you spend some time with it.
@@kernzilla I hang my camera from a Peak Design Slide strap with a Falcom F38 shoulder strap, so the lens hangs down just behind my hip when I'm not shooting. Easy to bring up and shoot in an instant. I would hate to use a standard strap with a heavy/long lens. The lens is not top heavy at all, if you know how to handle it.
ah valid point, could see where it would be bit more cumbersome dangling off a strap. i'm on the spyder strap system and prob see similar results in the field. appreciate the info here sir, still on the fence about this thing but my gosh it's got sooo many upsides, thanks!
@@stew_redman
That's an amazing set up. Would love to own both.
I love the f2 but the 24-105 didn’t do good for my use maybe I got a lemon it would be my first your thoughts
Canon 24-105 F4 difference between f 2.8 is
One ( 1 )stop difference
But price difference is
3 three stops 😂😅
I'm selling my 24-105L f4, and buying the 28-70 2.0. The f4 is so bad in low light I can't get the quality I need. It's a very good value RF lens however, and quality is excellent in good light.
You wouldn’t think f4 to 2.8 would be that bad until you’re shooting at 10,000 ISO when you could be at 5,000 ISO. Then you realize that at f2 you would be at 2,000 ISO 😂.
@@TheFilmCouple_ in same position but i need the lens for gimbal work and not sure if it will have balancing issues for my RS3. The 24-105 F4L already has issues balancing.
The price is not the main issue but size and weight
After hearing your thoughts, I’m still set using a RF 50mm 1.2L. I just don’t need to zoom that much. Thank you so much for sharing.
I remember when I was this new to photography 🤣 don't let the industry ruin that mentality Mr. Daniel Lee
Some of those 28-70 f2 shots looked slightly out of focus, so I can't really judge the difference in sharpness.
Is it just my imagination or do these lenses have very different color rendering? The F2.8 lens looks more on the red side, and the F2, more on the yellow/green side. I just think the rendering on the F2 is much better overall.
i was thinking the same thing, my guess is WB
I think he just didn't white balance on the 24-105. It's a huge colour difference - I thought it'd be the first comment. The colours are much better with the 28-70 white balance, so it's impossible to really make a fair choice.
I personally decided to get the 28-70 f/2. 24-105 has such incredible versatility but considering I have two bodies, I have 28-70 + 70-200 as my setup and it covers just about everything for me from studio, events, general portraits, etc.
Agreed with that decision. Also for certain shoots, it's very possible just to bring the 28-70 to cover it all with no need to carry extra gear
That is the perfect setup. Two bodies, two beast lenses.
The King of portrait is the RF 85mm f1.2...nothing else !! ✌️
Is this because you happen to own it?
Personally I much prefer 135mm..
@@eric.p.merlin3537 I have both.
@@eric.p.merlin3537you need a walker talkie to tell your subject to move to the right lol
Yeah, I was thinking of getting the RF 100 to 300 mm F2 .8. That way I can use a sat phone to give them instructions. 😂
I preferred the 28-70 on every image. Every image. I am always surprised that my opinions are so different than everyone else's. I don't own either of these lenses, but definitely looking to get the 28-70 f2.
I know many wedding photographers who would agree with your statement. The 24-105 seems like an excellent single lens if that's all you can afford, but most Wedding photographers I know use the 28-70 and 70-200.
Would you know why there is a slight colour difference between the two shots? I really prefer the f2 in all shots based on the image colours
Dołączam się do pytania, różnica jest ogromna, z czego wynika?. Bardzo dziękuję za ten test dla mnie jest bardzo bardzo przydatny
Its funny, I do have both of these lenses along with the 24-70 F2.8 that I had previously bought before the 24-105 came out, and in all my testings the 28-70 pulled ahead in sharpness, not by much, but it is noticeable sharper, specially in close distances.
Yes I think it does. This video has missed focus on some of the example shots unfortunately. Ie. 07:48 and 04:30 (focus is on her sleeve)
I just ordered the 24-105 f/2.8. I photograph a lot of roller derby and want to replace my EF 24-70 f/2.8 that I have had for 16 years which still does great. With the price difference of the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and this one, I decided to go with this one. I also have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 and will have some overlap.
Looks like the 24-105 2.8 renders more magenta?
I see it this way: either you have a bad copy of the 28-70 f2, or! I have an exceptional copy… because my 28-70mm F2 is INCREDIBLY sharp through the entire range. 🤷🏽♂️
Why won't they make a 24-85 f2.8 and ditch 24-70, 100-200 additional grams won't make a big of a difference, but 85 is far more satisfiable compared 70. 70 is about nothing. Meanwhile verything after 85 looks the same, so it won't matter much if it's 105 or 135.
I agree. I was thinking that focal length makes more sense especially seeing as Canon prefers(?) to have a bit of overlap with their lenses. 15-35, 24-85 & 70-200 just looks better on paper to me.
I love my 28-70. Just like you mentioned, the lens has a certain “look” and “character” to its photos. It’s glued to my R5. It’s even great for traveling, it seems like overkill but the street photography images are simply lovely. One use the 24-105 f2.8 would be better for me, is for events. The extra reach in lecture halls and extra width for group shots where space is limited can make a big difference in those circumstances. Thanks for the great video!
There's also something magic about the lens for outdoor weddings and portraits
@@TheFilmCouple_ totallyyyy
I like the idea of the 28-70 f/2, but I think the sharpness differences are enough to keep me on the primes. I have the RF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 85 f/1.2, as well as a Sigma 105 f/1.4 Art and Tamron 35 f/1.4. Those are some seriously gorgeous primes. It does bother me a little to switch lenses when I'm working with a model, but it doesn't bother me *that* much.
24-105 is more magenta? Did you use different camera / white balance? I do prefer 28-70 colours and rendering myself.
noticed the same, crazy amout of color shift! looks like in the BTS shots he's got two bodies going. guessing one was awb while the other was set to specific color temp or something.
Definitely a colour shift between the two lenses. The 24-105 consistently warmer. I preferred the 28-70 rendering too. Both R5s were set to Daylight WB.
I like how you didnt touch up the image with the 28-70 but you did with the 24-105 on your thumbnail of the video to try and make it seem like one is better over the other just by using LR...
I was trying to make the same decision as well. The 24-105 2.8 sounded so versatile and would probably be awesome for video, but the 28-70 F2 is so highly reviewed.
The 24-105 isn't immediately available where I am, and wont be until March for most camera stores, so that played into my consideration.
Saw the 28-70 refurbished from canon for $2,200 and it felt like a deal I couldn't pass up. It comes tomorrow and I'm excited to put it to use
What do you think? I am torn about 24-70 or 28-70.
@@mbrick I don’t know how they compare optically, but so far I almost never shoot at F2
That may change as my style/interst changes. But if that’s the determining factor for you I think you just have to decide if the bit of extra light is worth it
@@cartertowner Ok, good to know. I did rent a 24-70 and it was optically fantastic so I think I'll go that way. If you said you are almost always using the extra light I may have thought otherwise.
you're one of the best in the business with your content, "look & feel" of your vids and your thoughtful approach to each video - great job on this comparison/review!
Forgot to add, that I own the 28-70 and was looking forward to the 24-105....like you, I was thinking it be so useful for events and portrait work....it's too bad the weight and handling make it so hard to use for longer shoots.
Agreed! This channel is my favourite camera channel on RUclips.
Thank you so much!
Two monsters! I doubt I'll ever get either, but really interesting to hear your take on handling.
Thank you Dan!
I don't like either. Zooms have they're place but fast primes are so much nicer at rendering spearation.
Such a great review! Many thanks! I have both, and I am not sure that the 2.8 zoom is much more difficult to work than 2.0 - for me, 2.0 zoom large diameter is making it difficult to hold in hand. On the other side, 2.8 zoom is absolutely too long and that is a problem since you have to hold your hand much more out from the body. I like 2.8 more due to better microcontrast.
Thank you for such a good review. I traded my 28-70 for the 24-105 f/2.8. As a wedding photographer, I was missing the extra 4mm, especially when doing bridal party group shots indoors. Also didn't like the weight. I didn't think the 2.0 X 2.8 tradeoff was worth it. I haven't used the 24-105 f/2.8 in a wedding yet but I believe it will be very versatile during ceremonies. Cheers.
To make a camera with a large lens easier to hold, use a battery grip!
I’m very glad you did this comparison. I have the 28-70 and the f/4 version of the RF 24-105. I love both for different types of shoots. When the f/2.8 came out I’ve been considering selling the old 24-105 and getting the new one. Based on your review I’m not sure it’s the right move for me to get the 2.8 version. Outstanding review as usual, James!
Thank you so much! Really glad it helped.
@@JamesReader The length of the 24-105 f/2.8 has always been the sticking point for me. It just looks unwieldy with so much weight distributed to the front of the lens.
Since I’m not in situation where I “need” the lens I feel like I can be picky for something that I know will annoy me. Your review helped me confirm my thoughts. I will still likely rent it out to see for myself, but I’m thinking that I won’t buy the f/2.8 version. The 24-105 f/4 is the perfect travel lens. Light, sharp and capable. Not sure I want to give them up for an unwieldy beast of a lens.
Although this is not related to the topic of this video, I am very grateful to you for purchasing the RF 70-200/4, and I have been shooting with it for several months now. good luck to the channel
One of the best reviews I have watched in a long, long time! You answered my questions and several that I didn't think to ask. Thanks!
Thank for doing this! Sold my 28-70mm to get the 24-105 🎉 Hoping for a good fix for the vignetting 🎉
Well. How are you liking the 24-105? How’s the vignetting?
I have both of those lenses and the 28-70 is actually heavier than the 24-105 and to me, is more comfortable to hold than the 28-70. But to each their own.
I have the 28-70mm f2 and hate it, big stupid brick on my camera, also I would stop down in the studio anyway, you dont just want eyes in focus and nothing else in photos! Not to mention higher quality stopped down with canon id buy the 24-70 2.8 and the very compact 70-200 2.8 if I was buying again
Thank you for the comparison, I was wondering which one would be best for my workflow. 28-70 is definitely my future go-to for photos. I was thinking the 24-105 2.8 would better suit my wedding videos. It feels like you just confirmed that in this video. I will rent it first to make sure of that. Thank you for all your hard work in putting this together.
I was surprised at how soft the 28-70mm looked on a large screen at 70mm in your test. I think mine is sharper wide open than what that one appeared to be. 🤷🏻♂️
Focus is off. Lens is Sharp in 70mm
Mine is like having f2 primes at the marked focal lengths and everywhere in between. I really prefer the more traditional 85-135mm range for portraits though so the 2.8 lens is a winner for at least getting into that range.
Sold the 28-70mm due to this. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Christopher Frost talked about it as well.
I've had the 28-70mm f2 for around a year now, and it's absolutely my #1 go-to lens for my Canon bodies. If you're still iffy on the 28-105mm, but you want a longer focal length than the 28-70, why not try out the RF 135mm f1.8? Bought it when it released, and it might be the solution you're looking for. And if you really want to telescope-in, pair it on an R7 for 216mm @ f1.8...
Pair an R7 with what?
@@schaubie1234 The Canon RF 135mm f1.8
is the 28-70 focused well at 70mm? To me it looks more like out of focus thank not sharp
This stood out to me as well, my 28-70 is tack sharp at 70/f2.
I got them both. Events, run and gun, corporate, headshots, video it’s the 24-105. When I can be artsy tartsy shallow dof then it’s the 28-70. So many times have I wished to have more reach with the 28-70 when shooting bts, etc.
I would love to have both! They are both incredible lenses.
@@JamesReader yeah big selling point for me too was the tripod collar. Using the 28 to 70 and the 85 1.2 with no lens support just kind of gives me an uneasy feeling. this 24-105 fit the bill in many ways.
Thanks a lot James, for putting all the work in these comparisons. I was surpirsed to see such intese colour differences between the two lenes, so I uploaded some raw sample images from the previous video (THANKS for uploading these, I recently got an R5 after comparing some of your RAWs: these were a big help with decision making). My impression is that, apart from the slightest magenta tint (which is easy to correct), the 24-105 shows much better colour separation and intensity than the 28-70. Sharpness wise, it's no slouch, but certainly not a prime lens killer, either, at 45mm - especially on the R5's 45MP. At 105mm, your sample pic looks tack sharp, though. Colours are excellent with this lens - another sign it seems to have been designed with mainly video applications in mind?
Thank you Tom! Glad to hear the RAWs helped. It really is a great lens, if you can look past the heavy corrections and weight it really has no down sides. I’m hoping to put a video together using the lens for video as I think, especially for full frame users, this is a dream lens for video.
I’m curious as to why the f2.0 has a brighter colour to the f2.8, are the pictures edited or raw?
There is some kind of trick on the 24-105. look at the light switches at the right of the model. Bokeh keeps getting blurrier as you increase focal lenght up to 70mm, this is good, but meyond that point, is the opposite, background gets less blurred at 85mm and even less blurred at 105mm...
Call me crazy but the 28-70 looks best to me, I dont know what you are recording this film with but on my computer it dose not look the best...;)>
I still have my OG 24-105 f/4L w/ IS from 2005.
The vignetting & color shift may be due to Canon not releasing a new firmware update for the Canon R5 with RF 24-105 2.8 lens support like they did for the Canon R5C in December 2023.
You could be right !
I definitely feel like the 24-105mm f2.8 was made for a yet unreleased RF cinema camera. Like the 18-80 T4.4 before it, this lens would be PERFECT for a C300-style cinema body. I agree that even on something like the C70, this lens is going to feel a bit too front heavy/long. But will buy it instantly once they release an RF cinema body to go with it. Going to be the ultimate documentary lens.
I think you could be right!
Also@@JamesReader the power zoom adapter comes out end of March, RIGHT before NAB. Hmmmmm...
I love my 28-70 f2 and i will stay with it
Thanks so much! I own 28-70 f2, your photos are pretty straightforward, f2 does make difference even compare with 105mm@2.8. Decide to keep my f2 lens.
I sold my 28-70 for the new 24-105 as I’m doing more sports. But, the 85-105 compression at 2.8 isn’t really making me miss the 28-70 at this point. However, I did like how the 28-70 felt in the hand compared to the 24-105.
I personally like the easy zoom, especially for video work doing whip zooms.
Nice follow-up video, James! My comparisons between these two lenses were pretty much the same. I shared the same dilemma of which lens should I keep. If the 24-105 had a bunch of compromises, I would have kept the 28-70. But since it doesn't, I couldn't quite justify owning both of these, and I ended up selling my 28-70. I'm not doing too many portraits anymore, so the 24-105 does everything I need. However, if I do end up doing any portraits, that 85mm and especially 105mm at 2.8 can definitely make for some great portraits!
*Edit: thought I was subscribed to your channel, but apparently wasn't, so I subscribed 😊
Really nice comparison! Is it YT or did the 24-105 images have a slight reddish/magenta cast? It seemed more prominent with the first model.
The way you hold your camera and lenses when shooting will make almost any lens outside of a small prime difficult to handle. Need to allow that lead elbow to brace against your torso.
But amazing video and channel. Keep up the great work
Thank you for watching and for the feedback! I’ll give that a try n
I have enjoyed using the 28-70mm. I realize I can’t shoot a f2 for everything. However the results have been amazing. I have adjusted for the weight. I also use the 24-70m which is the best all around lens.I don’t see the real value proposition of the 24-105 2.8. Great review. I also still live my 24-105 L F4. Super sharp stabilized and reasonably $$
Would love to see a 24-105 f2.8 vs rf 24-70 f2.8
Depending on the usage. For portrait still photography, the 28-70 is more effective despite the shorter tele end IMO but for video it doesn't even get past my first test, focus breathing.
Nice shots!! I think either lens requires a certain attitude, that quality is paramount and everything else comes second-hand. Hard to choose really which I would choose for a portrait shoot... Both deliver stunning renderings. I rented an RF 70-200 2.8L IS for an event shoot, I experienced it heavy after a while about the same weight or maybe a bit less as these lenses. My impression - If video is of importance then 24-105 is a great choice. Just for portrait then 28-70 I think is best, most faces looks better at 70mm than 85mm or longer.
I've been using the 28-70 since the day it was on the market, I love it, also having the EF 85 1.2 for 7 years Iknow what I need for portaits the 105 mm I will never use because you'll have to find space in your studio ;-) I,m fond of the zoom on the 28-70 so I can make more wide angle shots.
1:25 thanks for showing the difference between 24 and 28mm✌
wild seeing such a prominent color shift between these two lenses. it's so drastic, it makes me wonder if there was a setting between these comparisons that was not consistent?
really shocked to see the 100% crops at 7:16 // 7:54, confirming there wasn't some motion blur on the 28-70? the IQ here just doesn't make sense. I've seen some great images out of that lens wide open, and something seems off here. 28-70 is kinda famous for being incredibly sharp wide open, and these shots imo would not be usable/submittable.
sidenote: always love when creators include dropbox folder with some raw test shots for viewers to compare, def adds lot of value to a proper comparison like this.
There was definitely color shift between the two. Generally the 24-105 is the warmer lens. They were both shot under consistent lighting and and daylight WB the only change was the lens it's self. I agree - I was fairly shocked too, there's always a chance the lens I hired isn't the best example of the 28-70 but I found this to be consistent at 70mm with this lens on the day.
I absolutely agree! My copy of the 28-70mm is absolutely sharp at 70mm, too.
My 28-70 is also razor sharp at 70mm f/2
Mine is rather soft with pretty bad CA. Atleast compared to other lenses I own. Also useless for video with the loud focus motor, heavy focus breathing and no IS. F2 is nice but thats the only advantage it has. I would definitly go for the 24-70 mm instead if I had to choose.
Thanks for your comparison, I will choose 24-105 because most of my shooting location is outdoors.
the 24-105 is INSANE!
Next Canon lens 28-200mm f2😉
Using the 15-35 2.8 looking into these 2 lenes or the 85 1.2 for portraits might have to rent them since they so close and using the R5 as well. I'm used to the 100-500 so the length doesn't bother me nor does the weight but portraiture is finicky.
I’m debating if I should get this lens or the new rf 24-105 f2.8. I’ll be using it for portraits and hopefully weddings. But I’m worried about the f2.8 vs the f2.0. Will that be a noticeable difference? Also, which lens did you end up choosing? Thank you.
Great videos! Love your comparisons!
Thank you!
I've had the 28-70mm now for a year and love the look, but it's heavy and no IS, I do both wedding video and photos, if I just did photos I wouldn't be tempted but for video I miss the IS and reach of my 24-105 f4. I've been waiting for canon to give in to third party and then tramron can release the 35-150mm f2-2.8 but we have been waiting a while now with little hope. This new lens looks like a dream for video but it cost so much, I got my 28-70m for 700 less then this. Might have to wait for it to show up used in a year's time.
Why not compare 28-70 f2 at crop mode on R5 it will give same result on longer end 105 f3 (in dof)?)
What is a good shutter speed to get these results? Also iso?
Thank you for your review. Funny I greatly prefer using internally zooming lenses over extending zooms because there is no weight shift and they are a lot quicker. However I shoot a lot of sports and the need is different there. For portrait session I prefer using primes anyway unless it is a very dynamic shoot. 50, 85 or 105 are the choices in general, I shoot with a 105/1.4 as much as I can for portraits :-)
I know there are some differences in 28-70 copies. My copy has almost the same sharpness as my RF 85 f/1.2 L, (I made a test for that) while my friend's copy is tending to be on a softer side.
The 24-105 is so much more versatile. That said, it's really big and heavy. I would use the 24-105 more for video (there also looks like it's a bit more pink too).
I'd love any of theses lenses but for now only the 15-35mm and the 50mm 1.2 combo makes sense for me. Its so temping!
Hand-holding any camera, with no strap, tripod or studio stand, for four hours is going to be exhausting, plus the very real risk of dropping the camera. I have an old Linhof Minimatic Studio Stand, hard to find now.
great video and great comparison. I was considering a standard zoom in this range and these were my 2 choices. I did notice quite a bit of colour difference of the photos between the two lens? I'm guessing it's because it's SOOC or was it edited that way (probably not) love the final thoughts, it has me leaning more towards the 28-70 f2 for my style of shooting
Both SOOC colours. The 24-105 was quite a bit warmer consistently. Easily corrected but I just left both at daylight kelvin in Lightroom to be fair as possible. It’s a hard choice, probably the two best standard zooms on the market!
i was also considering the 24-105/f but the f4 won't cut it for me, or so i think, in your video, you showed and mentioned f2 vs f2.8 at various lengths, although subtle, it's a big difference for me, i'm loving the f2@@JamesReader
Another amazing video full of useful facts ! You are people's go to when it comes to lenses and comparisons... You are amazing. Also, we are still waiting for your presets to be finally available. That will be an instant purchase.
Thank you so much!
A M. AZ I N G comparison! Only the important, footage to see and compare, details provided. Pleasant to listen to. Love it! Thank you 💯🫶
Thank you so much!
For me I like to use 80-85mm for my portraits so the 24-105 would be my goto lens
Tried the canon RF 24-105 2.8 on my r3 at a Long Beach dub Allstars concert it was very dark and the 24-105 wouldn’t focuse at all the 28-70 f2 is my got along with the RF 70-200 2.8 I shoot 2 cameras both R3s with black rapid double my option this lens is a looser for me and I’m returning it
Best lens for portraits ? Canon RF 85mm F1.2 of course !!!!!
When you did the 70mm vs the 105mm shot, it can be clearly seen that the f2 is super soft compared to the f2.8. Hands down, 24-105 is a way better lens.
I just prefer the classic 24-70mm F2.8 L IS lens
Canon 24-105 f4 vs f2.8
Definitely on my list to do !
Thank you
@@JamesReader dear sir plz what color difference Nikon between Canon make video Nikon z6 Ii vs Canon r6 Ii plz which is bast color since
I think 28-70 gets sharper from 2.8 and peeks at 3.5 or 4 and above.
Thank you for the comparison. It is very informative. I would like you to do one, if possible, but instead of 28-70 F2, compare 24-105 F2.8 with 24-105 F4. Regards
Thank you! It's definitely on my list to do
Canon 28-70mm f2 an amazing lens 👌👌👌
Agreed!
Great video!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you !
Great video as always! If Canon is ever to open the RF mount, how do you think the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 would stack up?
Would love to do that comparison! That looks like an amazing lens. Kind of the best of both these lenses.
did you use a strobe light or a LED light in this video?
Interesting comparison, thank you for your effort. You do things really very detailed and tried to make the comparison as exact as possible. I appreciate. But wouldn’t you just go with your 24 to 70 f 2.8 lens since both lenses tested are very heavy and for me it seems that your 24 to 70 is the winner for portraits in order to hand holdable …?
I'll definitely stick to the 24-70 for now, I just liked the idea of having the extended zoom range to 105mm at 2.8. I might end up picking up a 24-105 F4 to be honest.
Very good comparison, it was quite handy to compare.
Thank you!
Great video, James. Thank you for the comparison.
I want to ask you a question.
Which lens is best for full body portraits,
Canon RF 50mm F/1.8 STM or Canon RF 28-70mm F/2 L USM ?
Thanks in advance.
Thank you! Both are great but the 28-70 is more versatile for full body. Personally I find 28-40mm a little more useful for full body shots over a fixed 50mm lens.
I want to correct my question. Which photo will be better,
Canon RF 50mm F/1.8 STM or 50mm on Canon RF 28-70mm F/2 L USM ?
Is the color difference from the lens?
That's right
why the colour difference on your images?
For some reason, that 28-70 just doesn't look sharp anywhere in your first set of shots of the model on the chair. I expect a shallower DOF, but (assuming it's focusing on her eye) nothing is really tack sharp on the 28-70. Is it possible there was some sort of issue with that lens? I get that YT compression ruins everything, but there should be excellent center sharpness on the 28-70 based on other shots I have seen from it. I'm just feeling rather confused.
Could be YT compression as it’s a very sharp lens. The only flaw in my copy was at 70mm, and even then it’s only next to the 24-105 that it looks “softer”. But in reality without that comparison I would never have complained. In fact 70mm on the 28-70 produced my favourite shots of the day.
If he had put the 28-70 at 2.8 you would have seen a difference in sharpness and he states that toward the end of the video.
Do you have ibis on the camera? Might be the reason 28-70 is soft at longer focal length, it doesn’t have image stabilization as the 24-105
motion blur and general softness are usually pretty discernible
@@summonedfist I ask because I have used the lens to cover a wedding... its was very sharp on 70mm, and this was even the reception with people dancing. It was on the R5.
Is there something wrong with your settings with the 28-70? I never had a soft image like the one at 7:50 in your Video.
I noticed that too，I think the image was cropped to get the same size figure
Tks for the video!
wonderful comparison...!!! Thank you...
28-70 /24-70 is alright and versatile
50 never fails
35mm is king.
So when using it for video will I get the uncorrected image or the corrected image?
You’ll get the corrected image
@@JamesReader thank you for your response
Hi James, many thanks for this video - most interesting. However, I can absolutely not confirm, that my copy of the RF28-70mm would be visibly worse at 70mm than at eg. 50mm (100% Crop). Maybe you should test another copy for yourself. Best regards!
Thank you Marcel! I'll definitely try to get my hands on another copy