Full Frame RF 28-70 F2, a zoom of primes?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Simply put, in your opinion, is the RF 28-70 F2 like a stack of primes shoved into a zoom?

 

[Photofarmer]

Aint used one but fair assumption a notch up from my 24-70. Only con maybe image stabalisation but covered with in-body

 

[RedCobra]

Simply put, in your opinion, is the RF 28-70 F2 like a stack of primes shoved into a zoom?

Weighs about the same as a large stack of primes.

 

[AntonLargiader]

When this lens came out I was totally excited about it, but after getting the R3 with much better high-ISO performance I am not so attracted by the f/2 any more. I'd rather shoot a little less wide-open.

Primes never have really resonated with me, so I can't really answer the fundamental question. I wouldn't want to think of any zoom as a collection of primes. If anything I think of primes as one step of a zoom, and wish I had the zoom instead.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I wouldn't want to think of any zoom as a collection of primes. If anything I think of primes as one step of a zoom, and wish I had the zoom instead.

I sort of have the same opinion, though I do enjoy primes. I find myself gravitating more towards portraiture and the thought of a zoom that has prime qualities is enticing. I’m currently contemplating unloading three RF non-L lenses for an EF 50 1.2.

 

[Bryan Conner]

I recommend renting one for a day or three like I did and see for yourself. It could be that if I had an R5 instead of an R, I might have seen a real noticeable difference in image quality over my Tamron 24-70 ef mount lens, but I didn't. Yes, it was a bit sharper at some settings in some situations, but it wasn't worth the cost difference in my opinion.

Having said that, it is a beast of a lens that pretty much exudes quality in how it feels, how it focuses etc. And, the image quality is definitely top notch for a zoom in my opinion.

But....try it out for a few days before buying unless money isn't an object for you.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I recommend renting one for a day or three like I did and see for yourself. It could be that if I had an R5 instead of an R, I might have seen a real noticeable difference in image quality over my Tamron 24-70 ef mount lens, but I didn't. Yes, it was a bit sharper at some settings in some situations, but it wasn't worth the cost difference in my opinion.

Having said that, it is a beast of a lens that pretty much exudes quality in how it feels, how it focuses etc. And, the image quality is definitely top notch for a zoom in my opinion.

But....try it out for a few days before buying unless money isn't an object for you.

I have another thread going about trading my STM 24-105, 85, and maybe 50 for an RF 24-105 F4, but I’ve been looking at the EF 24-70 F2.8 II. Like you, I have an EF 16-35 F2.8 II adapted that works very well. The RF glass is mighty pricey.

 

[BrianK]

Simply put, in your opinion, is the RF 28-70 F2 like a stack of primes shoved into a zoom?

Nope. I’ve rented the lens. Comparing the 50mm 1.2 even handicapped down to f/2 it still renders smoother than the 28-70mm f/2 at 50mm at f/2.

 

[SO8]

I had one ... and loved it. To me a noticeably better lens IQ wise than the RF 24-70 f2.8.
I also owned the RF 50 f1.2 and RF 85 f1.2. They are a tiny bit sharper ... but ... the RF 24-70 f2 IMO is as good and the best zoom Canon have made. The rendering is awesome.

I sold mine and miss it immensely but it was too much as a carry round lens and my whole photography style has moved towards 'lighter' or it was getting left at home. The 50 and 85 also got sold as I am defintely a zoom person .... but retain a 35mm to use with my R8 as it is so sharp and light.

As a one lens to replace primes this to me is it.

*My view does not comment on the size and weight which are an issue .... but then the 85mm prime is not any smaller or lighter really. The 50mm is... but is still a but of a lump ... albeit a really pleasing one.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Unless I start booking tons and tons and tons of shoots I can’t justify the price. As I find myself moving toward artistic portraiture my 16-35 and 50 get the most use. I can’t afford to upgrade from the RF 50 STM to the RF L USM, but I am looking at some EF options adapted. I’m leaning toward the Tokina Opera, but haven’t ruled out the Sigma ART. There’s nothing wrong with the 50 STM. Frankly it’s a darn good lens, just sometimes that extra .4 makes a difference.

 

[jcass]

For me, the versatility of the 28-70 F2 is king. It has the image quality, bokeh, and low light performance that I need without having to change between lenses. Yes, the Pink Unicorn would 24-70 F1.2, but I wonder how much that lens would cost.

The 28-70 F2 is heavy. Many folks feel that 28mm at the wide angle isn't enough. Those factors don't bother me, YMMV. Given that, for me the deciding factors came down to...

• is the additional 1+ stops of light of the primes significant enough to warrant swapping lenses?
• is the image quality of the equivalent primes better by a noticeable factor?
• is lack of IS important?
• what is the cost of the 28-70mm versus the L-series primes?

This is just my thought process. Folks don't come to the same conclusions... no right or wrong. I chose the 28-70mm F2.0 and it works best for me.