Full-Frame Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Image Thread

[Bryan Conner]

I rented this lens for a few days to try it out. I wanted to see if my trusty Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC (G1) lens was in the same league as this beast. And, it is a beast. It is a sharp, fast lens as you can see in this image shot at our local "Lichterfest" (Festival of Lights) last night.

My Tamron 24-70 G1, which has been hand adjusted by a Tamron certified technician here in Germany, is almost as sharp....but it doesn't have f2.0. I don't see a need for me to own this beast, in size and price, especially since I shoot with a EOS R. Maybe if I had an R5 with higher resolution then I could see a big enough difference.
The lens performed as expected in terms of auto focus and has excellent build quality. It draws attention too. I had several people stop and look at it because it is definitely noticeable with its 95mm chunk of glass on the front.

This shot is from a definite low-light test situation. I had a 1/250 shutter speed at f2.0 and camera on auto iso...and it needed iso 12,800. Just normal noise reduction in Lightroom on this one.

• Canon EOS R
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 12800

Another one below, but with Lightroom Denoise.

• Canon EOS R
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 12800

Another shot below, cropped with Lightroom Denoise.

• Canon EOS R
• 24.0-70.0 mm
• 31.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 12800

 

[AntonLargiader]

I'm trying to buy a 24-70/2.8 type lens and darn it Canon keeps coming out with these "oh, but..." options. "You know, we can do that in f/2. Or, how 'bout we supersize that to 24-105 instead?" Buy once, cry once, right?

When the f/2 came out I was pretty excited because I shoot in dim light a lot. However, I don't think being at f/2 is the answer. I managed to talk myself off that ledge. When the 24-105 came out... yeah, I'm tempted. Who doesn't want a bit more zoom range. Some overlap with the 70-200 is handy. But it's almost twice the cost of the 24-70 refurb. I do think the RF24-70 would be perfectly fine for me. I just wish it was back at $13xx on the refurb store. I missed that deal.

 

[Bryan Conner]

I'm trying to buy a 24-70/2.8 type lens and darn it Canon keeps coming out with these "oh, but..." options. "You know, we can do that in f/2. Or, how 'bout we supersize that to 24-105 instead?" Buy once, cry once, right?

When the f/2 came out I was pretty excited because I shoot in dim light a lot. However, I don't think being at f/2 is the answer. I managed to talk myself off that ledge. When the 24-105 came out... yeah, I'm tempted. Who doesn't want a bit more zoom range. Some overlap with the 70-200 is handy. But it's almost twice the cost of the 24-70 refurb. I do think the RF24-70 would be perfectly fine for me. I just wish it was back at $13xx on the refurb store. I missed that deal.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have a Tamron 24-70 VC G1 lens that I have had for years. I had to have it repaired a couple of years ago, and the Tamron certified technician at my camera repair shop of choice readjusted and "proofed" the performance of the lens. I was actually hoping that this 3,000€ plus lens would make me want it, but it is only marginally sharper than my Tamron in about 50% of the images I have taken with both over the last 3 days. The Tamron is never sharper than the Canon, but is sometimes as sharp. The Canon does have wonderful contrast and color rendition, that is for sure. So overall, it is the best lens that I have used so far, but not enough better for me to justify the price.

Now, if I were still a working pro and shooting weddings, then I guess I would definitely want it. Then, I would probably be using a body with IBIS and would not miss the lack of image stabilization. So, with an EOS R, I will stick with my Tamron.

 

[Bryan Conner]

One last image before I boxed up the lens for the return trip. The lens is not a macro lens, and shooting at f2.0 is not optimal for macro....but the bokeh. And you can see the detail in the hairs on the bee's legs....or should I say the bee's knee's.

A very impressive lens for sure.

• Canon EOS R
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 320

 

[TrentAJ]

These are a few shots from our recent visit to Acadia NP using the RF 28-70F2 lens. This lens rarely leaves my camera.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 800

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 45.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 160

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 28.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/100 sec
• ISO 320

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 28.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 250

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF28-70mm F2 L USM
• 28.0 mm
• ƒ/16
• 1/80 sec
• ISO 320

 

[JCBigler]

Do you guys find the lack of image stabilization in this lens wanting? I love my RF 24-70mm f/2.8. And I really like having the image stabilization on it.

 

[TrentAJ]

Do you guys find the lack of image stabilization in this lens wanting? I love my RF 24-70mm f/2.8. And I really like having the image stabilization on it.

I had the same concern when I was considering the 28-70F2 because my hands shake. I tested the lens on my camera body in the store before I purchased it, and the R62's in body stabilization worked well enough for me. As long as your camera has in body stabilization, I think you don't need it in this particular lens. Without IBIS, I would stick with a stabilized lens.

All of that to say, I LOVE my 28-70F2 to the point that it only comes off my camera if I need longer range to capture wildlife or planes.