Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM

[SwissFrank]

This new "non - L" has a pair of UD elements and a pair of Asherical elements. I don't know if they are moulded or ground

Right, so UD and "Super UD" used to be different classifications but I'm not sure if Canon uses the term "Super UD" any more. The non-L surely has molded asph.

That said, the RF100/2.8L Macro seems to have no UD (much less Super UD) AND no asph of any type. (Not to mention, no fluorite.) So clearly the L tag no longer means special glass.

 

[blackcoffee17]

This new "non - L" has a pair of UD elements and a pair of Asherical elements. I don't know if they are moulded or ground.
I can't think of any EF lens that has weather sealing but isn't a L lens....as someone here is fond of saying....we're all doomed....

The 200-800 is weather sealed and it's not an L lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So clearly the L tag no longer means special glass.

It never did.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't think of any EF lens that has weather sealing but isn't a L lens....

The 200-800 is weather sealed and it's not an L lens.

The RF 200-800 is not an EF lens. Did you have a point, or did you just not read carefully enough?

 

[SwissFrank]

personally I want a broader focal range in a standard zoom for travel, and I have little need for f/2.8

Exactly my case

Had a look at the stats from my last few trips with the 24-105/4L, ~25% of shots were wider than 28mm and ~45% of shots were longer than 70mm.

Exactly--I just mentioned that probably 25% of my shots were either 24mm or might as well have been. I feel like I'm about 25% of shots longer than 70mm but I've never checked. I could pretty easily crank through all my digital camera photos back to 2002 with a little python script and get an exact number but it'd probably take a day or so to run.

Also, what's both for and against the new zoom: one can always crop. One could crop 70mm to 200mm pretty easily for a non-technically-demanding subject. OTOH some of my 24-105 shots are cropped to 300mm which you can't really get away with from the new zoom. Generally speaking, a subject will occupy twice the pixels (by area) at 100mm than 70mm: (100/70)^2. So while the 70mm CAN crop, it only has half the pixels to play with of the 105mm. So even taking this tactic into consideration I'd rather have the 24-105.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I could pretty easily crank through all my digital camera photos back to 2002 with a little python script and get an exact number but it'd probably take a day or so to run.

I use this:

PhotoStatistica

PhotoStatistica lets you stand back and see the big picture. PhotoStatistica's innovative tools gives you the ability to draw powerful insights about your photography by visualising EXIF data across large libraries of your images. PhotoStatistica is the perfect tool to help you buy the right piece…

apps.apple.com

 

[AlanF]

IQ: I'm still skeptical.
How good will a non-L zoom lens be?
On the other hand, I was skeptical about the IQ of the RF 2/85mm, till I tested one. Now, it's part of my light kit, thanks to its impressive optical quality.
And "only" 28 to 70 sounds good, less range could mean less optical compromising, in relation to the selling price.
So, I'm waiting for OpticalLimits and TDP to review it. Unfortunately, no need waiting for Gordon Laing's review, all the latest, and even older Canon lenses' reviews are described as "so far", and nothing comes. A pity, because, unlike most other reviewers, he took real pictures, no ones of charts. The only way of testing I trust.
Gordon, please, resume your testing!

My RF 2/85mm was delivered today. Very impressive!

 

[Quack]

The pricing on this seems a little weird given the 24-70 2.8 can be had all day long for $1400 used, and 2k grey market, and is probably a significantly better all around product.

At $899 I'd consider it as a weight saver, at 1100 I'd just pass and stick with the L lens.

Not sure what country you are in - or what country's dollars, but the RF 24-70 f/2.8 can not be be had all day long for $1400 used in US dollars. MPB's cheapest $2079, B&H had one that just sold for $1966, KEH has one at $1908, cheapest on ebay $1895. Nothing even approaching $1400. Unless of course you mean the EF lens.

The only logical comparison regardless, is new vs. new, and a new one costs $2,399.

 

[Berowne]

Well, again, I am quite certain I found a written statement that L meant exactly this in Canon literature of the 90s. Admittedly I can't remember quite where (though I think Lens Work II from around 1997), nor do I have a verbatim quote. But, either you think I'm making this up for some reason, or you assume it's probably true to the best recollection of a fellow group member. Either way's fine with me. Canon's been using the term since like 1978 or so: a person would have to be very brave, or have a very complete collection of literature at their command, to categorically state that it never had any official meaning.

The bright red line engraved on the lens barrel. And an L for “luxury.”
The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional,
designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging.
“L.” This name is reserved only for those few lenses that can meet stringent standards of performance,
using fluorite (an artificial crystal), a ground and polished aspherical surface,
UD, super UD lenses, or other special optical materials.
Optical design without compromise together with optical theory and precision engineering
technologies that are as steeped in tradition as they are cutting edge.
And the result of our relentless pursuit of these ideals is the L series of Canon EF lenses.

Lens Work Book, Vol 2: "Canon's Challegnes"

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, again, I am quite certain I found a written statement that L meant exactly this in Canon literature of the 90s. Admittedly I can't remember quite where (though I think Lens Work II from around 1997), nor do I have a verbatim quote. But, either you think I'm making this up for some reason, or you assume it's probably true to the best recollection of a fellow group member. Either way's fine with me. Canon's been using the term since like 1978 or so: a person would have to be very brave, or have a very complete collection of literature at their command, to categorically state that it never had any official meaning.

Special glass is part of it, but not the whole of it. But as I re-read it, a reasonable interpretation of Canon's language is that these lenses do include special optics. So allow me to apologize!

From The Story of L (also included in Lens Work III from 2006):

The Canon L series of EF lenses is distinguished by unsurpassed imaging performance and superior operability, durability, and toughness that exemplify professional quality.

Incorporating specialized optical materials such as synthetic fluorite, Super UD and UD glass, and large-aperture high-precision aspherical lenses, only lenses that perform to the highest photographic standards are allowed to bear the designation ‘L’.

Luxurious lens arrays are produced according to time-honored optical theories with ultra high-precision processing technology, all in pursuit of the ideal.

The result:​

The Canon L-series of EF lenses.​

The first sentence of the definition certainly still probably holds. But the RF 28-70 with weather sealing and claimed L-series optical quality is certainly blurring the lines even more.

 

[BostonPaul]

I think I'll go pick one up tomorrow. Everyone loves it.

You won't regret it!

 

[esglord]

Not for me. The small size, light weight and good IQ are definite strong points but personally I want a broader focal range in a standard zoom for travel, and I have little need for f/2.8. Had a look at the stats from my last few trips with the 24-105/4L, ~25% of shots were wider than 28mm and ~45% of shots were longer than 70mm.

I could see a personal use case for the 28-70/2.8 on an R8 as a second body when my primary combo is the R3 and 100-300/2.8. But so far, it's been working fine to swap lenses for the 24-105/2.8.

Couldn’t agree more. I walk around with the 24-105 f/4L all the time and wouldn’t give up the long and ahort end or nano USM. If there is a chance f/4 might not cut it, I just put a 50 1.8 in my pocket.

 

[David - Sydney]

but will it fit in the carry on?
...
for over here - I have *maybe* 3kg of wiggle room for camera gear on carry on.

Most carriers are 7kg with the occasional 10kg carry on limit.
Backpack (Lowepro Protactic 450 AW) and RF100-500 + PC + cables = 7kg for me it with mini 3 pro drone as +1 item.
Using https://www.scottevest.com/collections/mens-vests
I can fit 2 bodies, wider lenses and powerbank during checkin and repack backpack after security. Easily 12+kgs of gear total.
Vest is as ugly as sin and my wife detests it but virtually all pockets are internal so not quite as obvious.
Saved my bacon on a trip to Iceland when the carrier lost my luggage for 11 days as I still had my camera gear and an additional thermal layer. Missed out on tripod/filters though.

 

[Richard CN]

Most carriers are 7kg with the occasional 10kg carry on limit.
Backpack (Lowepro Protactic 450 AW) and RF100-500 + PC + cables = 7kg for me it with mini 3 pro drone as +1 item.
Using https://www.scottevest.com/collections/mens-vests
I can fit 2 bodies, wider lenses and powerbank during checkin and repack backpack after security. Easily 12+kgs of gear total.
Vest is as ugly as sin and my wife detests it but virtually all pockets are internal so not quite as obvious.
Saved my bacon on a trip to Iceland when the carrier lost my luggage for 11 days as I still had my camera gear and an additional thermal layer. Missed out on tripod/filters though.

Over here I see 7kg mostly - but i also have a 2.5kg laptop. so that leaves around 3kg from camera gear. It's also uncommon to see carry-on + personal items with individual weights here. that saved my bacon a few times in the Americas because then my laptop would be in my personal item, freeing up 2.5kg.

I'd say they weigh my carry on around 50% of times I've checked in the last 3 years.

I use a Kensington 17" backpack laptop bag - they sadly don't make them anymore. when I'm carrying camera gear, i just use an insert or two.

 

[PGSanta]

I just sold my 24-70 for $1800 used, and most go for similar prices and none less than $1650, unless it's been dropped a few times.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens + IN BOX | eBay

For sale is a Canon RF 24-70mm lens in like new condition. This lens is in excellent condition - see photos. Canon RF 24-70mm Lens - Near Mint. Don't miss out on this opportunity to own a high quality Canon lens!

www.ebay.com

It's not hard to see you're just wrong. To be fair I know you're wrong, because I've considered getting the 24-70 despite not really liking it, and have semi-tracked prices. Anyhow though, yes, you're wrong.

 

[Richard CN]

Posted some reviews and stuff and started the article with just a healthy dose of snide

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM Reviews and Previews

The internet has been humming with the release of this lens. Suddenly 28-70mm is way too small of a focal range and no one knows what Canon is doing anymore.

www.canonrumors.com

Enjoy!

 

[David - Sydney]

@Richard CR ... commenting not turned on for the DPR R5ii review?

I like how the closest competitor for generalist body is the Z8 (at substantial weight difference but price/features pro/cons).
Sony doesn't have anything close so they compare to A1 at USD2k more and 61mp for A7Rv as basically being the only advantage there.

It would be interesting to know the % of users that the eye controlled AF work for. It seems amazing for them but an extra cost for those that can't use it.
Clearly Canon thinks it has more universal application otherwise they wouldn't have invested (and continue to invest) in the technology.

 

[Berowne]

It would be interesting to know the % of users that the eye controlled AF work for. It seems amazing for them but an extra cost for those that can't use it.
Clearly Canon thinks it has more universal application otherwise they wouldn't have invested (and continue to invest) in the technology.

Are there any data anywhere about the use of the eye controlled AF?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Posted some reviews and stuff and started the article with just a healthy dose of snide

Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM Reviews and Previews

The internet has been humming with the release of this lens. Suddenly 28-70mm is way too small of a focal range and no one knows what Canon is doing anymore.

www.canonrumors.com

Enjoy!

There’s something I don’t quite understand.

I get the part where Canon claims this lens is good for travel, portraits and daily life, they’re targeting their audience, that’s okay.

What I don’t get is why reviewers don’t go past that. This lens seems to meet all the criteria for events, photojournalism, and pretty much everything that’s not sports photography. If the 28-70mm f/2 applies to those photography styles, so does a 28-70mm f/2.8, it’s still a fast, standard zoom lens.
Canon claims it’s robust and weather sealed, autofocus may not be the best in class, but it is possibly as fast, if not faster than some EF options that are still being used professionally today, the focal length coverage is there, the aperture is there, the optical quality will certainly be at least okay, specially with 20 and 24MP sensors. Am I missing something?

I’m looking forward to try this lens and put it against my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II. I’m almost sure they will be at least at the same level, with the new lens costing probably nothing (on a good deal) after selling the old one, saving over 400 grams with the adapter, improving image stabilisation, and a huge size difference.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

My RF 2/85mm was delivered today. Very impressive!

Enjoy! I absolutely love this lens I used it wide open on the EOS R and the results were great. I was worried it won´t resolve as good on the R5, but so far the results show I was wrong. Since I hardly use my 24-105mm F4 anymore, I put on either the 85mm F2 or 35mm F1.8 most of the time.