Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Disagree... https://youtu.be/gLLFtK01kDs?feature=shared&t=1357
Also jives with my experience with the two lenses, and the reason I skipped the 24-70 for a 24-105 4/50 1.2 combo. I will admit I'm biased against the normal ranged zooms though.
Upvote
0
A majority may not buy grey market (depends on the country and Canon's local pricing) but the second hand market continues until the lens is no longer usable.
Kit lenses are likely to be left on a shelf and not resold (unless in less developed countries).
2 of my current lenses were purchased second hand. I upgraded others to new RF lenses but have bought second hand multiple times in the past. Second hand RF lenses are harder to come by and current budget and my thoughts about how much I will use it will also dictate my decision.
A big temporary discount has meant I bought 2 RF lenses at the time (RF100-500 and RF70-200/2.8) rather than second hand.
Lastly, all the lenses I have sold went to other users so the second hand market is alive and well - if not documented.
I would suggest that the majority do buy used (except maybe yourself and Neuro
)
Upvote
0
I posted up my thoughts.
Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM: My new travel lens
I took a quick look at the data and told Craig. I want two of these, please. When mounted on Canon's EOS R8, this will now be my perfect travel companion. So
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
One of the big knocks on the RF lineup is the lack of good and affordable lenses.
Price here in Germany is 1300€. For comparison: the price of the RF 24-105/4 L is 1450€ and both, the EF 24-70/2.8L Mk II for1900€ and the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for 900€ are still in stock here. The Tamron 24-70/2.8 (for Canon EF-Mount) is 1100€ and the Sigma 2.8/24-70 for Canon EF-Mount is 1300€. All prices in Frankfurt am Main at my local Dealer with the peace pipe.
So I think, it is indeed affordable, but the Question is, how good is it.
Price here in Germany is 1300€. For comparison: the price of the RF 24-105/4 L is 1450€ and both, the EF 24-70/2.8L Mk II for1900€ and the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS for 900€ are still in stock here. The Tamron 24-70/2.8 (for Canon EF-Mount) is 1100€ and the Sigma 2.8/24-70 for Canon EF-Mount is 1300€. All prices in Frankfurt am Main at my local Dealer with the peace pipe.
So I think, it is indeed affordable, but the Question is, how good is it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
£1249 equates to $1630, a 24% mark up after tax/VAT taken off. Wait a few months and it will be 30% cheaper on the grey market from the usual highly reliable sellers. I’ve paid the full uk price for the R5ii and 200-800mm, but this one can wait.
Upvote
0
A majority may not buy grey market (depends on the country and Canon's local pricing) but the second hand market continues until the lens is no longer usable.
Kit lenses are likely to be left on a shelf and not resold (unless in less developed countries).
2 of my current lenses were purchased second hand. I upgraded others to new RF lenses but have bought second hand multiple times in the past. Second hand RF lenses are harder to come by and current budget and my thoughts about how much I will use it will also dictate my decision.
A big temporary discount has meant I bought 2 RF lenses at the time (RF100-500 and RF70-200/2.8) rather than second hand.
Lastly, all the lenses I have sold went to other users so the second hand market is alive and well - if not documented.
I would suggest that the majority do buy used (except maybe yourself and Neuro
It's shocking that every retailer doesn't just sell used gear instead, oh wait, something new has to be sold before it can be used. The maths!
Upvote
0
Don't. Their construction is crap. The plastics get polished in two years and the lettering fades away. I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 and I'm never buying Tamron again. The lens was 4 years old when I sold it, and I've had 10 year old lenses looking better.Richard said:
This lens sounds great. The price is decent. I'll say again the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 for FE costs $899 and that's a third party unstabilised lens.
Canon says it performs as well as or better than the RF 24-105mm f/4. If autofocus is decent, this might even replace my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II
Here in Portugal we usually reach 30 to 35% reductions on sales, for a few lenses.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Of course but you can only new once but buy/sell second hand multiple times.... Maths!
Upvote
0
I'm gonna be a big pass. 200g isn't nothing but 24mm and 105mm are so nice to have I'll stick with the 24-105/4.
I don't think the f/2.8 is much of an attraction, and I think the desire for f/2.8 is a holdover from the old days that people need to shake. We USED to benefit from f/2.8 because:
1. AF didn't even work unless your trinity zooms were f/2.8, so just on that basis it was non-negotiable, and it aided manual focus with the split-circle finders as well.
2. Even 100 speed film wasn't as good as ISO4000 nowadays, and you were desperate to be able to open your lens up a bit more rather than increasing film speed and getting even worse grain. So the option of an extra f-stop or two was golden. Now that's not true. There's hardly ever a photo that goes from usable to unusable because you double the ISO setting.
3. Likewise, there was no IS/IBIS and the "reciprocal rule" was sometimes a bit optimistic. You just could not hand-hold 50mm at 1/15 and expect more than about 1 in 10 shots to be sharp. 1/30 was better, but even 1/60 was no guarantee. You shot it 2-3 times if you wanted to be sure. Now, my tests of the 50mm in handholding show the WORST of ten exposures at each of 1/2-1/15 to be sharper than the BEST of ten at 1/30+, on the R5. Shocking stuff. (Search for SHOOTOUT in this site's forums for the full write-up.)
4. Even with AF we couldn't nail focus with focus-recompose-shoot because the "planes" of focus never have been perfect spheres. Because of focus being off, AND film grain, AND camera-motion or subject-motion blur, we rarely used photos in big sizes. At 10x15cm (4x6") say, an f/2.8 shallow DOF would make the subject visibly pop just a bit from the background, which was nice, and set "us pros" apart from the riff-raff. Now, though, anyone still using a desktop is looking at literally every photo at A4 size or so. At these big magnifications, even f/4 bokeh is enough to make the subject totally stand out from the background, and the "pro" shooter stand out from the sea of smartphone smartasses.
5. In the specific case of taking a portrait on a modern camera, the portrait-friendly setting of 70/2.8 has a 25mm aperture, the "entrance pupil" through which you can see through a lens and through which the image goes to the sensor. The size of that aperture is really where bokeh comes from, not just f-stop. (f-stop is simply focal length divided by aperture. F-stop is properly a guide for exposure, not for measuring bokeh. In contrast, aperture is the correct way to gauge bokeh: an 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 all have the same bokeh. The 400mm image in this series would like nearly exactly like the center portion of the 85/1.2 shot.) So back to lens options, what else has a 25mm aperture? 24-105/4 at 100mm, f/4...
For all these reasons I think the trinity zoom even for hard professionals today should be seen as the 14-35/4, 24-105/4, and the 72mm-or-so aperture 100-500/4.5-7.1, rather than the f/2.8 15-35, 24-70 or 28-70, 70-200, and again the later also being a 72mm-or-so aperture 100-300/4 and 140-400/5.6 with TC's.
I don't think the f/2.8 is much of an attraction, and I think the desire for f/2.8 is a holdover from the old days that people need to shake. We USED to benefit from f/2.8 because:
1. AF didn't even work unless your trinity zooms were f/2.8, so just on that basis it was non-negotiable, and it aided manual focus with the split-circle finders as well.
2. Even 100 speed film wasn't as good as ISO4000 nowadays, and you were desperate to be able to open your lens up a bit more rather than increasing film speed and getting even worse grain. So the option of an extra f-stop or two was golden. Now that's not true. There's hardly ever a photo that goes from usable to unusable because you double the ISO setting.
3. Likewise, there was no IS/IBIS and the "reciprocal rule" was sometimes a bit optimistic. You just could not hand-hold 50mm at 1/15 and expect more than about 1 in 10 shots to be sharp. 1/30 was better, but even 1/60 was no guarantee. You shot it 2-3 times if you wanted to be sure. Now, my tests of the 50mm in handholding show the WORST of ten exposures at each of 1/2-1/15 to be sharper than the BEST of ten at 1/30+, on the R5. Shocking stuff. (Search for SHOOTOUT in this site's forums for the full write-up.)
4. Even with AF we couldn't nail focus with focus-recompose-shoot because the "planes" of focus never have been perfect spheres. Because of focus being off, AND film grain, AND camera-motion or subject-motion blur, we rarely used photos in big sizes. At 10x15cm (4x6") say, an f/2.8 shallow DOF would make the subject visibly pop just a bit from the background, which was nice, and set "us pros" apart from the riff-raff. Now, though, anyone still using a desktop is looking at literally every photo at A4 size or so. At these big magnifications, even f/4 bokeh is enough to make the subject totally stand out from the background, and the "pro" shooter stand out from the sea of smartphone smartasses.
5. In the specific case of taking a portrait on a modern camera, the portrait-friendly setting of 70/2.8 has a 25mm aperture, the "entrance pupil" through which you can see through a lens and through which the image goes to the sensor. The size of that aperture is really where bokeh comes from, not just f-stop. (f-stop is simply focal length divided by aperture. F-stop is properly a guide for exposure, not for measuring bokeh. In contrast, aperture is the correct way to gauge bokeh: an 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 all have the same bokeh. The 400mm image in this series would like nearly exactly like the center portion of the 85/1.2 shot.) So back to lens options, what else has a 25mm aperture? 24-105/4 at 100mm, f/4...
For all these reasons I think the trinity zoom even for hard professionals today should be seen as the 14-35/4, 24-105/4, and the 72mm-or-so aperture 100-500/4.5-7.1, rather than the f/2.8 15-35, 24-70 or 28-70, 70-200, and again the later also being a 72mm-or-so aperture 100-300/4 and 140-400/5.6 with TC's.
Upvote
0
Looks like a "standard" design:
and here in the "parked" position:
Still possible that the lens retracts slightly before extending when zooming from wide to tele.
The upper image is from a rather long interview found here: https://personal.canon.jp/articles/interview/developer-f28-70-f28
It's a very interesting read with a lot of background information about the development of this lens.
Upvote
0
Canon claims this is optically as good or better than the RF 24-105mm f/4 L
There’s a few short video reviews already. It doesn’t seem to retract in any way after 28mm
Upvote
0
It's 2.8 and has a better MTF. The 24-105 doesn't really earn the red ring. Let's be honest.
Upvote
0
Similar threads