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

[Deleted member 383640]

Becase it's nowhere near as good as other L lenses optically. It's a $1200 L lens. There are going to be a lot compromises made for a 4x zoom at that price point. It's good in the center, but falls apart outside of that. It also has issues with CA, flare and ghosting.

Now, some don't have that sort of critical eye and it's totally fine for them. It's also a range that some people like a lot, all of which is great. I'm not crapping on the lens to be a "hater", it's simply nowhere near as good as the other L zooms, but they cost a lot more!

I think I'd rather have this 28-70, and I decided to preorder it. I do have the L 28-70, but as I've said before, it's not the most enjoyable lens to shoot with in a lot of situations.

I have no particular reason to defend any lens, but comparing your experience with mine, it is possible that you just ran into a bad copy(s), but on none of my RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM I see any of the shortcomings you mentioned. In particular, I don't see that the lens is significantly worse than the other Ls, on the contrary... But to each his own (opinion).

And just a side note; You are somewhat right about ghosting, but I often use this very "flaw" to my advantage

 

[koenkooi]

[...] There are plenty of lenses out there that don't utilize "digital correction", so just buy those? People were correcting lens weaknesses in darkrooms. Then they were correcting them with computer software, now the camera does the correction if you want it to. Which has brought us to new and interesting lens designs that we haven't seen before.

With the R5II not being supported by most RAW converters, I have come to realize how much I depend on them for the way I'm shooting. I don't mind digital corrections, but it does mean that you are at the mercy of Adobe/DxO/Topaz for supporting the correction profiles.
It looks like it will be a while till you can do a one stop denoise+correction in DxO PR when using an R5II+28-70STM.

First world problems, I know

 

[stillviking]

\"Impressive durability and weather-resistant construction equivalent to an L-series lens for use in harsh environments\"

What? Is this real or weather-resistant is different from L weather-sealing?

 

[Deleted member 383640]

I really like that RF 28-70 2.8, especially since it's so light, with the exception of the collapsible zoom part. I know it's snobbish of me, but somehow it feels "cheap" and doesn't inspire confidence in the longevity of the lens, but I'm probably wrong.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I have no particular reason to defend any lens, but comparing your experience with mine, it is possible that you just ran into a bad copy(s), but on none of my RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM I see any of the shortcomings you mentioned. In particular, I don't see that the lens is significantly worse than the other Ls, on the contrary... But to each his own (opinion).

And just a side note; You are somewhat right about ghosting, but I often use this very "flaw" to my advantage

The "bad copy" thing with mirrorless cameras really isn't a thing anymore. Sure there are still going to be the odd lemons.

As I said, we all have different expectations, but I hate mid frame softness into the corners, the periphery is so bad on the 24-105 on both ends of the range. Back to the ghosting..... that's bad.

If one is happy with it, that's great, just keep shooting. I shoot a lot with a Canon LTM 19 f/3.5 and it's horrific, but I love it anyway.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I really like that RF 28-70 2.8, especially since it's so light, with the exception of the collapsible zoom part. I know it's snobbish of me, but somehow it feels "cheap" and doesn't inspire confidence in the longevity of the lens, but I'm probably wrong.

The 100-500 and 70-200 are tanks. Canon has never made an internal zoom 24-70L. They have been doing it for decades, they probably have it down. Sure, maybe it won't handle a drop onto concrete as well, but don't drop it.

I recently had my R3/28-70 roll out the back of my vehicle onto a road... it lived. At least a car wasn't coming to run over it before I could grab it.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

The 100-500 and 70-200 are tanks. Canon has never had an internal zoom 24-70L.

...collapsible zoom part...

 

[Deleted member 383640]

The "bad copy" thing with mirrorless cameras really isn't a thing anymore. Sure there are still going to be the odd lemons.

Bad copies are present today to a lesser extent because production technology has advanced - reduced variations, reduced tolerances, but there is still the appearance of the problem of decentering and tilting of the optics in the lenses.

 

[Canon Rumors]

...collapsible zoom part...

It's the same thing in barrel design.

 

[Richard CN]

As decently good as the specs of this lens seem to be, I do have to say that lenses like this are pretty much the reason, why we can't have full frame third party lenses.
If there was actual competition in the RF system, they wouldn't win anyone's favour with such a boring product.
Yes it's lightweight and small, yes it's not L style pricing to the moon. But that's pretty much it.
The focal range is very limited, f2.8 seems fine, but as people said, is probably going to result in digital correction galore and should have been f4, and knowing canon, they will have implemented limited weather sealing to make the L lenses look more appealing.

In this world it seems a decent offer.
In a parallel universe with Tamron and sigma products open to us, we would absolute shit on this thing.

In the ... there is no pleasing some people... exhibit A.

Sigma is more expensive, tamron was cheaper but also larger., All of them are comparable in optical performance, so why would we absolutely shit over this lens?


Also...

 

[Deleted member 383640]

As I said, we all have different expectations, but I hate mid frame softness into the corners, the periphery is so bad on the 24-105 on both ends of the range.

Call me blind, I don't see anything bad in those places.

 

[Richard CN]

...collapsible zoom part...

Absolutely. Perfect for travel.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

It's the same thing in barrel design.

Yes... That's why I wrote; but I'm probably wrong.

 

[TwoWheeler]

You speak the truth. Also quality is price related. Affordable will have compromises. I feel that this lens will hit the sweet spot.

Experience. I have the 100-400 “bargain” lens and am very happy with it. I also have the 85 macro non-L lens and it’s pretty disappointing. I’m taking a wait-and-see on this one.

 

[Richard CN]

Experience. I have the 100-400 “bargain” lens and am very happy with it. I also have the 85 macro non-L lens and it’s pretty disappointing. I’m taking a wait-and-see on this one.

With the cheaper STM lenses run them through DPPs DLO. They will clean up.

 

[Canon Rumors]

With the cheaper STM lenses run them through DPPs DLO. They will clean up.

I always forget about the 100-400... Everyone that buys one seems to love it, especially if they can get it on sale or refurb.

 

[Richard CN]

I always forget about the 100-400... Everyone that buys one seems to love it, especially if they can get it on sale or refurb.

Absolutely. It would be on my list too. I don't shoot enough telephoto to warrant an L

 

[Canon Rumors]

With the R5II not being supported by most RAW converters, I have come to realize how much I depend on them for the way I'm shooting. I don't mind digital corrections, but it does mean that you are at the mercy of Adobe/DxO/Topaz for supporting the correction profiles.
It looks like it will be a while till you can do a one stop denoise+correction in DxO PR when using an R5II+28-70STM.

First world problems, I know

Yeah that's true. I for one love our software company overlords (Yeah I get free stuff). PhotoLab 8 isn't far away, the preview/beta is impressive.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Read my longer essay answer about f/2.8, but in short I feel like many smart and knowledgeable shooters are nonetheless sticking to the received wisdom that "pros use f/2.8" far longer than they should. I'd invite anyone who uses "f/2.8" as a checkbox to read my essay and mull over whether that's really a useful category any more.

I'd be surprised if MTF is really a serious benefit. They're both excellent, I think, even if neither is in the 135/1.8 class. Can we even see the difference when pixel-peeping? If we can, can we also see a difference in a full-screen 1500x1000 edit? Which is just 1.5MP? If anyone can shoot the two side by side and show the new lens to be usefully sharper, even pixel-peeping much less a real-world edit, I'll happily and publicly stand corrected, but I'll believe it if/when I see it not before.

I agree. I used to see the EF 24-70 f2.8 L on just about every pro photographer's camera. They made it work for them an turned in pro work day in day out. Right gear, right hands. But it was a heavy and large brick, a very nice brick but a brick none the less. Nobody actually wanted a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 combo because of the size, weight and cost. Everybody else found pleasure in far lighter and cheaper options...and made them work for them.
Fast forwards to 2024 and everybody and his mate seem to have a full trio of f2.8 zooms and fast primes too. That's partly due to the shops selling this gear to wealthy but nieve indivuals and partly due to Canon not offering much in the way of good mid priced kit. A lot of portrait / wedding / lifestyle pros that I know either exclusively use the super fast primes or they have jumped ship to Lecia or Hassblad, just to be different and have a different look / cache.
Facebook groups are crowded with comments like I've just bought a R5 and a 24-70L and it won't focus on my child running about at home....often it's clear that they are newbies with zero photographic experiance. Having the best gear available doesn't mean your photographs are going to better than the other newbie next door.
My fav comment was some guy who bought a used RF 600mm f4 and wanted to shoot his grand kids in his front room and was complaining that it wouldn't focus on them....eyes roll....lol....rofl....

Back to this lens, the MFT charts between this lens and the RF 24-70 f2.8 LIS are going to be marginal at best. At 24mm there is lettle between them and at 70mm I think only a particularly experinced and piccy R5 shooter would notice a slight difference in sharpness.

I does make me wonder what now qualifies for a L lens in Canon's mindset? It used to mean "Luxury" and employed exotic glass and a pro level of build. This new silver ring lens has three exotic elements, only one less that the L lens. It's also dust and weather resistant....a lot like the new RF 200-800mm lens...another "non" L lens.

 

[Bob Howland]

The price is about $200 less than I expected. Will Canon introduce a companion 16-28 f/2.8? My guess is yes.

Update: Unsurprisingly, it doesn't come with a lens hood. However, according to the Canon USA website, it uses the EW-73D lens hood, which is already available from Canon and Vello. (I own about a dozen Vello lens hoods.)