Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
According to the charts in Optical Limits, the only true weakness - regarding resolution - of the RF 24-105L are the corners at 105mm wide open. All the rest is at 30Mpx fairly well compensated. My personal limited experience (900 pics) is quite good. I have posted some shots directley into the sun here - Ghosting? I cannot complain about the center sharpness at minimal focus distance in Portraits. It is tac-sharp, wide open. And the corners even wide open in landscapes are good - with my R6. Perhaps this might be different with an R5. For me everything is ok and the comparison at optical limits with the RF 24-70L did not convince me to spend twice the price for more center sharpeness and (in some cases, for instance at 24mm in the corners in the whole aperture range) even weaker corners. Especially as i own fast 35mm and 85mm primes.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.
But as i said everything might be different with the R5.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
Your observations pretty much match mine. You can rest assured - that lens is excellent on the R5 as well.
Upvote
0
Back in the 90s it was hard to find the clear answer but I did find it in writing somewhere, maybe in their book/catalog "Lens Work II" from around 1997. Their official definition was, from memory, that it had GROUND aspherical (not glass-molded aspherical, abbreviated as "GMO"), Super UD, and/or Fluorite elements. The definition they gave surprisingly did NOT include "pro build quality" or "luxury" as part of the meaning. However that's not to say you're wrong: I'm sure their definition changes every couple years, if they even have a definition, and ultimately, the most accurate definition of what "L" lens is, is the list of lenses that say "L" on them.
I won't go looking through the internet to find data points, but I THINK Super UD has moved down-market to the point maybe many "consumer" lenses have it. Meanwhile I THINK GMO might have moved up-market as they've gotten better at forming it. It's possible that the best differentiator now is whether or not it has weather sealing: I wonder if all L lenses do and all non-L do not? And yet that may change too: why NOT put that little rubber gasket on a 50/1.8 say?
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
It's better than the kit lens for sure. Then again the 28mm wide angle feels like purposefully cripple hammered.
As with almost every lens below the L-range it seems like Canon rather fills niches or lowers production cost for similar quality lenses than offering something better. And they completely ignore APS-C.
Still no 22mm f/2 (probably there won't ever be cause that lens was too good for its price). And still no alternative for the 17-55 f/2.8.
Sad for APS-C users, but they're currently better off with Sony, Nikon or Fuji.
As with almost every lens below the L-range it seems like Canon rather fills niches or lowers production cost for similar quality lenses than offering something better. And they completely ignore APS-C.
Still no 22mm f/2 (probably there won't ever be cause that lens was too good for its price). And still no alternative for the 17-55 f/2.8.
Sad for APS-C users, but they're currently better off with Sony, Nikon or Fuji.
Upvote
0
The 28-70mm f/2L USM is sad that you think it's "cripple hammered".
As for 24mm vs 28mm... that is actually a big difference when it comes zoom lens design. There's a reason the new Sigma is a 28-105 and not a 24-105, as we see from it costing half as much as the Canon 24-105 2.8 and weighing 300g less . Sure there's the Canon tax, but the lens design is far more complex and would have added size and weight to the 28-70 2,8 IS STM.
There's a reason the 28-70 f/2 is 28mm and not 24. That said, I'm super interested in what Sony has done for their upcoming (rumored) 24-70 f/2.
Check out the interview if you haven't already with the developers of this lens, it gives some great insight about the choices made.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 383640
Guest
Surely now Canon has hammered another nail into its coffin of doom with its cripple hammer.
Upvote
0
Funny as the Sigma and Tamron 28-70s were released how people lusted after them for RF mount, and now that Canon has one its crippled. That's how the internet works. An intersection of conflicting realities with no coherent past, present or future.
Upvote
0
I really like mine for travel. If I'm going somewhere that I expect to use a telephoto zoom a lot (e.g. mountains), I bring the 100-500L. But for trips where I expect only minor telephoto zoom use, I bring the 100-400 because it is smaller and much lighter, and it punches above it's weight optically.
As you suggest, I did pick mine up during a rebate period when the price at B&H was $500, not the $650 list.
Upvote
0
Consider the source. This is the guy who suggested that Canon's legal threat to Viltrox caused a 3% drop in Canon's camera market share.
Upvote
0
I took it on vacation. I did birding, insects and much more. For its price it is fantastic. And light!
And if 400 mm are not enough combine it with the extenders. Still pretty small.
Upvote
0
Nope. There were a few EF L lenses without weather sealing, and this RF 28-70mm is the second RF non-L that has it.
This lens does not feature fluorine coating, seems to be decently sharp (maybe not as sharp as a 2024 L lens), maybe relies more on software corrections (but some L lenses already do it as well), and doesn’t feature nano USM or VCM motors.
I’m thinking about the motors
The only L lens using STM is the RF 10-20mm f/4 L, but that lens doesn’t need a lot of power to perform autofocus due to its ultra-wide nature.
The other lens we know that requires a lot of power and doesn’t feature “the best of the best from Canon” is the 200-800mm, with its single nano USM.
This 28-70mm, being a f/2.8 at 70mm, does certainly require a lot more from its motor, than the 10-20mm, so Canon can cut there.
This can certainly compromise the autofocus performance of higher end bodies. So maybe Canon doesn’t cut much on optical performance, doesn’t cut on build quality either, but cuts on autofocus performance. With this STM motor, the user has enough for common still photography uses, but not for action. I'm theorising, of course.
Do we know if nano USM motors are very expensive?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I am sticking with the EF 85 f/1.4 IS but I plan to add the RF 85 f/1,2 DS someday.
Do you mind telling me what you found disappointing?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
