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

[Snapster]

After owning the RF 35mm 1.8 I don't think I'll touch anything that says STM.

Nice to see weather sealing in a non-L lens though. Then again this lens costs more than the 24-105 f/4L here. Not including a lens hood just seems like Canon want to annoy their customers on purpose. Baffling.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I´ll get a copy of this lens somewhere in the future, probably late 2025 or early 2026. I won´t be needing it until then so I can wait for the price to drop. This lens actually puts a decision for me to rest. My light travel/ hiking set-up will be a R8 and a combination of either RF 16mm/ 35mm/ RF 28-70/ 85mm or 70-200mm F4. Even the 14-35mm is in the picture for city travels because 540gr should balance nicely on the R8. I'll pick two of these lenses and will be ready to go Great times ahead

I won´t be getting the Canon RF 15-30mm as a travel combo because the RF 14-35mm is already light enough and I can always choose the even lighter 16mm

 

[Exploreshootshare]

After owning the RF 35mm 1.8 I don't think I'll touch anything that says STM.

Nice to see weather sealing in a non-L lens though. Then again this lens costs more than the 24-105 f/4L here. Not including a lens hood just seems like Canon want to annoy their customers on purpose. Baffling.

The STM on the 35mm F1.8 can be noisy and slow to focus in low light. Canon seems to have improved the STM though quite a bit. Ask people who use the RF 10-20mm L. I'm guessing this same improved STM unit is used in the 28-70mm F2.8 as well.

 

[Canon Rumors]

After owning the RF 35mm 1.8 I don't think I'll touch anything that says STM.

Nice to see weather sealing in a non-L lens though. Then again this lens costs more than the 24-105 f/4L here. Not including a lens hood just seems like Canon want to annoy their customers on purpose. Baffling.

Fair, I found my time with that lens a mixed bag. No complaints about the optics for the price though....

That said, as we learned from the developer interview about this new lens, they've evolved and improved STM a lot. It may be worth trying again on the new lenses that will be equipped with the "modern" STM.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

After owning the RF 35mm 1.8 I don't think I'll touch anything that says STM.

Imho that's one of the worst STM implementations — but I didn't try the 85mm f/2, that everyone says it's even worse.
The 24mm f/1.8 is a little faster and quieter, for instance.

But Canon claims they improved the STM on this RF 28-70mm f/2.8, and they say the new technology can achieve the same level of speed as nano USM or VCM, so I guess that's something to take notice.

 

[koenkooi]

Imho that's one of the worst STM implementations — but I didn't try the 85mm f/2, that everyone says it's even worse.
The 24mm f/1.8 is a little faster and quieter, for instance.

But Canon claims they improved the STM on this RF 28-70mm f/2.8, and they say the new technology can achieve the same level of speed as nano USM or VCM, so I guess that's something to take notice.

The RF85mm STM is very smooth, reasonably quiet, but glacially slow. The RF50 STM is faster, but a lot louder.

My R8 seems to drive the RF50 STM a lot harder than my old R5, I haven’t tried it on the R5II yet. But that shows, to me, that even STM can improve, by having a more advanced body.

 

[mimbu]

That would mean an approximately 82mpx FF body at a 'reasonable' price, which seems most unlikely to happen. Agree that the R7 with a high opitcal quality lens is attractive. For me, a future R6 series body with 30mpx will be the sweet spot.

24mp is the sweet spot. Jumping from 24mp to 30mp or 33mp (cough, Sony, cough) provides zero benefits and only downsides. Sony's bad decision to go to 33mp provides only a 16.8% increase in linear resolution, and linear resolution is what matters, not the marketing-preferred "megapixels". 30mp would be only an 11.8% increase in linear resolution over 24mp.

24mp gives up to 6k resolution in video. To get to 8k resolution you have to go to 39.3mp, 7680x5120 on a 3:2 sensor. I personally believe that 8k is meaningless to most people in today's world, but going to that resolution would provide a step up in video, while also giving a somewhat meaningful 28% increase in linear resolution (over 24mp) for still images. Of course, Canon isn't going to make an R6 with 40mp, that's basically what an R5 is.

So, 24mp is the sweet spot, and Canon would be very unwise to try to do what Sony did and make meaningless jumps to 30mp or 33mp. Sony, if they are smart. will drop back to 24mp for the upcoming A7V.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

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.

You've somewhat managed to prove your point that @BostonPaul is wrong (but I still think you're wrong even though there's a very small chance you're right). However, the example you used is very questionable. Namely, the seller of the ad you are referring to registered on ebay 2 days ago (September 11, 2024), there is not a single feedback for him on ebay either as a seller or as a buyer, and until this lens he has never sold a single one article. In addition, he offers this lens at an extremely low price. To me, all of this looks more like a scam than a seller who will actually deliver the purchased item to the customer. However, if you are willing to take a risk with such ads - then, good luck to you!

Currently, the lowest price in the EU that I can find is €1,900 for the new RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM, but from the gray market.

Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM Lens

â¬1,875.00 - 12 Months Warranty - 14 Days Money Back - 100% Brand New - Import Tax Included

www.e-infin.com

On ebay, looking at EU countries, there is not a single used copy below €2000.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Not including a lens hood just seems like Canon want to annoy their customers on purpose. Baffling.

It seems to me that Canon people walk the streets and watch their customers in action with cameras and lenses. So when they see that the vast majority of these photographers keep the lens hoods mounted in reverse on their lenses, they see that there is no need to spend money (they see an opportunity to save) and this is the main reason why they do not include lens hoods in the delivery.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon claims it's as good as the RF 24-105mm f/4 L, or slightly better.

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

www.youtube.com

I don't understand polish, but I understand the RAW files on the description

It better be better. I don't care for wide open sharpness, f/5,6 is where it must be sharp for my kind of use (mostly landscapes and cities).
If true, my next lens for my light kit! I need a replacement for the EF 24-70 f/4

 

[AlP]

After owning the RF 35mm 1.8 I don't think I'll touch anything that says STM.

Nice to see weather sealing in a non-L lens though. Then again this lens costs more than the 24-105 f/4L here. Not including a lens hood just seems like Canon want to annoy their customers on purpose. Baffling.

Isn't the 35mm 1.8 using a gear-type STM motor though? I couldn't confirm it, but there is no mention of a lead screw type AF for that lens.

A gear-type STM AF will be noisier when driven fast and often slower than a lead screw type STM AF (the 85 mm f/2 is probably the exception as it is slow and uses lead screw STM). Of course the gear ratio, control algorithms and driving electronics also play a role.
The 28-70 (and the 10-20 for example) use lead screw type STM, short(er) lenses usually use gear type STM AF.

 

[HMC11]

24mp is the sweet spot. Jumping from 24mp to 30mp or 33mp (cough, Sony, cough) provides zero benefits and only downsides. Sony's bad decision to go to 33mp provides only a 16.8% increase in linear resolution, and linear resolution is what matters, not the marketing-preferred "megapixels". 30mp would be only an 11.8% increase in linear resolution over 24mp.

24mp gives up to 6k resolution in video. To get to 8k resolution you have to go to 39.3mp, 7680x5120 on a 3:2 sensor. I personally believe that 8k is meaningless to most people in today's world, but going to that resolution would provide a step up in video, while also giving a somewhat meaningful 28% increase in linear resolution (over 24mp) for still images. Of course, Canon isn't going to make an R6 with 40mp, that's basically what an R5 is.

So, 24mp is the sweet spot, and Canon would be very unwise to try to do what Sony did and make meaningless jumps to 30mp or 33mp. Sony, if they are smart. will drop back to 24mp for the upcoming A7V.

My needs are actually quite simple . I am looking for a sensor size that allows for general photography use (hardly any video) with the flexibility of 'gentle' cropping. The 24mpx works but is limiting for me when I need to crop for the albeit infrequent wildlife shoots of small animals and birds. I did consider the 45mpx R5 but find that it is taking up too much storage space and processing time for me. The 5DIV's (& R's) 30mpx fits my needs the best, so I am hoping that a future 6 series R camera would have that pixel density.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

Imho that's one of the worst STM implementations — but I didn't try the 85mm f/2, that everyone says it's even worse.
The 24mm f/1.8 is a little faster and quieter, for instance.

The unwritten rule is; the longer the focal length of the lens, the more travel (with a heavier lens group) of the focusing unit is required. So it is logical that the RF 24 1.8 is the quietest and fastest of that series of lenses, followed by the RF 35 1.8, and the slowest is the RF 85 2...

 

[mimbu]

You've somewhat managed to prove your point that @BostonPaul is wrong (but I still think you're wrong even though there's a very small chance you're right). However, the example you used is very questionable. Namely, the seller of the ad you are referring to registered on ebay 2 days ago (September 11, 2024), there is not a single feedback for him on ebay either as a seller or as a buyer, and until this lens he has never sold a single one article. In addition, he offers this lens at an extremely low price. To me, all of this looks more like a scam than a seller who will actually deliver the purchased item to the customer. However, if you are willing to take a risk with such ads - then, good luck to you!

Currently, the lowest price in the EU that I can find is €1,900 for the new RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM, but from the gray market.

Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS USM Lens

â¬1,875.00 - 12 Months Warranty - 14 Days Money Back - 100% Brand New - Import Tax Included

www.e-infin.com

On ebay, looking at EU countries, there is not a single used copy below €2000.

Here in Japan the RF 24-70/2.8L IS is US$1980+tax, brand new, from a dealer, with a factory warranty.

Not sure where the new 28-70/2.8 IS will settle in price. Prices for new items in Japan tend to be higher at the start when demand is highest, then drop over time to whatever their final pricing will be. There are no pricing controls in Japan like some other countries.

 

[Berowne]

It better be better. I don't care for wide open sharpness, f/5,6 is where it must be sharp for my kind of use (mostly landscapes and cities).
If true, my next lens for my light kit! I need a replacement for the EF 24-70 f/4

You will miss the 4mm at the wide end.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The MFT charts look very impressive fro this lens:
View attachment 219763
It's really not that far from the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS. Slightly softer at the 70mm end, but on a R6ii or R8 that's not going to be seen in the final images. The weight is amazingly light at 500g, 0.24x max magnification is sweet too.
Dust and weather sealing is a suprise too. I'm guessing the build quality and durability will be "light".
The UK pricing is a wee bit steep at £1249 UKP, I'm guessing this will drop to around £1K street pricing once availabily has settled.

I think this lens will be a big seller for Canon, certainly an attractive if you want something small and light.
Canon are stating very clearly that this lens on a R8 is less than 1Kg, that is VERY impressive and portable.

From my unscientific oberservations with my Eos 5DmkIII and R6mkII, my old 5DmkIII needed a lens to resolve just over 0.6 on the vertical scale to render what I would consider to be a sharp image at 100%. So around 0.62 was the minimum I needed. Lenses like my mkI 24-70L @ 70mm wide open was fine and sharp. Lenses like my EF 135 L 2.0, were also sharp wide open but the EF 50mm f1.2L was never really sharp until about f2.8 on that camera. That lens then had notorious aperture related focus shift at f2.8 which compounded the softness issues. It was soft wide open and the point of focus would shift at f2.8.

My newer R8 and R6mkII seems to have a less powerful AA filter and a few more MP to play with. From my unscientific oberservations, these two cameras seem to require a substantially higher resolving lens. My estimates are just over 0.7, so around 0.72 are needed as a minimum to render a sharp image at 100% pixels. So now my EF 135mm f2 is a wee bit soft and needs a 1/3 stop down to sharpen. My old mk I EF 24-70mm f2.8 L is no longer sharp at 70mm f2.8 and needs to be stooped down to f4-f5.6 to render fully sharp images. My EF 35mm f1.4 L wasn't sharp wide open anymore and I upgraded to the mkII and it's an excellent optic.

This is why I needed to upgrade a number of my lenses since migrating to the RF mount. Lenses like my EF 100mm L IS Macro, EF 70-200/ f2.8 LIS II and EF 400mm f2.8 II L still far out resolve my current sensor, even with a 2xTC wide open. I upgraded my 24-70L for a mkII and a few other lenses to suit. I think my beloved EF 85mm f1.2 and EF 135mm f2.0 are just under the edge of wide open acceptable sharpness and I will probably need to upgrade these to the vastly superior RF variants and keep my lens collection good for another 10-15 years of snesor developement.

I haven't had a lot of experiance with the Eos 5Div or R5 sensors. However, I would suggest/estimate that it is likely to be in the 0.8 zone, probably any lens above 0.82 would render a really sharp image. Anything over this point doesn't make the image any more resolved or sharp.

It would be amazing if someone could do the sci/tests/math to give us a verticle resolution of the different Canon camera sensors relative to the Canon MFT charts so we can make educated descisions about out optics and camera purchases.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

The unwritten rule is; the longer the focal length of the lens, the more travel (with a heavier lens group) of the focusing unit is required. So it is logical that the RF 24 1.8 is the quietest and fastest of that series of lenses, followed by the RF 35 1.8, and the slowest is the RF 85 2...

I'm not judging by how long they take from MFD to infinity, as that would be unfair to the macro lenses.

But, it hasn't been that linear as you'd expect, mainly because there are two types of STM motors. For instance, the 35mm uses gear type (lower end) and the 24mm uses lead screw (higher end), like this new RF 28-70mm. The 24 is a lot quieter, quicker and smoother than the 35, I'd say the 24 moves its inner barrel as quickly as the 50 1.8, which is pretty much half the weight, but the 50 uses gear type STM, so it's noisier and more brusque.

The 85, I think, uses lead screw STM (a version prior to that of the 28-70mm), but since it has such a long movement to make, it takes a long time to move its elements.

The 28-70mm, being a f/2.8 at 70mm, with lead screw STM, and no macro abilities, by default should be faster than the RF 85mm f/2. If Canon claims they have improved the motors, even better.

@Snapster this explanation should help you too



For the sceptics, I fixed the lens, there you have it:

But keep in mind, its MSRP has just been updated to $1699

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

Thanks, internet stranger! :-D

Yes, that's the passage I'm remembering after 27 years. It does say luxury blah blah blah professional blah blah blah, but this one specific and concrete statement above stuck in my head.

To paraphrase, the official published stance of Canon was: if it said L, it would have ground asph, super UD, or fluorite (as my earlier recollection said), or UD (which I didn't say and indeed would have guessed wasn't part of their rule as UD's so common). I did correctly remember it applied to ground asph: Canon used molded asph in a point-and-shoot back in 1984 or so I think. Molded asph wasn't an expensive (or, probably, optically excellent) technology.

Things containing these glasses don't have to be L. But L's HAD to, at that point in time, according to Canon, contain at least one of these glasses.

I forget if I noted this earlier, but clearly this policy has changed: I think the RF100/2.8Mac is an L but doesn't even have UD or molded asph, much less the fancier glass. Leastways, Canon's Lens Museum lens diagram shows no special glass. (They also don't seem to differentiate between UD and super UD, nor different asph technologies any more on those diagrams, or at least some diagrams don't seem to.)

 

[blackcoffee17]

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.

Why is the 85 disappointing? I heard the optics is great but the AF is a little slow/noisy.

 

[Berowne]

Thanks, internet stranger! :-D

You are welcome!