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

[Sporgon]

If I buy 50 bottles, do I get a 3% discount?

I’m not sure as I think there is only this one barrel from 1983. Anyway if you did you might end up having to sell your R5II and get a used R100 !

 

[Del Paso]

I’m not sure as I think there is only this one barrel from 1983. Anyway if you did you might end up having to sell your R5II and get a used R100 !

And also my liver, car, home, wife and son.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I chose the Rotation 34L, bigger lens/camera case. Plus, the possibility to carry not only long lenses (EF 100-400) in a top container, but also jackets, hydration etc...
This spring, mine held:
Leica M +18, 24, 28, 35, 90
5 DIV + 24 TSE, Leica R 60 macro, EF 100-400 and 1,4X extender
10X25 binos, 4 batteries, rain jacket, Camelbak 2 lit. hydration, cellphone etc...
Hiking poles
And it doesn't weigh much more (empty ), yet being much more practical than the smaller Rotation bags.

That is quite an impressive collection for this backpack and a hike

I use the 18 L for day trips only so far. 10 miles hike are absolutely fine with this backpack, but it shouldn't be any longer. I´m looking for a larger one though because next year we're planning on a couple of "several-day-hikes-with-hut-stops". The 34 L is on my short list, naturally. But I´m still checking other backpacks (Shimoda/ Compagnon/ maybe a Lowepro model) if they offer a better accessibility when the backpack is not on my back while maintaining accessibility during the hike. I fear and loathe the msg rotation: I love it while actually hiking, I hate when I'm resting and want to get my camera. If none of the before mentioned work better for me, l will get the 34 L version... although I really, really miss their Tahoe Blue version

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I can only recommend the 85 f/2. Extremely sharp, even compared to Leica M lenses. Yes, the AF isn't that fast, but I don't care, it's fast enough for my photography. So, AF is no Ferrari, but cannot be described as being sluggish.

Yeah, AF is no Ferrari but the lens doesn't come with Ferrari price tag, instead it is priced more like a VW beetle in 60s.

The lens is priced at 549 $ and is discounted regularly. I got it refurbed for 350 $... of course it will some kind of shortcomings but given the price point it is a heck of lens! Sharp, great IQ, versatile, comparatively small and lightweight. In school, it is my absolute go-to lens... even on the R5 the images look great. So, I can only second the recommendation

 

[Del Paso]

That is quite an impressive collection for this backpack and a hike

I use the 18 L for day trips only so far. 10 miles hike are absolutely fine with this backpack, but it shouldn't be any longer. I´m looking for a larger one though because next year we're planning on a couple of "several-day-hikes-with-hut-stops". The 34 L is on my short list, naturally. But I´m still checking other backpacks (Shimoda/ Compagnon/ maybe a Lowepro model) if they offer a better accessibility when the backpack is not on my back while maintaining accessibility during the hike. I fear and loathe the msg rotation: I love it while actually hiking, I hate when I'm resting and want to get my camera. If none of the before mentioned work better for me, l will get the 34 L version... although I really, really miss their Tahoe Blue version

Lowepro? My opinion about them has changed, in a very negative way. Some expensive models are known for very poor seams since they were taken over by the Manfrotto owner.
Mindshift (not rotation):
F-Stop: Superb backpacks, the best in my subjective opinion
Shimoda: never had, same about Compagnon.
Nya Evo:
Rotation 34L:

 

[Walrus]

I love 40mm. I had the Sigmas 28, 35 and 50mm, plus the EF 40mm pancake. I never got used to the Sigma 35mm on full-frame (I had bought it several years before, back when I had APS-C cameras), and sold it after purchasing the 28mm.
I tried the Sigma 40mm and it blew my mind but, at 1.2Kg, and being such a big lens, I knew I wouldn't grab it many times, it would have been more of a gift to myself than true usefulness, specially considering that I was already using the R6, so I knew that every EF lenses I had would have to go away someday. So I ended-up returning it, but made myself the promise that, if I ever found it at a lower price, I would buy and keep it So far...that didn't happen.

In the meantime I bought the RF 35mm f/1.8, which is very different from the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (the effective focal length is different, the Sigma is a lot wider from at least medium focusing distances to infinity, if not on the entire focus range), and I found this RF lens a lot easier to use. It seems one of the two is not a true 35mm (I think it's the Canon), so I guess that has been helping.

I had the Sigma 50, and the RF 35 STM, that were sold to get the Sigma 40.

Actually I just got back the RF 35 STM a couple of days ago (found on eBay for 295€ shipped, as good as new) because in October I've got to record some handhold video clips, and I have no IS lenses, and as a photographer I definitely don't have the steady hand of a camera operator; I made some clips with it the first time I had it, even running on a bumpy road, and recordings were perfect and super steady, so I'm confident I can pull it off. After that I was wandering if I should keep it just because of being my only IS lens (even if it's rare that I record anything handhold) or resell it again (mind that I also have the cheapo RF 50 STM as a backup of the Sigma 40, so I would find myself again with three lenses in 15mm...).

But the announcement of the RF 28-70 STM basically solved this issue, too, so the RF 35 STM is going to be sacrificed, along with the EF 24-70 II, on the altar of the new lens, which covers for both as it's finally stabilized.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I had the Sigma 50, and the RF 35 STM, that were sold to get the Sigma 40.

Actually I just got back the RF 35 STM a couple of days ago (found on eBay for 295€ shipped, as good as new) because in October I've got to record some handhold video clips, and I have no IS lenses, and as a photographer I definitely don't have the steady hand of a camera operator; I made some clips with it the first time I had it, even running on a bumpy road, and recordings were perfect and super steady, so I'm confident I can pull it off. After that I was wandering if I should keep it just because of being my only IS lens (even if it's rare that I record anything handhold) or resell it again (mind that I also have the cheapo RF 50 STM as a backup of the Sigma 40, so I would find myself again with three lenses in 15mm...).

But the announcement of the RF 28-70 STM basically solved this issue, too, so the RF 35 STM is going to be sacrificed, along with the EF 24-70 II, on the altar of the new lens, which covers for both as it's finally stabilized.

In my experience the RF 35mm f/1.8, specifically, overlaps with a proper 40mm. I think that lens is not a true 35mm, but longer.
Why not getting a gimbal? Perhaps you could use the Sigma 40mm. The Zhiyun Crane 2S should be enough for that lens, a few months ago I almost bought it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I wish they were so open about a 50mm 1.4, for chrissakes.

I want a modern version so bad, I'm willing to get a s52 with that nice 50mm 1.8 to compensate. Canon is giving me no choices there.

Anywho this looks good so far, we all want to see the final test charts and real-world samples. Minimum focus distance looks a bit long tho.

1) Control your self, you are on a public forum. This is NOT a place to vent or dumper truck your frustrations.
2) A 50mm f1.4 has NEVER been a priority for Canon. Canon built an EF version in 1993 and that's it so far.
3) There is an EF version of the 50mm f1.8. Personally, I still use an original EF 50mm f1.8 from 1987. I don't shoot video and it's AF is noisy. It's still sharper and the EF 50mm f1.4 or EF 50mm f1.2 L wide open.
4) If you feel that your money is better placed in Sony...go for it...it's your money and it's an open market place. This is canon forum and we really aren't interested in how Canon have "made you do things".
5) The MFD for the new RF 28-70/2.8 is more than adequate and it's the max magnification that is more important. There is no point in having a lens that focusses closer but breathes / looses focal length more. This new lens is better than the EF 24-70/2.8 L mk I and better in some areas than the EF mkII and that's one of it's target market. Canon are still hcasing the migration croud.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

After going back and forth, I swapped the already fabulous EF 100-400mm L mkii for the RF 100-500mm for the following reasons:

- slightly lighter (about 200-250gr including and depending on which adapter you´re using)
- smaller (again, the adapter)
- MFD is better
- slightly faster AF (subjective feeling: noticeably, but probably not measurable)
- less focus breathing when going from 250mm to 400mm or above
- 100mm more reach
- again 100mm more reach (yeah, that haunted me)

These reasons all seem minor if you look at them individually. Put if you put them together and actually use the lens, it is a huge difference and a big reason to upgrade! Looking back, lighter, smaller and more reach would have been enough for me to change.

But I got to admit: I sold the EF version for a great return (actually got more money back than I initially paid for) and that really helped with the decision.

These are all great and valid reasons.

The difference in real world weight abd size between these lenses isn't as much as the Canon specifications would suggest. Canon's weight quoted weight of 1365g for the RF 100-500L and 1590g for the EF 100-400IIL looks sizeable. But these figures do not include the tripod ring and the hood. If you bundle all this on each lens, the working weigh is suprisingly similar. 1610g (RF 100-500L) and 1700g (EF 100-400IIL). The difference would be slight if the EF lens was mated to a DSLR. But on a mirrorless camera it obviously needs an adapter. So the RF lens is nearly the same physical size as the EF lens with the adapter in this particular context. The RF 100-500 has a shorter but heavier hood (honestly...that poariser windw is a gimmick and a waste of plastic and weight) but it's real weight benefit is the fact that the entire tripod ring can be removed. The EF lens only has a foot that can be removed, which is a really poor bit of engineering on Canon's part.

For me, the weight and size between these two lenses is even greater because of my recent and more common use case scenario. When I'm in Sri Lanka (which is now happening more due to family comitments), light is abundant. I'm using my 1.4x TC mkIII almost all of the time. I'm also shooting with no hood and hand held, so no tripod mount is required. I'm also using a EF to R adapter. My EF 100-400IIL less hood & tripod foot but adding the 1.4x TCIII and EF to R adapter, my use case weight is 1880g. If I compare a similar use of a RF 100-500L, without the hood and tripod ring, it's down to a working weight of 1365g.
The comparision of size, a RF 100-500L is pretty much the same size as a EF 100-400IIL with a adpater fitted. So I'm effectively loosing the mass of the 1.4x TC from my working rig.

While I'll loose a bit of focal length on paper, I gain a bit of light. I also get a slightly more flexible zoom range. The difference between 500mm and 560mm is considerable on paper. In real world use, it's less noticable than it would be on a prime. We all know the EF 100-400II L is really a 100-380mm lens. Dial in the 1.4x TC and it's close to 530mm. Focus breathing affects both lenses, but it's far worse on the 100-400L and it's focus breathing / loss of focal length is legenary poor. At 400mm @ MFD it's focal length is quite close to a 200mm optic (which also hase some focal length breathing, so it's possible that actual focal length at 400 is as low oas 150mm). Even at 3m, this lens is a lot lower than the stated 400mm in terms of focal length.

Having a native lens and one that doesn't need teleconverters to get a similar reach is a nice benefit. The RF 100-500L has a superior Max magnification factor that is clearly superior.

The lens cap attachment on the EF 100-400IIL is curiously poor. It seems that the thickness of hte filter tread has been sacrifices on the altar of product dimensions and I often find the cap pops off in my camera bag by it's own. On this particular lens it feels un-satisfactory when attaching the cap (compared to my EF 70-200/2.8 LIS II) and easily falls off in my camera bag.

The question I have and only I can really answer it for myself is...are all theses small benefits worth the double in price? if I sell my well used EF 100-400 IIL for maybe just under £1K, the new RF 100-500L is well over £2K UKP.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In my experience the RF 35mm f/1.8, specifically, overlaps with a proper 40mm. I think that lens is not a true 35mm, but longer.
Why not getting a gimbal? Perhaps you could use the Sigma 40mm. The Zhiyun Crane 2S should be enough for that lens, a few months ago I almost bought it.

I've never had a Canon 35mm lens that was a true 35mm focal length. I tend to prefer the slightly longer angle of view for some reason. it might also be why I've never liked a 35mm and 50mm combo on Canon. In use, the real world focal lengths are a bit too close to each other. I prefer a 24/50/100 combo or a 35/85/135 combo depending on what i'm shooting and the working distance I'm afforded.

 

[Del Paso]

These are all great and valid reasons.

The difference in real world weight abd size between these lenses isn't as much as the Canon specifications would suggest. Canon's weight quoted weight of 1365g for the RF 100-500L and 1590g for the EF 100-400IIL looks sizeable. But these figures do not include the tripod ring and the hood. If you bundle all this on each lens, the working weigh is suprisingly similar. 1610g (RF 100-500L) and 1700g (EF 100-400IIL). The difference would be slight if the EF lens was mated to a DSLR. But on a mirrorless camera it obviously needs an adapter. So the RF lens is nearly the same physical size as the EF lens with the adapter in this particular context. The RF 100-500 has a shorter but heavier hood (honestly...that poariser windw is a gimmick and a waste of plastic and weight) but it's real weight benefit is the fact that the entire tripod ring can be removed. The EF lens only has a foot that can be removed, which is a really poor bit of engineering on Canon's part.

For me, the weight and size between these two lenses is even greater because of my recent and more common use case scenario. When I'm in Sri Lanka (which is now happening more due to family comitments), light is abundant. I'm using my 1.4x TC mkIII almost all of the time. I'm also shooting with no hood and hand held, so no tripod mount is required. I'm also using a EF to R adapter. My EF 100-400IIL less hood & tripod foot but adding the 1.4x TCIII and EF to R adapter, my use case weight is 1880g. If I compare a similar use of a RF 100-500L, without the hood and tripod ring, it's down to a working weight of 1365g.
The comparision of size, a RF 100-500L is pretty much the same size as a EF 100-400IIL with a adpater fitted. So I'm effectively loosing the mass of the 1.4x TC from my working rig.

While I'll loose a bit of focal length on paper, I gain a bit of light. I also get a slightly more flexible zoom range. The difference between 500mm and 560mm is considerable on paper. In real world use, it's less noticable than it would be on a prime. We all know the EF 100-400II L is really a 100-380mm lens. Dial in the 1.4x TC and it's close to 530mm. Focus breathing affects both lenses, but it's far worse on the 100-400L and it's focus breathing / loss of focal length is legenary poor. At 400mm @ MFD it's focal length is quite close to a 200mm optic (which also hase some focal length breathing, so it's possible that actual focal length at 400 is as low oas 150mm). Even at 3m, this lens is a lot lower than the stated 400mm in terms of focal length.

Having a native lens and one that doesn't need teleconverters to get a similar reach is a nice benefit. The RF 100-500L has a superior Max magnification factor that is clearly superior.

The lens cap attachment on the EF 100-400IIL is curiously poor. It seems that the thickness of hte filter tread has been sacrifices on the altar of product dimensions and I often find the cap pops off in my camera bag by it's own. On this particular lens it feels un-satisfactory when attaching the cap (compared to my EF 70-200/2.8 LIS II) and easily falls off in my camera bag.

The question I have and only I can really answer it for myself is...are all theses small benefits worth the double in price? if I sell my well used EF 100-400 IIL for maybe just under £1K, the new RF 100-500L is well over £2K UKP.

Things could be different for me. I'm still using the EF II version, but always without a tripod collar-foot. The 100-500, I'd use it without a tripod collar, always. So. weight savings, including the EF to RF adapter, would be quite substantial, especially during longer hikes.
If I get around 1200 euros, I'd have to pay another 1000 to get the RF 100-500 from Panamoz. But I'm still hesitating, fact is, I love my 100-400...So, it's not an easy decision...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Things could be different for me. I'm still using the EF II version, but always without a tripod collar-foot. The 100-500, I'd use it without a tripod collar, always. So. weight savings, including the EF to RF adapter, would be quite substantial, especially during longer hikes.
If I get around 1200 euros, I'd have to pay another 1000 to get the RF 100-500 from Panamoz. But I'm still hesitating, fact is, I love my 100-400...So, it's not an easy decision...

I agree and it also goes to show just how close the later generation EF lenses are to the 1st gen RF lenses. There hasn't been sufficient design advancements to make a massive difference between them. As we approach the next generation or even the generation after where we will start to see more significant improvements. I think this new RF 28-70/2.8 is a good example of recent advancements in motor and IS device improvements. Optically, I'm not sure we will see much improvements going forwards. I think areas like weight and mass will significantly improve. AF will continue to get faster and more accurate, moving more element mass for less motor size / effort. Image Stabilisers will get more efficient and lighter...basically all the engineering parts of the lens will improve.

Natively, without all the gubbins like hoods and tripod collars / feet, the weight diffrence between these lenses isn't that large. 1359g vs 1550g, only 191g in real world use. Ok, you have a 150g adapter to add to the EF lens and then the physical lengths between both lenese become a close match.

As you said it's not an easy decision because the differences / percievable benefits feel more like side-grades than upgrades. Especially when you dial in the price per feature. Effectively, you get a bit more range, proportionally less light and a wee bit less mass and a sole tangible benefit of a native lens that doesn't need an adapter.

For me, the adapter isn't an issue. I have two camera bodies, each with a EF-R adpater permanantly fitted. All of my lenses are currently late EF mount. If I was going to mix it up with EF & RF mount lenses, there would be a tipping point where I would probably use one camera as a dedicated EF mount inc adpater and one as my dedicated RF mount camera.

 

[Walrus]

In my experience the RF 35mm f/1.8, specifically, overlaps with a proper 40mm. I think that lens is not a true 35mm, but longer.
Why not getting a gimbal? Perhaps you could use the Sigma 40mm. The Zhiyun Crane 2S should be enough for that lens, a few months ago I almost bought it.

I don't handhold that much (it's really once a year, not even every year) to justify owning a specific accessory like a gimbal; and the new 28-70 IS pretty much solves the dilemma for me, it will be plenty enough for my very limited hand-holding video needs, so 35 STM will go back on eBay sooner then later.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Lowepro? My opinion about them has changed, in a very negative way. Some expensive models are known for very poor seams since they were taken over by the Manfrotto owner.
Mindshift (not rotation):
F-Stop: Superb backpacks, the best in my subjective opinion
Shimoda: never had, same about Compagnon.
Nya Evo:
Rotation 34L:

I´ve been going back and forth on Lowepro tbh. I had the backflip for a couple weeks (bought used and sold it again) because the Mindshiftgear Backlight was sooo much better and since I got it used, in mint condition and at great price point, the difference wasn't to bad. When comparing backpacks in a store I always feel/ think that LP backpack don't have as much as stability as other backpacks and I´m not sure about the materials sometimes. On the other, the price is usually far better and I´ve heard people raving about their LP backpack and how it has lasted for 8-10 years or so.

I personally think there are a lot of great backpacks out there, you just gonna find the one that suits you best If it was possibly to access the camera in Rotation backpack when it is not on your back, I´d stop searching now Shimoda did look like it is possible, but I don't how convenient it is.

I`ve never actually seen a F-stop backpack in a store yet, only online. Should check them out as well. And I never even heard of Nya Evo. I'll check them out right now, thanks for the tip

Anyway, it is great to have that many choices!

 

[Del Paso]

I´ve been going back and forth on Lowepro tbh. I had the backflip for a couple weeks (bought used and sold it again) because the Mindshiftgear Backlight was sooo much better and since I got it used, in mint condition and at great price point, the difference wasn't to bad. When comparing backpacks in a store I always feel/ think that LP backpack don't have as much as stability as other backpacks and I´m not sure about the materials sometimes. On the other, the price is usually far better and I´ve heard people raving about their LP backpack and how it has lasted for 8-10 years or so.

I personally think there are a lot of great backpacks out there, you just gonna find the one that suits you best If it was possibly to access the camera in Rotation backpack when it is not on your back, I´d stop searching now Shimoda did look like it is possible, but I don't how convenient it is.

I`ve never actually seen a F-stop backpack in a store yet, only online. Should check them out as well. And I never even heard of Nya Evo. I'll check them out right now, thanks for the tip

Anyway, it is great to have that many choices!

I did really love my older Lowepro backpacks, they were indesturctible. Sadly, times have changed for the worse. My latest Lowepros were simply crappily sewn, not enough material left, so, quickly, the strap seams went open and the backpack made an encounter with the garbage can..
Nya Evo is a newer scandinavian brand worth knowing. Very high quality and practicality. I'm really happy with mine!"
And yet, you're right, there are many great choices...
Just take your time, and chose the right one ( or many right ones, what I did...)

 

[Exploreshootshare]

As you said it's not an easy decision because the differences / percievable benefits feel more like side-grades than upgrades. Especially when you dial in the price per feature. Effectively, you get a bit more range, proportionally less light and a wee bit less mass and a sole tangible benefit of a native lens that doesn't need an adapter.

If you live in the US, you could check out the refurb section. The RF 100-500mm is not permanently on sale there, but once or twice a year it does come with a great rebate.

For me, the adapter isn't an issue. I have two camera bodies, each with a EF-R adpater permanantly fitted. All of my lenses are currently late EF mount. If I was going to mix it up with EF & RF mount lenses, there would be a tipping point where I would probably use one camera as a dedicated EF mount inc adpater and one as my dedicated RF mount camera.

I think you got the turning point right. For me, it was just a pain switch from Ef lens with adapter, to RF lens without adapter to another EF lens. In 2019, I travelled to New Zealand with the EF 16-35mm F4, RF 24-105mm, EF 100-400mm, Sigma (EF) 20mm and RF 35mm F1.8. Sometimes it got really messy. So, at that point I had three options:

1. fixed adapter on the camera, only EF lenses. (--> and missing out on great RF lenses)
2. every EF lens get an adapter of their own (--> expensive and adding a lot of weight)
3. switch to all native RF if possible... (expensive...expensive...and only few options available at the time)
4. keep only one EF lens. (--> good compromise)

I actually decided on option no 4 and I ended up selling the EF 16-35 F4 and the Sigma and then patiently waiting for the release of the RF 14-35mm F4 (and of course, and then I to wait some more for reasonable prices to come along) and I kept the EF 100-400mm with the adapter attached. It was only by chance that I sold it for good money and then paid a comparatively small premium to get the RF 100-500mm. Back in 2021 when the RF 100-500mm came I actually never intended to do so.

As of now, there is not a single EF lens in my arsenal. The only ones that could really interest me would be a tilt/shift lens or a macro 180mm or this 65mm macro. But since I hardly shoot architects/ macro, I hardly doubt it will ever happen.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Natively, without all the gubbins like hoods and tripod collars / feet, the weight diffrence between these lenses isn't that large. 1359g vs 1550g, only 191g in real world use. Ok, you have a 150g adapter to add to the EF lens and then the physical lengths between both lenese become a close match.

If weight is your main concern, go check out the RF 100-400mm. It is incredible imho and a very capable lens.

 

[Del Paso]

If weight is your main concern, go check out the RF 100-400mm. It is incredible imho and a very capable lens.

It won't replace the EF 100-400 L II, an excellent lens for BIF or dragonflies, far less for landscapes. I've tested one: center was very sharp, sides and corners were a different story.
No, the only alternative to the EF 100-400 L II is the RF 100-500. Period!
OK, I'll get one...

 

[GTCRMedia]

From what i'm understanding is that you get L quality glass, IS up to 5.5 stops, External Zoom (not in body zoom), and it's weather/dust resistant?? Why is this not a L lens???? for the price and it's size/weight it's going to be a huge game changer!! For video you might need to punch in a bit if you're getting rid of the in lens corrections but other than that i think this is incredible! For both gimbal work and overall walk around lens.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

It won't replace the EF 100-400 L II, an excellent lens for BIF or dragonflies, far less for landscapes. I've tested one: center was very sharp, sides and corners were a different story.
No, the only alternative to the EF 100-400 L II is the RF 100-500. Period!
OK, I'll get one...

It didn't replace my EF 100-400mm or RF 100-500mm obviously, but depending on your use-case it could or it could be a great option to add. I don't like the corners on the images of the RF 100-400mm as well, but for landscape pics (I used it for hiking) I just slightly crop them and the worst part doesn't show. For wildlife, given the right amount of light or denoise availability afterwards, it is a great lens because the center is pretty darn sharp. Due to it´s great MFD it also great for smaller animals or near macro work. It is actually better imo that the 100-500mm. So, it depends on the use-case and that's why I wrote "check it out" and not "get it"