Canon RF 28-70 F2 L Review - How good is it?

[@Ed_Scott]

Finally, a channel that understands the pain and complications of walking around with a brain. This…..this is my Graceland.

[@niccollsvideo]

I leave mine at home most days.

[@dillank3240]

It's not the weight of the brain that gets me, it's all the annoying questions. "Whose brain is that? Where did you get it?" It gets tiring.

[@Whyducry]

What’s a brain?

[@bozmundarts2614]

@@Whyducry i dont know,,, do you? 👀

[@Whyducry]

Obviously not if I asked the question

[@f0t0b0y]

This lens has been on back order for over a year. I finally picked one up used for 2400! I rented it for all my weddings. I use it for 90% of the wedding day. It’s kind of like having 4 prime lenses in one. I used to shoot dual camera, that always sucked, then I had a lens bag but I admit that changing lenses all day gets old fast. It you’re a wedding photographer, sell whatever you have to get this lens.

[@AreolaRock]

I've been using this lens professionally for indoor sport for 12 months and it's a game changer. Sport and primes don't mix, and if I used an f2.8 zoom then my iso would be over 10,000. This lens has helped me become one of the best in my niche.

[@jimmyqballs]

Curious, what do you for subjects that are far away where say a 300-400, or 600 would be handy?

[@AreolaRock]

@@jimmyqballs I do indoor sport. 200+ is too much zoom. But if I can’t capture something in the 28-70 range, I wait for action to come back into range. It never takes long.

[@jimmyqballs]

@@AreolaRock Ah ok I see. I shoot a lot of outdoor sports and the 400 2.8 has been magnificent, and I still have the 70-200 and the 28-75 on my chest / hip

[@v_stands_for_value124]

2.8 to 2.0 is not all that life changing

[@AreolaRock]

@@v_stands_for_value124 100% wrong in my line of work. There are maybe 4 or 5 people in the whole world who are experts in what I shoot. Every single one of them is jealous of my 2.0 lens. It may not be life changing for you, but if you ever shot the same indoor sport as me, you would realise how important it truly is.

[@Skux720]

I have this lens and it really is something else. Sharp wide open, barely any chromatic aberration, and gives a prime lens look while being a versatile zoom. This is an incredible lens for portrait and event shooters and perfect for me who does theatre photography.

[@Ty4ons]

That breathing, looks almost like a wide angle at 70mm focusing in close

[@chanjeff4406]

Its unfortunate but their 24-70 f2.8 controls breathing much better

[@dima1353]

Considering that prime lenses mostly breathe forward, i think this lens can intersect with 50mm primes at some point near to minimum focus distance. And with such breathing it looks more like 60-65mm on real portrait distances. This is important to note. Experience with long end on such zoom lenses is much closer to 50mm primes than to 85mm. But "70mm" can be perceived by someone as almost a portrait focal length. Like "not 85, but long enough". And it will be a mistake. It's noticeably shorter than even 50mm lens on crop 1.5 experience, that many probably remember from their first DSLR

[@whiterock1865]

Yeah that for me would make it a sit down lens…no active focusing during video capture, Unless you wanted to zoom in effect

[@DAVISION-YT]

@@chanjeff4406 main reason I choose the RF 24-70 over this one

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

@@whiterock1865 That is why in about two years from now Canon will release a breathing corrected cinema version of this lens for the bargain price of approximately $15,000.

[@aussie2uGA]

I’ve had this lens on the R5 for a year now. It’s amazing for image quality, I love the look of everything it produces. You just can’t handhold it though for very long as it’s far too heavy. I tried street photography once, a 4mi strolling walk, and thought i had carpal tunnel syndrome from it…

[@pianofinger]

I have had mine about that long as well and its usually the last lens that I put on....I have worn out a few wrist straps during weddings LOL. I wouldn't walk one block with that lens on. Im too skinny

[@TTWGD3]

Time to do some more curls brother haha jk it's very very very big haha. I shoot Sony and Fuji but I rented the R5 with this lens and it's amazing quality but the weight is too much, would love a 24-50 f2, would also be big but at least smaller than this one, hopefully haha

[@pianofinger]

@@TTWGD3 you are right. 🤣Every time I shoot with that lens I make sure to eat first so my muscles get bigger. I would definitely go for a lighter 24-70 f2.

[@bartjeej]

Find a human brain and get some training done before your next photo walk!

[@pianofinger]

@@bartjeej 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@AllgoodthingsTv]

I own this lens and have used it extensively with the Canon R5. I didn't get the onion-skin specular highlights and haven't found that to be an issue. I will say that I've compared this lens directly against the RF 24-105mm f/4 as well as the RF 50mm f/1.2. It performs significantly better than the 24-105 in that it is noticeably sharper. But the 50mm beats it for sharpness. I studied the images, taken on a tripod, at 200% and 400% magnification and the 50mm is a beast! I had to add it to my kit, but I still love for the 28-70mm for most shoots because of its versatility.

[@svytta]

Intenta con un sigma 40mm f/1.4, es incluso mejor que el 50mm que tienes.

[@shonen84]

Had this lens as a buy-in into the R system. The EOS R was a good pairing..but with the R5. This lens was really made for that body. As you say, this lens works great as a walk around lens. I also feel it had a very specific aesthetic - something the 24-70 F2.8 distinctly lacks, in my opinion. Extremely happy with mine, many memories already kept and immortalized.

[@zavtravels4546]

Got that lens yesterday, love it! Can’t wait to use it on this Saturday’s wedding!

[@DubYaJsWorld]

You were able to find one... And you didn't have to put up a kid to get it. I'm assuming of course you might be one child short.

[@JSS75]

I came here after my wedding photography did nearly the entire thing on this lens and I being a photographer asked him about it and he really likes it a lot and the photos from our wedding speak for themselves, they’re very special!

[@austinrichards5643]

That sunstar shot is super cool!

[@ShervinShares]

It’s sold out everywhere online!!

[@WelcometotheJones]

I’ve own this lens for over a year & it is always on my EOS-R!! I know people talk bad about the R, but it’s been a real workhorse for my business. Haven’t even given thought of replacing it, but I’m fascinated with what I’m hearing about the R3. For the record I’m a stills photographer & video isn’t my bag! Now let’s talk about the lens. There’s nothing that I can compare it too! It’s just that simple, if you can afford it buy it. You won’t regret it!

[@jedhobbs3888]

Do you struggle with stabilization?

[@markarnold8308]

As a wedding shooter, I have ran with this kens for 2 years. Speed kills in wedding industry. this is the lens to have for a canon shooter for events. What do you compare it to... easy EF 35Lvii, rf50 ... ops that is it. It is that good. My primes stay in the bag because of this lens. Weight... if you can hang with an EF 70-200 f2.8 all day... this lens is manageable. Actually balanced really well. BTW.... this lens has a fabulous look on an R6 with a little bigger pixel size for light gathering. Did I mention 70mm @f2 in a zoom lens. Good stuff.

[@proksalevente]

the pixel size thing is a myth, stop spreading bs. Thanks!

[@markarnold8308]

@@proksalevente let me know when you have some actual knowledge to share. ......"thanks"

[@daliborpuchta1952]

I have it, worth every penny! It's tack sharp wide open from my experience, no complaints and gives a very unique look to the images. I actually leave vignetting compensation deliberatelly off to preserve it for portraits. Bokeh is outstanding. Given the price of RF L primes and that there is no fast RF 24L or 35L yet, this lens might actually save you money and space in the bag. For on location portrait/wedding work it is excellent. I wish Canon would make more unique fast zooms, the RF mount has the best technical capabilities for that.

[@jeffreycollins2273]

I find that I can hand hold this lens easier with a grip installed on my R6/R5... as far as the lens performance is concerned I'll just have to say that the "look" which you get with this lens is different (and often unprecedented) than with anything that I've used before... and well worth the extra weight of carrying it around.

[@Tainted-Soul]

I'll 2nd that with the grip help balance both this lens and the 100-500 . but I love the look the 28-70 gives . the only down side is I wish the focus distance was closer

[@kevinbouley]

@@Tainted-Soul isn’t the focus distance a couple centimeters ?

[@Tainted-Soul]

@@kevinbouley 0.39m so 400mm I just wish it was 200mm lol for my style anyway I got the RF100 macro now so not that bothered as I can just use that for close ups but that 100-500 @500 F8 at 1.2mtrs looks so good :D and a very short Death of field

[@thomasbednarowski1651]

Two weeks ago I used it for 99% on my R5 on a, wedding day. Just switched to EF 100L only for photos of the rings. On my 2nd body 5d4 I used S85A, C35L, C70-200L2 and C16-35L2. Out of 3700 photos, 3300 photos were made with RF 28-70L

[@AjayMenonPHOTOARTIST]

And did your hand quit on you? :-)

[@thomasbednarowski1651]

@@AjayMenonPHOTOARTIST with two cameras it is tough to used them for the whole wedding. First 4 hours it is ok, then im used to use only one camera and 2nd one only In the crucial moments.

[@earlymusicmaker]

Chris... gear aside, the photo of your daughter (right? 4th photo in the gallery) in the DPReview sample gallery is the cutest and sweetest thing on the internet today!

[@earlymusicmaker]

Ah... I see it's at 9:41 in the video. Print that sucker and frame it!

[@allenh4475]

Really enjoyed the measured, honest review of this lens vs. the (over) hype that is out there. To be clear, I own the 28-70, but it was a close call vs. the 24-70 2.8. I chose the 28-70 just to get that extra light when needed which suits my photography. It's an amazing lens for what it offers but doubt it will make me sell my 85 1.2. Great review DPR!👍

[@lachiem]

Shot almost an entire wedding on this - considering it was my only RF lens at that time and I only had my EF 85 1.4 as my secondary it held up amazingly well.

[@jeremyalameda5061]

That intro is hilarious! Love this channel!

[@UmeshABhat]

Excellent review 08:04 typo 805 Kgs, that heavy? :P

[@DarkPa1adin]

lol!!!

[@brunocampos76]

Hahahahahha

[@bennetthodgins5499]

I have this lens on my R6. I shoot mainly street photography and I also take it on hikes to waterfalls and a couple weddings. It is my favorite lens I rarely take it off I dont think the weight is a big issue at all. In fact I did a 4 hour street session took over 1500 pictures walking around a city. I was more tired from walking than anything. One of the best lenes I have ever had. Pictures are super sharp. great colors, I would put it up against my primes any day. I will say it does seem like the lens they tested in the video had way softer corners that what I have in mine. but yeah weight is not an issue for the performance you get.

[@barkatthemoonlunatic1715]

Well yeah, you were tired of walking around with an extra 3 1/2 pounds with ya for 4 hours! lol

[@arnebischoff6732]

The R5 has more than twice the resolution of the R6, so it will *expose* (pun intended) softer corners way more blatantly. Other than splitting hairs though, I think absolute sharpness is one of the most overrated qualities with a lens.

[@bennetthodgins5499]

@@barkatthemoonlunatic1715 the lens and camera were not the problem at all. I honestly have not had a problem with the weight. But I'm 6 foot and 250 lbs. And what you would call not fit. Lol.

[@bennetthodgins5499]

@@arnebischoff6732 that is really great info for me I was thinking of upgrading to the r5 but I don't like the 2 different card slots. So would the r6 be sharper over all or just the corners. Or are you say because there is so much data you can just see the corners soften more on the r5. Thank you for that reply btw.

[@lukazupie7220]

@@bennetthodgins5499 ofc it is just as sharp (and sharper) on higher mpx camera if looking at the same size photo.

[@KyleClements]

When I made the switch to mirrorless, I went the other way - going from /2.8 to /4 lenses. IBIS + modern sensor performance more than made up for the lost stop of light, and I'd rather a smaller, lighter lens that is more fun to use. Those sunstars are beautiful!

[@patrickchase5614]

If you just want a "record shot" of a static subject then sure, f/4 + IBIS is great (and that's why my travel lens is the 24-105/4). If you want to freeze subject motion or achieve significant background blur then there's still no substitute for speed. This lens has its place. The only reason I haven't bought it is because I have a full set of f/1.4 primes, and I'd rather carry a few of those in my pack than have something this heavy hanging off the front of the camera.

[@henseleric]

@@patrickchase5614 It's sad that you assume the OP wasn't already aware of those considerations -when a more careful reading of his post might have saved you the effort.

[@BruiserFL]

Good luck trying to find one. As of November 2021, they've been out of stock for several months.

[@CumminsHerb]

8:13 44 kg for 28-70 mm f/2 and 805 kg for 24-70 mm f/2.8? Did you mean grams?

[@michaelcroff7097]

Owned it since 2019. Never leaves the R6. But I've never tried it on the Ronin-S...for good reason.

[@SCJDW]

have you shot lanndscape? Wondering if I'd regret not going with a 16-35 or the new 14-35.

[@MeowjinBoo]

I spent a short time in calgary (6 months) and the palomino was my favourite place to go eat. Great bbq, and they had metal concerts in the basement. I'm not really into that type of music but it was a great time.

[@marcgilles4520]

0:17 That's exactly how Lil Jon reacted when someone told him Crunk was dead.

[@professionalpotato4764]

I wish other companies would be a bit more adventurous with lens design like Canon and Olympus/Panasonic.

[@ziginox]

I mean, Sony did release a 12-24 f/2.8 GM, that's unique in another way!

[@chanjeff4406]

Sony also produces a compact and an amazing 14mm f1.8 lens!

[@ericmeekey7886]

Tamron is coming out with a 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens for E-mount this year, that's way more interesting than a bloated 28-70 to me

[@TTWGD3]

@@ericmeekey7886 yup, that's gonna be a monster as well but I am very curious where it changes from f2 to f2.8, if it does so around 90mm then that would be fine as f2.8 for telephoto is more than enough but if it changes very quickly around 50mm then it would still be awesome but not as cool as I hope it will be.

[@ericmeekey7886]

@@TTWGD3 Around 50mm as a cutoff for the large aperture is probably more realistic given its apparent size in the press release photo, and the words 'comfortably compact' in the description. Likely no optical stabilizer either. It can still replace a 70-200mm 2.8 zoom though, 'specially one that shortens its effective focal length to focus closer

[@kathealy60]

This video was GREAT…..and the photos were amazing.

[@niccollsvideo]

Thanks!

[@Rashadmcka]

Thanks for the review! I would love a Panasonic 24-70 f2.8 review sometime, I know it gets mentioned a lot on the channel. If not a full review, a shootout with the other similar l-mount lenses would be cool as well.

[@DragonfireRC]

Reminds me of the Olympus 14-35mm F/2 ED SWD Zuiko Digital lens for standard 4/3 mount. Which, I believe, was the first standard zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. Weighed 915g or 2.19 Nocts or 2.02lbs.

[@fatherofximingze]

I have the 14-35mm and still like it today! I thought it was heavy but looking at 28-70 this isn't bad at all

[@lukazupie7220]

F4 equivalent 😁

[@DragonfireRC]

@@lukazupie7220 The lens itself is still f/2. When you adapt an f/2 35mm mount lens to 4/3 mount, the lens itself is still an f/2 lens. Your shutter speeds at f/2 are the same as they would be regardless of sensor size. The apparent depth of field changes due to the fact that you have to move backwards to maintain the same framing with the 2x multiplier of the 4/3 sensor. If you shot from the same distance to your scene then the apparent depth of field would be the same between the two formats. An f/2 lens is an f/2 lens.

[@DAVISION-YT]

The breathing is the main reason I choose the 24-70 over this. That's so crazy heavy breathing.

[@bokehone7211]

this lens stays on my R5 basically which now my back up is my 24-70 2.8 rf basically 😅. now many ask why do you keep it cause Incase anything happens to my 28-70mm which I hope it never does , I have a backup with my R6 and i dont have to miss any shootings. hopefully that never happens though. but shooting at f2 is a game changer not only is the bokeh beautiful but so much light is let in between the elements so it works amazing in many diffrent styles of photography. now the 95mm filter threads are kind of a pain because our market in good filters is very limited but this lens is still worth it.

[@MyRetroJourney]

Olympus had a similar lens back in the day for the Four Thirds DSLR system, the 14-35mm f2 SWD. Similar angle of view and aperture (of course not a similar DOF) and it's still one of the very best standard zoom lenses ever made!

[@beomon3449]

They had a 35-100/2 as well. Shame the four thirds bodies themselves were big. People would say the lenses were big but this puts it into perspective, they are much smaller than full frame f2 zooms

[@MyRetroJourney]

@@beomon3449 There were very small FT bodies like the E-400 series. Those cameras were almost as compact as the mFT bodies, but the f2 line of lenses were way to huge for them of course.

[@lukazupie7220]

So what is the point to compare if dof is not similar and so is not low light capability? 43 f2 is like f4 and nothing special. They would need to make it f1!! to be comparable to this lens. 😃

[@Madelface]

I don't find weight that problematic either, but 805kg for the 24-70 f2.8 might be too much ;)

[@dhananjayringe]

Yeah this one is only 1.44 in comparison. What a featherweight

[@fatherofximingze]

Not kg, it's 805 g...

[@WestVirginiaWildlife]

@@fatherofximingze I guess you're not carrying your brain right now lol

[@sayantanpramanik2492]

Just a correction at 8:30: The weight of the 24-70mm F2.8 is mentioned as 805kg. It should've been 805g I suppose.

[@vaskoobscura_]

Awesome video thanks for the review. This lens looks pretty awesome.

[@timqian9140]

8:15 nobody nor any tripods would be able to carry that 24-70 lens lmao

[@kilohotel6750]

I'm fascinated with this lens but have absolutely no need or use for it, but I still want it. I'll definitely do a CPS evaluation loan with it one day to try it out in the future and maybe I'll find needs for it.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

With full frame autofocus lenses only two really separate from others the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L and the Canon 28-70mm f/2 L. Both are great achievements.

[@michaelbell75]

Arguably two of the best lenses ever made. And Im talking about even lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Hasselblad and others.

[@tomrozylowicz7585]

As always, great post. Especially appreciate Jordan's assessment of video. Off topic, I'll respectfully request a video on how workflow and yow DPRTV processes video for different systems. Tough to understand the differences on workflow between one system or another (e.g., Panasonic GH5 II vs. S1H) as well as differences in quality. Thanks!

[@Neopulse00]

I'm still waiting for the Canon 80-200mm f/2 after the launch of this lens.

[@bobuk5722]

Hi you two. I agree, for double the light I'd pay the extra. It's unique - a valuable selling point with some clients. Guess the optics were too heavy for effective built in stabilisation. To what extent can the in-camera controls deal with the highlighted optical challenges? BobUK.

[@LukaszGromolakFotografia]

Hi! What is the maximum thickness of the filter ring - frame (e.g. UV or neutral, protective, indifferent) for the canon rf 28-70 mm lens, which allows seamless application and removal of the sunshade with the filter attached? I know that a filter whose ring thickness is 3.3 mm (B+W Master 010 MRC nano 95 mm UV filter is still OK - he just has 3.3 mm, but I do not know how about other thicknesses (e.g. 3.7 mm, 4 mm, etc.)?

[@DipanjanPradhan]

Which is better, Z50 vs cheaper m50 mk2 with additional lenses for photography (mainly portrait and occasionally landscape)?

[@jonashovden]

Z50 :)

[@BramowitchIII]

This kit costs 7848 euro's in the Netherlands. Undoubtedly great (and affordable) for pro's who will use it for many years as a workhorse, but anyone doing photography as a hobby should probably just get the Leica Q2 and spend the rest on travel.

[@catnapwat]

First time I've ever seen someone say "just buy a Leica instead and save money"

[@obidean3964]

Wow buy Leica to save money. Great advice there

[@simonyoung5868]

Seriously? Apparently you have no idea what that toy Leica is worth.

[@ericfreutel8240]

great review. thank you.

[@louisrafaelcom]

WOAH that's insane focus breathing!!!

[@NicksHeine]

Will it work with an RS2 if you’re using the full range of the zoom

[@WilliamAiken]

Yes, it does! I tested it out

[@2009Bowiefan]

Thanks to both Chris and Jordan for using the full phrase "as far as... goes", instead of just "as far as...", as is popular these days.

[@niccollsvideo]

We're often on the wrong side of grammar and syntax, so every little bit helps.

[@eolakestobblehouse2127]

@@niccollsvideo , Kewl. By the way, multi-year fan, me. Since way back in the Camera Store era.

[@matthewrakola]

I rented this for a shoot in the mountains this past spring and it was phenomenal. I shot it almost exclusively wide open at f2 and it created just the right amount of separation between the subjects and the visually busy forested background. I shot a lot into the sun and the flare-usually a weakness of zooms-was not bad at all. At $3K I think it would be worth it, but I did always find myself worrying about scratching that big front element. With a filter you just get too much ghosting in these situations. Now if Canon could only design a camera with a few more stops of dynamic range we'd be in business.

[@SCJDW]

considering this to cover landscape and portrait, one and done lens. did you wish you had a wider lens at all?

[@klaymoon1]

I really wish you can shoot the video reviews with the lens being talked about. At the same time I perfectly understand a lot of efforts required to that.

[@alfredmani1461]

I love this lens. Amazing images by the way, great review. My dream lens would be 24-105mm f2. I wonder if we will ever see one.

[@estogaza1]

If such lens exist (I doubt it will), you'll gonna hate the weight and price if the optical quality is top notch. But if it's compact and reasonably priced, you'll gonna hate the image quality. We live in inperfect world.

[@blakeparry1983]

i personally chose the sigma 24-35mm F2 - i wanted the wide angle vs the telephoto Plus with mirrorless you dont get any AF-Accuracy issues that some people had on DSLR. I pair it with the samyang 85mm F1.4 for the longer telephoto option

[@williamgoss4691]

Great critique of what sounds like, and looked like, a very useful lens which can produce some beautiful images - I liked the portraits especially. Thanks.

[@Xyronium]

8:16 I thing that lens weighing 805kg would be a bit cumbersome to carry around.

[@trym2121]

You just need a truck to carry it around. Shoot like a mounted machine gun

[@beaubolieu]

Yeah. Not the lens to make me jump over to Canon

[@michaelbell75]

I know several women who carry it around 6-8 hours a day on portrait and wedding shoots. Hit the gym.

[@idkidkikik]

8:16 805kg canon 24-70... It's abit heavy isn't it?

[@Tompie913]

Nah, that's not even 1 ton! Close though.

[@trekkingwithus]

I Loved this one, bro!

[@jameskeener7251]

Clear, focused (heh, heh) review. Most importantly: USEFUL. Thanks.

[@skyscraperfan]

The sharpness seems a little discouraging. The main reason for buying an expensive lens for me is corner sharpness. In the center most lenses are quite sharp. I wonder if the 24-70 is sharper in the corners. Also would the lack of corner sharpness be visible with an R3 or only with the high resolution of an R5?

[@news666]

8:06 I wonder what it is like to carry a 805kg lens around

[@nimuil]

what a review. Mentioned The IBIS at the begining ,and fully forgot later.

[@martyn420]

How does this lens compare to the RF 50mm f/1.2L at f/2? Can it genuinely replace an L prime at equivalent apertures?

[@robertbirnbach2312]

I thought I would want it for shooting live music so I requested it from CPS and yes I loved it and if a budget was not an issue I would buy it. However for the most part my 2.8 gets the job done and I cant justify the cost.

[@markkempton4579]

I keep forgetting about the loaner benefit. I know what I'm requesting for my next senior session. Thank you!

[@kpmonaghan]

I love the cold opens!

[@amalieemmynoether992]

Isn't the polygonal bokeh the trade off for amazing sunstars?

[@Bayonet1809]

It is possible to engineer complicated diaphragm mechanisms which retain circular OOF specular highlights at f/5.6 which changes to straight blades at smaller apertures to have well defined sunstars. E.g. the Voigltander 35mm f/2.0 APO-Lanthar. But yes, generally you are correct.

[@cdriper]

I found one 35 mm shoot in sample images! Gotcha Chris! ))

[@niccollsvideo]

I am a charitable kind of person after all. 😀

[@AmericanCarioca]

How does it compare to the Sigma 24-35 f/2 within a similar range and at f/2?

[@matsetizar65]

On sharpness, the corners are slightly further away than the centre, where the lens is focused on, so the corner blur might be due to out of focus, no?

[@thatjordandrake]

As indicated in the text, we focus on the corners when testing corner sharpness.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

It's funny the only time recently that you have tested autofocus with a person running towards the camera is with the LA-EA5 which was meant for old previous generation screwdrive lenses. When you test modern lenses you test it with AF-S.

[@anthonyjustin2767]

Best opening ever “What!!”

[@sa.t.2507]

This lens focus breathing adds an extra zoom function😂

[@kurtdewittphoto]

That was wild. Instaturnoff.

[@RawGreySun]

What do you think of it for indoor sports like basketball?

[@recklessthor4]

Can I adapt this to Z mount...and should I? (Nikon Z9 user)

[@HwL01]

It is the right tool for me, one lens to do most of the things but that price and size though.

[@danzster72]

did lack of the 4mm (from 24mm to 28mm) bother you at all?

[@09goral]

Can you review the 24-70?

[@abrahamkaikobad6728]

Hi Chirs, would love to see a compariosn between RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105 f/4 for portrait? Agree that it may not be an apple to apple comparison :-)

[@michaelbell75]

Ive been shooting portraits professionally for 17 years and Ive shot both lenses. I owned the 24-105 and used the 24-70 several times. The 24-70 is significantly better in all areas aside from the longer reach obviously.

[@mikehinh]

Great review

[@GlennVanderbeke]

Great review!

[@lbiggs4067]

I like your well balanced comments. It would be good if you give your location as you move throughout your city. Thanks.

[@parmanduke]

Fantastic lens but not sure I'd want to lug that thing around all day. Great lens for professional shooting but I much prefer the 24-105 F4 for all around shooting. Sigma Art 24 70 f2.8 is magnificent and more practical.

[@Revenger373]

How it compares with the 50mm 1,8 at the same zoom?

[@XiaocongXu]

8:10. The weight of 24-70mm F2.8 IS L should be 805g, rather than 805kg.

[@Ranblv]

If I ever win the lottery this combo is what I would buy.

[@reluctant_engineer]

8:12 that 24-70 do be kinda heavy.

[@bmk-v7n]

Is it a fix f2 as i understood from other reviews or not?

[@sahilbrar7330]

Thanks. I am gald i watched this video. Informative!

[@JoATTech]

This lens is almost like having Sigma trio in 1 lens.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

28mm, 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm all in one. The only focal lengths you are missing is 24mm and 85mm and you are not far off.

[@JoATTech]

@@GrantSchwingle Cause I got it on my APS-C ;) and I hate switching lenses. It's kinda nice to have all 3 in one lens. They are F1.4 which is F2.1 FF equiv.

[@mralexlex]

No it's. Not, Sigma are way sharper and infinitely more practical...

[@SMGJohn]

@@mralexlex That literally makes no sense, unless you are doing prints or cropping HEAVILY no one gives a fuck how much sharper they are. And "practical" yeah, you just contradicted yourself there mate.

[@mralexlex]

@@SMGJohn I'm impressed that you missed the whole ball, totally comrade John!

[@tonyzhu403]

This Font Modernization is Pretty Good.

[@abdulrazzaqalizada7069]

It's working with sl3?

[@michaelbell75]

One of the very best zooms ever made IMO, easily top 3. It rivals most primes in sharpness and IQ.

[@Ildskalli]

No effing way. It’s not even close to most modern, well-corrected primes.

[@stuntmonkey00]

I tried this lens on an EOS R back at launch. Could tell right away that it was optically very good, but no matter how much you downplay it, it is a heavy lens for a small body. The only amateurs who do walkaround photography with heavy expensive pro-zoom lenses like this also wear photography vests and sling all of their gear into a backpack as they walk down the street. Otherwise it's brilliant for a working pro shooting events.

[@ExecuteOrder.66]

8:05 Chris: "What about the 24-70mm F2.8?" Chris: "Well that is definitely a bit lighter and more compact." Info on screen: *805kg*

[@JenniferKlinger]

What do I think about your video? Big fan, love them!

[@LJIan996]

Great vid, do more lens review

[@sbk_nef]

Actually this one is the only standard zoom with a fast aperture like F2 for full frame. The Sigma 18-35 F1.8 for crops is out for a while now and that thing is a beast for the price. Obviously on the crop side its 2 stops below that full frame F2 but still. You get my point.

[@problemat1que]

one stop

[@pr1sm55]

I would have bought it if it would have been internal zoom but went with the F2.8 instead. The F2 would be the perfect lens on a gimbal.. insane lens indeed!