Preview: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM lens

[@AllgoodthingsTv]

I have the bicep busting RF 28-70mm f/2.0 and I was hoping this one would be much less expensive (e.g., $799). At this price, I think a lot of people will have second thoughts before pulling the trigger.

[@davidmpoliveira1]

The Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 for FE costs $899 and that’s a third party unstabilised lens. This is a winner for Canon, it’s gonna sell a lot

[@Knowbody42]

An alternative is the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 G2, which is an EF mount lens.

[@sunlbx]

​@@Knowbody42g2 is a prettier G1, optical formula is the same absolutely

[@Knowbody42]

@@sunlbx The G2 uses better glass material and coatings. It's also got much better stabilisation, and autofocusing.

[@sunlbx]

​@@Knowbody42 marginally better coatings and way better stabilisation. the types of glass, the optical formula are the same to the minute details. evn the colors and the type of lateral CA are the same between G1 and G2.

[@cameralabs]

Hi Chris, I approve of the book in your background at 00:31 ! PS - it's an interesting price point, initially it seems expensive BUT it is a rare mid-range RF option for them. So far most of the RF lenses have been either entry-level or super-high-end, and many of us have been asking for something inbetween, and I guess this is it. I'd have been happier at three figures though.

[@leokashian8846]

I was going to mention that I have seen the same building at 1:55 by another great reviewer doing the same lens.

[@cameralabs]

@@leokashian8846 thanks! Yep, that's the Canon office.

[@billmartin1010]

Congratulations on being let in on the preview opportunity! Your reviews are always credible and reliable. Thanks!

[@professionalidiot07]

Great option but super expensive vs the sigma 28-70.

[@haoranxia57]

Much more expensive if you need to switch systems to use it.

[@professionalidiot07]

@@haoranxia57 you’ll save so much in the long run. Had a canon r6 with a 15-35, 24-70, and 70-200. Switched to sony and i have a 16-28, 28-70, and a 70-200 plus a 50&85mm 1.4

[@GungKrisna12]

Unless if Canon decided to make it a new kit lens

[@vinvanid]

@@professionalidiot07 How about sony color science ? They said canon is better, is that true ?

[@jaynus17]

@@vinvanid only if you shoot in JPEG

[@irishRocker1]

When is the full review? its strange that there are still very limited reviews on this. and still very limited availability. It's not on amazon uk yet.

[@Skene_O]

looking forward to your full review. Your reviews have been critical to helped me with all of my RF lens choices so far.

[@doros9.2]

Hi Chris. A suggestion: when reviewing the lens, if you do have access to the RF 24-105mm f/4L, a bokeh comparison of f/2.8 at 70mm vs f/4 at 105mm with the subject and background at the same distance for the two lenses, would be interesting.

[@TKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTK4]

This type of review has been completed by SLR Lounge and it’s pretty comprehensive. Hope this helps ❤

[@designSenji]

If you solely looking for bokeh, just go for 85 f2. This types of lens needed 2.8 for low light and constant change of zoom lens scenario, while f4 mostly for outdoors shoots, just choose one that you may need the most.

[@craigcarlson4022]

I’d like to chime in on @doros9.2’s request. If it out resolves the 24-105 f4 on the sides and edges i would swap for the new one.

[@brianbeattyphotography]

the weather sealing is a nice touch

[@davidmpoliveira1]

I don't get why people are whining like "oh it's not better than my RF 24-105mm f/4 L, I'll just stick with it". Why would you ever replace your 24-105mm? This is not an upgrade for you, this is a parallel offering. Well, actually, this is a lower end option, as it's launch price is lower and it doesn't have a red ring. You made your choice, the 24-105 f/4. You also had the 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market and you didn't pick it. I'm looking forward to put this against my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II. Canon claims this lens is as good or better than the RF 24-105mm f/4 L, so it will probably be as good or better than my 24-70mm, since it's an older lens. Autofocus seems to be slightly faster. The weight and size difference is enormous. Pairing this RF 28-70 with the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 would give me a weight reduction of almost 1Kg on my main two zoom lenses, when compared to EF similar lenses. That's insane!

[@danedefense2046]

There’s always those idiots that find something to complain about.

[@Dave-qj1yg]

Keep us posted on that comparison. As someone who mainly takes pics while travelling/hiking, i go for lightweight. People spend hundreds of euros on ultralight trekking gear and then travel with 5-10 kg of camera gear. The R8 and this lens would be a killer combo and all for under 1 kg

[@davidmpoliveira1]

@@Dave-qj1yg Sorry, I guess I won’t be able to, buddy. While weight savings are a “nice to have”, they’re not truly a priority for me. This was completely unexpected, but last weekend I found myself an open box RF 28-70mm f/2, for a price similar to that of a discounted RF 24-70mm f/2.8, and I pulled the trigger on that one😂 I don’t know if I’ll be able to manage this lens in the long run, but I definitely couldn’t let this deal go. If, someday, I regret this decision, I’ll be able to sell the lens, probably, with profits. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 never seemed much of an upgrade to me, so I was keeping my EF 24-70 II until something came up. The new RF 28-70 f/2.8 looked like a very decent option, so I was waiting for a hands-on with that lens, but then this beast appeared… Anyway, with the RF 70-200 f/2.8, and the replacement of a few Sigma Art lenses with RF options (including now the 28-70mm f/2), I was able to slim down my lens kit by 1.5Kg, which is still pretty significant.

[@Originalevo1813]

I have the EF 24-70 Mark I. I think ill be upgrading to this 🙌

[@gerrya2133]

It being a parallel offering is exactly why someone would consider having one or the other and not both. If I want a vacation lens, I'd want one or the other and not both.

[@abram-green]

This is what RF has been sorely missing! Looks like the perfect lens to pair with my R8! I will say I was hoping for closer to $800, but I suppose it is Canon so that'd be asking too much.

[@TigaWould]

Naw just wait until around Christmas time. They do rebates around once a quarter.

[@MrMartinek99]

Exactly my initial thoughts! Nevertheless, definitelnice offer for amateur Canon FF users

[@TheRockandroy]

Exactly my first thought. Also R8 owner, $800 would be called a must, hell, even $900. But being a non-L lens I'm expecting to see non optimal performance at the corners and heavy reliance on software corrections which will incite thorough considerations before buying, or simply wait for a price drop. That's how I got my 14-35 L for what I think is a more reasonable price at $1100 from the original $1700.

[@j.edwardrobinson1552]

Keep watching B&H sometimes they have special deals that are pretty unbelievable... and with their credit card makes their deals even more attractive... just saying.

[@GregThurtle]

Would love to see this compared to sigma 28-70 and tamron 28-75 2.8 zooms

[@mambotkurt7296]

I'd like to see it compared to the EF 28-70 f/2.8 lens, which Chris however hasn't reviewed in all those years.

[@t1agosantos]

Please make a comparison between this and the EF 24-70 f2.8. for canon users with old lenses and Eos r cameras would be very helpful.

[@TKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTKTK4]

Here are some quick comparisons: EF 24-70mm f2.8 ii vs the RF 24-70mm f2.8 - small but noticeable improvements. Only upgrade if it doesn’t eat your whole budget and stabilization is really important to you (or your camera doesn’t have IBS). It’s also better for video because of better focus breath performance. If you have the first EF 24-70mm f2.8 and can’t afford the RF version than the RF 28-70mm f2.8 will serve you well and the canon resale market makes it easy to sell if you change or upgrade. The RF 24-105mm f4 has better optical quality, build quality, goes a bit wider, and is larger. It’s priced around the same point but the f2.8 of the 28-70mm makes a difference in doors and at night (only events won’t allow flashes). If you don’t plan on shooting indoors or at night you’ll benefit from the 105mm over the f2.8 for daytime individual portraiture. For group or couple portraiture you’ll be shooting above f4 if you don’t strictly pose them so I would say the lenses are dead even depending on what/when you shoot. Just remember that all lenses and cameras take great photos - invest in education, not gear, if you aren’t happy with your current results. :)

[@somewhereetc]

Thanks for this quick preview. I recently picked up a 24-70 2.8 and almost had some buyer's remorse, especially after seeing that this new lens has weather sealing. Dang it's nice and compact too, but I'm still happy with my 24-70 🤓

[@TheRockandroy]

Nah, You got a top notch lens. If you ever grab this you'd miss the L version (specially if you do paid work) unless the picture quality is virtually the same which I assure you it is not.

[@somewhereetc]

@@TheRockandroy Yea I have no regrets :) I love my lens.

[@ArteUltra1195]

Finally a compact and bright zoom lens from Canon!

[@justinburley8659]

Seems to be a great addition. Love seeing Canon add some mid tier glass that is competitive with Sony’s G lenses in terms of pricing

[@MosleydollMUA]

Looking forward to your in-depth review 😊

[@JurajPadych]

I'm surprised! Well, I didn't seem this coming!

[@keeno86]

Me too!

[@JurajPadych]

@@keeno86 it is stabilized, it is weather sealed, it has fixed aperture f/2.8 from wide to short telephoto, I am confused! What does RF 24-70 f/2.8 has and this RF 28-70 does not have?

[@TigaWould]

@@JurajPadychthe L-series is 24-70 f/2.8 (4mm difference), has better coating, the lens thread is wider so it’s going to be optically better, the L-Series 24-70 has weather sealing as well. Canon intentionally did this. They wanted the early adaptors (and pros) to purchase the higher quality L-series lenses and not even consider the bargain models when they release them (which is going to be around now, you’re going to start seeing a ton of “bargain” options as they start allowing 3rd party manufacturers to enter in their full frame system). It’s a good strategy to maximize their profit for the system and the pricing of it will be interesting because even though the lenses are priced higher than the 3rd party alternatives for other brands right now, about once a quarter, canon has huge sales on their products making it more affordable (and giving them a tax break) for the hobbyist and entry level photographers. These releases are intentional and it’s a step up model as well because if you’re looking at this lens and the price, you may also consider the L-Series 24-105 f/4 with IS and weather sealing especially if there’s a massive discount on that lens around Christmas time.

[@Axonteer]

Me neither, heard no rumors about it :0

[@JurajPadych]

@@Axonteer I mean, seriously! Who was expecting Canon to release a non L lens this Year? Lens that is stabilized weather sealed, and f/2.8? Amazing!

[@deeowhite]

Love the @gordonlaing's "In Camera" book cameo at 0:37! Great work as always!

[@janplexy]

This used to be a price for red rings.

[@sethmoyer]

Maybe for one of the f/4L lenses like the 17-40 or the 24-70 f/4 version, but never for an f/2.8. Even the 80-200 f/2.8L was like $1300 in 1989, which is $3300 in today's money. The original 24-70 f/2.8L was $1800 in 2002 which is $3150 in today's money. This lens is $1100 in 2024 dollars, which is firmly in the "prosumer" segment and competing with the 24-104 f/4L, since that particular lens is now impossible to find at its original MSRP. I would have liked it to compete with the Sigma and Tamron competitors as well, but don't pretend that you don't understand how inflation works. Canon isn't pumping up their prices massively. If anything, most of the L lenses are cheaper than their older counterparts if you account for inflation. Canon's strategy with the EF mount when it came out was to win the pro market first and then eventually release the prosumer and consumer lenses over a long period of time, and they're following the same playbook. The annoying part is that back then, Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron lenses were pretty crappy so they didn't stop them from making lenses for the mount. These days, Sigma and Tamron lenses are much better than they used to be and so I guess Canon was afraid of the competition.

[@carldaniel3155]

Awesome news... very light and small with an f2.8 aperture - wow! Perfect for me.

[@pablojaviermuratore]

Great you can have your hands on one quickly, enjoy!!! So, without taking into account the macro of the 35mm f1.8, would it still be a nice one to have or would it be better to invest more money and get this new 28-70 f2.8 instead?

[@reneholbrugge7920]

Would be a great alternative at $699,-. Now it is priced to close to the 24-105/4.0, which is slower but has a longer range, better optics and a separate focusring.

[@murbal7679]

I think weight and size will be deciding point for many (atleast for me)

[@davidmpoliveira1]

Canon claims this 28-70mm is as good or better than the RF 24-105mm f/4 L.

[@boramiNYC]

As I needed a first standard zoom, this especially the size and weight is very nice. As a long time RF user Canon’s budget lenses all have been very competent and I don’t doubt this one will be excellent. Excited to preorder which will be released in a few days in US. Was considering the L f2.8 but this small size won me over. This will be a super popular lens.

[@RageStudios]

When do you think you can get the full review?

[@olesbadio1496]

Thanks Chris for the great review. If you had to choose between this lens and the Sigma 28-70/2.8, what would you choose?

[@TimLucasdesign]

It's only $1,099.00 here in the US which I think is a pretty reasonable price, although comparable products from Sigma and Tamron are quite a bit less.

[@SheyNewton]

Looking forward to your complete review! Please compare to the relatively priced Canon RF 24-105mm F4!

[@dps6198]

I'll wait till the end of this year or the beginning of next year and see what's on the used market. As far as that lens is concerned, I'm interested in that lens but not at $1,100 either. So we'll wait to see the prices come down a couple of $300 on the used market and then we'll try one out

[@Axonteer]

I had to decide between the 24-70 2.8 and 28-70 f2 recently for event stuff. It was a tough choice. Opted for the 2.8 finally for the wide end and weight. Thus im really curious how this lense will compare versus the L 2.8 version in your review. I think canon now has a lot of really good entry level prosumer lenses. The 24-105 f4 for 1000$ is really a neat allrounder. Only downside is that canon lenses on mirrorless kept their chunk, but that 28-70 2.8 is really cool and a epic stealth drop from canon. If its anything better than the kit zoom and priced well, it could be a really nice combo wirh the R6

[@blaspayri]

f/2.8 is only one stop from f/4 .... and I don't know if the quality of the 24-105 f/4 L lens is better as it is an L series .... but having the f/4 as a lens kit with the R6II, I wonder if this f/2.8 would be a step up with a stop up of aperture.

[@lionheart4424]

Well it has a ring, I.S. and weather sealing. Price might not be that bad, although it would have been arguably outclassed by the recent Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 at least for photography if that were available for RF mount. Looking forward to your fill review!

[@ChargedPulsar]

Comparing it with other non RF lenses is irrelevant and waste of time.

[@ChargedPulsar]

I don't see Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8 for canon RF mount, do you? Yes you got it right, it's irrelevant to compare or mention, for a mount, what is not available.

[@lionheart4424]

@@ChargedPulsar It's not irrelevant for people that do own cameras from several brands. Also, why so defensive about it? Calm down, I do believe this lens has value.

[@mb-watches]

Neat lil lens and a great option for the R8 and also R6. Size is important. I would have preferred a 24-50, 70 is a zoom range I somehow do not use to much 85-135 becomes interesting again though. In regards of the price, it’s slightly more expensive than the sigma 24-50 f2.8g , but with more zoom range and I think the weather sealing is better, so it’s pricey but right now the only option, in canon word and how it looked in this first hands on, ok. I am tempted but as apsc is more than enough I even about to sell my r8 and get back the R10. That one combined with the sigma 18-50 gives me similar zoom range and you can get lens and camera for a similar price than this full frame lens. As the R10 is my B-Cam, that’s more than enough. Cheers and keep up the good work 😊👍🏻

[@bonghungk7544]

I have a EF 24-105 f4 L lens and I thought this would be my primary zoom lens but the 24-50 ends up being used the most because it’s so small and light weight. To my eyes 👀 the 24-50 is plenty sharp despite so many people dogging this lens. I shoot mostly in broad daylight so despite the 24-50 being a slow lens it’s perfectly fine with me since I often shoot at around f8-11 range.

[@mb-watches]

@@bonghungk7544 makes sense, and true, if you anyway shoot with the aperature wide open… the lens also is sharp and I am with you: Weight/Size is a big think. Same here especially when running and gunning 🙏🏻

[@levifackrell]

Comparison video on the rf 28-70 and the ef 24-70 L ii or equivalent Tamron is there a difference in quality between them

[@jairofarinas2217]

Can't wait for the comparisons between this, 24-105 (both versions) 24-70 2.8 and 28-70 f2 (still blows my mind how they fit a 2.8 in nearly the same size of the 24-105 4-7.1)

[@blaspayri]

I wonder, does STM refer to the quality of lenses or to the motors? I thought the STM were the older lenses with clunkier AF motors, compared to the L

[@rein9590]

It may be good to mention that the IS button on RF lenses controls both the lens and sensor stabilization. This means that the stabilization you see in the video is not completely thanks to the lens, and that people with EOS R bodies without IBIS will not get similar results.

[@livejames9374]

How does this compare to the Sigma 28-70 and tamron 28-75 g2?

[@besisikaphotography3061]

Hi Chris, Thanks for your continuous great review on these lenses. I have a personal request, if you don't mind. On your final review, please do a more detailed analysis of flare resistance. Usually, you spend only 3s on your analysis. Resistance to flare is something quite important for a travel lens where people don't have time to rotate around to put the sun at their backs. Thanks in advance.

[@toufik94]

The lens is out. When will the review drop?

[@kernzilla]

clever little release here, agree with the other one price, esp seeing some initial softness and generally flat image without a lot of dimension to it. Though it's not an 'L', it's great to see the weather sealing, premium coatings, etc in this and other recent releases from Canon. The idea of lens like this seems like a nice solution for those shooters looking to lighten their load for gimbal work, keeping the 2.8 in tact while lowering the weight of gimbal assembly. AF appeared to be a bit faster and more 'confident' than the similarly-built RF 35 1.8, which I've struggled with in low light. Hopefully this one is improved in that regard. Do I understand correctly this lens has a position to 'park' the zoom in for transport, and have to extend slightly to enable shooting? Do not see this very often from Canon; while i appreciate the attention to size for transport, hopefully the ergonomics of this do not affect normal shooting. Is it easy to accidentally 'park' the lens while zooming, or is there a definitive 'notch' to help avoid this? thanks Christopher!

[@OtexProd]

€1300 in France, damn is so expensive. Not sure if it's worth to buy it knowing that I already have a 24-105 F4 L and that the increase in iso of the latest Canon bodies is incredible.

[@ChargedPulsar]

It's 210g lighter and better for low light. Just another option.

[@dima1353]

I think I'll prefer used EF 24-70 II for my R6. A well-balanced bright lens, sharp across the field at closed apertures, sharp in the center always. I can almost smell that at 28mm there will be about 6-7% distortion with correction, which requires cropping around 10% of the frame area. And after all this there is also -2.5 vignetting at the corners. There is no chance that Canon could have done something different here, they even released the 35 1.4L with 4% distortion, although few people suspected that this was even possible at 35mm.

[@samhortonvideo_uk]

Sigma 28-70+lumix s5ii is a much more appealing proposition for those on a budget than any canon offering

[@Way_Out]

This lens has been out for weeks and none of the big review channels have reviewed it....weird.

[@catalin-ap]

On multiple occasions, in different photography forums or groups, I have commented a few times in the past about "Canon having an accessible full frame f/2.8 constant zoom", since Tamron has had the breakthrough and huge commercial success with its original 28-75 f/2.8 for Sony. That day finally came and it will hugely help Canon, I'm sure, both to have users with less cash to get a cheap, native RF f/2.8 constant zoom, and for those that want to travel light and don't want to take their 24-70 f/2.8 RF with them. And will boost the RP, R8, R6, even R6 mk II and other RF camera's sales. It's funny - not in a good sense - how some Canon users, from the comments I read on some sites, look like they fell from the sky yesterday or have been living in their own bubble, and have no idea about the Sigma 28-70 2.8, Tamrons 28-75 2.8 (2 versions), and seem to be either confused, or impressed, or underwhelmed on the price of such a lens.

[@bonghungk7544]

@@catalin-ap no hood too.

[@bregbarega3717]

Thank you for this lovely preview. It's expensive but it does everiting, IS, weather seal, etc. Zoom range could be better tho, 24 or 26mm would be lovely, so in the end of the day it's not cheap, I hope at least it has a long lasting build.

[@PaulSafford]

Exciting new option! $1099 here in the US, B&H just sent an email with details and a link to preorder.

[@michaelbell75]

Waste of money. You can get the EF version of this for $300 and even the EF 24-70 f/2.8 for hundreds less than this, and both are L lenses.

[@thetruckingphotographer148]

For £1250 canon should provide a £5 lens hood, but they haven't

[@ZPOLLAK]

Any stuttering or pulsing in servo af? Like the 50 1.8?

[@shichaosun3298]

ef 24-70 2.8 ii used is much cheaper (not sure if image quality is equal or better) but the weight and size are larger and no IS. but something to compare with.

[@chromatic_times]

In all seriousness, canons silver ring RF lenses are surprisingly good quality when it comes to image quality

[@meesy498]

Hey Chris, does it make that horrible 'werrr werrr' sound when its focusing like most of canon's other non L lenses? That price is also crazy high.

[@JamesJohnsonthe4th]

Goodness, that UK price is really expensive. Looks like it will only be $1099 in the states which puts it in line with Sony's 24-50 f/2.8.

[@twgq]

Don´t forget the tax.. ;)

[@emifahim]

many thanks for your perfect reviews , but as canon said in the official contents , minimum focus distance is 24 cm in manual focus ans 28 in AF ( in 28mm FL) maybe you meant other Focal minimum distance , anyway many thanks for your usefull videos

[@mahidoes]

Canon is indeed king of amazing affordable lenses. f/2.8 first party zoom with IS at 1000 USD. I use fuji i envy canon.

[@RishishPandey]

Please Compare it with Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art Lens for Canon

[@H4GRlD]

It's a little more than 1500$ here in Hungary. Thank god we got a new affordable Canon lens. Anyways thanks for the quick sneak peek, looking forward to the deep dive video.

[@miguelmonforte]

Using my Sigma 17-50 2.8 EF-s lens on my Aps-c.. and after this incredible lens…. I will keep it using .. i know.. no RF.. no so good stabilization… nowadays buying new equipment is very expensive.. second hand Canon..

[@cinegenies4651]

1200£ ... Canon doesn't change.

[@starbase218]

It’s a good idea, but the Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is available for E and Z mounts, and is substantially cheaper. It does lack IS though. But all fullframe Nikons have IBIS, and I think the same goes for Sony too(?)

[@adamadamis]

IBIS has been present in SONY cameras long before Nikon and Canon. After all, SONY/MINOLTA invented IBIS in the DSLR prehistoric era.

[@starbase218]

@@adamadamis Ok mister. I guess you think you're writing something I don't know. But err... not every Sony camera has IBIS. So it's really not so strange for me to put a question mark there.

[@adamadamis]

@starbase218 From your comment, I got the impression you weren't sure, so my intent was to contribute to that. In any case, I agree that the Tamron 28-75 G2 is a great performing option at a much lower price.

[@Espere]

The pricing of this lens is disappointing. Sure, in the US you'll probably find it discounted to 600-700$ within a year, but here in Germany, Canons prices are disproportionately higher (1300€ !!!!!) and usually stick very close to their MSRP. I'm happy with my 24-105F4L and definitely won't be getting this.

[@davidmpoliveira1]

@@Espere Here in Portugal the release prices are usually higher, and this lens is no exception, at 1399€ here, but rebates are usually decent. I’ve been able to purchase I think all my RF lenses with at least 30% discounts. I expect in the future to be able to get this lens for less than 1000€, probably less than 950€.

[@NoDoSwLa]

I've shot a wedding with my 28-70 F2 and it saved my buttocks inside the church, because of the lack of light in there. I had no problem carrying the weight. Maybe if I get older it'll be a topic and until then, I hope more lenses like this come out to affordable prices.

[@terrigolas6838]

Is this lens compatible with multiple exposure mode on your R5?

[@SoleHunter23]

Just the one im looking for

[@HeadlessChickenTO]

I think a comparison to the 24-70 f2.8L is needed.

[@ritrattoaziendale]

Finally something humane from Canon; still a tad too expensive, but I hope it can be found for 800/900€ after 6/9 months from release, that's the reselling price of my EF 24-70 2.8 II that will be finally swapped...if I don't pursue the Tamron 35-150 on Nikon or Sony, of course, which is still an idea 😀

[@adamadamis]

The 35-150 F/2 - 2.8 is phenomenal and on a different level, because of its reach.

[@juhaaavalaakso455]

When I can I will get this for my R8.

[@dbuckfanplays7991]

We ever gonna get the official review?

[@SMGJohn]

Darn the price is not favourable at all. Sigma is half the cost but RF locking down its mount says it all.

[@NickErickson]

That price is such a Canon thing to do. Sheesh

[@harambesminion9266]

Personally, I'd rather just get the 24-105 F4 IS USM. It's not a 2.8 but it's what like a $100 difference for better build quality? If the price goes down from $1100, maybe around $800-$900, then I would have picked this lens up.

[@JFR3DM]

What's the difference between this and the L series?

[@Kunoswildworld]

Wanna know how doe it performs against Rf 24-105 F4 L

[@RVarrun]

This will be brilliant on the R8

[@Wistbacka]

Att this price, just get the Sigma 24-70 art or art mk2

[@opalyankaBG]

For what mount?

[@Wistbacka]

@@opalyankaBG oh right .. Forgot Canon dont have third party lenses... So why are people still supporting Canon? Saying this as a former Canon supporter.

[@grahamhiggins1]

Crazy money, forget it!

[@branigan99]

At $1920.00 here in Australia its hardly affordable and can stay on the shelf. I'll keep my 24-105 F4 better wide and longer reach, and its an L Lens

[@ddesai1080]

2 months past, no full review yet?

[@slr7075]

Waiting for the new Nikon z 50mm f1.4 lens video drop Christopher!

[@andreiradu1945]

Ah too bad, I'll be missing this one because I'm gathering money to cross the street.

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

No red ring?

[@stefanbadass5357]

£1250!! ouch

[@bonghungk7544]

Hmmm? At that price. I’ll stick with my EF 28-70 f2.8 L lens.

[@calebwhitevlog]

Can Canon just greenlight the Sigma mirrorless designs? I want that 14mm F/1.4 ART for astro. Yeah the sony is smaller and lighter, that would be nice but i shoot on an astro modified EOS R because i like Canon better for astro. (I know, hot take lol)

[@marcelo_afonso]

We need the sharpness test please

[@JesusCorrea_]

wow perfect for the R8

[@EmyrEvans1]

And Canon want another £50 for the lens hood.

[@sunnykundi2479]

I literally just bought a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 Lens for my Canon R10, and then you release this video :(

[@adamg.manning6088]

You don’t want a 28-70 on APSC.

[@sunnykundi2479]

@@adamg.manning6088 I think you’re right, just got the lens not too long ago, it’s pretty good.

[@OhhhhhhhBugger]

LOL, the 50mm f1.8 is still the fastest cheapest lens in the RF lineup. All these years later...that's crazy ....

[@henrywebber]

no uncorrected photos???

[@ralphsaad8637]

The price should not exceed 1000-1050$ for a lens like that. If it drops a little, it will be interesting.

[@Mamo878]

$1099 in the USA. For comparison, the RF 24-70 2.8 is $2399 So it's far cheaper than the L lens.

[@ralphsaad8637]

@Mamo878 1099$ is just on the limit of being decently priced if it turns out to be any good. I would not that the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 goes a bit longer, has great IQ and functionality but still manages to be cheaper.

[@GiuseppeFontana.]

More than 1k: affordable lens

[@JonathanLundkvist]

Not even USM for that price? I am hesitant.

[@TigaWould]

At that focal length and STM isn’t bad, and at that price, it still has things that 3rd party lenses don’t, and there has to be compromises due to price and alternatives. If they made that with a USM (or dual USM), weather sealing etc… it would be an L-Series and cost $500 more and people would complain about it. So they take some features out and people still complain about it. lol.

[@futoenjoyer]

see how fast it focuses at 1:03 though... it's nano-usm level, and seems like it's focusing quite silently too

[@Simalacrum]

I'm an owner of a Canon EOS R with a 24-105 F4 (originally switched to RF because I had an EF camera before with a few lenses) I'm honestly considering jumping ship if Canon don't step up their game with more affordable glass. Their refusal to allow 3rd party manufacturers to make full frame lenses means I'm essentially stuck with the single RF lens I have, or using a bulky adapter. I was hoping this could finally be an option for a brighter zoom lens at a good price point, but £1,200 is... not it.

[@classic.cameras]

THIS LENS IS THE REASON why Canon has no interest in Sigma and other 3rd party Full Frame lenses. Like this plastic (probably fantastic) lens or a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN II? Gee... wonder what most Canon RF users would buy. Shame on Canon for the price. It'll be near $2k for us here in Canada.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

What else were you invited to see at Canon's HQ ??... 😁😉

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

When you get it at home pls compare its IQ for stills with the RF 24-70 f/2.8 L. I have the latter and I’m looking for a lighter option. But do not want to sacrifice too much IQ.

[@Shot_Geek]

I can’t believe the price of this tbh. Who ever is making these decisions at canon seriously needs to rethink their strategy. I literally have had 2x R6MKII’s in a basket waiting to pull the trigger for nearly 2 months now. But they have no lenses that compete with their direct competitors and no third party support. As someone who is desperate to enter their eco system, canon are making it so so hard to give them the money. Canon, Get out of your own way for gods sake.

[@twgq]

Why two cameras without money for lenses? That´s a weird strategy.

[@opalyankaBG]

Why are you desperate to enter the Canon ecosystem if it doesn't offer what you want?

[@Shot_Geek]

@@twgq if you think like this, I’m amazed you approve of cheap cameras like the r6 range.

[@Shot_Geek]

@@opalyankaBG why are you defending price gouging?

[@superstringsbro]

Don’t hold your breath cause it’s not gonna happen. I bought canon a year and a half ago thinking it will get better and it never did. Will be leaving canon next month 👍

[@JaySilva88]

For the price, I'd rather get the 24-105 f4.

[@KentSpain85]

Price notwithstanding, I think this is going to be a great lens because it's a natural lens when transitioning from APS-C. For those of us who started with APS-C and the 17-50 or 18-55 f/2.8 lenses (which was the first zoom I purchased after buying my first kit), this is almost the same focal length in FF, just a bit shorter on the long end. But, for this price, ufff... It'd be hard to not recommend the 24-105 f/4 over this.