Canon RF 28-70 F2 vs Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 Lens Comparison

[@JasondePlater]

I went for the RF 24-70 f2.8L IS for a 3 reasons. 1. Noticeably smaller, lighter even though it has IS in the lens. 2. 24mm is often a useful focal length. 3. Much cheaper.

[@Kenkichi24]

24mm is easily can be fix by doing a few steps back 🤷🏽‍♂️ All in all it is depending on what you do. I do wedding photography so I like the 28-70. For video I will go with 24-70 with a gimbal as it is lighter and the filter is 82mm which is most high end professional lenses such as 50mm F1.2 & 85mm F1.2 will be at 82mm filters. They also do exact same IBIS since 28-70 gets around 7-8 stops as long as you’re using EOS R6 or R5. Haven’t look on other EOS R Mirrorless line up. But it has IS

[@patricioderito3722]

I've rented the 28-70 and compared it to the 24-70 also. My take, for my commercial shoots, I kept going to the the 24-70, you really feel the need of those extra mm, I don't know why haha, but you do. I used the 24-70 and the glorious 50 1.2. badass combo. The size of the 28-70 is big but it's not annoying, although I haven't shot a wedding which I'm sure that's where you feel it. For portraits I just used my 50mm 1.2. No match. When people say the 28-70 replaces primes, they should clarify that they're talking about 1.8 primes, at least that's what I felt it matched up with and even slightly better. But, there's no freaking way it looks as good as 1.4's or 1.2's, there's a certain subject separation and overall magic look to those lenses. That said, if you have 1.2 or 1.4 primes DO NOT replace with the 28-70. if you have 1.8 primes, 35mm, 50 and 85 and want to replace all 3, definitely get the 28-70 if you got the money.

[@Burritosarebetterthantacos]

This comment may have sold me a 50 mm😂. Damn its expensive

[@Just-SomeGuy]

I have the ef 35mm 1.4 II, rf 50mm 1.2 and rf 85mm 1.2 and I have still ordered the rf 28-70 f2 (coming from the ef 24-70 2.8L II). Overkill? Maybe, but the ef 24-70 2.8 L II just isn’t too great on sharpness compared to the other lenses. The 50 and 85 I think are the sharpest lenses I’ve ever owned and are a dream to use. But all these lenses will be used for different things and not necessarily all at the same time due to the overlap. ​@@Burritosarebetterthantacos

[@AllgoodthingsTv]

Appreciate this beautiful video you did comparing these two lenses. Personally, I own the RF 28-70 mm F2.0 and I found it to be a great lens, but I used to own the EF 28-70mm f/2.8 version II and there was just something about that lens that I enjoyed using more. Technically, there's no comparison - the 28-70mm blows it away, but on some basic level the EF was more fun. (BTW, I rented the RF 24-70mm 2.8 and it's a great lens, but I still prefer the 28-70mm)

[@adnanmansour8757]

24-70 is a definite candidate for all the reasons you mentioned.

[@LuisBCharris]

Besides the knowledgeable information, your aura and the overall feel of this video is very calming, warm and relaxing. Subscribed!

[@nicolecole2310]

I never used the 28-70. I only have the RF 24-70 because my EF24-70 version 1 broke. It is the lens I use most frequently so I bought the RF one. I am amazed at how fast it focuses. It feels good in the hand (better than my adapted 24-70 felt. It is sharp at 2.8 and is so versatile. I couldn’t even consider the 28-70 because it is just too big. I’m not willing to bigger and heavier when I can be quite content with the lighter lens. I feel the RF 24-70 is a fabulous lens and a tremendous upgrade.

[@Tzunami07]

28-70 Costs a fortune IS heavy, big and in top Covers only a small focal range. You definitly need a second Lens for Professional Work along with your second Body. Wide Angle or Telephoto. Thank 2 rf lenses cost you 5-6k at least. Count in the Bodys even more. I stick with EF L Glass ITS cheap almost Same quality AS some rf and gets the Job done. No real photographer would spend so much Money. They are Business men Not Gear heads

[@pays3n]

Would have loved to see a 28 vs 28mm comparison - the only one that is missing imo :)

[@KatieF307]

The killer for me is the weight of the lens. The 28-70 is just too heavy to be lugging around all day. The weight is an additional pound heavier than the 24-70, and about 12 ounces heavier than the 70-200. Carry it around for an afternoon, and you will get a workout. Given the incredibly good ISO performance of an R5 or R6, I can live with the increased lighting needs. The first time a client says to me, "I wish you had used your 28-70 lens instead of that dreadful 24-70 lens", I will consider the purchase of a 28-70.

[@justinholding02]

You can't beat the versatility of the 24-70. I use it for everyday photography and landscapes.. when I want that special look for portraits, my go to lens is the RF 85mm 1.2. Probably one of the best lenses Canon has ever made

[@sermin9971]

Absolutely agree with you about 24-70 & 85mm f1.2 version. My 2 go to lenses ...

[@artgreen6915]

Call me mad but I preferred the 24-70mm results nearly throughout. In some cases partly related to the individual shots. But partly a growing realisation I quite like the level of isolation achieved around F2.8 on full frame.

[@ThreeCeeProductions]

24-70 is a very good lens. The 28-70 is a great lens. It has a look that is different than any other zoom I’ve used. As mentioned when shooting weddings or events you want your pics to stand out without missing moments. Having the 28-70 on one body and the 135 f1.8 on another is the ticket.

[@MrDonuts10]

I don’t understand how people say the 28-70 isn’t “pleasing” when it comes to the photos. But that is why we all have our own opinion and nothing wrong with that at all! In my personal case, I sold my 35 and my 50 1.2 RF in order to get this lens and I have zero regrets thus far! Before buying the 28-70 I rented it for a wedding, and haven’t looked back since! Perfect lens for creative shots as well!

[@JamesReader]

They are certainly pleasing to my eyes, it's an amazing lens! Thank you for watching.

[@KevinJRegan]

Very good review James! I went with the RF trinity and got the RF 50 1.2 and RF 85 1.2 for when bokeh and low light are needed! I was back and forth on the 28-70 before but your video has convinced me I chose right as I love that 24mm look and the 28-70 @ 70 2.0 isn’t a match for the 50 or 85. I have found the RF 24-70 excellent 👌

[@JamesReader]

Thanks for watching Kevin, glad it helped you in your decision. That's a great set up to be working with !

[@RAY-ji7sy]

Keep up the great work! By far the best 28-70 review/comparison I’ve seen. Also, is the 28-70 still sharp at 70mm f2? Thanks!

[@JamesReader]

Thanks so much Ray, I'm glad it helped. It looked very sharp to me at 70mm f2.

[@WanderingSignal]

I agree with you, the 28-70 is amazing but I bought the 24-70 because it is cheaper, lighter and probably a little bit better for video because of the built in IS.

[@MrPanthers23]

Man, you do the best reviews for rf lenses. Appreciate your videos. Very practical comparisons

[@JamesReader]

Wow, thank you for the kind words! Very glad to of helped.

[@peterebel7899]

I love using the small prime lenses: You get those 1.8 24, 35, 50 and the 2.0 85 for less money than the 24-70 2.8, very compact and versatile (3 are 0.5x macros) The 24 to 70 is great avoiding lens changes and getting superior IQ. For serious prime work my lineup is EF 35 1.4 II, RF 50 1.2 and EF 85 1.4 IS (to be completed with the RF 135 1.8). All are exceptional in IQ, Bokeh, but still not too bulky and heavy. The RF28-70 and RF 85 1.2 are beyond my envelope of acceptable size & weight. BTW: The 25-105 is not too bad and a great choice when it comes to traveling light (a pairing with the 35 1.8 IS is very handy)

[@RYork112]

Thanks for the review! I just purchased the RF 24-70 last week to use on my R3 and was considering sending it back for the 28-70 instead. After watching this I’m going to keep it and someday buy a 1.2 prime. Next purchase will likely be the RF 70-200 2.8L

[@rachaelhodson2631]

That is the perfect addition to your 24-70. Then the 15-35😊

[@spinnetti]

my 70-200 literally just showed up at the door just now. Dang, its a beast - I didn't realize just how heavy it really is in hand

[@mh7711]

Crazy that the difference between both zooms, between F2.0 und F2.8 is nearly not visible, I expected a bigger difference! And if you look only on one variant, not both together, you dont see a difference, and the client even less. So 24-70 seems to be better, combined with one or two primes for that extra-bokeh-photos in special situations. So on one body 24-70 and on second body 85mm 1.2 or 135 1.8 or 50mm 1.2

[@v_stands_for_value124]

If 1.4kg lens is heavy join the gym or get some nice f3.5-5.6 lens

[@SamHowson]

A great video. As someone shooting video too - you helped me make my mind up - the 24-70mm with the stabilisation is ideal to pair with the C70 - but will serve me well for stills on the R5 too. Thank you

[@NFTGoldBunny]

The f2 killed the other one

[@dpascal]

What a spectacular review James ! Finally a review with (excellent) photography in mind as opposed to gear in mind ! At timing 03:30 ... is it actually a case of a more beautiful golden dusk light in the exact timing you shot with the F2 lens ? Or is it that the F2 lens itself gives the girl's hair a golden "Vogue" like look ? ...

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for such kind words Doron! It was a cloudy day so the sun just happened to shine through in that particular shot, all down to the light rather than the lens! Thank you again for watching.

[@Xirpzy]

I love the rendering of the primes, especially the 85mm but cant deny the versatility of a zoom. I will probably go with the 24-70mm someday. For everyday use it makes the most sense. Maybe because the R6 is my first mirrorless but Im amazed every time at the image quality compared to my old 600D. Its like putting on glasses. I hope Canon gives all future cameras more mp though. 20 just isnt enough for any kind of cropping.

[@christophmuller830]

What would you say about the autofocus performance differences between the two lenses? I own the 28-70 f2 and a R5. Lastly I had a shooting with an agile dog. And while the AF was great in most cases with animal AF and servo, if the dog was running directly towards the camera, a lot of photos where out of focus. It was mostly focused on the body instead the head/eye of the dog. My impression is, that the 28-70 did not focus fast enough. Is there a noticeable difference in 24-70 and 28-70?

[@JamesReader]

I would say the RF 24-70 is noticeably faster when it comes to AF. I’m not sure if one is more accurate than the other, but I have found the 24-70 to be the best RF lens in terms of AF, along with the RF 70-200

[@onnonugteren2935]

At 9"27" the three 50's: Here not a good comparison. Here the light of the 2.0 50mm from the 2.0 28-70 is far more impressive than the lens itself compared to the other two. It is difficult to show all this just in one shot I know but just want to give this 'correction'. To me the 24-70 2.8 is a more kind of 'normal' lens, the 28-70 is really exotic in a very nice way: I can tell you, I have it for a long time. But it's a pain to carry for traveling: yes. But if you want to be beautiful you'll suffer. :-) Greetings from the Netherlands, Onno Nugteren.

[@herrykadir6442]

I sold my ef 24-70 f2.8Lii for rf 28-70 f2L. I use rf 24-105 f4L combo with rf 35 f1.8 macro is stm for general purpose/travel😊

[@markelroy7774]

28-70 is magic

[@njrivetelite]

I'd love the 28-70 F2 to be mine.. But.. I went with the RF 24-70 2.8 IS L I sold my Tamron EF 24-70 2.8 G2 to offset the cost. For my uses.. especially with video.. The RF 24-70 2.8 will serve me well

[@mlct887]

Did you regret the choice or ?

[@njrivetelite]

@@mlct887 no, The 24-70 2.8 is pretty damn awesome.

[@jayocotube6483]

Great comparison, James. I think I’ll stick with my RF50 1.2 for now. At some point I’ll jump to a zoom but not yet.

[@marcioventura3135]

How do you make sharp images like those? I've seen some other people using the same equipment, but your videos show photos with a lot more sharpness. I'm really impressed. Can you share some knowledge about that?

[@Hooliosis]

I have the ef 24-70mm ii and am tossing up between the 2 rf lenses. One thing you mentioned is focus speed, speed and accuracy is very important for my current job. I would assume the rf 24-70 would be faster at focusing than the ef 24-70 ii, can anyone clarify if it’s a big difference or not, I’m using it on R5 & R3. Thanks for the video it’s very useful.

[@techchanneld1113]

Love the 28-70. I do miss 24mm but there's just something special about how the 28-70 renders.

[@Burritosarebetterthantacos]

14-35f4, 50mm1.2, 70-200 2.8. Thats my preferred dream setup. Which one to buy first🤔. Im leaning 50. Its annoying the new Sigma 50mm for sony is $800

[@procarepharmacy2931]

The 28-70 f2 is a unicorn. While the 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, it can't do what the 28-70 can do. The 28-70 has twice the light of the 28-70. that can't be understated.

[@Sergei__v]

Exactly my thoughts. It is also very hard for me to give up the 24mm wide end capability. Having shot with 24-70mm F2.8 Mk2 for years wide open I had a hard time spotting the difference with 28-70mm. You demonstrated it so well. it is about 15% more pleasing with the F2.0. I have 35mm and 85mm F1.4 to give me much better rendering, small and mighty and I don't have too carry it with me after I am done shooting with them unlike the 28-70mm. That weight ALWAYS stays on your camera.

[@grantsparkescarroll]

Great examples and really well done! thank you!

[@scherge]

Bought a 24-70 f2.8 and a 35 f1.8 lens for less than what the 28-70 would've cost, and I'm super happy with my decision. Yeah, the separation of the f2 is better at wider angles, but that's what I got the 35mm for, and at longer focal lengths the difference between the f2 and the f2.8 is basically non-existent, while the weight differences very much are. Also, I borrowed a 28-70 for a while, and oh boy, does that lens suffer from focal breathing. If you ever want to film anything, go with the 24-70. It has no noticeable focus breathing and behaves pretty much like a parfocal lens when zooming, even though it isn't one as far as I know. It's also so much lighter and therefore handles much better on a gimbal, if your gimbal can carry your camera + a 28-70 at all.

[@ffdfdfdfdfdfdfdf]

u regret not getting 28-70 bro

[@rolib6108]

I used this 28-70 once. Never had a 24 70 or similar lens before, because im mostly a nature photographer and just getting into portraits and weddings, so i have to buy a normal lens. After using the best, the 2.0 2870, i dont know if a 24 70 will be enough for me. But this lens became so expensive, the pricetag grew about a 1000 euros in the past year. Tough decision.

[@JePeVePe]

Having the EF 24-70/F2.8II lens, not sure if the RF would 'gain' me much... that 28-70/F2.0 probably would, but that price ... man.... Bit 'low' on cash thought, since I just received my R3.... so I think I stick for now with my 'old' EF glass...

[@Olaf-S]

The issue of filters should not be underestimated. The large 92mm lens makes it difficult to install inexpensive filters.

[@randygerber2885]

Wonderful comparison and presentation. I really enjoyed it.

[@JamesReader]

Thanks for watching Randy

[@ritrattoaziendale]

Given the choice, and having enough money to make the price difference irrelevant, I would pick the 28-70 f2 without even trying it; there's no weight or size penalty that could stop me. No problem with the missing 4mm, i would gladly switch it for a supposed 35-85 or 35-105 f2, I don't really need any focal wider then 35mm on a std zoom for my use. And that's why I'm really MAD at Canon for banning third party lenses from RF mount, because that Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 would have been the perfect lens for me. But I'm too invested in Canon gear (still mostly EF lenses, even if I'm all RF with cameras, an R6 and a R10) to switch to Sony. I seldom do weddings, but if I would have shoot weddings full time, I would have switched to Sony just for that Tamron, I can do a Wedding with a single lens with it, ditching both 24-70 and 70-200 to have just the Tamron.

[@JamesReader]

Completely agree! I’ve just picked up a LUMIX S5II with some of Sigmas mirrorless lenses. They are excellent, it’s a shame to be missing out on these options as a Canon user. Would love to try the Tamron

[@ritrattoaziendale]

@@JamesReader would love to try it too! But 90% of my work is corporate headshots, mostly in the studio, so I shoot on the tripod @ f5.6/f8 with the RF 85 F2, the EF 70-200 f2.8 or the Sigma Art 135 f1.8 My EF 24-70 is there basically just for the 4/5 weddings I do every year; I would gladly ditch it, along the EF 70-200 which starts to be old (is the original version, without IS... not just a white zoom lens, but for most, THE white zoom lens) to have just the Tamron(if I need wider then 35mm, I have the inexpensive RF 16 which is super wide on the R6, and around 26mm equivalent on R10, so I got it covered when needed).

[@Burritosarebetterthantacos]

Im with you. Im not super invested and im considering leaving canon simply based on the new Sigma 50mm for $800 of sony mount. Almost triple for the rf. Absolutely crazy.

[@ritrattoaziendale]

@@Burritosarebetterthantacos I have the DSLR version of the Sigma 50 f1.4 and it's amazing both on R6 and R10, if you want it you can find it around 400$/€ used and you really won't lose anything compared to the Sony version, even if you pixel peep; as said before, my "dream switch lens" would be the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 because it's a lens that is unique in the market, no other lens or camera manufacturer (for what I know) has such kind of lens in its catalogue. But again, I do corporate headshots, so I don't really need special and/or super bright lenses, I have 70mm on the 24-70, the RF 85 F2, the Sigma 135 f1.8 Art and the 70-200, so I have almost 3 fixed focal lenghts between 70 and 135, and the whole 70-200...it's already enough for me ahah so for now there's no point in switching.

[@habin_oce]

2470zoom for wedding or lazy. prime all the time

[@diegoeidelman]

Good comparison James! As usual. Finally I've got my RF 24-70mm replacing the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II I still have and use with my R6 and R62. It's a great fat boy, robust, sharp, quiet, fast and the IS it's very convenient. I still didn't use it a lot but I find some CA on very contrasty areas wide open. Cheers from Buenos Aires!

[@bunkermagnus]

Great comparison, if it wasn’t for the size the 28-70 would be higher on my wishlist, this video makes me think that the 24-70 and the 50 1,2 as a combo is more desirable.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! That's the combo I went for, no regrets here.

[@mikebenning2409]

That's my combo too and i never missed a thing.

[@ab-cx6bd]

Even the 50 alone would be sufficient 😁 maybe combine that with a zeiss 21

[@303badassboxer]

I would have to imagine the weight and size of carrying two lens would be substantially more than one heavy 28-70 f2

[@bunkermagnus]

@@303badassboxer That's true, however if you have two lenses you can decide to leave one at home based on what you need for the occasion, essentially halving the weight.

[@RWAquariumPages]

great review! love your comments and comparison about it. Going to grab one once I've saved enough, thanks for this awesome video!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching! Glad it helped.

[@ionmihai79]

Such a good and detailed review with lots of good photos. Subscribed

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@pushingfilm]

Great comparison, very helpful. Thanks!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@عمادلطيف313]

فتاة جميلة جداً شكرا للمراجعه

[@thelookoflifefilms]

Great Review. I went with the 24-70 myself. The weight, no IS and the PRICE were the deal breakers for me. I love the 24-70 and since I don't do a lot of portrait photography the 28-70 didn't make sense for me

[@rachaelhodson2631]

This is one of the better “comparison” videos I have seen. I loved that you popped in the 50mm. I own all three of these lenses plus several others. If I could only have 1 of these, I would pick the 24-70 for its versatility and ease. However, since I have all 3 of these, I use 2 of the 3 consistently. The 24-70 for travel and as a general purpose, take most places lens. I use the 28-70 for weddings and family/group (not portrait sessions) all the time. I never use the 50. In fact, I should sell it. I grab my 85mm1.2 for all portrait sessions and I cannot wait to get my hands on the 135mm. I also think the 70-200 is indispensable for events and sports. At weddings, I always have the 28-70 and the 70-200 attached to two bodies and both on my body. I say this because I am 5’2” and about 130 pounds. I use a Spyder belt but I handle both large lenses fine. Now, I would love to see you do this comparison again when the 35mm1.2 comes out. That is going to be a great one to do. I keep debating if I would ditch the 28-70 for that…and then maybe my 50mm would get some use. Lol

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Rachael! It's always interesting to hear what setups other people gravitate towards, are you planning to replace the 70-200 with the 135 for weddings? I check Canon Rumors very regularly for any news about that 35mm 1.2, hopefully we see it early next year, I can't wait! Thank you for watching.

[@RahulKumar-nh3wc]

Sir I have a question... For a RF 28-70 2.0 on a FF camera. is the Background Blur at 70mm 2.0 greater than the Background blur at 28mm 2.0 ? or is it same or less. (at Same distance between the background and the subject and the camera.)

[@JamesReader]

You will get much more background blur at 70mm.

[@CarlosCabreraMusic]

Great review. Really appreciate the way you structured this. Thank you!!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Carlos!

[@GGillett77]

One thing concerning for the 28/70 for me is relying on the IBIS for image stability. I use back button focus on the R5, and I understand that the IBIS is only active at the moment of the shutter actuation. Other users report that it takes roughly 1 second for the IBIS to gain solid control. The only option when using the 28/70 and BBF would be to have IBIS on full time, and eat up batteries.

[@jwong7316]

Wow. Man your b-roll is gorgeous. Holy cow. Amazing production value in this video. Thank you for the great content as well. Definitely given me pause on whether to get the 28-70.

[@JamesReader]

Thanks so much Jon!

[@samcreel]

Brilliant videos! Clever, concise, and absolutely enjoyable. Definitely would like to see much more.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Sam! More coming soon.

[@angellondian7628]

This is the comparison I’ve been waiting for. Thank you

[@JamesReader]

Thank you! Glad it helped 🙂

[@Realwildshots]

I need professional advice! I’ve got the R6 Mark II with the following lenses; RF 85mm F2/Macro RF 35mm F1.8/Macro RF 18mm - 150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM I’m looking at selling them and getting one of these 2. What do you think?

[@JamesReader]

What kind of things do you shoot? I think he 28-70 would probably be the best direct replacement for those lenses.

[@Realwildshots]

@@JamesReader I’m not a professional but I shoot gastronomy, vineyards, product and people! I studied basic courses of photography and editing to be able to handle my imagery for my Instagram and Website business. Having the “Blur” feature in Lightroom do you think the 24-70 could also work? I make wine 😅

[@veerasun]

RF 24-70mm 2.8 is great choice with much lighter weight. 900 gram vs 1,400 gram

[@erniebrandt9762]

Thanks, that was helpful. I’m thinking maybe the 24-70 f2.8 would be better for me, but haven’t decided for sure yet. I’m also hoping to get the 50 mm f1.2 at some point as well.

[@deanbrandon3615]

I am new tot he RF system. I got the Canon R6 w/ the 24-105 f-4 which is an ideal zoom range for most anything I will ever shoot. For my second, third, etc. lenses, I really like the 15-35 f2.8; the 70-200 f.2.8; also maybe the 100mm macro. For some reason, I really wanted to a avoid getting the middle trinity lens, the 24-70mm 2.8 and go for say a really nice 50mm prime to bridge the gap. On primes, I feel somewhat limited. So, how about the 24-70 f 2.0 zoom? Now, with accessories, we are talking almost $20,000 worth of gear here. So redundancy in lenses seams unwarranted. I don’t know yet. For people shots, I like the 35-85 range, sometimes even the 105, but most of the time 35-85. So, should I bridge the gap with the 28-70 f2.0, or give in and get the 24-70 f2.8? I have no idea yet.

[@JamesReader]

Have you considered getting the 35mm 1.8 and the 85mm f2? You already have a great standard zoom lens so I think I would consider a versatile prime.

[@deanbrandon3615]

@@JamesReader had not thought of that. I’ll look into that. I need that wider range for inside photos, and outside landscapes. The 85 would be great for portrait shots.

[@headbang3r519]

My kit: RF 24-105 F4 [Wheneever I know i wont be able to change lens]; RF 24-70 2.8 IS [Low light conditions and indoors]; RF 70-200 2.8 IS [My favourite]

[@fnews-videotintucgiaitri6771]

Đã xài và phải bán 28-70 vì chênh lệch ko lớn cầm nặng mỏi tay !

[@pjurgensen2827]

R8 + 24-70 mm F2.8 or R5 + 24-105 mm F4 ... what's better and more compact plus maybe one prime lens?

[@JamesReader]

What kind of things do you shoot? Tough choice.

[@pjurgensen2827]

Just travel photos and videos and photos of family and friends and a few time-lapse movies. I don't know if the IBIS of the R5 is a big deal, when e.g. third party 85 mm leness had no IS for portrait shots.

[@RahulKumar-nh3wc]

For indoor studio photography with strobes and backdrops which lens would you recommend 24-70 or 28-70? does 2.0 aperture make any difference when it comes to indoor studio photography? (Considering I might never shoot at 2.0)

[@JamesReader]

I would recommend the 24-70. I don’t think the 2.0 would ever be worth it with strobes, I’m usually shooting between f5.6-f11.

[@RahulKumar-nh3wc]

@@JamesReader Thanks for Your advice. 🙏

[@jackkitzman3824]

Hey James, I currently have a Canon EOS RP with the kit lens and I was wondering what Canon RF lens you recommend for me to start Portrait photography?

[@JamesReader]

Hey Jack, thank you for watching! Depends a little on your budget but here's some suggestions. If you have the kit lens I would probably go for a versatile prime. I'm actually testing out the RF 50mm 1.8 right now and if budget is an issue that's a great addition to get some extra bokeh in your portraits. For a little more though, the RF 35mm 1.8 is one of my favourites for environmental portraits, it's a very good lens and has better image quality than the cheaper 50mm 1.8. I've heard the 85mm f2 is great too, but on the higher end I would highly recommend the RF 50mm 1.2. It's incredible and versatile. Hope that helps a bit, so many great options to choose from!

[@jackkitzman3824]

@@JamesReader Thank you so much i think I'll go for the 50mm 1.2!

[@oLgGk]

Hello. I'm a little undecided RF 85 mm / RF 28-70 mm what do you think.

[@JamesReader]

Very hard choice - what other lenses do you currently own? And what kind of photography do you do?

[@oLgGk]

@@JamesReader body r6 m 2 / sigma 35 mm art wedding engagement portrait car product family children 1-2 years baby

[@henryvonmatt]

do you think he F2L lens is viable for vilogging as well? Or is the missing stabilization a deal breaker?

[@JamesReader]

I think it would be fine if you are willing to deal with the weight! You could always pair it with the 16mm f2.8 prime or the upcoming 24mm 1.8 prime for a light weight option.

[@fragu123]

Keep these videos rolling… such great stuff! Liked and Subscribed!👍👍👍

[@JamesReader]

Thank you !

[@bikuda]

thanks for the video. I want to know if you have experience with the lens 28-70 in weddings low light situation. What you think about. Thanks from Puerto Vallarta

[@katteleg3534]

That "musik" in the background is louder than your voice. Drop that.

[@siemworks7078]

This comparison is the best! Thank you :)

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@bigrobotnewstoday1436]

Canon RF 28-70 F2 is just a little bit better but its not night and day. I think for portraits its fine if you want the Canon RF 28-70 F2. But for weddings I might go with the Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 sometimes at a wedding you might really need the 24mm. Sometimes you need ultra wide at weddings its rare but it happens.

[@pragmaticfilmmaking]

The 28-70 has that 3d pop! Gives the impression that the background is a little farther away.

[@geniferteal4178]

When you can't get further away from your subject you have little choice.

[@paulnguyen099]

Thanks James, awesome side by side real life review. New subscriber 💪

[@JamesReader]

Glad it helped! Thank you for the feedback!

[@Tap-a-roo]

It's a great lens. The problem is when compared to say ...the Nikon 28mm 1.4E on the low end, and the 85mm 1.2 RF on the high end ... it's pretty piss poor by comparison. Great utility lens if you can sacrifice the 1.4/1.2 background separation for the f2.

[@michaelwhiles5282]

Halo lens - far too heavy, big and expensive for most daily users.If it’s all these things you’ll end up leaving it at home …..

[@daemon1143]

Surprised you didn't mention the lack of stabilization in the f2, and in the 50mm f1.2 for that matter. I'd be interested to know if that makes any real world difference.

[@Revenger373]

I have a problem with my nikon z6 with the 2.8, when its too dark it doesnt focus...but when i put a faster lens it does focus

[@EliNews]

Great job man! You convey the information in a calm, intelligent and informative way! Keep it coming! Personally I do not find the 28-70mm to be exotic enough for me to give up prime lenses nor justification for its size and weight in relation to 24-70mm. For the actual cost/size/weight of this lens I would expect it to offer me a range of at least 28-85mm at a consistent aperture of 1.8

[@JamesReader]

Thanks for watching Eli, fully agree regarding the 28-70!

[@SAYAN_SSJ4]

28-70 jest zbyt cięzki i zbyt drogi! i nie ma 24 które daje mega wygląd! f2 a f2,8 to nie jest dóza rósznica tym bardziej ze coraz czeście fotografowie uzywają f5 i wyżej. F2 tez nigdy nie bedzie f1,4 wiec to szło jest dziwne i nigdy bym go nie kupił ze wzgledu na wage! mozan mieć problemy z plecami w przyszlość i karkiem! dlatego wybrałem 24-70

[@jeremykolb6574]

Good video, I have the rf 28-70, rf 70-200 2.8, rf 70-200 f4, and rf 100-500. The 28-70 is so sharp and fast. I would buy that lens over and over again, no regrets. The 70-200 2.8 is also an amazing piece.

[@omranmohammed8134]

Heelo jermey is it good for videos 28-70 ?

[@jeremykolb6574]

@@omranmohammed8134 depends on your video, it does have a lot of focus breathing that can be heard in the videos with fast moving objects

[@omranmohammed8134]

@@jeremykolb6574 thanks for replay bro . My videos gonna be at cars offroading . Sorry for my bad english

[@robmcd]

I have the 24-70 so all this video made me want is a 70mm 1.4 prime. I guess I can put my 50 1.2 in crop mode

[@mezhopking]

Thanks for the comparison. Very helpful and balanced.

[@royaltykidstv]

Why are the pictures on the 2.8 coming out contrasty?

[@fromshadowlands]

I do miss the RF 50 F1.2 L & RF 24-70 F2.8 L for I returned them both to afford this RF 28-70 F2 L. Why? It's a compromise lens for me since it's replacing two. But all in all, I don't have to swap glass and it's honestly lighter and more affordable than the other two, combined.

[@JuanLopezmusica]

Wow those video images are so good!! 🎉❤

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Juan!

[@faocisco]

For me versatility is the main attribute that i “need” on that focal length(zoom lens),so 24-70 was my choice. (Finally a new video!! I was almost giving up on you. 😀👍)

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Francisco, I completely agree. Thank you for sticking around🙂! More videos to come soon.

[@faocisco]

@@JamesReader just don’t make us wait for another 3 months 😉 Really enjoy the “smooth “ presentation. Your previous video was also top notch 👍

[@youperspective]

For me, the 28-70 is the most versatile because I can tolerate the trade off in dof VS prime for wedding for instance. I couldn't go with 2.8 but that's just my preference.

[@JamesReader]

@@youperspective the 28-70 must be killer for weddings.

[@RahulKumar-pf2us]

Can we get the RAW files for R5 and these two lenses mentioned in the video ? Please

[@ssshonnn]

Am often missed factor is the faster shutter lower iso you can achieve with a bigger aperture.

[@audiophocus65]

Prime like, is the key word. It does not render like a prime.

[@marysiastachera]

Good job 👌👍

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@klaudijuskairys]

I rented it having really high hopes, unfortunately I did't like it, it is unusable for video due to it's chunky size and having no image stabilisation. The bokeh was slightly better then 2.8, but not much different comparing to primes.

[@JamesReader]

True! Not great for video

[@amirjafarian]

Great review. It’s difficult choice for me, I’m moving from Nikon D7200 to Canon R6 MII and prefer to have one lens and I’m not professional photographer but I love Bokeh and Sharpness (doesn't have to be at prime level) in my photos mostly family events and portrait. With only $500 price difference between two lenses money is not an issue. Any recommendation considering size of the lens not weight?

[@JamesReader]

If purely for photo go for the 28-70. You can’t go wrong with either but if you’re going to go with one lens then I feel the 28-70 makes a lot of sense. Versatile, sharp, fast focusing and good in low light whilst giving you a prime like rendering. As long as you don’t mind the size and weight! It’s very front heavy.

[@williamsolis1]

Ive used the 24-70mm so much. It's just so convenient. Haven't tried the 28-70mm mostly due to the weight.

[@FotografieJan]

Danke für Deinen Vergleich nun stehe ich noch ratloser da da Du gemeiner weise noch das 50 1.2 in den raum geworfen Hast Grrrr.... HAHAHAHA Du bist echt gemein und fällt die Entscheidung noch schwieriger. aber ich denke für ein Super Bokeh habe ich mein 105 mm von Sigma was Adaptiert wird das hat eine Traum Unschärfe und werde wohl doch das 24-70 mir holen und lieber später noch das 50 mm 1.2. Danke nochmal für dein Video. Thank you for your comparison now I'm even more perplexed since you mean wise still the 50 1.2 thrown into the room Grrrr.... HAHAHAHA you are really mean and falls the decision even more difficult. but I think for a super bokeh I have my 105 mm from Sigma what is adapted that has a dream blur and will probably but the 24-70 me get and rather later still the 50 mm 1.2. Thanks again for your video.

[@nonono5252]

Honestly good info but the pics can't be compared very well, I am surprised you didn't use a tripod to make sure it was a side by side comparison, background artifacts are the essence of this comparison. Seriously go look at the 50mm 3 shots the model is closer in the 50mm f1.2 prime, it's just not apples to apples... wanted to like but it's not possible to compare in your video accurately.

[@JamesReader]

I appreciate the feedback, and thank you for watching!