RF 24- ?, Which one would you pick up

You are going to buy one, question is which?

  • RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM

    Votes: 14 73.7%

  • RF24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • RF28-70mm F2 L USM

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
MSH411

MSH411

Born to Wander
Canon Rumors Premium
Feb 23, 2024
343
1,454
Windy City
commonhangout.com
#1
The plan is to use it for street, portrait and some landscape if you have it on a body and what to grab a couple frames. You have a EF 35mm (RF adapter), RF 100mm Macro, 70-200mm 2.8 and the 100-500mm.

What would you add to your lens stable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
#4
The one I think would be an issue is the 28-70 f/2. I would miss 24-28 mm for landscape and I can see the size weight being and issue for street. But it would be the best portrait lens.

I have and use the EF 24-70 II and 24-105 f/2.8. I am using the 24-105 more and more. While great IQ was a given, the snappier AF with the dual motors is a very nice feature. The 70-105 range would help with portraits.

But in the above kit already has a great portrait lens in the RF 70-200 f2.8.

To me it would be between the 24-70 and 24-105 largely due to the wide end for landscape. Between those two, I think it is tough to go wrong but I would be deciding between the AF speed, 11 aperture blades (the bokeh is great), benefit of not changing lenses for 70-105 and video features of the 24-105 f/2.8 vs the size/weight and price advantages of the 24-70.

Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 1
#5
mmmm said:
Why not the 24-105/4? Or are you only contemplating the faster options?
Click to expand...
Agree on this one. I have the RF 24-105/4 and along the RF 100-500, it covers virtually all of my bases.

I looked into Bryan Carnathan's IQ charts for the 28-80/2, 24-70/2.8, and the 24-105/4 and was surprised to find I wouldn't be getting better IQ with the two faster lenses. That kinda sealed me from considering them further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#7
I’d say it depends on how much time you expect having to handle it with your hands, or carrying it on your neck.

Having tried the RF 28-70mm f/2, realising it is pretty much the same as carrying a traditional 70-200mm f/2.8, on my neck, made me resist the temptation to buy it, because it would be my main lens. That was almost a year ago and it still itches me. I love that lens.

So, I’d pick the 24-70mm f/2.8, for weight savings.

Otherwise, I’d always go with the 28-70mm f/2.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#8
koenkooi said:
I’ve only used the 28-70, while it delivered great results, I missed going to 24mm and it was cartoonishly huge.
Click to expand...
Quite right for me as well.

On many occasions, the maximum wide was what I was missing. Even though I don’t like the perspective that I get from it sometimes it is exactly what I need to get everything in the frame.

And in many cases to not lose the moment one shouldn’t change the lens.

And especially for street photography when not shooting photos in the dark another cheap but I think nice option would be: 24-240 ;)
 
Upvote 0
#9
Diko said:
And especially for street photography when not shooting photos in the dark another cheap but I think nice option would be: 24-240 ;)
Click to expand...
I own the 24-240 also, I just forgot to mention it in the thread. I am really focused on faster for low light and less noise/improved bokeh.

It appears that most would not go with the 28-70 but I am a little surprised that the 105 doesn't get more love. doc touched on it in his post, I do zero video but thought maybe the extra range of the 105 would be a benefit as well as the internal zoom. Is weight and size an issue for the 105 that keep some away from picking it up?
 
Upvote 0
#10
For street photography, architecture (exterior) and portraits I use the RF24-105mm f/4. A very pleasant lens in terms of weight and handling. Of course also versatile. The zoom to 105 is really helping. For landscapes I use the 16-35mm f/4 and for specialized architectural work the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II (and landscape panorama work)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
MSH411 said:
I own the 24-240 also, I just forgot to mention it in the thread. I am really focused on faster for low light and less noise/improved bokeh.

It appears that most would not go with the 28-70 but I am a little surprised that the 105 doesn't get more love. doc touched on it in his post, I do zero video but thought maybe the extra range of the 105 would be a benefit as well as the internal zoom. Is weight and size an issue for the 105 that keep some away from picking it up?
Click to expand...
It's freaking huge (Ø 88.5mm x 199mm) and freaking expensive. Weight: 1430g
Compare that to the 28-70/2's Ø 104mm x 140mm (also 1430g) and the 24-70/2.8's Ø89mm x 126mm (900g).
The 24-105/4 is Ø84mm x 107mm (700g)
 
Upvote 0
#12
Is weight and size an issue for the 105 that keep some away from picking it up?
Click to expand...

kaihp said:
It's freaking huge (Ø 88.5mm x 199mm) and freaking expensive. Weight: 1430g
Compare that to the 28-70/2's Ø 104mm x 140mm (also 1430g) and the 24-70/2.8's Ø89mm x 126mm (900g).
The 24-105/4 is Ø84mm x 107mm (700g)
Click to expand...

LOL..... so I am going to take that as a definite yes to the weight and size.
 
Upvote 0
#13
MSH411 said:
Is weight and size an issue for the 105 that keep some away from picking it up?
Click to expand...
I suspect so. Personally, I don't find it too large but a) I'm using it on an R3 and b) I don't do much street shooting (when I have, it's been with the R8 and RF 28/2.8). The RF 24-105/2.8 is essentially the same size as the EF 70-200/2.8 IS, so if you've spent time with that lens (I did, a lot), the 24-105/2.8 feels like an old friend.

I suspect cost is also a factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#14
Appreciated neuro!

The additional cost doesn't bother me since a am looking specifically for the faster lens. All three lenses that I mentioned a fairly close in price point and if you want fast you are going pay for it. I'm leaning towards a rental of the 105 just to have some extended time in my hands. My post was to get some feedback from actual users of the 105. The extra reach is what keeps me intrigued.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Upvote 0
#19
MSH411 said:
My post was to get some feedback from actual users of the 105. The extra reach is what keeps me intrigued.
Click to expand...
I love mine. I have two of the lenses in your poll (RF 28-70/2 and RF 24-105/2.8). I also have the RF 24-105/4L and I used the EF 24-70/2.8 II for nearly a decade (and had the EF 24-105/4L IS before that).

I didn't get the RF 24-70/2.8 IS mainly because I started with the RF 24-105/4 (bought with the EOS R in 2019 though the 1D X remained my primary camera), and when I transitioned fully to mirrorless with the R3, I bought the 28-70/2...then it just seemed too redundant to get the 24-70/2.8. But the 24-105/2.8 resolves the quandary of being forced to choose between a more useful focal range and a wider aperture. On top of that, the IQ is great, the AF is fast, and it handles well.

My only complaint about the 24-105/2.8 is that the tripod collar is not removable. The foot comes off, but I want the ankle gone, too. I did preorder the RRS replacement foot for the lens, which I suspect I'll prefer to the Canon foot with a lens plate...but I rarely use the lens on a tripod anyway.

The 24-105/4 is my standard zoom for travel (for which I take the R8, not the R3). But for everyday use, the 24-105/2.8 is my go-to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#20
neuroanatomist said:
I love mine. I have two of the lenses in your poll (RF 28-70/2 and RF 24-105/2.8). I also have the RF 24-105/4L and I used the EF 24-70/2.8 II for nearly a decade (and had the EF 24-105/4L IS before that).

I didn't get the RF 24-70/2.8 IS mainly because I started with the RF 24-105/4 (bought with the EOS R in 2019 though the 1D X remained my primary camera), and when I transitioned fully to mirrorless with the R3, I bought the 28-70/2...then it just seemed too redundant to get the 24-70/2.8. But the 24-105/2.8 resolves the quandary of being forced to choose between a more useful focal range and a wider aperture. On top of that, the IQ is great, the AF is fast, and it handles well.

My only complaint about the 24-105/2.8 is that the tripod collar is not removable. The foot comes off, but I want the ankle gone, too. I did preorder the RRS replacement foot for the lens, which I suspect I'll prefer to the Canon foot with a lens plate...but I rarely use the lens on a tripod anyway.

The 24-105/4 is my standard zoom for travel (for which I take the R8, not the R3). But for everyday use, the 24-105/2.8 is my go-to.
Click to expand...
Solid information, thank you!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Laowa launches two tilt-shift 1:1 macro lenses for the RF Mount
Replies
5
Views
249
kirbic
K
J
If you could only take one lens on a Botswana safari which lens would you choose?
Replies
16
Views
1K
john1970
J
Canon Rumors
Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?
Replies
31
Views
2K
plusnq
P
Diko
Any advices for RF 24-240 mm?
Replies
21
Views
2K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
V
Parents: What are/were your most used lenses for your small kids?
Replies
12
Views
4K
TexPhoto
TexPhoto
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu