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

#361
m4ndr4ke said:
Most likely, very similar:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Thanks :)

The lens arrived today. The packaging has been through hell, but the lens is in mint condition, it doesn’t even look like the lens hood was ever attached to it.
I’m still surprised I was able to get it for pretty much the same price as a RF 24-70mm f/2.8 on rebate. They’re going for higher prices on second hand!

I just couldn’t say no to this deal

Now I can sell my two EF lenses and never look back.
If I ever regret purchasing this lens, for instance, because of the weight, I can sell it with profit and buy the new RF 28-70mm f/2.8
Click to expand...
Better a heavy and sharp lens than a lightweight but soft one...;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#362
Del Paso said:
I only hope Brian got a lemon...
Click to expand...
The RAW files from that polish youtuber I linked here, before, were very soft at 28mm on the edges, on the R5.
They looked acceptable at 50% zoom, though, which led me to think the lens may be okay on a R6.

Del Paso said:
Better a heavy and sharp lens than a lightweight but soft one...;)
Click to expand...
I took the 28-70 f/2 for a wedding, this weekend. If not handheld to the face for too long, the weight isn't really an issue on my body, overall (I'm quite a skinny guy), but I need to improve my technique with this lens, because my left index finger is smashed with all the weight on top of it.
Autofocus is a little faster than the EF 24-70mm II, but I missed a few shots I wouldn't usually miss with the previous lens - I think I may have to change some AF settings on the camera.
The way the lens renders backgrounds is completely different (compared to the EF 24-70mm II), even at f/2.8 or smaller apertures. It looks so much smoother that I'm tempted to stop it down further, when I want to keep the context.
The way the lens renders details is also different, it reminds me of the RF 50 f/1.2, it's sharp but softened, it's not nervous, it never feels over-sharpened whatever the aperture.
It's an interesting lens, but I can't say I felt much of a difference. I guess that's good, in a way.
And no, I don't miss 24mm. I prefer 28mm.
F/2 is interesting in low light. When I got to the point where I usually would have to give up on shutter speed, by reducing, for instance, from 1/400 to 1/200, or from 1/200 to 1/100, this lens allowed me to keep getting sharp results. It felt nice when I realised that.
I'm not much of a bokeh-addicted. I shot the lens mostly at f/2 because it was the first time using it in the field, but I expect using f/2 only at night, or dark venues where flash isn't much of an option.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#363
m4ndr4ke said:
The RAW files from that polish youtuber I linked here, before, were very soft at 28mm on the edges, on the R5.
They looked acceptable at 50% zoom, though, which led me to think the lens may be okay on a R6.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but to quote you, "very soft" and "acceptable" don't sound acceptable to me, speaking of a euro1300 lens!
If weight excudes the 28-70 f/2, I'd rather get an RF 24-70 f/2,8 from a reputed grey market dealer for 650 euros more, even if I had to wait a bit to collect the money. A lens which (unless Brian had a lemon!) cannot be used for landscapes at 28mm is useless for me.
 
Upvote 0
#364
Del Paso said:
Sorry, but to quote you, "very soft" and "acceptable" don't sound acceptable to me, speaking of a euro1300 lens!
If weight excudes the 28-70 f/2, I'd rather get an RF 24-70 f/2,8 from a reputed grey market dealer for 650 euros more, even if I had to wait a bit to collect the money. A lens which (unless Brian had a lemon!) cannot be used for landscapes at 28mm is useless for me.
Click to expand...
I don't expect perfection corner to corner from a fast zoom lens, neither is Canon promising it (no red ring, no R5 on the promotion material), but viewing R5's files at 50% zoom is approximately the same size as the R6's files (with increased detail), and they looked okay (I've had worse, not long ago).

Also, you're comparing oranges to lemons. The RF 28-70mm f/2.8 has a €1300 (€1399 here) recommended price at launch, but the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L has a recommended price of almost €3000 (€2989 here). That's not €650 more, that's over twice the money.
I'm pretty sure we'll find the new lens for under €1000 in six months or less.
 
Upvote 0
#365
m4ndr4ke said:
I don't expect perfection corner to corner from a fast zoom lens, neither is Canon promising it (no red ring, no R5 on the promotion material), but viewing R5's files at 50% zoom is approximately the same size as the R6's files (with increased detail), and they looked okay (I've had worse, not long ago).

Also, you're comparing oranges to lemons. The RF 28-70mm f/2.8 has a €1300 (€1399 here) recommended price at launch, but the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L has a recommended price of almost €3000 (€2989 here). That's not €650 more, that's over twice the money.
I'm pretty sure we'll find the new lens for under €1000 in six months or less.
Click to expand...
And still you could get a brand new 24-70f/2,8 for 1947 euros. Grey market with 3 years reliable warranty.
I've just compared on TDP the 2 lenses. The 24-70, also an f/2,8, can easily be used at 28 and above for landscapes. Not so the STM 28-70. And even 1000 euros wouldn't make it attractive for me. For f/2,8 shooters, why not. But I expect a bit more from a lens, not only correct center sharpness.
I can no longer find the 28-70 STM review on my computer, maybe Brian is retesting another sample, being also surprised (shocked?) by the results.
 
Upvote 0
#366
Del Paso said:
I can no longer find the 28-70 STM review on my computer, maybe Brian is retesting another sample, being also surprised (shocked?) by the results.
Click to expand...
There's no review yet, just image quality results.

Del Paso said:
And still you could get a brand new 24-70f/2,8 for 1947 euros. Grey market with 3 years reliable warranty.
Click to expand...
And you'll definitely be able to get this lens for less than €1000, which is still half of that. This is a non-professional lens aimed at being affordable, cheaper than the RF 24-105mm f/4 L, with a faster f/2.8 aperture.

So far, for my entire RF kit, I've been able to purchase my lenses (and camera body) on local stores for less than their cost on gray market.
 
Upvote 0
#367
m4ndr4ke said:
There's no review yet, just image quality results.


And you'll definitely be able to get this lens for less than €1000, which is still half of that. This is a non-professional lens aimed at being affordable, cheaper than the RF 24-105mm f/4 L, with a faster f/2.8 aperture.

So far, for my entire RF kit, I've been able to purchase my lenses (and camera body) on local stores for less than their cost on gray market.
Click to expand...
OK, but it boils down to what you intend to do with this lens.
Even if it cost only 600 euros, it would be of no use to me, since unsharp sides and corners at 28mm prevent its use for landscapes. The other focals aren't overwhelming either.The RF 24-105 f/4 is far better at 28mm if one is looking for a lower cost option. Yes. it's still true, optical quality comes at a cost which I'm ready to pay if I want to be satisfied.
And, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll wait for Brian to publish the quality results AGAIN. They're still not on the official website, at least my laptop doesn't show them...
 
Upvote 0
#368
Del Paso said:
The RF 24-105 f/4 is far better at 28mm if one is looking for a lower cost option.
Click to expand...
The RF 24-105mm f/4 L is more expensive, its recommended price is €1499. You keep missing the fact that this is actually the cheapest of all constant aperture RF zoom lenses.

Del Paso said:
And, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll wait for Brian to publish the quality results AGAIN. They're still not on the official website, at least my laptop doesn't show them...
Click to expand...
The written review is not yet published, but the image quality results are definitely there, as I linked this morning on post #359 of this thread.
 

Attachments

  • 17.37.11.png
    17.37.11.png
    673.1 KB · Views: 5
Upvote 0
#369
Fine, but I still don't see the quality results on TDP's webpage.
And, by the way, I just don't care whether or not it's the least expensive constant aperture zoom.
Many will like this zoom and buy it, and use it often at f/2,8, that's fully OK. But I'll never base my choice of lenses on the sole price.This lens is simply not usable for landscapes at 28mm. I don't care how expensive a lens is, it's got to meet MY OWN demands.
PS: Did you check if the test is still on your computer?
 
Upvote 0
#370
m4ndr4ke said:
The written review is not yet published, but the image quality results are definitely there, as I linked this morning on post #359 of this thread.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you believe that ISO 12233 chart images (or a reasonable facsimile thereof, since Bryan uses 'enhanced' charts of that type) are the sum total of image quality, then the results are there.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

As yet, I don't see Bryan's tests of vignetting, flare or distortion. His full reviews provide real-world samples of center and corner sharpness, look at lateral and longitudinal CA, coma, and other aspects of image quality that are not apparent from ISO 12233 charts.
 
Upvote 0
#371
neuroanatomist said:
Yes, if you believe that ISO 12233 chart images (or a reasonable facsimile thereof, since Bryan uses 'enhanced' charts of that type) are the sum total of image quality, then the results are there.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not the entire picture, but there aren't many complete reviews out there yet (in fact, none that I could find), and sharpness will definitely be a key factor for most skilled potential buyers, as we can see from @Del Paso 's reaction - and that's okay.

Del Paso said:
PS: Did you check if the test is still on your computer?
Click to expand...
Hmm? I literally took a screenshot of the website for you, on my previous post. Are we still talking about the same? :confused:
Anyway, I'm not trying to sell you a lens, buddy, neither am I looking to purchase one right now, since I went for the f/2 (still getting used to it).
I have to say, I was hoping for a little better corner performance at 28mm, but the other RAW files already gave me the perception that it wouldn't be great. Still, at 20 to 24 megapixels it will probably be okay-ish, and those are the camera bodies Canon is aiming this lens at.
The test charts we see from Bryan are shot at 45 to 50 megapixels, which is a pretty significant difference. IMO, R5 users bought the highest resolution R body there is, so they should look at the best glass Canon puts out there that fits the specifications they need (focal length/aperture). Budget options could be nice to have, or fun to have on their kits, but I think they shouldn't expect professional results from those lenses (but, of course, they may be capable of that). We traditionally hear that we should invest more in glass than camera bodies, don't we? Well, this lens costs less than half the price of a R6 II at launch.
 
Upvote 0
#372
The RF 28-70/2.8 looks weak at 28 mm, not just at the edges, but midframe as well. Other focal lengths are okay.
Compared to the RF 24-105/4
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Compared to the RF 24-240
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Compared to RF 28/2.8
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#373
AJ said:
The RF 28-70/2.8 looks weak at 28 mm, not just at the edges, but midframe as well. Other focal lengths are okay.
Compared to the RF 24-105/4
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Compared to the RF 24-240
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Compared to RF 28/2.8
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
Click to expand...
It borders on moral cruelty to compare any zoom lens to the tiny little beast named RF 28mm f/2,8. This prime is a jewel, sharp at any setting, lightweight, compact and inexpensive. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#374
Del Paso said:
It borders on moral cruelty to compare any zoom lens to the tiny little beast named RF 28mm f/2,8. This prime is a jewel, sharp at any setting, lightweight, compact and inexpensive. :cool:
Click to expand...
The RF28 is the reason that this lens is on my "I'll have a look at it when I visit a physical store" list and not the "PREORDER AT LAUNCH!!!!!" list! I'd like to have something smaller than the RF24-105L, but with decent aperture, so the RF240-105 non-L isn't an option. But I want to feel the size and weight difference myself on the R8, because I'm unsure I want to spend that amount of money for a relatively small decrease in size and weight.

I'm more tempted to exchange the 15-30STM for a 14-35L to get a slightly wider view and slightly more zoom. I've found that the insides of windmills (insert joke about being Dutch) and bunkers/catacombs/medieval towers favour wiiiiiiiide angle lenses, especially if you want both your kids and the interior in frame. Even with DxO giving me more in frame than LR/DPP4 the 15-30mm and 16mm are slightly too narrow. I use the 30mm end enough that the 10-20mm isn't a consideration, if I were to ignore the price difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#375
koenkooi said:
I'd like to have something smaller than the RF24-105L, but with decent aperture, so the RF240-105 non-L isn't an option. But I want to feel the size and weight difference myself on the R8, because I'm unsure I want to spend that amount of money for a relatively small decrease in size and weight.
Click to expand...
I'm on the same side. I tried the R5 with the RF85/2, which is almost same size and weight as the RF28-70/2.8. The difference to the RF 24-105/4 is slightly noticeable. I guess it will be more, if you wear it longer.
I looked at the Tele end of image quality test then, because this is the weak side of the RF24-105. And I found it better than the RF 24-105.
So the better Tele end and the advantage in weight and size would have lead me to change the 24-105 for the 28-70.... until I looked at the wide end..... no, thats not what I want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#376
koenkooi said:
The RF28 is the reason that this lens is on my "I'll have a look at it when I visit a physical store" list and not the "PREORDER AT LAUNCH!!!!!" list! I'd like to have something smaller than the RF24-105L, but with decent aperture, so the RF240-105 non-L isn't an option. But I want to feel the size and weight difference myself on the R8, because I'm unsure I want to spend that amount of money for a relatively small decrease in size and weight.

I'm more tempted to exchange the 15-30STM for a 14-35L to get a slightly wider view and slightly more zoom. I've found that the insides of windmills (insert joke about being Dutch) and bunkers/catacombs/medieval towers favour wiiiiiiiide angle lenses, especially if you want both your kids and the interior in frame. Even with DxO giving me more in frame than LR/DPP4 the 15-30mm and 16mm are slightly too narrow. I use the 30mm end enough that the 10-20mm isn't a consideration, if I were to ignore the price difference.
Click to expand...
My favourite when visiting gouda/edam cheese dairies would be without any hesitation the 10-20, or, why not, the 8-15 fisheye.
Roquefort caves need more luminous lenses, like, for instance, the Summilux M 21mm f/1,4 or the M 24mm f/1,4.
Cheese can be very specific and demanding about the lens used!
 
Upvote 0
#378
m4ndr4ke said:
True...even the Zeiss Otus 28mm or Sigma 28 1.4 Art don't seem to beat the pancake.
Click to expand...
Oh but they actually beat it, in weight! :p
I've tested the little monster against the Leica M 2,8/28mm Asph. Shall I really say which one was sharper?
Edit: I forgot to specify I used the RF 28mm on the R, not R5 II, the Leica M was the 24 MP version, without the AA sensor filter. Sensor definitions should be comparable, maybe even to the M's advantage.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#379
Del Paso said:
It borders on moral cruelty to compare any zoom lens to the tiny little beast named RF 28mm f/2,8. This prime is a jewel, sharp at any setting, lightweight, compact and inexpensive. :cool:
Click to expand...
And though I hate extending lenses when focusing... this is on my list to test and potentially buying it for the size and compactness.... good street lens....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#380
Del Paso said:
Oh but they actually beat it, in weight! :p
I've tested the little monster against the Leica M 2,8/28mm Asph. Shall I really say which one was sharper?
Edit: I forgot to specify I used the RF 28mm on the R, not R5 II, the Leica M was the 24 MP version, without the AA sensor filter. Sensor definitions should be comparable, maybe even to the M's advantage.
Click to expand...
Got to admit, it's two extra stops of light, when talking about the Sigma or the Otus, but the pancake is ruthless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?
Replies
31
Views
2K
plusnq
P
Richard CR
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM
Replies
3
Views
483
HeavyPiper
H
Richard CR
Canon Patent Application: Canon Standard Zooms
Replies
10
Views
921
twoheadedboy
twoheadedboy
Canon Rumors
Samyang officially launches the AF 12mm f/2 RF-S
Replies
3
Views
822
David - Sydney
D
Richard CR
Tamron announces the RF Tamron 11-20mm F/2.8 Di III-A RXD
Replies
24
Views
3K
I_Miss_Minolta
I
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu