Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.

  
 
bill9000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


Howdy all. I am looking at some RF lenses and I have seen some folks saying that the 28-70/2 for example is a phenomenal lens (and I'm sure it is) but I am wondering if anyone has any real insights/especially with examples of is it really that much different than the EF lenses in terms of image quality, especially contrast/microcontrast.

I currently use EF glass with R5 and here's what my work is:
https://cvpphoto.com/modeling-portfolios/

I almost exclusively use an old 85 1.2L II for everything, and I am really noticing that it's not fantastic with contrast and such wide open, so I end up at 2.8 anyway.... so I'd really like to know if anyone has some insight as to if the new RF lenses have any truly better image quality/sharpness/contrast than the older lenses. (because they are soooooo expensive, I dont want to buy something just because it's shiny and new, but I will if it truly is a difference in quality. They do offer some workflow advantages, like the convenience of the zoom, but in the past my experience has been the primes smoke the zooms for quality. Has this changed?

It's a hard question to ask, because if someone has one, I'm sure they like it... that's to be expected... but what I'm after, if weight, and focus speed isn't a concern... are these new RF zooms any better in the final image?

Just looking for some discussion about this, really interested in actual contrast, etc. from the lenses not an edited image of course as that can obviously mean "was it the lens or the edit"





Jun 30, 2022 at 05:34 PM
jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


The 70-200 is optically almost identical to the vII and vII Ef variants. IQ wise they are mostly indistinguishable. The RF model is very compact, which some love and some hate (extending zoom vs. internal zoom).

The 24-70 in the RF mount is mainly bringing IS to the table over the EF variant. Again the EF vII was very good and so there is not much to be gained optically.

The 28-70 is supposed to be very nice optically, maybe better than the 24-70s, and certainly better at apertures wider than 2.8! (because...the 24-70s can't do that, lol).

So with the RF zooms so far the main advantage over EF has been less about IQ and more about added value in other places, except the 28-70 which has no EF peer. The 100-500 offers more reach over the EF 100-400. The 24-70 offers IS, the 70-200 compactness and lighter weight.

The RF primes are better optically. The 50 1.2 is regarded as the best 50 out there (or close, you know how those things go). Much better than the EF version. The 85 is similarly improved over the EF version. I'd love to have my hands on both.

For this reason, I have not really upgraded any of my EF lenses to RF. I did get the RF 24-105L, which was a BIG upgrade over the EF v1, but not as much of an upgrade over the EF v2 (I had the v1, so big upgrade for me).

I'm sure you'll get some other views as well. Which is what you're after!

-Brian



Jun 30, 2022 at 08:40 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


I have all the RF zooms and had all the EF zooms back in the day. All the RF zooms are decidedly better in my opinion, and the RF50L is ... just a dream (the EF 50L is a nightmare, which I guess is also a kind of a dream). The 28-70 is fantastic and I wish I had it when the kids were babies, but that's a long time ago now. It's too big to travel with, for that I have the f2.8 or f4 lenses. I think the 28-70 can easily take on any other lens in that range.


Jun 30, 2022 at 09:26 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


The 85/1.2 RF looks like a spectacular lens, reading about it etc


Jun 30, 2022 at 09:32 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


I know youíre asking about the zooms. Iíve briefly used the 28-70Ö But Iíll mostly comment on the fast 85s. Iíve owned the original EF 85/1.2 for about 20 years and used it a lot for low light event work, weddings, etc. The v2 is optically the same, but with improved coatings (probably better contrast especially backlit) and rounder aperture shape (f/2.8 on the original ruins specular bokeh balls). I updated to the 85/1.4 IS as soon as it was available. Other than faster/better AF performance, optically itís more consistent sharpness across the frame at wider apertures, better against backlight and much less LoCA, for which the 85/1.2 was pretty bad. The 1.4 has a more neutral bokeh rendering, which many would classify as modern or boring. But it has grown on me, in part because its look is pretty consistent at wider apertures. A while back I had an hour with the RF85/1.2 on an R5 and compared it against the 85/1.4. The RF raises the bar in pretty much every aspect. I particularly noticed better backlight veiling flare resistance and never saw LoCA in my test images. Where this is leading, is that IMO, all of these optical performance improvements in the RF lead to an impression of better sharpness and contrast in otherwise challenging situations. So, with the RF 85/1.2 and 50/1.2, IMO, there is still a technical performance advantage over zooms, particularly at wider apertures.

During the RF85 test, I also shot with the 28-70, mostly wide open outside, working at h&s, half and 3/4 body portrait distances. I really liked the look from it at all focal lengths. But I did notice that if there is some sharpness/contrast weakness, itís at the 70mm end. Nothing that would make me not like the lens, just that itís reminiscent (to me) of good older lenses that arenít quite at the super sharp, high contrast level of modern primes. In some respects the residual spherical aberration wide open at 70mm can lend a pleasing rendering that is sharp, but not too sharp. But maybe thatís not what youíre after. Due to my limited time with the lens, I wasnít able to determine how much, if at all, optical performance/character changes as the aperture is stopped down somewhat.

I havenít used the 24-70 or 70-200 RF versions and therefore have no firsthand opinion of them. Stan above says theyíre all better. I think though, if you can, you would benefit from renting some of these RF versions to determine if the zooms offer the quality you expect.



Jun 30, 2022 at 10:08 PM
bill9000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


thanks so much everyone, I'm just trying to make good decisions here. But renting isn't super cheap either. haha - now I kinda want the RF 50 1.2 from looking a little deeper too. Rendering is by far the most important thing for me, image quality, then convenience.


Jul 01, 2022 at 10:04 AM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


The RF 50 is IMO the best lens in existence in terms of resolution, contrast, rendering, and bokeh. Most lenses do 1 or 2 very well. Very few do all 3 magnificently. They threaded the needle of making a modern lens with high contrast/resolution and still very classic/soft rendering.

If you can tolerate just a teeny tiny bit of CA at f/1.6 and wider, you will never want to take it off your camera.



Jul 01, 2022 at 10:21 AM
bill9000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · RF 24-70, 28-70, 70-200 vs EF variants.


mb126 wrote:
The RF 50 is IMO the best lens in existence in terms of resolution, contrast, rendering, and bokeh. Most lenses do 1 or 2 very well. Very few do all 3 magnificently. They threaded the needle of making a modern lens with high contrast/resolution and still very classic/soft rendering.

If you can tolerate just a teeny tiny bit of CA at f/1.6 and wider, you will never want to take it off your camera.


definitely sounds like I'd like it! - I was secretly hoping something like the 28-70 would give some sort of real benefit/look and also be convenient at the same time for shooting at various distances... but it sounds like the new prime will still be better.

I guess the real million dollar question is.... since primes are better than zooms, at least always have been... would a new high-end zoom like the 28-70 be better or worse image quality than an old prime like the 85 1.2L II



Jul 01, 2022 at 03:28 PM







FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username      Reset password