Wow! We just used both the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and a RF 28-70mm f/2 for two different weddings. I'm amazed at the the AF, utility, colors, IS, and weight of the 24-70 that it just might compel us to purchase an 85mm and an EF 135mm f/2 to complete our set up for weddings and events.
At the moment, I'm more smitten with the RF 15-35L. The mk III version of the 16-35 was good but this new one has more snap and it's tiny (without the EF adaptor needed on old lens). It's been a lot of fun to get to know.
I'm blessed with a killer lens bag and at the moment the RF 24-70L is the least compelling choice — but I wouldn't leave home with it. If I could only take one lens, that would be it. Wide angle, portraits, close focusing, fast AF.
The Nikkor Z version feels a tad sharper — offers up a really nice 3D look wide open. On dark dance floors it hunts a bit on the z6 II (compared to the Canon RF on the R6). Two of my shooters have that combo and we've shot together and there's a real difference at night. I help the situation by clicking on the LED lights on the ProFoto's. Warm setting, super low output. Just enough to add some edge light to help the camera's computer.
Man, if it was financially responsible I think I'd move back over from Sony. Went to Sony before the R stuff came out, always said I'd come back to Canon when they caught up. Maybe next year or the following. This A1 is great, but I miss cannon glass that's for sure.
DannyBostwick wrote:
Man, if it was financially responsible I think I'd move back over from Sony. Went to Sony before the R stuff came out, always said I'd come back to Canon when they caught up. Maybe next year or the following. This A1 is great, but I miss cannon glass that's for sure.
Really, Sony / canon are pretty equal. both have strengths/weakness.
I know you know.
There are times I would take the 24-70 f2.8 over the 28-70 f2.
The RF 70-200 f2.8 is a joy to roll with.
so far no mechanical issues.
Ziffl3 wrote:
Really, Sony / canon are pretty equal. both have strengths/weakness.
I know you know.
There are times I would take the 24-70 f2.8 over the 28-70 f2.
The RF 70-200 f2.8 is a joy to roll with.
so far no mechanical issues.
Later, Mark
We used both the 28-70 and the 24-70 f/2.8 for two recent shoots. Both are excellent with just a slight edge to the 28-70 for portraits at f/2. Anything f/4 or smaller, they very similar. Depending on venue, you could shoot an entire wedding with either. Wasn't too impressed with the 70-200 f/2.8, so decided on a 24-70, and an EF 135 f/2. Which is an absolute bargain today!
> Man, if it was financially responsible I think I'd move back over from Sony.
More ARW files are in our future. My son is switching over to Sony for video/still after using a Lumix-video and Canon-stills set up for years.
He's been shooting video all Summer with two A7s III's and today will shoot stills (2nd shooter for me) with an A7 IV. His plan is for two A7 IV's and a complete lens bag by the end of the year. That will give him 4 bodies. Since the A7 IV does 60fps 4k it seemed like a perfect video back up to the A7s's while getting him a meat-and-potatoes still photo body.
It's a bit commitment for him as he'll have to get lights as well (likely Godox) as the wireless Canon fleet (430RT x2, 600RT x2) I set him up with won't work.
When his R6 kit comes back to me, I'll have some gear ammo to convince my daughter to shed the 5DmkIV's and EF set-up. She's been hesitant on mirrorless but is starting to soften. With an usused bag I can bonus her as a 2nd shooter on a gig or two and make her try it.
Parenting is challenge to begin with. Now, throw camera gear into it :-)
agree... the gear is good. like really good.
when it happens, I actually like a little struggle sometimes.... it keeps us on our toes.
Now somebody young or new to the world of wedding video/photo coverage will feel that is a crazy thing to say.
On the surface yes.... when you are trying to wrangle the different aspects of the business.
As you use your gear... get really familiar with it.... you learn the ins and outs.
It is on us, as pros to be at least competent with our gear. it is called knowing the craft.
For the majority of the day(95-98%)... the current gear just rocks. Knocking out wedding after wedding.
But a little struggle ... thinking reception dance floor or just really dark situations can actually help us stay fresh/creative in our thinking.
I used both recently and cognitive dissonance aside, convinced myself the RF 28-70 f/2 was the way to go, but after shooting and editing a few weddings using both, the RF 24-70 f/2.8 is sharper with better rendering imo, at f/2.8. As much as I like the 28mm FL, having the option of a slightly wider has been very useful.
Do any of you have photo comparisons amongst the lenses (EF 24-70 f/2.8, RF 24-70 f/2.8, and RF 28-70 f/2)? I am certain there have been discussions on the qualities and differences. I do prefer that slightly wider angle of the 24-70 lens. On the other hand, there is a considerable weight difference between the 24-70 vs. the 28-70. Sure, it is nice to have the 28-70 for wedding but is it really a must have?
> Sure, it is nice to have the 28-70 for wedding but is it really a must have?
Absolutely not a must have, but everyone should try one at least once. Maybe your fingers won't go numb holding it all day. Maybe you'll fall in love with the wide open rendering.
