Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

ems926
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Which would be better on a Canon R5 mirrorless for landscapes?

Larry

Aug 09, 2024 at 09:38 PM

goalerjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

I use the 28-70 for literally anything and everything. There's no IS on the 28-70 though, so for longer exposures, under windy conditions for instance, or handheld, that might be an issue.

Aug 09, 2024 at 09:41 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

For me, 24mm would be essential for landscapes, especially for sweeping views or near-far juxtaposition. The IS is nice when you need it but for landscapes you'll likely be stopped down on a tripod.

Plus, the nano USM of the RF 24-70 is faster and smoother than the ring-USM on the 28-70 if you need to use movie servo or AI servo for moving rugrats and similar critters.

Aug 09, 2024 at 10:15 PM

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Wouldn't be f/2 constant zoom way too expensive tool to make pics at f/8?

Aug 10, 2024 at 11:50 AM

Photonadave
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

^^^ . . . and too heavy for landscape. If I'm planning to go out to do landscape my back hurts even thinking about hauling heavy lenses.

Aug 10, 2024 at 12:03 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Photonadave wrote:
^^^ . . . and too heavy for landscape. If I'm planning to go out to do landscape my back hurts even thinking about hauling heavy lenses.

Heck, even the RF 24-70L is on the heavy side. I mainly use it to shoot video on a tripod or low light stage stuff. For wandering around and travel I take the RF 24-105L.

Aug 10, 2024 at 06:58 PM

bballfreak6
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

I'd take the 28-70 over the 24-70 any day of the week (I have one), but if focus is landscape I'd take the 24-70 because having that 24mm is more important and you're stepping down anyway.

Aug 10, 2024 at 07:30 PM

Hairy Heron
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

The 28-70 is undisputedly the better lens at everything but it’s not particularly wide, it’s heavy and bulky, and no IS. It’s also more expensive. It’s a true work tool which is why I ended up buying the less expensive, less perfect bokeh, lighter, more packable, wider focal range, stabilized 24-70. I mostly shoot wildlife so it’s not my “bread and butter,” but my everyday and travel lens.

You won’t go wrong with either but if you are looking for perfection then it’s the 28-70 all day long. If you want more convenience at a “image cost,” then the 24-70 will do. I enjoy mine.

Aug 11, 2024 at 08:44 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Of the two, I would choose the 24-70 f/2.8 for a landscape lens certainly.

First, the extra reach on the wide end is an important compositional advantage.

Second, the "secret sauce" of the 28-70 is mostly having f/2 and its OOF rendering. Nobody shoots landscapes at f/2 unless they are striving for a special effect of some kind. And for that purpose, a TS/E lens or a prime is probably a better choice.

The 24-70 is a very competent lens, even if it doesn't have a cult following.

Aug 11, 2024 at 11:19 PM

bkd3300
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

24-70mm as the 4mm on the wide end is substantially useful for landscapes as well as in the studio. If you are looking for prime bokeh the 28-70 doesn’t get you there, the primes have far better rendering.

Aug 12, 2024 at 12:39 AM

deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

It makes no sense to give up 4mm on the wide end for one stop more aperture that you'll never use anyway for landscapes. Not to mention the size, weight, and price disadvantage.

The 24-70/2.8 IS is the easy choice here.

Aug 12, 2024 at 07:56 AM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

I assume the OP is interested in raw image quality, because it doesn't require a Q&A to figure out that the RF 24-70/2.8 has 4 useful millimeters of extra wide angle coverage, or that it is easier to carry around.

It is not true that all lenses perform equal at f/8. For instance, the f/8 landscape performance (read: sharpness across the frame) of the RF 28-70/2 at 35 mm is better than that of the RF 35/1.8, and much better even than that of the RF 14-35/4. I can't comment on the RF 24-70/2.8, but the 28-70 surprised me in a positive way for landscapes. I would never buy it just for landscapes, but it is an interesting lens for people doing both landscape and people photography.

Aug 12, 2024 at 04:00 PM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Neither would be "better." It will be a matter of personal preference. Having a 28-70 is only an issue if you don't like the weight and you cannot stand not having <28mm. However that would be easily solved by getting a wide angle zoom or a 24 mm prime or 16mm etc, which you may well end up wanting anyway even if you got a 24-70.

Aug 13, 2024 at 01:24 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Toothwalker wrote:
I assume the OP is interested in raw image quality, because it doesn't require a Q&A to figure out that the RF 24-70/2.8 has 4 useful millimeters of extra wide angle coverage, or that it is easier to carry around.

It is not true that all lenses perform equal at f/8. For instance, the f/8 landscape performance (read: sharpness across the frame) of the RF 28-70/2 at 35 mm is better than that of the RF 35/1.8, and much better even than that of the RF 14-35/4. I can't comment on the RF 24-70/2.8, but the 28-70 surprised me in...Show more →

Another aspect of the 28-70 that I really like is that it appears to have well controlled field curvature through the zoom range. Indeed I use it primarily for people photography but also bring it along on landscape hikes because of how much I like its overall performance. And for bokeh types of shots, while it's nice to have f/2, IMO it has a more pleasing rendering of background blur than the 24-70/2.8 at shared aperture values.

Aug 14, 2024 at 05:00 AM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Hairy Heron wrote:
The 28-70 is undisputedly the better lens at everything

I expect the f/2.8 lens to have sharper corners at 28mm and same apertures. I could be wrong of course, but if it was my money I would definitely check this before going with the f/2.0 lens as a landscape tool.

Hairy Heron wrote:
but it’s not particularly wide, it’s heavy and bulky, and no IS. It’s also more expensive. It’s a true work tool which is why I ended up buying the less expensive, less perfect bokeh, lighter, more packable, wider focal range, stabilized 24-70. I mostly shoot wildlife so it’s not my “bread and butter,” but my everyday and travel lens.

You won’t go wrong with either but if you are looking for perfection then it’s the 28-70 all day long. If you want more convenience at a “image cost,” then the 24-70 will do. I enjoy mine.

Aug 14, 2024 at 07:20 AM

Hathaway
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Why pay the penalty of cost and weight for the 28-70 and lose the wide angle of 24-28 and not take advantage of the F2 - F2.8? For landscape I typically shoot between f5.6 to f16 depending on subject. Plus I am walking or hiking with my gear so value any weight savings I can get.

If you liked to track astro shots the f2.0 might come in handy. For events and WA portraiture I could definitely see the 28-70 being a killer option. Just not be landscape.

Just my opinion.

Aug 14, 2024 at 08:43 AM

lighthound
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

If landscapes is all you're looking to do, then you might also consider the RF 24-105 f/4.
This is what I use along with the RF 14-35 f/4 for landscapes.

RF 24-105 f/4
Pro's
$1300 less expensive than the RF 24-70 f/2.8
$1700 less expensive than the RF 28-70 f/2
35mm more reach on the long end
Smaller and lighter

Con's
Slightly less IQ
Slower - for landscapes this is not an issue

Aug 14, 2024 at 09:33 AM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

Aug 15, 2024 at 03:23 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

rscheffler wrote:
Another aspect of the 28-70 that I really like is that it appears to have well controlled field curvature through the zoom range. Indeed I use it primarily for people photography but also bring it along on landscape hikes because of how much I like its overall performance. And for bokeh types of shots, while it's nice to have f/2, IMO it has a more pleasing rendering of background blur than the 24-70/2.8 at shared aperture values.

Toothwalker wrote:
I have no experience with the 24-70/2.8, but find the overall performance and rendering of the 28-70/2 quite pleasing indeed. Well done, Canon.

I borrowed both from Canon CPS, though not at the same time. I found the 24-70 background/bokeh character at the tele end to look worse than the RF 70-200/2.8 I had at the same time. I don't see such differences with the 28-70 and 70-200s, though I think the 28-70 is a bit shorter than 70mm when compared to other 70mm lenses. Another lens with similar rendering is the new 24-105, and I'd say it's somewhat sharper than the 28-70 at some focal lengths.

Aug 15, 2024 at 09:34 PM

bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · RF28-70F2 VS RF24-70f2.8

To me a standard zoom going only to 28mm on the wide end is simply useless overall and in particular for landscape.

Besides weight and bulk do matter for landscape and a wider aperture is rarely useful.

Finally Canon is rumored to replace this lens by a much more useful 24-70mm f2.0 like Sony and Nikon also are. But a 24-70mm f2.8 will still be a better option for landscape due to weight.

But I personally find the combination of a high quality wide prime (such as a 20mm f1.8) and 105mm f2.8 macro lens much more powerful for landscape work.

Edited on Aug 15, 2024 at 11:29 PM · View previous versions

Aug 15, 2024 at 11:11 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.