Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 vs RF 28-70 f/2 (AKA: The Beast)
Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 vs RF 28-70 f/2 (AKA: The Beast)
If you are into photography and gear, and especially if you are a big Canon fan (like me). You may have been loosing your mind ever so slightly over Canon’s announcement of their new, professional mirrorless camera bodies. (Finally with 2 card slots!!) Knowing that I would make the switch from Canon’s 5D bodies to their mirrorless lineup as soon as dual card slots were released, I started turning my eye to the stunning line up of new RF glass. And on launch day, I not only pre-ordered an R6 body (let me know if you’d like a blog post explaining why I chose this over the R5), but also purchased the 2 RF lenses that would be my new go tos. The 70-200 is a no brainer, it is a holy grail lens and amazing for weddings. Which left me with a dificult decision… do I get the tried and tested 24-70 f/2.8 lens common across all camera line-ups? Or… do I choose the slightly crazier path of an unheard of 28-70 f/2.0 beast of a lens?
To get started, I broke down the pros and cons of each lens that apply to me and my work:
Canon 24-70 f/2.8
PRO: Lighter & smaller (900g)
PRO: Cheaper ($3,899)
PRO: Smaller filters mean cheaper filters
PRO: Closer minimum focusing distance of 21-38cm (dependent on focal length)
PRO: Image stabilisation
CON: Slightly less sharp (for the pixel peepers)
CON: Wide aperture of f/2.8 (A little less bokeh/cream)
And then there’s neither pro or con, but personal preference.
Tried and tested focal length + aperture.
A wider focal length of 24 is available
Being a smaller lens, it will be more discrete/approachable
Canon 28-70 f/2
CON: Heavier & larger (1.43kg)
CON: More expensive ($4,299)
CON: Larger filters mean more expensive filters
CON: Less close minimum focusing distance of 39cm across all focal lengths
CON: NO Image stabilisation
PRO: Slightly sharper (for the pixel peepers)
PRO: Wider aperture of f/2.0 (creamier/more bokeh)
And then there’s neither pro or con, but personal preference.
A new and unique design not done before.
Widest focal length only 28 (that just happens to be my fave wide)
Being a larger lens, it will be more intimidating/impressive to behold
It may seem from the pro and con list that the 24-70 wins, and from a practicality point of view. I agree, practically, the 24-70 would be the better lens. It’s lighter, and so you can use it for 8-10 hours at a wedding with less wrist, back and neck pain. It has a wider focal length if you need it. It has image stabilsation allowing you to use a slower shutter speed. It can be focused closer to an object at it’s widest focal length, which is amazing for detail or baby photos. It’s a very well built and beautiful, tried and tested, lens design.
Here’s the problem though… practicality means less to me than a sharp yet silkly smooth creamy photo, and something that’s a little bit different and pushes boundaries. True. The boundaries it pushes aren’t all great… take for instance it’s girth and weight almost guaranteeing a very sore set of arms and wrists by the end of a wedding day. But there was just a little something something about it being able to let in double the light that won me over. That alongside the claims that shooting with this lens, is like shooting a prime. I’ve always been a prime lover and shooter, but if I could have a zoom with the same quality and look of a prime. Sign me up. And so, I chose to sacrifice practicality for a beast. And I bought an RF 28-70 f/2. 😬
It arrived, and as promised, the size and weight of it was intimidating. Almost to the point that I started to wonder if maybe I should have chosen a more practical lens. Which then had me deciding… a play date with both lenses was in order.
I recently caught up with Dana from Will and Co (who owns the 24-70) to put our two lenses to the test. I didnt’t think to take a photo of the lenses side by side, but a quick google will show you how HUGE the 28-70 f/2 is in comparison to the 24-70 f/2.8. It doesn’t just have 30% more weight, it also has more girth and makes the camera body look tinsy tiny. We both agreed, the 24-70 definitely wins in the size and weight category. It’s not even a close competition. But as we know already, it’s not the practical aspects I wanted to compare. But the delicious images each lens could provide. Would I really see much of a difference between the lenses? And would the extra weight (and intimidation) be worth it for me?
Most of the afternoon was spent chatting and literally skipping and running through light puddles, but we did manage to take a couple of side by side comparisons. You can click on each image to view them larger and pixel peep. Without further ado, here is comparison number 1! A beautiful white latice background, which does a wonderful job of highlighting the difference in background softness. Both shot at 70mm, ISO 100. With the shutter speed adjusted from 1/200 to 1/500 to compensate for the extra stop of light provided by f/2 vs f/2.8.
Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8
Canon R, 70mm, ISO 100, Shutter 1/200, Aperture f/2.8
LCP Custom preset, exposure and white balance left as shot.
Canon RF 28-70 f/2
Canon R, 70mm, ISO 100, Shutter 1/500, Aperture f/2
LCP Custom preset, exposure and white balance left as shot.
(p.s. Isn’t Dana gorgeous?)
Let’s take a closer look at those lattices in the background, behold. The mighty f/2 blur on the right. Whether or not you like this amount of blur is personal preference. Personally, I adore those little diamond blobs.
I love to put my lovely couples, families and small business gurus in beautiful natural settings… including right in the nature. And so, test spot number 2 was standing amongst a beautiful agave, its green leaves poking the backs of our heads. We took it in turns shooting in this spot, so try not to let the mismatch of faces distract you. 😂
Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8
Canon R, 50mm, ISO 200, Shutter 1/500, Aperture f/2.8
LCP Custom preset, exposure as shot, white balance matched.
Photo captured by: Dana of Will and Co
Canon RF 28-70 f/2
Canon R, 50mm, ISO 200, Shutter 1/640, Aperture f/2
LCP Custom preset, exposure as shot, white balance matched.
Photo captured by: Sarah of Little Car Photography
Normally, I would have tweaked the white balance ever so slightly on the picture of myself, given my pale and pink toned skin (and the colour cast from my maroon shirt). However, for the sake of direct colour comparison, I have matched the white balance between photos. And now… let’s dive into that background blur comparison. I know it’s a tad unfair to compare an f/2 to an f/2.8. But when that’s the main difference the beast has going for it, I want to see if that extra creaminess is worth it.
As expected, the f/2 wins the creamy battle. But what of sharpness? I didn’t compare this directly, and there are already many amazing resources out there comparing the difference in sharpness between the 2 lenses. Personally, from the brief comparison I had between the 2 lenses directly, I believe both work amazingly well with Canon’s eye detection focus, single point auto focus, or simply manually focused. And both lenses are beautiful quality, both nice and sharp.
If I had to choose, I’d need to zoom right in. And so pixel peep I did. Both wide open, I think the f/2 only just wins the sharpness crown. Which is impressive not just because it’s wide open, but because I am directly comparing the sharpness of f/2 with f/2.8. (Which we would assume to be sharper full stop).
Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8
Canon R, 70mm, ISO 100, Shutter 1/200, Aperture f/2.8
LCP Custom preset, exposure and white balance left as shot.
Canon RF 28-70 f/2
Canon R, 70mm, ISO 100, Shutter 1/500, Aperture f/2
LCP Custom preset, exposure and white balance left as shot.
And so. Do I regret sacrificing weight, image stabilisation, a wider focal length and money simply for a little more creamy sharpness? (Which most would need to pixel peep in order to spot). No. I love this beasty. (Which may lend this review to being slightly biased towards it). We’ll see if I still love it after a wedding season post Covid-19. But for now. She is a creamy dream. Compartively, would I have regretted choosing the practical 24-70 over the beast? I don’t think so, it’s also a gorgeous lens with so many benefits. If you’re deciding between the two, you’ll need to weigh up what your heart, mind and gut are telling you. We all have different needs and styles, and no matter which of these lenses you choose, I think you’ll be very happy. (That said, the choice is all yours to make).
Let me know if you have any questions. :) She’s still new to me, but will soon be getting a mighty fine work out. I’d also love to know which lens you chose and why?
Update: Nearly 1 Year Later
05/05/2021
I’ve now owned my beautiful beast for nearly a year (which flew by so quickly!) And I can say without hesitation that I have had no regrets buying this lens 98% of the time. (The 2% is when I use her for a long stint of wedding speeches and my wrists start silently screaming). The lens has held up very well to a year of rough treatment as a full time photographer’s go to lens for 80-90% of any shoot I will do. (Be it wedding, portrait or small business). I work predominantly outdoors on the beach, in scrub, vineyards, happening dance floors, etc. I don’t use the f/2.0 focal length as much as I thought I would, but when I do use it I’m in love.
Both Images above: 48mm, ISO 250, F/4.0, i/160 sec
She also gets a LOT of attention. This will be good or bad depending on your style of shooting. This lens looks impressive, gear heads will drool, shy clients may be initially intimidated. I have not had a problem with either scenario, and use how the lens looks to my advantage. Calling her my beautiful beastie helps.
Image Above: 47mm, ISO 250, f/4.0, 1/250 sec
Image Above: 42mm, ISO 250, f/4.0, 1/500 sec
WHAT ABOUT HAZE?
One aspect I didn’t address in my original review was haze and lens flares. Compared to my previous go to Canon 50mm 1.2 lens, this lens does handle haze more cleanly. Initially I was worried that this would hinder me in capturing the character of light, but it hasn’t at all. If I want a hazy image full of flare, I can get it. If I don’t want a hazy image full of flare, it is easier to prevent. (This is just compared to my old 50mm 1.2, thought I’d throw that little tidbit in there as a reflection after 1 year).
And so, I will leave you again, with a few sample images that I have captured in the past year on the job. ✌Alternatively, check out my blog. 80%+ of the images captured in the past year have been captured on this lens.
Photo Above: 28mm, ISO 1250, f/4.0, 1/800 sec
Photo above: 39mm, ISO 2000, f/3.2, 1/400 sec
Photo Above: 70mm, ISO 2000, f/3.2, 1/400 sec
Photo Above: 35mm, ISO 500, f/2.0, 1/160 sec