Anyone Using 28-70 f2 Lens to Replace Primes?

[ash467]

Purchasing an R6 Mark II to replace my 80d. Considering a 24-105 f4 and a prime or two, but the other option is just getting the 28-70 f2.

Ok with the weight downsides, but just wondering if anyone who has the lens considers it a decent replacement for primes like some reviews on YouTube suggest.

[rs-eos]

It's going to depend upon your goals.  What genres do you want to work in?

Also note that having a single lens can be very limiting.  So you'll typically be better off with multiple lenses where each can give you unique strengths.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Everything that Ricky said is accurate.  No lens is going to provide a single solution.  When I moved to mirrorless I considered this lens.  The only reason I didn't purchase it was due to It's bulkiness and weight.  I went with the 24~70 f2.8.

I struggled for about a week doing a side by side comparison, looking for compelling reasons to buy the 28~70.  Since I own Canon's L-series trinity, I feel confident I am able to fairly evaluate this lens.  The one compelling reason to purchase this lens is its light gathering capability.  It's almost one full stop more than the 24~70.  A trained eye might be able to see the difference in bokeh in some photos, but not many.  So this len's greatest strengths will be most apparent during the day when a super soft background is desired, in the evening, or if shooting indoors.  It sounds like it does it all, and it is versatile, but no lens is perfect in every situation.  I could also see it being useful in some street photography situations or if shooting the night sky.  If this sounds like your intended use, you won't go wrong.  I use this focal length as a walk around lens.  It's on my camera almost 70% of the time.  If you haven't held this lens, I suggest you do so before purchase.  It has considerable, heft and weight.  95 mm.  Hold the 24~70 also.  Then decide if its extra girth / weight is something you feel you can work with regularly. 

28mm is good for landscape, but doesn't necessarily give the same exaggerated perspective a shorter FL can.  While primes are great, I prefer zooms for their versatility.  Less frequent need for lens changes and their ability to move in or out without my having to step forward or back during composition. 

Without a doubt, the 28~70 will put a smile on your face, but it is a small monster.  It will afford marginally better image quality over a 24~105 f4.  While this is also a good general-purpose lens, it will only be nearly as sharp and somewhat limited in low light situations.  Even if paired with a R62, f4 in low light situations has its boundries.

[ebiggs1]

It would take me less than 2 seconds to decide this question The Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM Lens no doubt. Wait it didn't even take 2 seconds to decide that is the best way to go.

"Ok with the weight downsides,..."

When you are deciding that you need to consider all the other prime lenses you would have to carry to cover what this super zoom can.  Zooms today are where its at not primes. Years ago it was the other way around but not any longer. Especially with the fast constant f2 aperture that this lens has. This is a no brainer.

[Tronhard]

I am going to agree with everyone!  No knowing what subjects you are shooting makes it hard to make any suggestion, but assuming you are working with events, then the Rf 28-70 is regarded as a stellar optic.  Check out this video from Vanessa Joy, who is a fairy high-end wedding and event photographer:
(14) Canon RF 28-70mm F2 : Best Lens for WEDDINGS!?? (Review) - YouTube  and
(14) the TWO lenses in my Portrait Photography Gear Bag - YouTube 
You many not shoot weddings, but for the type of photography that this lens excels at, it's an interesting perspective.

[Danfaz]

I use this lens primarily for events and also some portrait work, where it performs amazingly! I can easily say it can replace any prime lens within that range, unless you absolutely need an aperture less than f/2. Some YouTubers try to include 85mm and 24mm in this statement, but I disagree with that inclusion. 

[ebiggs1]

"...unless you absolutely need an aperture less than f/2."

Good point. I love my ef 85mm f1.2L but it is because of the aperture not the FL. I suppose you can make the case that there isn't even a real fundamental need for a lens that is a little more than one stop faster but some interesting effects can be done with f1.2. There is nothing like f1.2.

[Danfaz]

I know what you mean! The 85 1.2 really is magical at 1.2!

[ebiggs1]

I own both the ef 85mm f1.2L and the ef 50mm f1.2L. I would not give them up for any other lens in these FL ranges. 

Matter if fact I had both the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 Art lenses which easily have better IQ but they don't have that f1.2 aperture. Its just not the same.