I’ve been shooting with Canon gear for over a decade, and I’ll tell you what—when Canon announced the RF 28-70mm f/2L, the photography world collectively lost its mind. A constant f/2 aperture on a zoom lens? That was unheard of! But as someone who’s actually used both lenses extensively, I’m here to give you the real scoop on which one deserves your hard-earned money.
Let me start by saying this: both of these lenses are incredible pieces of engineering. They represent the pinnacle of what’s possible in modern zoom lens design, but they serve very different purposes and very different photographers. I’ve spent countless hours with both lenses, shooting everything from weddings to portraits to commercial work, and I’ve discovered that the choice between them isn’t as simple as picking the “better” lens—it’s about picking the right lens for YOU.
The Tale of the Tape: Specs at a Glance (2025)
Before we dive deep into the nitty-gritty, let’s get the basic specs out of the way. I’ve compiled this data from my own testing and multiple reliable sources to give you the most accurate comparison possible.
Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM
- Weight: 900g (2 lbs)
- Length: 125.7mm (4.95″)
- Filter Size: 82mm
- Image Stabilization: Yes (up to 5 stops, 8 stops with R5/R6)
- Minimum Focus Distance: 0.21m (wide) to 0.38m (tele)
- Maximum Magnification: 0.30x
- Price: Approximately $2,300 USD
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM
- Weight: 1,430g (3.15 lbs)
- Length: 139.9mm (5.5″)
- Filter Size: 105mm
- Image Stabilization: No
- Minimum Focus Distance: 0.39m throughout
- Maximum Magnification: 0.18x
- Price: Approximately $2,900 USD
Right off the bat, you can see some key differences. The RF 28-70mm f/2 is significantly heavier and lacks image stabilization, but it offers that coveted f/2 aperture throughout the zoom range. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is more practical with its lighter weight and built-in stabilization, but gives up that extra stop of light gathering.
Real-World Handling: The Weight Game (2025)
I’ll be honest with you—the first time I picked up the RF 28-70mm f/2, I almost dropped it. This thing is an absolute beast! At over 3 pounds, it feels more like holding a small cinema rig than a photography lens. When I mount it on my EOS R5, the entire setup feels substantial—almost intimidating.
But here’s the interesting part: that weight isn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending on how you shoot. I discovered that when I’m working in the studio or on controlled commercial shoots, the heft of the 28-70mm actually helps me shoot more deliberately. It forces me to slow down and really think about each composition, which has improved my work significantly.
However, when I’m shooting weddings or events where I’m on my feet for 8-10 hours straight? That’s when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 really shines. At 900g, it’s still no lightweight, but it’s manageable for long shooting sessions. I’ve shot entire weddings with this lens and felt fine at the end of the day, whereas I can’t say the same for the 28-70mm f/2.
One technique I’ve been using more recently is handheld off-camera flash. When I don’t have an assistant around, I’ll hold the camera with one hand and the light in the other. Let me tell you—trying this with the RF 28-70mm f/2 is not for the faint of heart! My wrist was definitely cursing me afterward. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is much more manageable for this kind of work.
Also Read: Tamron 18-200mm vs Nikon 18-200mm
Image Quality: Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 vs RF 28-70mm f/2
Alright, let’s get to what really matters—how do these lenses actually perform in the real world? I’ve tested both extensively in various conditions, and I’ve got some surprising findings to share.
Sharpness Performance
Both lenses are incredibly sharp, but they achieve it in different ways. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS delivers consistent sharpness across the frame from wide open, with excellent corner-to-corner performance even at f/2.8. I’ve found that it maintains this sharpness throughout the zoom range, which is impressive for a zoom lens.
The RF 28-70mm f/2, on the other hand, is slightly sharper wide open when you pixel-peep, but the difference is minimal in real-world shooting. What’s really remarkable is that it maintains f/2 sharpness that’s comparable to many prime lenses. When I’m shooting portraits at 70mm f/2, the detail in the eyes is absolutely stunning—rivaling what I get from my 85mm f/1.2 prime.
Here’s a real-world example: I recently shot a portrait session with both lenses. At 70mm, both set to their maximum apertures (f/2.8 vs f/2), I had to pixel-peep to tell the difference in sharpness. The RF 28-70mm was marginally sharper in the center, but the RF 24-70mm had better corner sharpness. For most practical purposes, you’d be hard-pressed to tell them apart in normal-sized prints or web images.
Bokeh and Background Rendering
This is where the RF 28-70mm f/2 really flexes its muscles. That extra stop of aperture makes a noticeable difference in background separation and bokeh quality. When I’m shooting portraits, the f/2 aperture gives me that dreamy, creamy background that clients absolutely love.
I did a side-by-side test with a friend who owns the RF 24-70mm f/2.8. We shot the same subject at 70mm, both wide open, and the difference in background blur was immediately apparent. The f/2 shot had smoother, more rounded bokeh balls, while the f/2.8 image had slightly more defined edges in the out-of-focus areas.
But—and this is important—the difference isn’t as dramatic as you might expect. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 still produces beautiful bokeh, and for many photographers, the difference might not be worth the trade-offs in weight and price.
Low-Light Performance
This is another area where the RF 28-70mm f/2 has a clear advantage. That extra stop of light gathering makes a real difference when you’re shooting in dim conditions. I’ve found that I can keep my ISO one stop lower when shooting with the f/2 lens, which means cleaner images with less noise.
However, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 fights back with its excellent image stabilization. I’ve successfully handheld shots at 1/2 second at 70mm with this lens, which is incredible. When you combine the lens stabilization with the in-body stabilization of the R5 or R6, you get a system that’s remarkably stable for handheld shooting.
For video work, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is definitely the winner. The stabilization makes it much easier to get smooth, steady footage, especially if you’re doing any kind of movement. The RF 28-70mm f/2 can produce beautiful video, but you’ll need a gimbal or other stabilization system to get the best results.
Build Quality and Weather Sealing (2025)
Both lenses feature excellent build quality that you’d expect from Canon’s L-series lineup. They both have weather sealing that I’ve tested in less-than-ideal conditions, and they’ve held up beautifully.
The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 has a slightly more compact design that I find easier to handle, while the RF 28-70mm f/2 has a more substantial feel that inspires confidence. Both have smooth focus rings and well-placed control rings that I use constantly for adjusting exposure settings.
One thing I really appreciate about both lenses is the matte finish that Canon has been using on their RF lenses. It’s grippy enough to provide a secure hold but smooth enough that it doesn’t catch on clothing or camera bags.
Autofocus Performance
In my testing, both lenses have excellent autofocus performance. They’re both fast, accurate, and silent in operation. I’ve used both for tracking moving subjects, and they’ve performed admirably.
The RF 28-70mm f/2 has a slight edge in low-light autofocus performance, likely due to the extra light gathering capability. I’ve noticed that it acquires focus slightly faster in dim conditions, which can be crucial for event photographers.
However, the difference is minimal, and both lenses work seamlessly with Canon’s excellent eye-detection autofocus. Whether I’m shooting portraits, events, or sports, I’ve been consistently impressed with the autofocus performance of both lenses.
Price and Value Considerations: Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 vs RF 28-70mm f/2
Let’s talk money, because these are both significant investments. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS typically retails for around $2,300, while the RF 28-70mm f/2L goes for about $2,900. That’s a $600 difference, which is substantial.
But price isn’t the only consideration—you also need to factor in the cost of filters. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 uses 82mm filters, which are expensive but relatively common. The RF 28-70mm f/2 uses 105mm filters, which are significantly more expensive and less common. A good circular polarizer for the 28-70mm can cost twice as much as one for the 24-70mm.
There’s also the question of value over time. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is a more versatile lens that you’ll likely use more often, which could make it a better value in the long run. The RF 28-70mm f/2 is more of a specialty lens that you’ll pull out for specific situations.
Who Should Buy Which Lens In 2025?
Based on my extensive testing and real-world use, here’s my breakdown of who should buy which lens:
Get the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS if:
- You shoot weddings, events, or anything that requires long shooting sessions
- You value versatility and want one lens that can do everything well
- You shoot a lot of video and need good stabilization
- You’re on a budget (relatively speaking)
- You want a more portable setup for travel or everyday use
- You need the wider 24mm focal length for landscapes or architecture
Get the RF 28-70mm f/2L if:
- You primarily shoot portraits, fashion, or commercial work
- You want the absolute best image quality and don’t mind the weight
- You often shoot in low light and need that extra stop
- You want background separation that rivals prime lenses
- You mostly work in controlled environments (studio, location shoots with assistants)
- You want a lens that makes a statement and impresses clients
My Personal Experience and Final Verdict
I’ve had the privilege of shooting with both lenses extensively, and I can tell you that they’re both incredible tools that have their place in a professional photographer’s kit.
For my personal work, which is mostly weddings and portraits, I’ve found that the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is the more practical choice. It’s the lens I reach for 90% of the time because it’s versatile, relatively lightweight, and the image stabilization is invaluable for the way I shoot.
However, when I have a portrait session where image quality is the absolute priority and I don’t mind lugging around extra weight, the RF 28-70mm f/2 is magical. There’s something special about the images it produces—they have a certain quality that’s hard to quantify but impossible to ignore.
If I had to choose just one lens to keep forever, I’d probably go with the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS because it’s more versatile and practical for my day-to-day work. But I’d miss the RF 28-70mm f/2 terribly for those special occasions when I want to create something truly extraordinary.
Pro Tips for Getting the Most from Your Lens (2025)
Regardless of which lens you choose, here are some tips I’ve discovered through extensive use:
For RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Users:
- Take advantage of the stabilization: Don’t be afraid to push the limits of handheld shooting. I’ve gotten sharp images at surprisingly slow shutter speeds.
- Use the control ring: Program it for exposure compensation—it’s a game-changer for quick adjustments.
- Experiment with close focusing: The 0.21m minimum focus distance at the wide end makes this surprisingly capable for detail shots.
- Pair it with a prime: Having a fast prime like the RF 50mm f/1.2L gives you the best of both worlds.
For RF 28-70mm f/2L Users:
- Use a monopod or tripod: This lens benefits from support, especially for long shooting sessions.
- Embrace the weight: Use the heft to your advantage for steadier shots.
- Shoot at f/2 whenever possible: That’s what you’re paying for—don’t stop down unless you absolutely need to.
- Consider a filter system: 105mm filters are expensive, so invest in a good filter system or step-down rings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the RF 28-70mm f/2 worth the extra money?
It depends on your needs. If you primarily shoot portraits and value the absolute best image quality, yes, it’s worth every penny. If you shoot a variety of subjects and need versatility, the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is probably the better choice.
Can I use the RF 28-70mm f/2 for handheld video?
Technically, yes, but it’s not ideal. The lack of image stabilization makes it challenging to get smooth footage without additional support. For serious video work, I’d recommend the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 or investing in a gimbal.
Which lens is better for low-light photography?
The RF 28-70mm f/2 has the advantage in pure light-gathering capability, but the RF 24-70mm f/2.8’s stabilization often makes it more practical for real-world low-light shooting.
Is the weight difference really that noticeable?
Absolutely! The RF 28-70mm f/2 is nearly 60% heavier than the RF 24-70mm f/2.8. This makes a huge difference during long shooting sessions.
Which lens has better autofocus?
Both have excellent autofocus, but the RF 28-70mm f/2 has a slight edge in very low-light conditions due to the extra light gathering.
Can I use these lenses for landscape photography?
The RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is better for landscapes due to its wider 24mm focal length and lighter weight, making it more practical for hiking and travel.
Final Thoughts
Choosing between the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and the RF 28-70mm f/2L isn’t about picking the “better” lens—it’s about picking the right lens for your specific needs and shooting style.
I’ve discovered that the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 is the Swiss Army knife of lenses—versatile, practical, and capable of handling almost any situation you throw at it. It’s the lens I’d recommend for most photographers, especially those who shoot a variety of subjects.
The RF 28-70mm f/2, on the other hand, is a specialist’s tool. It’s for photographers who prioritize image quality above all else and are willing to deal with the weight and cost to get that extra bit of performance.
Whatever you decide, both lenses represent the incredible potential of Canon’s RF mount system, and you really can’t go wrong with either choice. Just make sure to save this article for future reference, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions!