Which Canon RF Zoom Lens Is Worth Keeping?

Choosing between Canon’s RF 28-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4 lenses is tougher than it looks. Both offer exceptional quality, but figuring out which fits your needs best can make or break your experience in the field.

Coming to you from James Reader, this detailed video breaks down the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 and RF 24-105mm f/4 lenses exactly where each lens shines and struggles. Reader quickly addresses the first obvious difference: focal length. He demonstrates clearly how much wider 24mm feels compared to 28mm, particularly in cramped settings where stepping back isn’t possible. While the 28-70mm lens can compensate outdoors, Reader highlights scenarios where 24mm can capture a perspective you simply can’t achieve at 28mm. If you shoot in tight spaces often, these extra few millimeters could be crucial. Yet, Reader doesn't stop there, also exploring the long-end capabilities, demonstrating how the extra reach of 105mm can offer compositional advantages over the 70mm limit.

Coming to portrait photography, the video reveals another major consideration—the aperture. Reader shows practical comparisons between the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses, noting subtle but meaningful differences in background blur and subject separation. He explains clearly how the 28-70mm excels in environmental portraits, giving just enough extra pop to separate your subject from a complex background. But the 24-105mm isn’t far behind, especially at the longer focal lengths. If portraits are your priority, particularly close-up shots, these tests provide valuable insights into how aperture choice impacts your style.

Beyond stills, Reader explores video performance, an area often overlooked in lens comparisons. Surprisingly, his tests revealed that the RF 28-70mm renders noticeably warmer tones and a more cinematic quality compared to the slightly flatter look of the RF 24-105mm. Reader emphasizes this isn't just about shallow depth of field but the overall visual quality, including how smoothly and organically backgrounds are rendered. Videographers especially will find this comparison compelling, given how strongly Reader advocates for the unique visual character of the 28-70mm lens.

When discussing sharpness, Reader’s comparisons show that while both lenses perform impressively, subtle differences exist. The RF 28-70mm tends to hold an advantage in clarity and sharpness across more of its zoom range, especially wide open. However, at certain focal lengths, particularly in corners, the 24-105mm surprises with excellent performance. Reader cautions viewers that lens-to-lens variability exists, especially with the RF 24-105mm, recommending you test your own copy carefully.

Finally, Reader tests low-light and autofocus capabilities, finding minimal real-world differences for most everyday photography. Both lenses focus quickly and reliably, whether in stills or video, with slight advantages leaning toward the RF 28-70mm. Stabilization also slightly favors the newer lens, which shows less jittery corners in video tests.

Ultimately, Reader decides on the RF 28-70mm f/2.8, primarily due to his emphasis on video quality and the lens’s unique rendering. However, he admits openly that, for pure photography—especially travel photography—the versatility and convenience of the RF 24-105mm f/4 are unmatched. If versatility matters most to you, you'll need to weigh this heavily. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Reader.