RF Lens Wishlist

[neuroanatomist]

BUT... I'm willing to be dissuaded. As you do have the 28-70 f/2... are you finding the zoom range overly restrictive? I suspect you really only pull that out when you're looking for the ultimate in subject separation, and otherwise rely on the wider range of the 24-105, but when you do use it, how do you find it?

You're correct, I really view the 28-70/2 as a collection of prime lenses. For my typical subjects, I don't find it restrictive. Many years ago, I was deciding between the EF 24/1.4L II and the EF 35/1.4L and I set the 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days. I found that I preferred 35mm, and in post processing I was routinely cropping the shots from 24mm.

But for a travel lens, I would not want it to start at 28mm. Even though I'd have something wider with me (10-20/4 or 14-35/4), the extra width will often mean I don't have to swap lenses for a shot, something I prefer not to do especially walking around with family. Having said that, I did use the R8 + RF 28/2.8 as a walk around lens for a while, and it does well so perhaps I'm overemphasizing the importance of those extra few mm on the wide end.

[Kayaker72]

It is fun to sometimes walk around with a prime, sometimes with a zoom like the 70-300L.

For a travel lens, I am usually f/5.6-f/11. Usually I am in the “storytelling/entire scene” apertures. If lowlight, I am usually doing sunrise/sunset so I get more light with longer exposures.

This is why I am ok sacrificing a stop of aperture for a larger focal length range. I’d want IQ to stay up. We’ll see what Canon comes up with. But, let’s get real, I am not hurting with my current kit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tounis]

I received the 28-70 f/2.8 on Wednesday. It's the first lens I've preordered, but my situation is not the same as some other contributors to this thread. I don't have any L lenses to pair with my R6 or R8. The 24-70 L always seemed too expensive for what I do and too heavy for me. The non-L zooms that I have come with narrow apertures, and landscape opportunities are few and far between. Most of the pictures I take nowadays are pictures of my kids.

Lately I was mostly using the RF non L primes, which I do really like, but to have a light, wide aperture, versatile lens that comes with some weather resistance is something I hoped for for some time now.

I didn't get much time to use it but so far the pictures I got look great and I hope it will replace 3-4 other lenses as I want to reduce the amount of gear I have. It could very well become my most used lens in the near future.

[DavidEccleston]

You're liking it Tounis? I have a pre-order as well, but it hasn't shipped yet. Everyone has mentioned how sharp it is, but Bryan's early test results look quite fuzzy except at center. I'm hoping Bryan got a bad copy and everyone else is right.

[Busted Knuckles]

Perhaps a specific scenario might help focus the discussion .

I went to a fundraiser on Tuesday night for a local charity.... they had several trips for auction that where on my bucklet list so I thought I would bid on a couple of perhaps get lucky..... well..... 1 trip to Iceland and 1 to Africa later.....

I have 3 years to take the trips, and the wish list is now what lenses should I take - and even what camera body - I have a R5, but for Africa would a rental of a R1 or R3 be more appropriate?

What lenses would you take on either or both?

Thanks for the guidance.

Mike

[Tounis]

You're liking it Tounis? I have a pre-order as well, but it hasn't shipped yet. Everyone has mentioned how sharp it is, but Bryan's early test results look quite fuzzy except at center. I'm hoping Bryan got a bad copy and everyone else is right.

As I said, I haven't had much time to use it, just a little walk around the house with my kids. About sharpness, I'm certainly not the best person to answer since I never conduct any kind of scientific test or take pictures of brick walls or anything like that. The pictures I got looked very sharp and not only in the center, but I'll tell you more in a few days. The lens feels great on the R8 (didn't try it on the R6 still) and the retracted position doesn't bother me at all, as you don't have to use it when shooting. I'm certainly looking forward to using it more.

[Kayaker72]

I received the 28-70 f/2.8 on Wednesday. It could very well become my most used lens in the near future.

I have a pre-order as well, but it hasn't shipped yet.

Congrats on the gear! I look forward to hearing how the lens performs. As David mentioned earlier, it could be a lightweight solution for me, eventually.

I went to a fundraiser on Tuesday night for a local charity.... they had several trips for auction that where on my bucklet list so I thought I would bid on a couple of perhaps get lucky..... well..... 1 trip to Iceland and 1 to Africa later.....

I have 3 years to take the trips, and the wish list is now what lenses should I take - and even what camera body - I have a R5, but for Africa would a rental of a R1 or R3 be more appropriate?

What lenses would you take on either or both?

Thanks for the guidance.

Mike

Cool...congrats! What part of Africa?

As for Iceland, I went in 2019, using my 5DIV, of my keepers, I was 7% EF 16-35 f/4 L IS, 82% EF 24-70 II, and 11% 100-400 II. I went in March. If I were to go in summer, I would also be targeting puffins (not present in March) and would make sure I had longer lenses....but, your 100-500 w/ TC might be all you need. I also had rented a Sigma 14 f/1.4 to photograph auroras....but we were clouded over the entire time so it was never used. In the summer that likely would be a non-factor due to the lack of darkness.

As for Africa, absolutely, yes, I would have a second body with me. Depending on where you are, I often hear that dust is a significant issue. Bring plenty of wipes. But, due to the dust and wanting to respond to a scene quickly, most people I see have 2+ bodies with lenses mounted. Which lenses depends a bit on where you are going and what you are targeting. Birds, always need reach. But large mammals, when I envision Africa, I am thinking large mammals in their environment. Thus, it isn't reach that you always need. But I do often hear about needing light. So, as I envision an Africa trip, I could see something for reach, your 100-500 may cover that, but then 100-300 f/2.8 with or w/o TC? 70-200 f/2.8? 24-70 f/2.8 and I've even heard some people talking about taking the 28-70 f/2.

If I was going today, I'd likely do RF 24-105 f/2.8, RF 100-300 f/2.8, and 500 f/4 II with the RF 16 f/2.8 included if I wanted UWA. I'd have at least 2 bodies and would consider 3. But when I think of that, I am in a jeep on the Serengeti with a whole row to myself.

Again, depends on where you are going (Congo? Serengeti? Botswana? S. Africa?) and what you are targeting.