Comparison of primes on M6II and R, and general comparison of M6II with R

RLight wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

2 cents, what their worth...

50mm is more useful than 85

More useful, yes, I agree. but I still prefer the output of the 85, when it's used for what it is useful for.

Agree on use case for the 85; it's unique, and 90mm isn't quite 85mm

I gave the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM adapted a go on the R for a while and gave it back: limited usefulness. Exactly what you want for a portrait, or various object photography with some limited landscape use, but otherwise it's a one trick pony, a very good one trick pony though (85mm that is).

But again, that's where a Sigma, on an M, makes a little more sense: smaller, lighter, cheaper. I just wish it was a true 85mm. Never going to happen, Sigma is as good as it gets as I sincerely doubt Canon is touching the M for probably a good year or so and likely for a body refresh of some kind as that's what they do for the Rebels these days.

Back to the one trick pony for a minute, that's where I'm a sucker for the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, I just love it's colors, bokeh drawing and bokeh quantity... Other offerings, even Canon's own EF 85mm f/1.4L, aren't the same in my viewing...

What I found is more useful, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on "Goliath", is the RF 28-70 f/2L, it really is a bag of primes...

Stumbled upon this when filtering on 56mm to find my Sigma shots in archive

I never have to swap a lens, wonderful bokeh drawing, colors, and 70mm isn't 85mm, but it's close enough without duplication lens efforts. When you start to consider how much buying all these primes costs, and how often f/1.2 is really needed, this starts to make alot of sense (RF 28-70 f/2L) even from an monetary perspective where do you buy a RF 50 and RF 85, RF 35, EF 28 (f/1.8)? And if buying the non L flavors of these, you loose coatings, weather sealing and USM motors, etc... But you get F/2, L-flavored F/2 at that.

Sorry, On the RF 28 - 70 F2 L being like having a bag of primes, I'm not sure I agree it is the right primes

it doesn't have 24 mm, and that is a must for me

28 mm is awkward and most don't have a 28

I'd rather have a ef 35 f1.4 II than 35 f2

I'd rather have a RF 50 f1.2 than 50 f2

I'd rather have RF 24-70 F2.8 IS than RF 28-70 F2 with no IS

70 F2 without IS is not RF 85 F2 with IS

That said, if you are in a paid situation where you need dual slots and IS, and it is a fast paced event like a wedding, and the lights are not so low where you need f1.2, then the heavy RF 28-70 F2 fits that niche with the R6 - but still you'd need to be carrying a second body with the R 16-35 F2.8, because 28 mm ain't wide enough.

Remember when Canon had the EF 28-70 F2.8 that they discontinued?   It wasn't wide enough for indoor shooting.

In fact my RF 24-105 F4 L for all around shooting, including bounce flash, and access to 24 mm and 105 mm, makes more sense as a one lens setup for me.   Then switch to the primes I need.  85 mm is considered more in the portrait sweet spot than 70 mm.

In my opinion pros more likely to carry a pair of R6's or 1 R6 and 1 R5 and the following 1) RF 24-70 F2.8 IS 2) RF 70-200 F2.8 IS; 3) RF 16 -35 F2.8 IS 4) RF 85 F1.2 5) EF 35 F1.4 II

and they'd buy those lenses in that order because they need 24 mm right away, and they need 200 mm next and they need 16 mm next, all for fast action pj shooting, and then many can do an entire slow paced portrait shoot with just the 35/85 combo

just my 2 cents