Lens recommendations for new R5 user Locked

Amateur Photog wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

Amateur Photog wrote:

I have finally managed to upgrade my equipment to the Canon R5. A definite step up from my previous setup. I love it!! However I have a hard time choosing lenses. I know i want a 70-200 because i love details in a landscape shot and in cities when travelling. However I want an everyday zoom which i can use during hikes.

As i said i shoot landscapes and cityscapes during travel and hikes along with occasional portraits. I have reviewed my usage through lightroom. But because i am relatively new to the field of photography (5 years) and i am not a working pro i dont have a large catalog, so i did a little bit of research in 500px and flickr. About 900 photos both from my own and online were selected. I saw a little pattern. 14-35 range and 24-70mm range were pretty much equal but the range of 24-35mm (FF terms) was the most popular, mainly because in my previous setup my widest was 24mm but i had the tendency to prefer photos in that range as well.

In the UWA lens territory, photos came mostly from online, while only a few photos were mine from when i used a 14mm prime of a friend. However i have to confess that shooting at that range (14-20mm) is so hard for me because i dont see the composition. Even if i do and lets say shoot 50 different photos in that range, i will end up liking 1 or 2 only.

To sum it up i am a bit torn between two ranges and 3 lenses. Should i go with an UWA-WA zoom lens, meaning the 15-35, or go with a more standard zoom like 24-70. The third lens is the 28-70. I have found a great deal that puts it in almost the same price as the 24-70. However i am kinda worried about its weight (i dont want to visit a doctor for tentonitis) and above all about it being very noticeable in a negative way.

Based on this info (and sorry for the lengthy essay) what would you recommend for someone like me? Is the UWA lens worth investing over the standard or should i prefer the standard zoom for its useful range? And lastly is the 28-70 worth investing over the 24-70?

I found the 28-70mm to be too big and heavy for my uses. Maybe you are bigger and stronger than I am or at least more willing. I would rather use the 24-70 and one or two prime lenses. That me and you are you. It depends on how you can spend which for many is a primary restriction. I love the RF24-240mm for hiking, biking and travel but it is not choice of everyone. I have amazed with the great IQ it can provide in a 10X $800 zoom which is definitely not commonplace.

Thank you for your reply! I have the same opinion that it is heavy. My main concern though is that it is noticeable. I attracts attention which sometimes may be unwanted especially during travelling. We got robbed with a friend of mine once and i just had a sony point and shoot, i dont remember which one but one of the expensive ones. But my friend lost his d810 along with the trinity of 2.8 zooms. It wasnt nice. And though i am careful i always have this fear. I think i can wield (or is it spelled weild...idk) that beast of combined weight of 2,5 kilos. I want to give it a try but i cannot rent it anywhere in my country.

I loved my 18-140 on my d7100 because of its versatility but since i tried the rf 70-200 2.8 it spoiled me for more specific zoom lenses rather than 10x zooms. But i cannot deny how useful they are during travelling.

I am saving for a long time and Canon has really impressed me since the launch of the rf mount and i saved a lot of money for this fine glass. But i am considering a lot what i am about to buy, i am thinking if it worths the investment or if it is foing to stay in the bag for the most time. Thats why i ask about the UWA vs the two standard zooms since i am having difficulty using the UWA or at least i am having a 5% keepers...maybe even less. And i am impressed about what the 28-70 can offer but i want to know if it offers a better image quality and maybe character than the 24-70. I can live without the 24mm FL as long as i am blown away but the IQ of the lens.

You are right it is noticeable and says rob me! It also gets you kicked out of places that do not want good pictures taken. Fear of the unknown perhaps. However, a cellphone works in many of those without the same reaction. Attracting thieves is another issue. In some international airports they get very upset with pictures being taken by good equipment. The 28-70mm is a very obvious lens and will attract nothing good. However, it is also very heavy for lens you sometimes may carry around for hours. It has many photographer fans for sure at it is not in any way poor performing lens. The IQ is quite good but so it the RF 24-70. I have the trinity of f2.8s and my 70-200f2.8 is a EF mk III version. I like the zoom control ring action more this one than on the new RF 70-200 which takes more twist which I find annoying and slower.

Oh yeah, the RF 28-70 does not generate as strong isolation or bokeh as a f1.2 or f1.4 lenses though but some people feel it magical. I feel my three Sigma Art primes are magical when required but heavy and big of course. To each their own.

The RF 15-35 is the best UWA I have used. It is fantastic and it vidal indoor when there is no room for more shootng distance. In my opinon it is technically the best of the RF trinity but you have to want the UWA images and it is a boatload of money. The Sigma 14-28mm is an amazing lens for a lot less money. The 14mm is in mind a major advantage in cases where large depth of field is required in tight spaces. 1mm may not seem much but it makes a big difference at times and offer significantly more depth of field. Not for all occasions but somes the 1mm matters. I do not have the Sigma but it very good IQ.  I find the wider 2.5X zoom of the 15-35mm more useful more often for me than the benefits of the UWA Sigma zoom.  Sometimes I carry only the 15-35 and 70-200mm lenses for less weight and ease of carry.  It all depends on the expected use.