Lens recommendations for new R5 user Locked

RDM5546 wrote:

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.

When you say kicked out of places? Ok i get it for countries like Turkey where they might think of you as a reporter and you may get in trouble. But in places like Cuba and Berlin, i dont think it will be a problem. In general not only with the 28-70. I dont disagree with you on the IQ of the 24-70 but many that own it argue that it has a distinct character. Maybe they are trying to justify their purchases but it has a very nice rendering in my opinion almost prime like.

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.

I have used wide aperture primes, one of them being the great 35mm art. But i dont shoot portraits most of the time. But even when i do, as i am travelling i want to include a little more background to give context. If i melt it away in oblivion with a 1.2 prime or 1.4 it will lose something for me. So i always am in the neighbourhood of 1.8-2.2. Thats why i am not bothered by the f2 aperture. But i get your point and i am considering it carefully.

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.

I was at first thinking of the same combo. 15-35 and 70-200 with a 50mm bridging between. But after reviewing my own photos i rarely was under 24mm. In 500px and flickr  i mostly liked pictures taken in 24-35. Photos wider than that were mostly astro and aurora photos or a really creative photo at a really magical place. However i could not unnotice the distortion at most of the these photos. That got me thinking of changing the setup a bit