Lens recommendations for new R5 user Locked

RB556 wrote:

70-200 will be way more noticeable than any of the other lenses. Eyes are drawn to brightness, think about walking through a crowd of people, you’re more likely to notice a white sun dress than a black hoodie. The RF is smaller than the EFs, but it’s still bright and about 11 inches fully extended with the white hood on. 28-70 is thick but it’s short and most people won’t notice it. It may stand out if they focused on it it but they’ll skim over it. It’s just some person standing there with a black camera, just like every other camera. Same with the other lenses..24-70, 15-35. The average person couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. If you can get a $3000 lens for 2300, snatch it up..that’s a wicked good deal.

I get your point. Most of the time i dont use the 70-200 in the city. Mostly because i am more interested in documenting life. But i do use it when i want on a landmark in the distance and want to compress the image. Thats about 5-10% of my city photography.

However i do use it a lot when it comes to landscapes. I am far more likely to live in th 70-135 range rather than below 24. I like to pick details in the landscapes something that you would often ignore. I will shoot a wide vista mostly to remember the place or if it so dramatic that i have to shoot it. When i am in the countryside i dont worry as much about my equipment because we are group and it is hard for someone to get close without me noticing.

In fact the 28-70 costs 3500 euro in Greece but i found a deal of about 2600. Its practically as low as it gets for such a new lens in Greece. I am really considering buying it. That would save me from buying a 15-35 or 24-70 with a prime (mostly at 50mm). Its a saving of more than 2500 euro and i will save about half a kilo in my bag. Maybe later i will add a prime like the 35 but it will depend.