I am thinking to return a brand new 28-70mm f2 RF lens

thunder storm wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

There's no redundancy if you absolutely need to shoot a lot at 35mm and it's critical to shoot at f/1.8 not f/2.0. I'd say the difference is going to be negligible.

You're missing the point. There's a difference in weight on the camera. That's what makes these lenses nonredundant.

Definitely. Is it worth the price of an additional lens is a different question.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

Again you you really use f/1.2 a lot.

Or rarely. Or f/1.4. Of f/1.8.

And if f/1.2 of f/1.4 isn't valuable, why are some starving to death to have f/2.0 in their standard zoom in stead of f/2.8?

For low light, background blur etc.

Again if you have a budget for all the lenses you may ever need - it's entirely up to you.

You simply can't say "I need that f/2.0 zoom accepting 1430 grams and 3300 euro, but a larger aperture doesn't matter to me."

I'm not saying you need to have all those larger aperture primes in your bag next to that zoom. But some primes next to that zoom aren't necessarily redundant for several reasons.

If you have to carry all the lenses with you, there's a lot of redundancy.

For me, if I would own the f/2.0 zoom, it would still make sense to have both that zoom and the 40mm f/1.4 Art in the bag, and an RF 35mm f/1.8 for when stuff gets heavy on my camera.

The question is, as above, it's it worth spending money on additional +f0.2 and less weight, but only at 35mm. I don't know.

There's a portrait photographer who uses almost exclusively an old Nikkor 35 f/1.4. That's a part of his style. Does the OP need it? - I don't know. Honestly, most likely he doesn't.

If the lenses of all possible apertures and focal lengths stay on your shelve and you sometimes pick one for particular purpose, there's no redundancy in your camera bag but there is a lot of money spent on lenses you may only use just a few times in their lifetime.

The same could be true for lenses being to heavy to shoot conveniently a longer period of time, while changing light primes or lighter zooms would be a lot easier on the wrists.

Depends on your stamina

I'd use a tripod or monopod. In fact I was using it a lot with the much heavier EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II IS

Its perfectly fine if you budget allows that though.

Not buying the f/2.0 zoom frees up quite some budget: 3300 euro. I've spend 1000 euro on another zoom 350 on the 50mm Art, 850 on the 40mm Art and 350 on the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM as a light weight option. So that's 750 euro spare change.

Yes, you need to change lenses, and yes, it's more weight in the bag, but it's less weight on the camera when you don't need the weighty lenses, and you will get your blur and one stop extra at 40mm.

Yes - it sounds like a trade-off based on the needs and the budget.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)