Re: Which zoom lens/lenses (24-105, 24-240, 70-200 etc)?
Laqup wrote:
Kit #4 (16 - 400mm):
1. RF 16mm 2.8 (wide angle coverage, landsacpes and creative shots)
2. RF 24-105mm f/4L (everyday lens)
3. RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (animals + general purpose tele)
4. RF 50mm f/1.8 (Portrait) or RF 85mm f/2.0 (Portrait / Macro)
This will cover basically everything of the non specialised use-cases with a decent quality. Can be upgraded with RF 14-35mm f/4L, but this will increase overall cost and weight.
I actually ordered the 14-35mm once, but cancelled in last minute and got the 15-30 instead. I've realized I don't care so much for super wide angle shots anyway. The 15-30 might've even been unnecessary as well, since I owned the 16 f2.8 already. The 15-30 is pretty good in the 24-30mm range though, so if I had a zoom that was weak in this range (like the 24-240) then it wouldn't matter that much.
Anyway, tell me more about the 24-105mm f/4L. From what I've seen and heard, it doesn't seem to be a particularly sharp lens. Much softer than Nikon's and Sony's offerings. DXOMark claims it can only resolve 16 megapixels (should be enough for me though since I only have 20mp in my R6). But nonetheless I've heard it has good "rendering" (contrast, colors and "3D pop"), would you agree with that?
I wish I could rent these lenses to try them out, but unfortunately that is not possible where I currently live.
Or of course the break your back and bank kit:
Kit #5 (14 - 500mm):
1. RF 14-35mm f/4L
2. RF 24-70mm f/2.8L
3. RF 100-500mm
4. RF 85mm f/2.0
Replace 1. with the 15-30mm f/2.8L, 2. with the 28-70 f/2L and 4. with the 85mm f/1.2L and add 5. RF 100 f/2.8L for "the full package".
Yeah that would've been nice :-).
I wish Canon would make a 20-70mm f/4L, similar in size and price to the Sony variant.