Struggling between RF USM and STM lineup as an amateur

sercheese wrote:

Thank you all for yet another insight full responses.

I don't want to be chaotic, but I have a 3rs option in mind right now 😬

3) RF 24-70mm F2.8, RF 50mm F1.2 and RF 70-200mm F4.0

So I would like to ask is it better to have two lenses of the holy trinity but with no room between the edges @70mm or the combo RF 24-105mm F4.0 and RF 70-200mm F4.0 would give more flexibility, as one doesn't have to immediately change the lens after @70mm?

If I would go the 3rd route, then I would just buy all three altogether. If I would go the 4th route, I would wait with the tele zoom to see if I need it.

I'm asking because you sometimes wrote that the flexibility to take a shot, without change the lens is more important than having the whole focal range between 24mm and 200mm.

RF 50mm is a premium lens, which I will buy to have this unicorn.

And one more interesting thing if my past. As I used to be a student in Poland many years ago, I had some pocket money from my parents, less than 1'000zł/month. I saved two years, making some part jobs to buy a 5'000zł set Canon 50d & EF-S 17-55mm F2.8. I won't sell this combo, as it only has emotional value to me. It shows that I could patiently save money for something what I wanted, not having a lot of earnings. Nowadays to buy this whole set I'm talking about is just a matter of a financial decision if I want to burn a lot of money. But it's no stretch for me, as it was in the past. I am also no millionere, so I understand that this decision will affect my progress in savings, etc. But as I already wrote, I will have this camera and those lenses for many years. I am a Canon Believer. I've tried the Nikon way but couldn't get accustomed to the differences. So I am sure I will be happy with Canon. I've even rented R6 Mk I and it was a great experience. I immediately felt in home.

When I bought the R5, I deliberately took the decision to go with the RF 24-105 F4 instead of the RF 24-70 2.8.

Reasons being:

The 24-105 is 200gr lighter - - > good for traveling.

24-70 is a rather limited focal length, imo. I used this equivalent focal length in the past, and it was often too short when trying to focus on something more distant. 105mm is definitely better.

At 105mm f4, the DOF is even shallower than at 70mm f2.8, so at least the same portrait potential.

Last but not least, f2.8 is often not bright enough in the very low light situation a living room in the evening provides. So you'd end up with a prime anyways.

After 2.5 years, my conclusion is that this was the right decision for me. At no point I considered a switch or was mad about that decision. Rather arguing what primes go well with it..

Note that the IQ of the RF 24-105 in the corners(!) is only "ok" at 24mm. There seems to be some sample variation with respect to that property, some report it, some not... Maybe it's also just a matter of personal expectations. Since you're targeting a "normal resolution" body, it probably is no issue at all..