Thinking of buying the 16-28/f2.8 STM & 28-70/f2.8 STM

Greaves · Apr 13, 2025

I have two camera kits; a R5 Mk2 with a number of L lenses for “serious” photography, mostly wildlife. And an everyday kit based at present on a RP.

I am thinking of upgrading the everyday kit to a R8 and the above two zooms. If I did then a number of STM primes that I currently own would become superfluous to needs. Can anyone advise on how the image quality of the zooms compares to the primes. At present I have the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 STM primes. Should I trade them in for the two zooms? Is there any of these primes that I should keep?

Laqup · Apr 13, 2025

You didn't really specify if you really need the larger apertures. The primes are mostly 1.8/2.0, this is a bit different than 2.8 and of course some of the primes are "semi macro".

That being said I have the same primes as you and I have the 28-70 f2 and the 2.8 L zooms on top. I rarely use any of those primes and when I do it is mostly the 85mm f2 and sometimes the 24/35mm if I want to stay compact. The other ones just sit on my shelf. Your mileage may differ though.

Greaves · Apr 13, 2025

I also have the 2.8 L zooms and the 100 macro as part of my “serious” kit.

if the image quality on the STM zooms is good enough, I could probably live without the faster primes, as I don’t often shoot wide open with the primes. I would love a fast wide lens for the occasional Astro shot, but I don’t think the STM zooms or primes are good enough for Astro.

thunder storm · Apr 13, 2025

Greaves said:
I have two camera kits; a R5 Mk2 with a number of L lenses for “serious” photography, mostly wildlife. And an everyday kit based at present on a RP.

I am thinking of upgrading the everyday kit to a R8 and the above two zooms. If I did then a number of STM primes that I currently own would become superfluous to needs. Can anyone advise on how the image quality of the zooms compares to the primes. At present I have the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 STM primes. Should I trade them in for the two zooms? Is there any of these primes that I should keep?

I would keep the 85mm. For this lens the 1:2 magnification factor is the most useful. 70mm f/2.8 is not 85mm f/2.0.

If you don't need f/1.8 there's no reason to keep the 24 or 35mm.

Andy01 · Apr 13, 2025

Have you tried a tool like this;

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

I just had a quick look at RF 28-70 f2.8 at 35mm and f2.8 and compared to RF 35mm Macro at f2.8, and they seem relatively comparable.

alphaZ · Apr 14, 2025

Greaves said:
I have two camera kits; a R5 Mk2 with a number of L lenses for “serious” photography, mostly wildlife. And an everyday kit based at present on a RP.

I am thinking of upgrading the everyday kit to a R8 and the above two zooms. If I did then a number of STM primes that I currently own would become superfluous to needs. Can anyone advise on how the image quality of the zooms compares to the primes. At present I have the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 STM primes. Should I trade them in for the two zooms? Is there any of these primes that I should keep?

I would forget the R8 and just use the R5ii with the 16-28-70 and definitely keep the 24/28/35/85.

The R5ii is such a great everyday camera, why downgrade to the R8 to save such a small amount of weight and reduced ergo? The R8 28-70 is not going to fit in your pocket?

For me the weakest prime is the 50, Canon need a replacement that improves the af imo. The 85f2 is a bit clunky too but offers much more than the 28-70 can do, the extra stop and 1.2x extra focal length should be enough that want to have a light 85mm close focus option on hand too. Similarly the 24 is a nice option if you don't want the extra bulk of the 16-28 and the 28/35 are two flexible primes again, as much as I like the 28-70 I think I might yet add some more primes.

Obviously, if you need a second body and/or are not happy about taking your R5ii on holiday etc, then maybe the R8 is a better solution, but just as an everyday kit, used locally and or for travel/hiking domestically, I'd be sticking with the R5ii.

Andy01 · Apr 14, 2025

alphaZ said:
Greaves said:

I have two camera kits; a R5 Mk2 with a number of L lenses for “serious” photography, mostly wildlife. And an everyday kit based at present on a RP.

I am thinking of upgrading the everyday kit to a R8 and the above two zooms. If I did then a number of STM primes that I currently own would become superfluous to needs. Can anyone advise on how the image quality of the zooms compares to the primes. At present I have the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 STM primes. Should I trade them in for the two zooms? Is there any of these primes that I should keep?

Click to expand...

I would forget the R8 and just use the R5ii with the 16-28-70 and definitely keep the 24/28/35/85.

The R5ii is such a great everyday camera, why downgrade to the R8 to save such a small amount of weight and reduced ergo?

Not really a "small amount of weight" - R5 ii + RF 24-70L f2.8 (which I assume OP already has) = 1575g and R8 + RF 28-70 f2.8 = 956g, so R5 ii option is around 620g heavier (or an 65% extra weight over R8 option) - which I think is quite significant. The difference between the UWA L f2.8 and 16-28 f2.8 is similar.

This shows the 24-105 on R8 because they don't yet have 28-70 f2.8, but the lenses are almost identical in dimensions, so the size comparison is valid - significant different.

Compact Camera Meter

Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.

camerasize.com

And yes, R8 obviously isn't as capable as R5 ii, but it is still a VERY competent camera - much more so than RP.

alphaZ said:
The R8 28-70 is not going to fit in your pocket?

No, it won't but it is VERY MUCH smaller and lighter than R5 ii option.

alphaZ said:
For me the weakest prime is the 50, Canon need a replacement that improves the af imo. The 85f2 is a bit clunky too but offers much more than the 28-70 can do, the extra stop and 1.2x extra focal length should be enough that want to have a light 85mm close focus option on hand too. Similarly the 24 is a nice option if you don't want the extra bulk of the 16-28 and the 28/35 are two flexible primes again, as much as I like the 28-70 I think I might yet add some more primes.

Obviously, if you need a second body and/or are not happy about taking your R5ii on holiday etc, then maybe the R8 is a better solution, but just as an everyday kit, used locally and or for travel/hiking domestically, I'd be sticking with the R5ii.

MMACory · Apr 14, 2025

Might not answer your question, but I have the R8 and LOVE IT. It's everything I'll ever need.

Wanted something small and versatile. Fingers pointed to the 35 1.8.

For the rare telephoto needs went with the RF 70-200 f/4 and couldn't be more pleased.

Suddenly needed something wider for video and after weighing the pros and cons of everything went with the new 16-28. It's not rational, but I try to avoid overlapping focal lengths. Otherwise, I might have preferred the 14-35.

Haven't yet put it through it's paces, but very pleased with the UWA range and, even though for video, will expore UWA photography; since I do have the lens.

There may be "better" options, but the 16-28 fits utterly perfectly.

alphaZ · Apr 15, 2025

Andy01 said:
alphaZ said:

Greaves said:

I have two camera kits; a R5 Mk2 with a number of L lenses for “serious” photography, mostly wildlife. And an everyday kit based at present on a RP.

I am thinking of upgrading the everyday kit to a R8 and the above two zooms. If I did then a number of STM primes that I currently own would become superfluous to needs. Can anyone advise on how the image quality of the zooms compares to the primes. At present I have the 16, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 STM primes. Should I trade them in for the two zooms? Is there any of these primes that I should keep?

Click to expand...

I would forget the R8 and just use the R5ii with the 16-28-70 and definitely keep the 24/28/35/85.

The R5ii is such a great everyday camera, why downgrade to the R8 to save such a small amount of weight and reduced ergo?

Click to expand...

Not really a "small amount of weight" - R5 ii + RF 24-70L f2.8 (which I assume OP already has) = 1575g and R8 + RF 28-70 f2.8 = 956g, so R5 ii option is around 620g heavier (or an 65% extra weight over R8 option) - which I think is quite significant. The difference between the UWA L f2.8 and 16-28 f2.8 is similar.

I never suggested the R5II and 24-70 2.8? I suggested to use his existing R5II and forget buying the R8, the saving is 200gr, ie R8+28-70 2.8 or R5II+28-70 2.8, for a saving of 200gr its a very substantial downgrade.

Andy01 said:
This shows the 24-105 on R8 because they don't yet have 28-70 f2.8, but the lenses are almost identical in dimensions, so the size comparison is valid - significant different.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#929.841,903.948,ha,t

And yes, R8 obviously isn't as capable as R5 ii, but it is still a VERY competent camera - much more so than RP.

Maybe so, but if you already have an R5II to save 200gr and next to no difference in dimensions, ie my R5ii and 28-70 fits comfortably in the 3l pd bag.

Andy01 said:
Andy01 said:

The R8 28-70 is not going to fit in your pocket?

Click to expand...

No, it won't but it is VERY MUCH smaller and lighter than R5 ii option.

The R5II with the 28-70 2.8, not the 24-70, is the same dimension as the R8 +28-70 pretty much, its not that much smaller and like I say fits comfortably in my 3l pd bag, its tiny once fitted with smaller lenses.

Andy01 said:
Andy01 said:

For me the weakest prime is the 50, Canon need a replacement that improves the af imo. The 85f2 is a bit clunky too but offers much more than the 28-70 can do, the extra stop and 1.2x extra focal length should be enough that want to have a light 85mm close focus option on hand too. Similarly the 24 is a nice option if you don't want the extra bulk of the 16-28 and the 28/35 are two flexible primes again, as much as I like the 28-70 I think I might yet add some more primes.

Obviously, if you need a second body and/or are not happy about taking your R5ii on holiday etc, then maybe the R8 is a better solution, but just as an everyday kit, used locally and or for travel/hiking domestically, I'd be sticking with the R5ii.

Click to expand...

Greaves · Apr 15, 2025

To be clear, I have always had two separate kits. At present one is based on the R5 Mk2 and the other on the RP. This thread has nothing to do with the R5 Mk2 kit, which meets all my current needs for “serious” photography.

This thread is primarily about the lenses for the second everyday kit. It is about whether I should replace 5 or 6 prime STM lenses with 2 STM zooms. I am not interested in debates about weight savings, as I have already made my choices on that by opting for two separate kits. It is about whether the two zooms will provide better or worse image quality. To a lesser extent, it is about whether if buying the zooms it is worth keeping any of the primes.

The RP or R8 debate is not really a debate. The R8 is a natural upgrade on the RP and one I almost certainly do sooner or later, unless Canon surprises me by bringing out a better compact option with a RF mount.

alphaZ · Apr 15, 2025

Greaves said:
To be clear, I have always had two separate kits. At present one is based on the R5 Mk2 and the other on the RP. This thread has nothing to do with the R5 Mk2 kit, which meets all my current needs for “serious” photography.

I would say an R8 and 16-28-70 2.8 is still a pretty serious bit of kit, but understood, you want the second kit to be lighter in its entirety, correct? But, lets be fair to Canon, 16-28-70 2.8 are excellent lenses, not L level but still very capable lenses.

Greaves said:
This thread is primarily about the lenses for the second everyday kit. It is about whether I should replace 5 or 6 prime STM lenses with 2 STM zooms.

That is a very personal decision, probably the weakest are the non stabilized primes, I would say the 28-70 is incredibly sharp wide-open at 28mm, so other than the incredibly small size the the 28-70 is far more flexible than the 28mm and if the motor is similar to the 85mm f2, then, the 28-70 is far faster/quieter in all respects and that goes for all the primes too. Keeping the 24 might be handy if you just want to take the 28-70 and the 24 as a lighter/faster/wider option if required. Similarly the 85 adds extra speed/macro/focal length too, so the 24/85 wood be keepers for me and even the 35mm as a single/fast/normal/macro option too. I'd probably start with adding the 28-70 and losing the 50mm, see how it goes and then add the 16-28 and lose the 16mm, possibly the 24 as well if you feel happy to always carry the 16-28, just in case.

Greaves said:
I am not interested in debates about weight savings, as I have already made my choices on that by opting for two separate kits. It is about whether the two zooms will provide better or worse image quality. To a lesser extent, it is about whether if buying the zooms it is worth keeping any of the primes.

The RP or R8 debate is not really a debate. The R8 is a natural upgrade on the RP and one I almost certainly do sooner or later, unless Canon surprises me by bringing out a better compact option with a RF mount.

R2D2 · Apr 16, 2025

Greaves said:
To be clear, I have always had two separate kits. At present one is based on the R5 Mk2 and the other on the RP. This thread has nothing to do with the R5 Mk2 kit, which meets all my current needs for “serious” photography.

This thread is primarily about the lenses for the second everyday kit. It is about whether I should replace 5 or 6 prime STM lenses with 2 STM zooms. I am not interested in debates about weight savings, as I have already made my choices on that by opting for two separate kits. It is about whether the two zooms will provide better or worse image quality. To a lesser extent, it is about whether if buying the zooms it is worth keeping any of the primes.

The RP or R8 debate is not really a debate. The R8 is a natural upgrade on the RP and one I almost certainly do sooner or later, unless Canon surprises me by bringing out a better compact option with a RF mount.

To be fair there had been no previous mention of any weight differential or really any other priorities in an "everyday" kit. It was simply assumed by some.

My own everyday kit is based on the similarly sized R6ii, reserving the R5ii for wildlife and such.

I am waiting for an M6ii replacement to come out though, and that will handle some (but not all) of my "everyday" duties.

R2

ps. I think that you should give the zoom combo a try!

Greaves · Apr 16, 2025

I have decided to replace all my STM primes with the two STM zooms. I think that with an appropriate body such as the R8 the two zooms will make a great everyday kit.

For more demanding subjects there is always the R5 Mk2 and my L lenses, which cover the whole range from 14 to 8oo with no gaps, actually 1120 with the 1.4 extender.

alphaZ · Apr 16, 2025

R2D2 said:
Greaves said:

To be clear, I have always had two separate kits. At present one is based on the R5 Mk2 and the other on the RP. This thread has nothing to do with the R5 Mk2 kit, which meets all my current needs for “serious” photography.

This thread is primarily about the lenses for the second everyday kit. It is about whether I should replace 5 or 6 prime STM lenses with 2 STM zooms. I am not interested in debates about weight savings, as I have already made my choices on that by opting for two separate kits. It is about whether the two zooms will provide better or worse image quality. To a lesser extent, it is about whether if buying the zooms it is worth keeping any of the primes.

The RP or R8 debate is not really a debate. The R8 is a natural upgrade on the RP and one I almost certainly do sooner or later, unless Canon surprises me by bringing out a better compact option with a RF mount.

Click to expand...

To be fair there had been no previous mention of any weight differential or really any other priorities in an "everyday" kit. It was simply assumed by some.

My own everyday kit is based on the similarly sized R6ii, reserving the R5ii for wildlife and such.

I am curious why though? Why have a camera as capable as the R5ii and only use it for wildlife and such? I notice R2D2 you also have the R5, would you say the R6ii is more fun/practical/responsive than the R5 and why, I am interested to know. I'd like a second body too but it would have to be;

Preferably >40mp, might go with 36mp if it was compact

Great to excellent evf

ibis

No more than <750gr with battery and card, battery min 340 shots with evf.

All of Canon's latest af functionality

Flexible screen

Preferably FF

Currently there isn't a lot of options in this space except, R5/R5ii from Canon and the Sony a7r5/a1ii which requires me to run a second system that really doesn't interest me. So, I do wonder why R5/5ii isn't more popular for the everyday duties, please explain?

R2D2 said:
I am waiting for an M6ii replacement to come out though, and that will handle some (but not all) of my "everyday" duties.

If I wanted to go really small and have the same field of view of say the 22mm f2 on the m6ii I'd 100% buy the RF 28mm 2.8 and use the 4:3 ratio, this would provide the equivalent in camera fov of say a 32mm f3.2, that compared to the 35mm f3.2 (22m f2 x1.6) is going to be very similar. But the extra flexibility of having 28/32 switchable will be far more useful/practical. By the time you add the evf, and the hassle factor, the R5/5ii 28 2.8 seems far more useful imo, what am I missing?

R2D2 said:
R2

ps. I think that you should give the zoom combo a try!

Laqup · Apr 16, 2025

alphaZ said:
I am curious why though? Why have a camera as capable as the R5ii and only use it for wildlife and such? I notice R2D2 you also have the R5, would you say the R6ii is more fun/practical/responsive than the R5 and why, I am interested to know. I'd like a second body too but it would have to be;

Currently there isn't a lot of options in this space except, R5/R5ii from Canon and the Sony a7r5/a1ii which requires me to run a second system that really doesn't interest me. So, I do wonder why R5/5ii isn't more popular for the everyday duties, please explain?

You are massively underestimating the capabilities of a small body such as the R8. IBIS is very very often not as relevant as many seem to believe and other than that the R8 is really fun to use (especially if you don't need the second card slot and often look at the display instead of the EVF anyway). I have all three, the R5 II, R6 II and R8, and in general if you don't need any of the R5 II exclusive features like eye control, RAW pre-capture, scenario based AI AF or high resolution, the R8 and R6 II are really close in terms of AF and general operation performance.

Why use this super expensive camera for "everyday activities" if an R8 or R6 II can basically do the same with a bit less resolution (which often isn't that relevant either)?

"Wear out" your most expensive geare wisely. Wildlife is one application where the R5 II has some welcome improvements over the less expensive bodies. For some other applications like event shooting (where you need the best of the best reliability and overall performance) R5 II is the prefered choice, but the other bodies are no slouches either.

The R5 on the other hand pales a bit in comparison, as it doesn't have the latest "AF interface" like the R8 and R6 II and therefore a different way of operating the camera is necessary that can be a bit tedious, especially if you are used to the newer implementation. Nevertheless the R5 in itself is still a great camera, just not the best fit as a second body. R6 II, R8 and R5 II can be configured to behave very similarly and have a similar UI layout as well.

alphaZ · Apr 16, 2025

Laqup said:
alphaZ said:

I am curious why though? Why have a camera as capable as the R5ii and only use it for wildlife and such? I notice R2D2 you also have the R5, would you say the R6ii is more fun/practical/responsive than the R5 and why, I am interested to know. I'd like a second body too but it would have to be;

Currently there isn't a lot of options in this space except, R5/R5ii from Canon and the Sony a7r5/a1ii which requires me to run a second system that really doesn't interest me. So, I do wonder why R5/5ii isn't more popular for the everyday duties, please explain?

Click to expand...

You are massively underestimating the capabilities of a small body such as the R8. IBIS is very very often not as relevant as many seem to believe and other than that the R8 is really fun to use (especially if you don't need the second card slot and often look at the display instead of the EVF anyway). I have all three, the R5 II, R6 II and R8, and in general if you don't need any of the R5 II exclusive features like eye control, RAW pre-capture, scenario based AI AF or high resolution, the R8 and R6 II are really close in terms of AF and general operation performance.

Why use this super expensive camera for "everyday activities" if an R8 or R6 II can basically do the same with a bit less resolution (which often isn't that relevant either)?

"Wear out" your most expensive geare wisely. Wildlife is one application where the R5 II has some welcome improvements over the less expensive bodies. For some other applications like event shooting (where you need the best of the best reliability and overall performance) R5 II is the prefered choice, but the other bodies are no slouches either.

The R5 on the other hand pales a bit in comparison, as it doesn't have the latest "AF interface" like the R8 and R6 II and therefore a different way of operating the camera is necessary that can be a bit tedious, especially if you are used to the newer implementation. Nevertheless the R5 in itself is still a great camera, just not the best fit as a second body. R6 II, R8 and R5 II can be configured to behave very similarly and have a similar UI layout as well.

OK, but I think I'd just buy a second R5ii then if I decide to have a second body for everyday use/back-up/travel as I'm really not seeing the downgrade's as worthwhile compromises. I can use the R5ii in e-shutter with no wear out, other than the fact its being moved around in my bag etc, so far I've done two 9-10mile walks with the R5ii +24-240 and no issues, so if I needed to go lighter, just 28-70 or 16-28-70 I see absolutely no issue. Also have the option to add the 24-105.4 or 14-35 too in the future and use these singularly or as a pairing or with existing.

Being totally honest, with the wildlife I spotted on Saturday the 100-400 might be a better bet to use with the 24-240 or a 24-105.4.

Greaves · Apr 16, 2025

For everyday use the RP or R8 with a STM zoom is more than capable. For grab shots of the family having a meal out or visiting the park, you don’t need either the weight or capabilities of a R5 Mk2 complete with a L zoom. Total overkill.

Indeed, as R2 argued an updated M6ii with a RF mount is more than adequate. I don’t take photographic masterpieces with my everyday kit, just family snapshots. The RP copes well with such shots. Many such shots are taken on fully auto and certainly don’t take full advantage of even the RP’s feature set.

Horses for courses. The R5 Mk2 with its high resolution and advanced autofocus is great for wildlife. Photographing leopards in the African bush is much more intense, where I am attempting to capture a masterpiece, where I am concentrating on my settings, trying to take advantage of the R5 Mk2’s advanced features.

thunder storm · Apr 16, 2025

Greaves said:
I have decided to replace all my STM primes with the two STM zooms. I think that with an appropriate body such as the R8 the two zooms will make a great everyday kit.

For more demanding subjects there is always the R5 Mk2 and my L lenses, which cover the whole range from 14 to 8oo with no gaps, actually 1120 with the 1.4 extender.

I would still keep the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

For me, at f/2.8, 70mm isn't long enough. I don't need a lot of telephoto, but 85mm is the minimum. I have a Samyang 75mm f/1.8 for my Sony, and using it's larger aperture 75mm kind of works for subject isolation, but for perspective it's not the same as 85mm. At every event you can easily do 90% of the shots between 50 and 28mm, but just a few at 85mm adds that very nice variation to the reportage. 70mm f/2.8 can't do that for you.

And to have that prime IQ and f/2.0 right at your longest focal length is awesome. The lens is also good enough for 45Mp, even allowing for a bit of cropping. The lens is very capable of holding up contrast in back lit situations. This is also a rare example of an 85mm having next to no distortion. No bended horizons, straight lines in architecture shots. There's a lot of complaining lately about recent lens designs having too much distortion (35mm VCM for instance), but this isn't one of those lenses.

There's also the magnification factor, which is also great to have right at your longest focal length. The downside of that magnification factor (and probably the low distortion) is the size of the lens. It's big for what it is. But it's a more fruitful, less boring and better performing lens than the 24&35mm IS stm lenses imo.

alphaZ · Apr 16, 2025

Greaves said:
For everyday use the RP or R8 with a STM zoom is more than capable. For grab shots of the family having a meal out or visiting the park, you don’t need either the weight or capabilities of a R5 Mk2 complete with a L zoom. Total overkill.

I'm into portability as well, the R5ii can be used with non L lenses as well

In fact I don't use any L lenses currently, although I may add some in the future.

Greaves said:
Indeed, as R2 argued an updated M6ii with a RF mount is more than adequate.

Feels crazy to me to buy a great camera then use something less capable that's all.

Greaves said:
I don’t take photographic masterpieces with my everyday kit, just family snapshots.

That's all most people are doing on a day to day basis, but I'd prefer to use the best at my disposal.

Greaves said:
The RP copes well with such shots. Many such shots are taken on fully auto and certainly don’t take full advantage of even the RP’s feature set.

Horses for courses. The R5 Mk2 with its high resolution and advanced autofocus is great for wildlife.

Great for people, kids, outdoors, anything really, it's not exactly large, fitted with the 28-70 2.8 it fits in a 3l sling with ease.

Greaves said:
Photographing leopards in the African bush is much more intense, where I am attempting to capture a masterpiece, where I am concentrating on my settings, trying to take advantage of the R5 Mk2’s advanced features.

The more you use your camera, in even the most mundane ways, the more accomplished you will be. Using different bodies with different layout's and ergonomics leads to continuous readjustment in my experience.

smilerliu · Apr 16, 2025

alphaZ said:
Greaves said:

For everyday use the RP or R8 with a STM zoom is more than capable. For grab shots of the family having a meal out or visiting the park, you don’t need either the weight or capabilities of a R5 Mk2 complete with a L zoom. Total overkill.

Click to expand...

I'm into portability as well, the R5ii can be used with non L lenses as well In fact I don't use any L lenses currently, although I may add some in the future.

alphaZ said:

Indeed, as R2 argued an updated M6ii with a RF mount is more than adequate.

Click to expand...

Feels crazy to me to buy a great camera then use something less capable that's all.

alphaZ said:

I don’t take photographic masterpieces with my everyday kit, just family snapshots.

Click to expand...

That's all most people are doing on a day to day basis, but I'd prefer to use the best at my disposal.

alphaZ said:

The RP copes well with such shots. Many such shots are taken on fully auto and certainly don’t take full advantage of even the RP’s feature set.

Horses for courses. The R5 Mk2 with its high resolution and advanced autofocus is great for wildlife.

Click to expand...

Great for people, kids, outdoors, anything really, it's not exactly large, fitted with the 28-70 2.8 it fits in a 3l sling with ease.

alphaZ said:

Photographing leopards in the African bush is much more intense, where I am attempting to capture a masterpiece, where I am concentrating on my settings, trying to take advantage of the R5 Mk2’s advanced features.

Click to expand...

The more you use your camera, in even the most mundane ways, the more accomplished you will be. Using different bodies with different layout's and ergonomics leads to continuous readjustment in my experience.

I'm with you. From the utility point of view, IMHO the weight savings of a compact camera like R8 is often overrated. The biggest weight factor is the lenses and not the body, and most people can handle that extra 200g body weight without any problems.

However, camera buying is often an emotional game.

If we all just buy the gears we NEED, well, I suspect all the camera companies will be making much less money and thus smaller. From the emotional point of view, I think many people just like new toys and small, "cute" things (me included). Cameras like R8 and R50/R100 fit into that category. I totally don't need an R100, but I still bought it (cheap from Canon refurb sales) mostly as a new toy and I'm keeping it even after exploring it simply because it's small and kind of "cute".

Thinking of buying the 16-28/f2.8 STM & 28-70/f2.8 STM

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts