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

BTW I'm not saying no one needs smallish cameras. I'm just saying buying such cameras for saving weight is often not the real reason.

smilerliu said:

BTW I'm not saying no one needs smallish cameras. I'm just saying buying such cameras for saving weight is often not the real reason.

Click to expand...

As an example: if you go to the zoo with your family 200g less pulling on your neck for a few hours is a huge difference. Sure most people can handle the additional weight for shorter periods of time, but if you factor in time that's a completely different story.

And of course it's a difference if you have 1200$ swinging around or 4000$.

I think that the OP clearly stated that this direction was NOT all about the weight. It appears to be more about a smaller, more portable setup that could be taken anywhere. I might guess that in some cases (like going to a busy park, kid's playground or fair, or even just a tourist) having something that looks less professional and cheaper might also be an attraction - because it may look less attractive to would-be thieves.

I do agree that a relatively small amount of weight adds up over time though. My EF 100-400L ii is "only" 1100g heavier than my RF 100-400, which though a lot more than a 210g difference in camera weights doesn't sound that much in the grand scheme of things (like a good sized full water bottle) - but carried around a zoo for 6 hours makes an enormous difference - the RF was unbelievably easy and inconsequential compared to the EF which left sore muscles for days.

Laqup said:

smilerliu said:

BTW I'm not saying no one needs smallish cameras. I'm just saying buying such cameras for saving weight is often not the real reason.

Click to expand...

As an example: if you go to the zoo with your family 200g less pulling on your neck for a few hours is a huge difference. Sure most people can handle the additional weight for shorter periods of time, but if you factor in time that's a completely different story.

Click to expand...

IMHO most people should be able to handle the extra 200g weight for that few hours in some way. For one they don't have to hang the camera on the neck. Even for hanging on the neck, if it's a FF camera with a decent zoom (it's the zoo!), the neck would die anyway if the person weren't able to handle that extra 200g.

Laqup said:

And of course it's a difference if you have 1200$ swinging around or 4000$.

Click to expand...

This is a very valid reason.

Laqup said:

pulling on your neck

Click to expand...

You shouldn't do that anyway. Peak design capture and stuff like that is the answer to a lot of weight concerns. I even use it when I have small lenses attached to the camera.

Laqup said:

for a few hours

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

This sounds like a good option to explore. Zooms have been getting better and better, so some of the previous appeal that "forced" us to primes is lessened. I'll likely be doing something similar as you in the future.

R2

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.

Click to expand...

+1 saved me a lot of typing!

R2

alphaZ said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am curious why though? Why have a camera as capable as the R5ii and only use it for wildlife and such?

Click to expand...

I don't mind having separate kits for different purposes. The R6ii is a fully capable camera for the events, sports, and fashion/portraits that I do on an "everyday" basis. I find it to be completely trustworthy. This kit resides in my office and also heads out for any "extracurricular" activities that may come up (shoots on the side). I bought the R6ii at time of release to replace the short-lived R6.

Your conclusion is correct however that the R5ii's performance out-classes the R6ii in just about every area (I've also used the R5ii to shoot all of the above, both as a primary and as a paired body). The DIGIC Accelerator and improved Subject Detection have a very noticeable impact. When I bought the R5ii I thought long and hard about replacing the R6ii with a second R5ii. The upgrade made complete sense.

However I've been considering retiring within the next year, and decided to stick it out with the R6ii. It still does everything I need it to do.

alphaZ said:

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

Click to expand...

R5ii all the way!

alphaZ said:

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 have to look at these choices from the perspective of the timeline also. I decided on and bought the R5, R6, R7, R6ii, and R5ii at the time of their releases, not sitting here with all of them available at the same time. If a person can afford it, right now the R5ii gets the first nod.

alphaZ said:

alphaZ said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

The big BUT however, is when reduced (body) size also becomes a major consideration. Here the R8 makes a lot of sense (or even one of the crop bodies).

Personally I am waiting for the first R body that shows up with a TILT SCREEN. I'll be all over that one! :-D

Best of luck with your own decision!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

Sometimes we are too gear obsessed. We forget that some of the greatest photographs ever taken were shot on cameras that are out-stripped in every department by even the most basic digital camera. I can remember back in my film days being advised to never go above 64 ASA if I ever wanted any of my work to be published. Now there are people on this and other forums complaining about noise when shooting at 256,000 ISO.

There are those who can’t understand why I choose to shoot with lesser equipment when I have a R5 Mk2 available. They cannot understand that for the majority of my “snapshots”, the R5 Mk2 is overkill with unneeded resolution and unused features. If I showed them photos taken with my everyday kit together with similar pictures taken with my R5 Mk2 I doubt if they could tell the difference, especially if viewed on a tablet or printed as a 6x4.

A more sensible debate is whether I should replace the everyday kit with a good compact or even an iPhone. I know that there are many here who would welcome a camera with a M form body and RF mount. It is a great shame that the two recently released cameras, the R50V and V1, are so video centric and not designed to meet the needs of photographers.

I should add that I have no traded in all my STM primes and purchased the two STM zooms. And I will soon be replacing the RP with the R8.

R2D2 said:

R2D2 said:

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?

Click to expand...

The big BUT however, is when reduced (body) size also becomes a major consideration. Here the R8 makes a lot of sense (or even one of the crop bodies).

Click to expand...

Body size is probably a consideration with lenses like the RF 24&35mm IS stm. At the point your mounting the 85mm f/2.0, 24-105mm either stm or f/4.0 L, the 50mm VCM, or even the new 28-70mm f/2.8 the advantage of a smaller body relative to the total combo is pretty minimal imo.

With lenses like the 16&28&50mm stm the advantage is very obvious, but unfortunately these lenses aren't stabilized on the R8. The same is true for the 50mm VCM. That's fair for the low price you're paying for a stellar sensor, but at the same time leaving out IBIS isn't in line with typical travel needs, where you can save a lot of weight by gathering your light with a longer shutter speed. A longer shutter speed doesn't weight anything.

For me the ideal travel R8 kit would inherit the 50mm VCM, and three of the four 16-35mm stm primes. Most shooting can be done with either the 28 or 35mm, the bigger 50mm VCM can do subject isolation, and with the VCM you have at least one lens benefiting from the AF capabilities the R8 has. The VCM is also a good way to avoid that uninspiring 50mm stm. 24mm and/or 16mm can give you some wide in a small package. I think that's all nice for the price stuff.

R2D2 said:

R2

Click to expand...

In my experience, when I have my R5 with me, the only time I wish I have brought my R8 is when R5 has trouble tracking the faces. Even in those cases, when I have a chance to shoot in similar situations with my R8 later, I often find that R8 also has trouble tracking the faces.

The R5 never bothers me due to its size and weight. Even when mounting the smaller lenses like RF50/1.8, the total weight is so low compared to when I'm using bigger lenses on either camera that I don't prefer using R8.

I still take R8 out sometimes just for the fun part (I just enjoy small portable things), but this is not based on photographic needs.

thunder storm said:

R2D2 said:

alphaZ said:

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?

Click to expand...

The big BUT however, is when reduced (body) size also becomes a major consideration. Here the R8 makes a lot of sense (or even one of the crop bodies).

Click to expand...

Body size is probably a consideration with lenses like the RF 24&35mm IS stm. At the point your mounting the 85mm f/2.0, 24-105mm either stm or f/4.0 L, the 50mm VCM, or even the new 28-70mm f/2.8 the advantage of a smaller body relative to the total combo is pretty minimal imo.

With lenses like the 16&28&50mm stm the advantage is very obvious, but unfortunately these lenses aren't stabilized on the R8. The same is true for the 50mm VCM. That's fair for the low price you're paying for a stellar sensor, but at the same time leaving out IBIS isn't in line with typical travel needs, where you can save a lot of weight by gathering your light with a longer shutter speed. A longer shutter speed doesn't weight anything.

For me the ideal travel R8 kit would inherit the 50mm VCM, and three of the four 16-35mm stm primes.

Click to expand...

not sure what you are saying ... Do you mean?

Canon RF 16-28mm F2.8 IS STM

Canon RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM

Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM

But Not the one Canon sells as a kit : Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

thunder storm said:

Most shooting can be done with either the 28 or 35mm, the bigger 50mm VCM can do subject isolation, and with the VCM you have at least one lens benefiting from the AF capabilities the R8 has. The VCM is also a good way to avoid that uninspiring 50mm stm. 24mm and/or 16mm can give you some wide in a small package. I think that's all nice for the price stuff.

Click to expand...

I got my RF 24-105 F4L for $899 5 years ago

my travel kit is this, the R8 and the 13 mm 48 mpxl iphone 16 pro

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

R2

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MAC said:

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

Click to expand...

I use the RF 28-70 f2 on the R8. What is this presumed issue when used without IBIS?

smilerliu said:

I still take R8 out sometimes just for the fun part (I just enjoy small portable things), but this is not based on photographic needs.

Click to expand...

I have that with lenses. 28-60mm, Viltrox 20mm and Samyang 75mm f/1.8 for Sony, and RF 28mm f/2.8 stm for Canon. I don't really need these lenses. but it's just fun to play with these toys.

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

For me the ideal travel R8 kit would inherit the 50mm VCM, and three of the four 16-35mm stm primes.

Click to expand...

not sure what you are saying ... Do you mean?

Click to expand...

There are 4 stm primes from 16-35mm:

16mm

24mm

28mm

35mm

Three out of these for primes would make 16+24+28 or 16+24+35 or 16+28+35 or 24+28+35mm.

Together with the 50mm VCM that makes a great compact travel kit imo.

Laqup said:

MAC said:

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

Click to expand...

I use the RF 28-70 f2 on the R8. What is this presumed issue when used without IBIS?

Click to expand...

If the lens isn't stabilized you don't have any stabilization at all if the body has no IBIS.

That's a problem if you do want stabilization.

thunder storm said:

Laqup said:

MAC said:

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

Click to expand...

I use the RF 28-70 f2 on the R8. What is this presumed issue when used without IBIS?

Click to expand...

If the lens isn't stabilized you don't have any stabilization at all if the body has no IBIS.

That's a problem if you do want stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yeah we have lived without stabilization for fast lenses for a long time, but once IBIS is available, I realize that how useful stabilization for fast lenses is. As an example , I constantly handhold R5 + EF50L at 1/10s.

smilerliu said:

thunder storm said:

Laqup said:

MAC said:

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

Click to expand...

I use the RF 28-70 f2 on the R8. What is this presumed issue when used without IBIS?

Click to expand...

If the lens isn't stabilized you don't have any stabilization at all if the body has no IBIS.

That's a problem if you do want stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yeah we have lived without stabilization for fast lenses for a long time, but once IBIS is available, I realize that how useful stabilization for fast lenses is. As an example , I constantly handhold R5 + EF50L at 1/10s.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I wield the power of shutter speed, as my typical shooting does not involve scenarios where I could live with 1/10s. :-D

Having a fast lens anyway I tend to use its "fastness" which very often does exclude using slow shutter speeds anyway as base ISO does not go lower than 100. Those slow shutter speeds + IBIS are useful in a couple of specific scenarios, no doubt, but just using a shutter speed fast enough depending on your focal length and / or for freezing the subject motion works in a very broad range of scenarios as well. Therefore I do not really see the issue of missing IBIS / OIS if you are not a low light city/landscape shooter.

Laqup said:

smilerliu said:

thunder storm said:

Laqup said:

MAC said:

And on the 50 VCM - I would not invest in it without IBIS

Click to expand...

I use the RF 28-70 f2 on the R8. What is this presumed issue when used without IBIS?

Click to expand...

If the lens isn't stabilized you don't have any stabilization at all if the body has no IBIS.

That's a problem if you do want stabilization.

Click to expand...

Yeah we have lived without stabilization for fast lenses for a long time, but once IBIS is available, I realize that how useful stabilization for fast lenses is. As an example , I constantly handhold R5 + EF50L at 1/10s.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I wield the power of shutter speed, as my typical shooting does not involve scenarios where I could live with 1/10s. :-D

Having a fast lens anyway I tend to use its "fastness" which very often does exclude using slow shutter speeds anyway as base ISO does not go lower than 100. Those slow shutter speeds + IBIS are useful in a couple of specific scenarios, no doubt, but just using a shutter speed fast enough depending on your focal length and / or for freezing the subject motion works in a very broad range of scenarios as well. Therefore I do not really see the issue of missing IBIS / OIS if you are not a low light city/landscape shooter.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you want it for 1% or 99% of your pics. If you want it it's a problem if it doesn't have it. It's that simple.

Mac wants it. Both body and lens lack it.