RF lenses. What I have & what I'm looking at

cocoanud said:

KariP said:

Myles Baker said:

picturetime2 said:

Myles Baker said:

The RF 16-28 f2.8 & the RF 28-70 f2.8 lenses have piqued my interest.

Had they been out when I moved from APSC to FF in the R mount I probably would have bought them.

The RF 28-70 f2.8 specifically, would have been an almost like for like replacement for my most used lens at that time on APSC, which was the EFS 17-55 f2.8.

The problem is that they were not available at the time and I bought the RF 24-105 f4, which I would almost certainly trade in if I bought the 28 - 70.

It's a lens I use a lot & that I like a lot, but I couldn't justify keeping it if I had the others. I'm torn between wanting f2.8 & losing the zoom range.

I also have the RF 16 f2.8. It might not be the greatest lens in the world, but it's so small & light it's always with me & I take a surprisingly large number of photos with it. Getting the RF 16-28 f2.8 would give me more flexibility but at the cost of that portability.

I am starting to shoot a lot more video, which I usually do with the RF 16 f2.8 on my R8 and mounted on a gimbal or handheld with the RF 24- 105 f4 (because it's a pain to rebalance the gimbal between those 2 lenses). With the size & weight of the 16-28 & 28-70 being almost identical I could swap between the 2 on the gimbal without any problem or use them handheld as both have IS.

The other lenses I have are the RF 35 f1.8, the RF 50 f1.8 the RF 85 f2 & the RF 100-400.

If I buy the 28-70 f2 then there is the temptation to get rid of the primes, the problem is I really like the 35 & the 85 & the 50 is so cheap it won't really change the equation.

That's my dilemma. If I buy those 2 f2.8 lenses & drop the 24-105 f4, will I regret it and if I keep the primes, will they just become clutter because I will likely only bring those 2 lenses for most occasions (unless I want the reach of the 100-400).

I am writing this more as an exercise to clarify this in my own head than anything else, but if anyone else has faced a similar situation I'd appreciate your input.

And yes, first world problems

Click to expand...

Here is what I have learned... if you have to sell something to get something, don't waste your time.

Click to expand...

I agree that in general if you have to sell something to buy something else, you probably shouldn't. Not always the case, but a good general principal. In this case it's not about having to sell the 24-105 f4, it's about whether if I have 2 lenses that fulfil essentially the same purpose, will one of them sit in a cupboard doing nothing. If that's the case, which I think it would be, it's better to trade it in.

I was looking at a Tudor Black Bay over the weekend. I really liked the look of it. I decided against buying it because I have another watch that fits that niche & because of that one or the other would sit in it's box for long periods of time, which to me is a waste. If I bought it, I'd sell the other for that reason & as I like the other more, that's not going to happen. That's kind of where I am with this lens choice, except I'm not sure which I would like more.

Click to expand...

Some years ago I meditated this f4 or f2.8 or f2.0 or whatever thing

At the moment I carry 3 zoom lenses when I'm going out for a longer excursion.

14-35f4 +24-105f4+70-200f4. I calculated the total weight and the price tags and the usability. Compared to f2,8 versions .... I tried to find a need for f 2,8 and could not find any reasonable reasons. I mean possibly better photographs - just a thought. Now I can carry three lenses in a backpack and walk reasonably fast also uphill... and I have some money left . Pictures are as good as I can make - I'm the limiting factor, Not the lenses

Click to expand...

I am thinking of selling my 28-70 f/2.8 and simplifying down to 20mm VCM, 50mm VCM and EF 135 f/2

Less is more... I heard that somewhere, never tried.

Click to expand...

Andy01 said:

picturetime2 said:

They actually put coatings on iPhones that basically make them hard to hold.

It's called an "oleophobic" coating and its supposed to reduce finger prints but it has just about 0 effect on finger prints. Just makes it really slippery.

What a smart company!

Click to expand...

And none of that really matters to the vast majority of users - because they fit a case and/or screen protector to their phone, so seldom come in contact with the bare phone.

Click to expand...

KariP said:

cocoanud said:

KariP said:

Myles Baker said:

picturetime2 said:

Myles Baker said:

The RF 16-28 f2.8 & the RF 28-70 f2.8 lenses have piqued my interest.

Had they been out when I moved from APSC to FF in the R mount I probably would have bought them.

The RF 28-70 f2.8 specifically, would have been an almost like for like replacement for my most used lens at that time on APSC, which was the EFS 17-55 f2.8.

The problem is that they were not available at the time and I bought the RF 24-105 f4, which I would almost certainly trade in if I bought the 28 - 70.

It's a lens I use a lot & that I like a lot, but I couldn't justify keeping it if I had the others. I'm torn between wanting f2.8 & losing the zoom range.

I also have the RF 16 f2.8. It might not be the greatest lens in the world, but it's so small & light it's always with me & I take a surprisingly large number of photos with it. Getting the RF 16-28 f2.8 would give me more flexibility but at the cost of that portability.

I am starting to shoot a lot more video, which I usually do with the RF 16 f2.8 on my R8 and mounted on a gimbal or handheld with the RF 24- 105 f4 (because it's a pain to rebalance the gimbal between those 2 lenses). With the size & weight of the 16-28 & 28-70 being almost identical I could swap between the 2 on the gimbal without any problem or use them handheld as both have IS.

The other lenses I have are the RF 35 f1.8, the RF 50 f1.8 the RF 85 f2 & the RF 100-400.

If I buy the 28-70 f2 then there is the temptation to get rid of the primes, the problem is I really like the 35 & the 85 & the 50 is so cheap it won't really change the equation.

That's my dilemma. If I buy those 2 f2.8 lenses & drop the 24-105 f4, will I regret it and if I keep the primes, will they just become clutter because I will likely only bring those 2 lenses for most occasions (unless I want the reach of the 100-400).

I am writing this more as an exercise to clarify this in my own head than anything else, but if anyone else has faced a similar situation I'd appreciate your input.

And yes, first world problems

Click to expand...

Here is what I have learned... if you have to sell something to get something, don't waste your time.

Click to expand...

I agree that in general if you have to sell something to buy something else, you probably shouldn't. Not always the case, but a good general principal. In this case it's not about having to sell the 24-105 f4, it's about whether if I have 2 lenses that fulfil essentially the same purpose, will one of them sit in a cupboard doing nothing. If that's the case, which I think it would be, it's better to trade it in.

I was looking at a Tudor Black Bay over the weekend. I really liked the look of it. I decided against buying it because I have another watch that fits that niche & because of that one or the other would sit in it's box for long periods of time, which to me is a waste. If I bought it, I'd sell the other for that reason & as I like the other more, that's not going to happen. That's kind of where I am with this lens choice, except I'm not sure which I would like more.

Click to expand...

Some years ago I meditated this f4 or f2.8 or f2.0 or whatever thing

At the moment I carry 3 zoom lenses when I'm going out for a longer excursion.

14-35f4 +24-105f4+70-200f4. I calculated the total weight and the price tags and the usability. Compared to f2,8 versions .... I tried to find a need for f 2,8 and could not find any reasonable reasons. I mean possibly better photographs - just a thought. Now I can carry three lenses in a backpack and walk reasonably fast also uphill... and I have some money left . Pictures are as good as I can make - I'm the limiting factor, Not the lenses

Click to expand...

I am thinking of selling my 28-70 f/2.8 and simplifying down to 20mm VCM, 50mm VCM and EF 135 f/2

Less is more... I heard that somewhere, never tried.

Click to expand...

You could use only 24-105 - that is more simple. Swapping lenses is not the best hobby, IMO. Three lenses in a bag.... - I often carry just one in a small shoulder bag (24-105). Three zooms is nice when I have a backpack and a long day just making photographs and enjoying .

Click to expand...

KariP said:

You will get more better photos if you can use a good zoom and concentrate on photography ( composition and such things...)

Click to expand...

KariP said:

cocoanud said:

I am thinking of selling my 28-70 f/2.8 and simplifying down to 20mm VCM, 50mm VCM and EF 135 f/2

Less is more... I heard that somewhere, never tried.

Click to expand...

You could use only 24-105 - that is more simple. Swapping lenses is not the best hobby, IMO. Three lenses in a bag.... - I often carry just one in a small shoulder bag (24-105). Three zooms is nice when I have a backpack and a long day just making photographs and enjoying .

You will get more better photos if you can use a good zoom and concentrate on photography ( composition and such things...)

Click to expand...

cocoanud said:

cocoanud said:

You will get more better photos if you can use a good zoom and concentrate on photography ( composition and such things...)

Click to expand...

Isn't that thing said more in the context of primes

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

MAC said:

thunder storm said:

Myles Baker said:

R2D2 said:

Myles Baker said:

picturetime2 said:

Here is what I have learned... if you have to sell something to get something, don't waste your time.

Click to expand...

I agree that in general if you have to sell something to buy something else, you probably shouldn't. Not always the case, but a good general principal. In this case it's not about having to sell the 24-105 f4, it's about whether if I have 2 lenses that fulfil essentially the same purpose, will one of them sit in a cupboard doing nothing. If that's the case, which I think it would be, it's better to trade it in.

I was looking at a Tudor Black Bay over the weekend. I really liked the look of it. I decided against buying it because I have another watch that fits that niche & because of that one or the other would sit in it's box for long periods of time, which to me is a waste. If I bought it, I'd sell the other for that reason & as I like the other more, that's not going to happen. That's kind of where I am with this lens choice, except I'm not sure which I would like more.

Click to expand...

Me, I'm constantly buying and selling as my needs change. I do my evaluations very carefully though! Know thyself! :-D

R2

Click to expand...

The problem is, I do know myself

I am an impulse buyer. I can control the urge if it's on-line shopping, but If I go to my regular camera shop pick up the RF 28-70 f2.8 & like it, I will buy it. Luckily for me that shop is in Medan & I now live in Jakarta. Unluckily for me, I go to Medan around once a month for work (this is how I ended up buying the R8 as an upgrade to my RP). I dare not go to Magna Dua in Jakarta or who knows what I will walk out with, ditto Sim Lim in Singapore, always a dangerous stop!

My wife loves shopping as an activity, she can spend days in shops browsing & not actually buy anything because she's far more sensible with money than I am. On the other hand, I don't like shopping. I don't see the point unless you actually buy something. Put me in a hardware store or an electronic store & I'm a danger to myself. Years ago I took a wrong turn in Munich, asked directions in a shop & walked out with a remote control car, for no other reason than I'd always wanted one & it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Then again, some of my best & most treasured purchases have happened that way.

Click to expand...

If you want to buy a new toy just because you want to play with it, there's no need for finding an excuse or something why you would need it other than wanting to play with it.

In your shoes I would change the 50mm f/1.8 stm for the 50mm f/1.4 VCM. That's more fun imo. f/2.8 in a standard zoom is practical, but it's not exiting. Keep the range of the f/4.0 zoom, and get some truly light gathering potential with an f/1.4 prime. If it's hard to save up for the VCM lens, stay away from that camera store while saving up.

Click to expand...

It is a good lens for wide open subject separation

but like the op, I own an R8 that doesn't have ibis

Click to expand...

Yeah, common, I know that's your requirement, and that's fine, but it's not like you can't use a lens without stabilization when your sensor is great at ISO 2500 and you can open up the aperture to f/1.4. So I won't recommend this lens ever again to you, but for others it can still be a viable option, especially when there's some money to burn without a good reason anyway.

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

I like my 85 f2 for subject separation and IS where I can focus at just 13 inches

Click to expand...

Sure, but not every subject is that small, and there's not always enough space to use 85mm. A full stop extra, a wider focal length and fast AF has it's benefits sometimes.

Like you the OP most likely doesn't need anything extra. Just gear talk.

Click to expand...

cocoanud said:

KariP said:

cocoanud said:

KariP said:

Myles Baker said:

picturetime2 said:

Myles Baker said:

The RF 16-28 f2.8 & the RF 28-70 f2.8 lenses have piqued my interest.

Had they been out when I moved from APSC to FF in the R mount I probably would have bought them.

The RF 28-70 f2.8 specifically, would have been an almost like for like replacement for my most used lens at that time on APSC, which was the EFS 17-55 f2.8.

The problem is that they were not available at the time and I bought the RF 24-105 f4, which I would almost certainly trade in if I bought the 28 - 70.

It's a lens I use a lot & that I like a lot, but I couldn't justify keeping it if I had the others. I'm torn between wanting f2.8 & losing the zoom range.

I also have the RF 16 f2.8. It might not be the greatest lens in the world, but it's so small & light it's always with me & I take a surprisingly large number of photos with it. Getting the RF 16-28 f2.8 would give me more flexibility but at the cost of that portability.

I am starting to shoot a lot more video, which I usually do with the RF 16 f2.8 on my R8 and mounted on a gimbal or handheld with the RF 24- 105 f4 (because it's a pain to rebalance the gimbal between those 2 lenses). With the size & weight of the 16-28 & 28-70 being almost identical I could swap between the 2 on the gimbal without any problem or use them handheld as both have IS.

The other lenses I have are the RF 35 f1.8, the RF 50 f1.8 the RF 85 f2 & the RF 100-400.

If I buy the 28-70 f2 then there is the temptation to get rid of the primes, the problem is I really like the 35 & the 85 & the 50 is so cheap it won't really change the equation.

That's my dilemma. If I buy those 2 f2.8 lenses & drop the 24-105 f4, will I regret it and if I keep the primes, will they just become clutter because I will likely only bring those 2 lenses for most occasions (unless I want the reach of the 100-400).

I am writing this more as an exercise to clarify this in my own head than anything else, but if anyone else has faced a similar situation I'd appreciate your input.

And yes, first world problems

Click to expand...

Here is what I have learned... if you have to sell something to get something, don't waste your time.

Click to expand...

I agree that in general if you have to sell something to buy something else, you probably shouldn't. Not always the case, but a good general principal. In this case it's not about having to sell the 24-105 f4, it's about whether if I have 2 lenses that fulfil essentially the same purpose, will one of them sit in a cupboard doing nothing. If that's the case, which I think it would be, it's better to trade it in.

I was looking at a Tudor Black Bay over the weekend. I really liked the look of it. I decided against buying it because I have another watch that fits that niche & because of that one or the other would sit in it's box for long periods of time, which to me is a waste. If I bought it, I'd sell the other for that reason & as I like the other more, that's not going to happen. That's kind of where I am with this lens choice, except I'm not sure which I would like more.

Click to expand...

Some years ago I meditated this f4 or f2.8 or f2.0 or whatever thing

At the moment I carry 3 zoom lenses when I'm going out for a longer excursion.

14-35f4 +24-105f4+70-200f4. I calculated the total weight and the price tags and the usability. Compared to f2,8 versions .... I tried to find a need for f 2,8 and could not find any reasonable reasons. I mean possibly better photographs - just a thought. Now I can carry three lenses in a backpack and walk reasonably fast also uphill... and I have some money left . Pictures are as good as I can make - I'm the limiting factor, Not the lenses

Click to expand...

I am thinking of selling my 28-70 f/2.8 and simplifying down to 20mm VCM, 50mm VCM and EF 135 f/2

Less is more... I heard that somewhere, never tried.

Click to expand...

You could use only 24-105 - that is more simple. Swapping lenses is not the best hobby, IMO. Three lenses in a bag.... - I often carry just one in a small shoulder bag (24-105). Three zooms is nice when I have a backpack and a long day just making photographs and enjoying .

Click to expand...

I don't like the 24-105 L. I had that lens and gives off a feel of questionable build quality. Granted it didn't brake while I had it but I didn't enjoy using it as well. The 28-70 f/2.8 feels very robust in comparison and I enjoy using it.

I think by going primes only, I am after optical excellence. The 20 and 50 VCM are excellent lenses ie better than the zooms. The 135 f/2 probably not so much.. it has more "character" but even with that it is plenty sharp.

cocoanud said:

You will get more better photos if you can use a good zoom and concentrate on photography ( composition and such things...)

Click to expand...

Isn't that thing said more in the context of primes

Click to expand...

Andy01 said:

picturetime2 said:

They actually put coatings on iPhones that basically make them hard to hold.

It's called an "oleophobic" coating and its supposed to reduce finger prints but it has just about 0 effect on finger prints. Just makes it really slippery.

What a smart company!

Click to expand...

And none of that really matters to the vast majority of users - because they fit a case and/or screen protector to their phone, so seldom come in contact with the bare phone.

Click to expand...