EF 24-70 II, RF 24-105 f4, or RF 24-70 IS? A poll

Say you own the R and the 5D Mk IV. Say you also own

EF 24-70 f2.8 II

RF 24-105 f4

RF 70-200

EF 35 1.4 II

Sigma Art 50mm 1.4

EF 85 1.4 IS

EF 100 2.8 Macro IS

I want to thin down the 24-70 range from 2 lenses to 1. What to do? I do want to keep a nice balance of EF/RF so that my 5D always has the appropriate lens when needed. I shoot both bodies at once at weddings and events.

If I got the RF 24-70, I would pair the RF 70-200 with the EF 35, and the RF 24-70 with the EF 85.

Notice I didn't put the 28-70 f2 in the poll, for reasons.

Unless you really want IS on the RF 24-70, I would sell the RF 24-105 and keep the EF 24-70, as you can also use it on the 5D.

pokesfan wrote:

Say you own the R and the 5D Mk IV. Say you also own

EF 24-70 f2.8 II

RF 24-105 f4

RF 70-200

EF 35 1.4 II

Sigma Art 50mm 1.4

EF 85 1.4 IS

EF 100 2.8 Macro IS

I want to thin down the 24-70 range from 2 lenses to 1. What to do? I do want to keep a nice balance of EF/RF so that my 5D always has the appropriate lens when needed. I shoot both bodies at once at weddings and events.

If I got the RF 24-70, I would pair the RF 70-200 with the EF 35, and the RF 24-70 with the EF 85.

Notice I didn't put the 28-70 f2 in the poll, for reasons.

Personally, I'd keep things just as they are for now. Really depends on what you shoot, but I've found that for events like wedding receptions and parties, the 24-105 focal length range is more useful than the 24-70, especially with IS. Granted, you do give up a bit of IQ (distortion, corner sharpness, 1 stop more light), but that's the tradeoff.

If you need the advantages the 24-70 gives, then the EF 24-70 II is really a very good lens. Having both gives you 2 different approaches.

Now, in a 2-body situation, if you're using the 70-200 on the RF, then you're bound to use something else on the 5D4, presumably the 24-70 II. That's a pretty good combination too.

pokesfan wrote:

Say you own the R and the 5D Mk IV. Say you also own

EF 24-70 f2.8 II

RF 24-105 f4

RF 70-200

EF 35 1.4 II

Sigma Art 50mm 1.4

EF 85 1.4 IS

EF 100 2.8 Macro IS

I want to thin down the 24-70 range from 2 lenses to 1. What to do? I do want to keep a nice balance of EF/RF so that my 5D always has the appropriate lens when needed. I shoot both bodies at once at weddings and events.

If I got the RF 24-70, I would pair the RF 70-200 with the EF 35, and the RF 24-70 with the EF 85.

Notice I didn't put the 28-70 f2 in the poll, for reasons.

You'll eventually switch to the RF mount, leaving the EF behind... in what, a generation or maybe three.  As a professional, or semi professional do you think you'll actually be able to hold out for four or five generations of bodies?  I doubt it.  You can use the EF lenses you have with an adapter.

Ditch your EF stuff while it has value.

Canochrome wrote:

pokesfan wrote:

Say you own the R and the 5D Mk IV. Say you also own

EF 24-70 f2.8 II

RF 24-105 f4

RF 70-200

EF 35 1.4 II

Sigma Art 50mm 1.4

EF 85 1.4 IS

EF 100 2.8 Macro IS

I want to thin down the 24-70 range from 2 lenses to 1. What to do? I do want to keep a nice balance of EF/RF so that my 5D always has the appropriate lens when needed. I shoot both bodies at once at weddings and events.

If I got the RF 24-70, I would pair the RF 70-200 with the EF 35, and the RF 24-70 with the EF 85.

Notice I didn't put the 28-70 f2 in the poll, for reasons.

Personally, I'd keep things just as they are for now. Really depends on what you shoot, but I've found that for events like wedding receptions and parties, the 24-105 focal length range is more useful than the 24-70, especially with IS. Granted, you do give up a bit of IQ (distortion, corner sharpness, 1 stop more light), but that's the tradeoff.

If you need the advantages the 24-70 gives, then the EF 24-70 II is really a very good lens. Having both gives you 2 different approaches.

Now, in a 2-body situation, if you're using the 70-200 on the RF, then you're bound to use something else on the 5D4, presumably the 24-70 II. That's a pretty good combination too.

Yes, being able to rock the RF 70-200 and EF 24-70 at the same time is one of the things really giving me pause right now. I would love that RF 24-70 though

frisbfreek wrote:

Unless you really want IS on the RF 24-70, I would sell the RF 24-105 and keep the EF 24-70, as you can also use it on the 5D.

This is the leading "sane" choice, I think.

pokesfan wrote:

frisbfreek wrote:

Unless you really want IS on the RF 24-70, I would sell the RF 24-105 and keep the EF 24-70, as you can also use it on the 5D.

This is the leading "sane" choice, I think.

That's what I would do. I'm not migrating to RF lenses unless it fills a need that I don't currently have or one of my current lenses stops working.

PGSanta wrote:

Ditch your EF stuff while it has value.

Yep. I sold my 6D II on eBay for $1000 about 2 months ago, during the Christmas sales it got below that brand new. Needless to say, I doubt this gear is going to be holding its value for much longer. So yeah, ditch it all while the ditching is good.

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. I think you have the RF/EF lens selection backwards, currently

If you are using the 70-200 for action, you'd be better suited to have it on the 5D as the overall speed on that is way better. So if that's the case, I'd trade the RF 70-200 for an EF version. Yes the RF version is great and its new design is very novel....... but the R is just no match for the 5D4 on AF, and of course you could use it on both bodies. I find the EF 70-200 2.8 to be really comfortable on the R. Maybe for a 12 hour shoot that extra lb would be significant but for casual stuff it's no big deal.

Hell, if you're just using the 70-200 2.8 for portraiture or slow stuff, nothing is lost as you're not tracking fast moving subjects. So again the EF version would yield you 95% of the performance for 60% of the price.

OK, so now you have an extra $900-1000 or so from that trade. The world is pretty much your oyster. Based on your initial budget you could have it all- an EF 24-105/4L, AND a 3rd party EF 24-70/2.8, AND a stabilized wide-standard like either of the EF mount Tamron 1.8 VC SPs. And probably still have some change left over. I personally would probably skip the 2.8 zoom but if you reconfigure some stuff you won't have to choose.

sportyaccordy wrote:

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. I think you have the RF/EF lens selection backwards, currently

If you are using the 70-200 for action, you'd be better suited to have it on the 5D as the overall speed on that is way better. So if that's the case, I'd trade the RF 70-200 for an EF version. Yes the RF version is great and its new design is very novel....... but the R is just no match for the 5D4 on AF, and of course you could use it on both bodies. I find the EF 70-200 2.8 to be really comfortable on the R. Maybe for a 12 hour shoot that extra lb would be significant but for casual stuff it's no big deal.

Hell, if you're just using the 70-200 2.8 for portraiture or slow stuff, nothing is lost as you're not tracking fast moving subjects. So again the EF version would yield you 95% of the performance for 60% of the price.

OK, so now you have an extra $900-1000 or so from that trade. The world is pretty much your oyster. Based on your initial budget you could have it all- an EF 24-105/4L, AND a 3rd party EF 24-70/2.8, AND a stabilized wide-standard like either of the EF mount Tamron 1.8 VC SPs. And probably still have some change left over. I personally would probably skip the 2.8 zoom but if you reconfigure some stuff you won't have to choose.

I'm not using it for action. Portraits and weddings. And yes, the trade of my perfectly working EF version for the RF version hurt, but it was soooo worth it. Have you tried it?