EF Lenses on R Mount (f/1.2 portrait primes)

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

Fred_ wrote:

Hello,
EF 50 and 85 1.2 has been proven to deliver amazing portraits for years, they also where working great on 50mpx 5DsR.
they are working great on EOS R with the adapter.
I wouldn't buy them new, find a good used one and you will be more than happy.

Thank you.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. The newer lenses may have more modern optical formulas and better coatings, but the differences won't be that major, and the price is basically 2x.

And then I can save my money for my "dream" lens.*

* the Canon Dream Lens if you didn't get that reference.

saltydogstudios wrote:

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

If you buy used I can't see there being a downside; if you subsequently re-think a purchase you'll probably be able to sell it on at minimal loss, and with so many reviews available for the EF range there shouldn't be any doubt about what you're getting (so long as it's in good condition).

That said, it may be that going RF would bring additional upsides that you'd appreciate - beyond any differences in optical characteristics that is. For example, I've yet to see a review that looks into the special "high speed display" option for the EVF (I think that's what it's called in the menu) that is only available when using an RF lens. It's possible that the upcoming bodies will offer more bells and whistles that are RF-only.

GammyKnee wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

If you buy used I can't see there being a downside; if you subsequently re-think a purchase you'll probably be able to sell it on at minimal loss, and with so many reviews available for the EF range there shouldn't be any doubt about what you're getting (so long as it's in good condition).

That said, it may be that going RF would bring additional upsides that you'd appreciate - beyond any differences in optical characteristics that is. For example, I've yet to see a review that looks into the special "high speed display" option for the EVF (I think that's what it's called in the menu) that is only available when using an RF lens. It's possible that the upcoming bodies will offer more bells and whistles that are RF-only.

That's roughly what I'm thinking.

Even if L glass has come down in price in recent years, it's not likely to dip much farther than it is.

So even if 3 years from now I decide to migrate from EF to R - my investment won't have lost too much value and the swap won't be too expensive.

And yes there may be benefits to RF glass beyond focus speed and coatings - like algorithms designed to optimize their output.

But at 2x the price, I can likely wait. EF glass isn't likely to dip too far below the current price, making any long term investment relatively cost neutral.

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I used Canon 5D series for many years and had the 35mm 50mm and 85mm L lenses.  When I switched to Sony I sold the 5Diii bodies, but kept those lenses. I call it nostalgia, my wife calls it hoarding. 
I recently bought a Canon RP just as an excuse to get those lenses out of the cabinet again. Of course they are still as capable as ever, but their character and rendering doesn’t have the state of the art precision of, say, lenses like the Canon RF 50/1.2 or the Sony GM 85/1.4 (Neither of which I own). 
I sometimes want images with feeling over precision, so those last-generation lenses are perfect for those occasions. For example, I’d describe the EF 50/1.2 as having more of a “glow” when used wide open, than the impressive RF version which is incredibly crisp.
You seem to be making a decision based on the cost of EF vs RF lenses. I see you are someone who cares about the flesh-tone differences between camera sensors as you have spent time on creating an interesting colour comparison shootout chart. So my suggestion would be that you research the considerable differences in the rendering between the EF and RF lenses and make your purchase decision based on what style works best for you. 
Saving money is pointless if you’re frustrated with the results.

enigmatico wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I used Canon 5D series for many years and had the 35mm 50mm and 85mm L lenses. When I switched to Sony I sold the 5Diii bodies, but kept those lenses. I call it nostalgia, my wife calls it hoarding.

It sounds like both of you are right.

I recently bought a Canon RP just as an excuse to get those lenses out of the cabinet again. Of course they are still as capable as ever, but their character and rendering doesn’t have the state of the art precision of, say, lenses like the Canon RF 50/1.2 or the Sony GM 85/1.4 (Neither of which I own).
I sometimes want images with feeling over precision, so those last-generation lenses are perfect for those occasions. For example, I’d describe the EF 50/1.2 as having more of a “glow” when used wide open, than the impressive RF version which is incredibly crisp.

I love a good "character"lens - The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is a lens I'd describe in this way.

http://sodium.nyc/portfolio/slides/Debra.php (somewhat NSFW)

Prone to flaring and with a "spherical aberration" charm - I like that this is a lens that I can predict to be non-clinical in a very specific way.

That said - clinical has its time and place, and I suspect your characterization is precisely what I'm getting at.

If I want a character lens - I want it to be a manual focus and quirky lens - embracing all the flaws at once.

But when I want to do studio beauty shots (as an example) I want optical perfection. Which I suppose I could get at a cheaper price and more moderate aperture.

So yes - exactly - on the scale of "character lens with flaws" to "optical perfection + wide aperture" where do the EF versions stack? That's the question I'm asking.

You seem to be making a decision based on the cost of EF vs RF lenses. I see you are someone who cares about the flesh-tone differences between camera sensors as you have spent time on creating an interesting colour comparison shootout chart. So my suggestion would be that you research the considerable differences in the rendering between the EF and RF lenses and make your purchase decision based on what style works best for you.

Indeed - I get in trouble around these parts for saying that the sensor matters in the final image in terms of color - but one of the main reasons I'm considering Canon over the other full frame options is the colors.

Saving money is pointless if you’re frustrated with the results.

As a certain photo blogger says "the poor man pays twice, the rich man pays once."

This is why I'm soliciting advice.

Is any perceived difference from the previous generation more about perception of quality "older is less perfect" or about actual differences that show up in the resulting image.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I shoot portraits professionally. As you know, in studio, an f/1.2 lens doesn't do much as we are shooting more sopped down with studio lighting.

Yes, but every once in a while you want that super shallow depth of field look. Or a super compressed look that a longer lens will give you. It's mostly just to show off.

How often are you shooting at f/1.2 and really need to shoot wide open?

I shoot wide open a lot. It's half the fun of owning massive primes. I even like the flaws the exhibit wide open (do a degree). In fact, going wider often doesn't decrease depth of field more, it just introduces more flaws such as loss of contrast, ghosting, flaring, spherical aberration etc.

I already own the FD version of the 85mm f/1.2 (adapted to Sony) and it's a lot of fun to shoot wide open, even if difficult to manual focus. I'm sure the coatings and perhaps optical formula got better since it was produced (circa 1981).

You can save a lot of money by going for f/1.4 and even f/1.8 lenses.

Will I? Or will I own them and then still have an itch to go to the f/1.2 versions?

I do own a - very reasonably priced 85mm f/1.8 lens that's very capable and can autofocus, so I can always hold off on the f/1.2 purchase.

The Canon 135mm is arguably their best portrait lens ever and that's an f2.

135mm is nice but I prefer shorter focal lengths - my studio is only so big / I only want to back up so much to get the shot. I'd probably go for a 70-200 to get that look - if i'm backing that far up, having a faster aperture won't do that much and having the versatility to zoom with the lens rather than my feet would be more useful.

And depending on framing - well either one is capable of obliterating the background.

I own the Nikon 135mm f/2 - again also 70's era vintage and adapted to Sony - and it's a great lens for when I want that really compressed look.

I dont own anything faster than an f/1.8 and the only difference Ive seen when testing is the L lenses are slightly sharper and have a bit more punch and saturation.

Interesting, I'd think the f/1.2 glass might have less sharpness and saturation, even at f/2 vs a well designed f/1.8 lens. What you're saying then is that other than size, weight and price, they're "no compromise" lenses - the best of both worlds? Both sharp and contrasty at moderate apertures, and can go as wide as you want?

And the SLR L glass is, I think, at an all time low on the used market thanks to the introduction of the newer mirrorless lenses.

That can be added in post if desired since very few of us ever publish shots straight out of the camera. Just my 2 cents.

Sharpness and contrast are the two things I'd hope to maximize in camera. Back before I know what I was doing I got a cheap IR/UV filter to protect the front element at the beach and suffered a huge loss of contrast when shooting at the water.

Shooting by water requires superb coatings because of all the tiny little specular highlights as light bounces off of the waves. Ever since I learned that and only went after top of the line glass for shooting at the beach, my photos have come out way better.

Loss of contrast is great when it's intentional - I abhor it when it's not.

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Will I? Or will I own them and then still have an itch to go to the f/1.2 versions?

135mm is nice but I prefer shorter focal lengths - my studio is only so big / I only want to back up so much to get the shot. I'd probably go for a 70-200 to get that look - if i'm backing that far up, having a faster aperture won't do that much and having the versatility to zoom with the lens rather than my feet would be more useful.

And depending on framing - well either one is capable of obliterating the background.

I don't like to obliterate backgrounds, I find mushy and dizzyingly blurry backgrounds to be a distraction and actually take away from a portrait. I dont even shoot my f/1.8 lenses wide open. I usually prefer to shoot right around f/2.8 on a FF sensor with my 85, and especially 135, and I get more than enough blur to isolate my subject from the background. But if completely obliterating backgrounds is your thing, I guess you should stick to the fastest lens possible and continue paying top dollar.

Nah, I have no desire to completely obliterate the background. What's the fun in that?

Half the point of perspective compression is bringing the background closer to create a very "2 dimensional" look. I mostly associate this with Sports Illustrated.

Tons of of perspective compression, bringing the horizon or whatever's in the background closer to really create that "isolated on a tropical island" feel.

90% of my portfolio was done with an f/1.8 lens on APS-C - but sometimes you want that night time bubble bokeh look or extreme shallow depth of field for a very closeup portrait (where just the eyes are in focus) etc.

As I said - I typically don't go over 85mm. The 135mm look is nice, but a bit to "heightened reality for my tastes.

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

I've been interested in getting into the R Mount for a while now with the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses for portrait work - both natural light and studio.

Adding all of the above to my cart ends up being around $8000 USD for the body and both lenses.

But the latest DP Review video has me thinking - why not get the EF mount equivalents?

Sure the lenses are older and the autofocus and optical performance may not be as good - but with some used EF lenses, my cart is now half the price (body, two lenses and adapter).

Does anyone who has experience with both the EF and R versions of these lenses have an opinion on this?

With the lenses at less than half the price of the R mount versions, it seems like a no brainer - I can get started and then trade up to the R versions if/when it makes sense.

Is there any major reason I would regret getting the EF lenses?

I used Canon 5D series for many years and had the 35mm 50mm and 85mm L lenses. When I switched to Sony I sold the 5Diii bodies, but kept those lenses. I call it nostalgia, my wife calls it hoarding.

It sounds like both of you are right.

I recently bought a Canon RP just as an excuse to get those lenses out of the cabinet again. Of course they are still as capable as ever, but their character and rendering doesn’t have the state of the art precision of, say, lenses like the Canon RF 50/1.2 or the Sony GM 85/1.4 (Neither of which I own).
I sometimes want images with feeling over precision, so those last-generation lenses are perfect for those occasions. For example, I’d describe the EF 50/1.2 as having more of a “glow” when used wide open, than the impressive RF version which is incredibly crisp.

I love a good "character"lens - The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is a lens I'd describe in this way.

http://sodium.nyc/portfolio/slides/Debra.php (somewhat NSFW)

Prone to flaring and with a "spherical aberration" charm - I like that this is a lens that I can predict to be non-clinical in a very specific way.

That said - clinical has its time and place, and I suspect your characterization is precisely what I'm getting at.

If I want a character lens - I want it to be a manual focus and quirky lens - embracing all the flaws at once.

But when I want to do studio beauty shots (as an example) I want optical perfection. Which I suppose I could get at a cheaper price and more moderate aperture.

So yes - exactly - on the scale of "character lens with flaws" to "optical perfection + wide aperture" where do the EF versions stack? That's the question I'm asking.

You seem to be making a decision based on the cost of EF vs RF lenses. I see you are someone who cares about the flesh-tone differences between camera sensors as you have spent time on creating an interesting colour comparison shootout chart. So my suggestion would be that you research the considerable differences in the rendering between the EF and RF lenses and make your purchase decision based on what style works best for you.

Indeed - I get in trouble around these parts for saying that the sensor matters in the final image in terms of color - but one of the main reasons I'm considering Canon over the other full frame options is the colors.

Saving money is pointless if you’re frustrated with the results.

As a certain photo blogger says "the poor man pays twice, the rich man pays once."

This is why I'm soliciting advice.

Is any perceived difference from the previous generation more about perception of quality "older is less perfect" or about actual differences that show up in the resulting image.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

enigmatico wrote:

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

Yes I did see it, thank you.

I agree that for night time low light shallow depth of field shots - "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - and I don't care too much about resolving power.

I would love to see tests related resistance to flaring and such. I'm glad lens reviewers have started including this - it seemed once upon a time nobody considered such issues.

My takeaway is that - the 50mm f/1.2 EF is definitely worth at least half the price of the RF counterpart. The slight increase in sharpness wide open isn't something I noticed scrolling through the photos unless I zoomed in.

All of the cameras produced the appropriate amount of bokehballs and only the most picky of lens enthusiasts would have something to complain about in any of those photos.

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

Yes I did see it, thank you.

I agree that for night time low light shallow depth of field shots - "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - and I don't care too much about resolving power.

I would love to see tests related resistance to flaring and such. I'm glad lens reviewers have started including this - it seemed once upon a time nobody considered such issues.

My takeaway is that - the 50mm f/1.2 EF is definitely worth at least half the price of the RF counterpart. The slight increase in sharpness wide open isn't something I noticed scrolling through the photos unless I zoomed in.

All of the cameras produced the appropriate amount of bokehballs and only the most picky of lens enthusiasts would have something to complain about in any of those photos.

Another important question is where is your work viewed? Are you making prints larger than 24x36 where you are likely to see the benefits of the better quality L glass? Increasingly, more peoples work is being viewed on smartphones and tablets where those slight advantages become irrelevant.

Ive sat and stared at photos from my RP with a rented $2700 RF 85 f/1.2 and my $300 EF 85 f/1.8 I tested both in studio and outdoors in natural light. I can see a definite difference zoomed in 100% on my 27 inch 5k monitor but they become less apparent fit to screen and then even less apparent to not noticeable on my iPad and iPhone, where most people are viewing my work these days.

This series (not mine) was taken with the 85mm f/1.2 wide open.

http://gregwilliamsarchive.com/photos/fashion/subway/

None of the photos are in focus.

Nobody would notice unless they pixel pepped.

saltydogstudios wrote:

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

Yes I did see it, thank you.

I agree that for night time low light shallow depth of field shots - "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - and I don't care too much about resolving power.

I would love to see tests related resistance to flaring and such. I'm glad lens reviewers have started including this - it seemed once upon a time nobody considered such issues.

My takeaway is that - the 50mm f/1.2 EF is definitely worth at least half the price of the RF counterpart. The slight increase in sharpness wide open isn't something I noticed scrolling through the photos unless I zoomed in.

All of the cameras produced the appropriate amount of bokehballs and only the most picky of lens enthusiasts would have something to complain about in any of those photos.

Another important question is where is your work viewed? Are you making prints larger than 24x36 where you are likely to see the benefits of the better quality L glass? Increasingly, more peoples work is being viewed on smartphones and tablets where those slight advantages become irrelevant.

Ive sat and stared at photos from my RP with a rented $2700 RF 85 f/1.2 and my $300 EF 85 f/1.8 I tested both in studio and outdoors in natural light. I can see a definite difference zoomed in 100% on my 27 inch 5k monitor but they become less apparent fit to screen and then even less apparent to not noticeable on my iPad and iPhone, where most people are viewing my work these days.

This series (not mine) was taken with the 85mm f/1.2 wide open.

http://gregwilliamsarchive.com/photos/fashion/subway/

None of the photos are in focus.

Nobody would notice unless they pixel pepped.

I decided at some point that my goal would be to own the "legendary" lenses at each focal length.

The Canon 85mm f/1.2

The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Sonnar (which took the most famous photo in the world)

And so on.

I now own both - though the Canon is FD not EF mount because it needed manual controls to be adapted to non Canon bodies (and it was cheaper).

Why? Because why not, it's a nice goal, and those lenses are most likely to keep their value.

And also because their resale value is likely to stay higher than cheap lenses - so they're partly collectors items as well.

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

enigmatico wrote:

Have you seen this article that someone else linked to on another thread?:

https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2018/11/27/to-big-to-fail-the-canon-rf-50mm-f/12l

Yes I did see it, thank you.

I agree that for night time low light shallow depth of field shots - "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - and I don't care too much about resolving power.

I would love to see tests related resistance to flaring and such. I'm glad lens reviewers have started including this - it seemed once upon a time nobody considered such issues.

My takeaway is that - the 50mm f/1.2 EF is definitely worth at least half the price of the RF counterpart. The slight increase in sharpness wide open isn't something I noticed scrolling through the photos unless I zoomed in.

All of the cameras produced the appropriate amount of bokehballs and only the most picky of lens enthusiasts would have something to complain about in any of those photos.

Another important question is where is your work viewed? Are you making prints larger than 24x36 where you are likely to see the benefits of the better quality L glass? Increasingly, more peoples work is being viewed on smartphones and tablets where those slight advantages become irrelevant.

Ive sat and stared at photos from my RP with a rented $2700 RF 85 f/1.2 and my $300 EF 85 f/1.8 I tested both in studio and outdoors in natural light. I can see a definite difference zoomed in 100% on my 27 inch 5k monitor but they become less apparent fit to screen and then even less apparent to not noticeable on my iPad and iPhone, where most people are viewing my work these days.

This series (not mine) was taken with the 85mm f/1.2 wide open.

http://gregwilliamsarchive.com/photos/fashion/subway/

None of the photos are in focus.

Nobody would notice unless they pixel pepped.

Yea, soft photos with missed focus and not crazy about the lighting.

I like the lighting. I'm not a fan of faux realistic lighting that's actually artificial looking.

Case in point - The Morning Show. I could see large soft boxes near the actors at all times, even when the actual lighting at the location wouldn't have had that kind of lighting (in this case it's likely a reflector).

Where is that light? When the camera reverses for the reaction shot of the other actor, there is no large soft light near Steve Carrel that could explain why he's lit that way.

In fact in the 2 shot he's not lit that way.

Is this competent lighting? Yes. Is it good? Not in my opinion.

I wouldn't feel comfortable giving those to one of my clients. Stopped down even to f/2 and those would have been in focus and looked considerably better IMO. Im looking forward to the upcoming RF 85 f/2 IS which should be a great performer at a fraction of the price of the RF 85 f/1.2

Let's agree to disagree here.

I wonder what you think of the work of Paolo Roversi if you hate these photos that much because of their lack of technical precision.

For me - photography is most enjoyable at the edges. Taking photos other photographers wouldn't have (or couldn't have) taken. Having an opinion about the form other than "sharper photos would have been better."

Taking sharp photos isn't hard - it's a technical skill. Having an eye for when not to - that's what I'm interested in.

CESA wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Will I? Or will I own them and then still have an itch to go to the f/1.2 versions?

135mm is nice but I prefer shorter focal lengths - my studio is only so big / I only want to back up so much to get the shot. I'd probably go for a 70-200 to get that look - if i'm backing that far up, having a faster aperture won't do that much and having the versatility to zoom with the lens rather than my feet would be more useful.

And depending on framing - well either one is capable of obliterating the background.

I don't like to obliterate backgrounds, I find mushy and dizzyingly blurry backgrounds to be a distraction and actually take away from a portrait. I dont even shoot my f/1.8 lenses wide open. I usually prefer to shoot right around f/2.8 on a FF sensor with my 85, and especially 135, and I get more than enough blur to isolate my subject from the background. But if completely obliterating backgrounds is your thing, I guess you should stick to the fastest lens possible and continue paying top dollar.

Nah, I have no desire to completely obliterate the background. What's the fun in that?

Half the point of perspective compression is bringing the background closer to create a very "2 dimensional" look. I mostly associate this with Sports Illustrated.

Tons of of perspective compression, bringing the horizon or whatever's in the background closer to really create that "isolated on a tropical island" feel.

90% of my portfolio was done with an f/1.8 lens on APS-C - but sometimes you want that night time bubble bokeh look or extreme shallow depth of field for a very closeup portrait (where just the eyes are in focus) etc.

As I said - I typically don't go over 85mm. The 135mm look is nice, but a bit to "heightened reality for my tastes.

I know a guy that shoots 200mm f/2 wide open always. 135mm f/1.8 always. 85mm f/1.8 always.

Daniel Venter. Go check is Facebook for examples. Only natural light.

That's my ultimate goal.

After looking at his images you will change your opinion.

I can't tell if you guys want me to get longer + wider lenses or not.

BTW I've discussed focal lengths - at length - here

https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry/focal-lengths-1a281a3509ed

Specifically check out my section 135mm plus.