RF 15-35 or 24-70 as next (have EF24-105 f4)

I don't do any video.

Primary usage is family, people portraits - indoors/outdoors, as well as travel photography. Recently started getting some interest in more bird/wildlife due to Covid and sitting home watching bird feeder, plus excellent R6 animal eye tracking. Not sure how serious I'll get into that though...

mikepro74 wrote:

I don't do any video.

Primary usage is family, people portraits - indoors/outdoors, as well as travel photography. Recently started getting some interest in more bird/wildlife due to Covid and sitting home watching bird feeder, plus excellent R6 animal eye tracking. Not sure how serious I'll get into that though...

24-70 is not really a portrait lens any more than the 24-105 is.   I'd argue 24-105 is actually better because it has 85 and 105mm.  And really, wouldn't you use your 70-200mm f2.8 for portraits anyway?

For travel, 24-105 is certainly more versatile.

For indoor portraits, maybe something like the RF 50mm f1.2 L would be a better buy than the 24-70 f2.8.  F1.2 is certainly on another world in terms of light and DOF control.

Doesn't sound like you have any idea what you'd do with an UWA.  Hard to recommend a $2200 UWA to someone that doesn't know why or if they want one.   Maybe try adapting a cheap 17-40L as a trial and see if you take to the focal range?

More telephoto is always better for wildlife.  If you must buy something, 100-500 sounds like the one you'd get the most use of right now.

RDM5546 wrote:

moon1029 wrote:

I shoot with EF 16-35mm II USM and EF 135mm f/2L USM on R6 for most of the time and I'm very satisfied with this combination. Some people may feel more secure having the whole focal length range covered but I find this unnecessary. The extra range covered by 24-70 can easily be compensated by zooming with your feet, or some slight cropping.

If you shoot videos, also beware of the slight 1.07x crop of videos on R6. If you enable movie digital IS, the image would be further cropped. 15mm would be perfect with this slight cropping. It reduces extreme distortion, and is just wide enough for most purposes.

I would definitely go with the RF 15-35.

If you shoot indoors there are many cases where you can not back up enough to get the subject of the shot in the frame. You can crop for more range but there is nothing you can do in these cases to get more in the frame of a 24-105mmf4 lens. The 15-35mm has great f2.8 wide open light gathering for indoor shooting. A small compact bounce flash can help too.

For travel, the wide coverage of 15mm is great for inside churches and for outdoor travel you can grab the whole landscape. I have rf 15-30, 24-70, 24-105mm, and 24-240mm. The 24-105 is used primarily for video outdoors for constant f4 zooming. For nearly all travel the 24-240mm is very handy and get used a lot. I only have the EOS R now but a R5 is on the way. I use a EF 70-200f2.8L II for sports action shooting outdoors which I owned for DSLRs. It works well adapted to the RF mount so I did not get the RF mount version and the RF lenses I bought are my core lenses for the EOS R use while I have other EF mount lenses for special cases. I really like the sharp focus o f EOS R but I very used to using the truly great EOS 5DMkIV DSLR from years of use. The EOS R now makes more keepers for me where sharp focus is key except for fast action shots where I use DSLRs.

While I don't disagree on the potential usefulness of an UWA, they are specialty lenses.  I put them in the same category as macro lenses and super telephotos.    It should be obvious if you need one.    If you are often at 24mm and can't back up (or get close enough for the perspective you want) then you need a UWA.  If not, it's probably going to spend a lot of time on the shelf.

It really depends on your style/what you shoot (for a living, and for pleasure).
I couldn't work without a 24-70 BUT sometimes I really miss having a 16-35, which I will buy for sure.
If your priority is people, I think 24-70 gives you more opportunity.

Yeah, I think the 15-35, while apparently a great lens, is not something I'd make a ton of use out of right now. I've not felt like I've needed wider than 24mm very much. I like the idea of trying a cheap EF 17-40 first and see if I get into that. So, probably should take 15-35 out of the running.

100-500 probably would be quite useful to me...

I'm a sucker for speed though, and think I would really like the update to RF 24-70 2.8. Even though the EF 24-105 has gotten new life on my R6, indoors still wish it were faster. See attached image taken at 68mm  outside (see, 24-70 IS portrait range!!!). Never have I ever gotten as sharp a picture on my 6D with that lens!

I'd probably best be served by keeping my EF 24-105, using my RF70-200 or EF 85mm 1.8 when I need speed, and getting the 100-500. That would give me widest coverage. But, I seem to really keep thinking about that 2.8 speed for indoors on the 24-70.... Also, need to buy the lens through Best Buy since I have a bunch of rewards to spend, and they don't have 100-500 in stock at the moment, but DO have the 24-70.

I would go with the 15-35. Awesome lens for landscape, indoor, architecture, and general walk around lens. 15 vs 24mm is a huge difference.

tkbslc wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

moon1029 wrote:

I shoot with EF 16-35mm II USM and EF 135mm f/2L USM on R6 for most of the time and I'm very satisfied with this combination. Some people may feel more secure having the whole focal length range covered but I find this unnecessary. The extra range covered by 24-70 can easily be compensated by zooming with your feet, or some slight cropping.

If you shoot videos, also beware of the slight 1.07x crop of videos on R6. If you enable movie digital IS, the image would be further cropped. 15mm would be perfect with this slight cropping. It reduces extreme distortion, and is just wide enough for most purposes.

I would definitely go with the RF 15-35.

If you shoot indoors there are many cases where you can not back up enough to get the subject of the shot in the frame. You can crop for more range but there is nothing you can do in these cases to get more in the frame of a 24-105mmf4 lens. The 15-35mm has great f2.8 wide open light gathering for indoor shooting. A small compact bounce flash can help too.

For travel, the wide coverage of 15mm is great for inside churches and for outdoor travel you can grab the whole landscape. I have rf 15-30, 24-70, 24-105mm, and 24-240mm. The 24-105 is used primarily for video outdoors for constant f4 zooming. For nearly all travel the 24-240mm is very handy and get used a lot. I only have the EOS R now but a R5 is on the way. I use a EF 70-200f2.8L II for sports action shooting outdoors which I owned for DSLRs. It works well adapted to the RF mount so I did not get the RF mount version and the RF lenses I bought are my core lenses for the EOS R use while I have other EF mount lenses for special cases. I really like the sharp focus o f EOS R but I very used to using the truly great EOS 5DMkIV DSLR from years of use. The EOS R now makes more keepers for me where sharp focus is key except for fast action shots where I use DSLRs.

While I don't disagree on the potential usefulness of an UWA, they are specialty lenses. I put them in the same category as macro lenses and super telephotos. It should be obvious if you need one. If you are often at 24mm and can't back up (or get close enough for the perspective you want) then you need a UWA. If not, it's probably going to spend a lot of time on the shelf.

Not as speciality as you’d think. The 35mm end is super useful for general walk around use and even low light indoors with the IS. 15mm is a big difference compared to 24mm and I find it very useful. The 15-35 can do everything unless you need that 36-70mm range for portraits but then again you can just put on a 85mm prime for that use case. The 15-35 is highly versatile imo much more so than a macro lens.

RDM5546 wrote:

For events and groups of people indoors, 24-70mm is just too tight for me when backing up is not in the list of options. When I travel I bring the 24-240mm but many time I also go with the 15-35mm for street shots, indoors and groups. My one lens travel plan is stretched to just one additional lens.

While it is true that UWA can help you fit more people in the frame in small room, the end result is often not a pretty picture.  People at the edges with giant stretched heads, etc.

I would argue for the 24-70 2.8.

I have used the 24-105 f4 for much of my travel photography that was often frustrated in low light situations. If you have the 70-200, the 24 to 70 would pair very well with that. You also mentioned you were not happy with the image quality of the EF 24-105.
Also with what you mention you were shooting the most (family, travel) you will use the 24-70 way more. If you buy the 100-500 then you will find yourself using the very lens you are frustrated with as a walk-about for much of your street pics and indoor travel pics.

Best suggestion (since you have the rf-ef adapter) would be to rent an EF 24-70 and 100-400 and use in the settings you will use most. See what gives you the composition you are hoping for and which you use most.

So, I pretty much decided I wanted the 24-70, and ordered it from BestBuy for delivery today. Excitedly waiting for it all day. Finally FedEx delivered it. Opened the package, and, drum roll.... the sent me the 15-35 by mistake!!! Definitely ordered the 24-70. LOL, maybe a sign? Now I gotta deal with this headache, was really looking forward to playing with lens today.

Ugh, online chat was quite useless. They have to "research" the issue and get back to me. I'd just return and re-buy, if they would re-issue me a 10% rewards coupon I used on this purchase. Only reason I bought from them was the rewards I had to use on something there.

I'll try going into the store and sorting it out tomorrow. Now, I'll probably be out the $12 I paid for next day shipping and won't be able to use my 10% coupon again to re-purchase it (which means I'm not buying it there). Sigh...