Lens recommendations for new R5 user Locked

RDM5546 wrote:

Amateur Photog wrote:

I have finally managed to upgrade my equipment to the Canon R5. A definite step up from my previous setup. I love it!! However I have a hard time choosing lenses. I know i want a 70-200 because i love details in a landscape shot and in cities when travelling. However I want an everyday zoom which i can use during hikes.

As i said i shoot landscapes and cityscapes during travel and hikes along with occasional portraits. I have reviewed my usage through lightroom. But because i am relatively new to the field of photography (5 years) and i am not a working pro i dont have a large catalog, so i did a little bit of research in 500px and flickr. About 900 photos both from my own and online were selected. I saw a little pattern. 14-35 range and 24-70mm range were pretty much equal but the range of 24-35mm (FF terms) was the most popular, mainly because in my previous setup my widest was 24mm but i had the tendency to prefer photos in that range as well.

In the UWA lens territory, photos came mostly from online, while only a few photos were mine from when i used a 14mm prime of a friend. However i have to confess that shooting at that range (14-20mm) is so hard for me because i dont see the composition. Even if i do and lets say shoot 50 different photos in that range, i will end up liking 1 or 2 only.

To sum it up i am a bit torn between two ranges and 3 lenses. Should i go with an UWA-WA zoom lens, meaning the 15-35, or go with a more standard zoom like 24-70. The third lens is the 28-70. I have found a great deal that puts it in almost the same price as the 24-70. However i am kinda worried about its weight (i dont want to visit a doctor for tentonitis) and above all about it being very noticeable in a negative way.

Based on this info (and sorry for the lengthy essay) what would you recommend for someone like me? Is the UWA lens worth investing over the standard or should i prefer the standard zoom for its useful range? And lastly is the 28-70 worth investing over the 24-70?

I found the 28-70mm to be too big and heavy for my uses. Maybe you are bigger and stronger than I am or at least more willing. I would rather use the 24-70 and one or two prime lenses. That me and you are you. It depends on how you can spend which for many is a primary restriction. I love the RF24-240mm for hiking, biking and travel but it is not choice of everyone. I have amazed with the great IQ it can provide in a 10X $800 zoom which is definitely not commonplace.

Thank you for your reply! I have the same opinion that it is heavy. My main concern though is that it is noticeable. I attracts attention which sometimes may be unwanted especially during travelling. We got robbed with a friend of mine once and i just had a sony point and shoot, i dont remember which one but one of the expensive ones. But my friend lost his d810 along with the trinity of 2.8 zooms. It wasnt nice. And though i am careful i always have this fear. I think i can wield (or is it spelled weild...idk) that beast of combined weight of 2,5 kilos. I want to give it a try but i cannot rent it anywhere in my country.

I loved my 18-140 on my d7100 because of its versatility but since i tried the rf 70-200 2.8 it spoiled me for more specific zoom lenses rather than 10x zooms. But i cannot deny how useful they are during travelling.

I am saving for a long time and Canon has really impressed me since the launch of the rf mount and i saved a lot of money for this fine glass. But i am considering a lot what i am about to buy, i am thinking if it worths the investment or if it is foing to stay in the bag for the most time. Thats why i ask about the UWA vs the two standard zooms since i am having difficulty using the UWA or at least i am having a 5% keepers...maybe even less. And i am impressed about what the 28-70 can offer but i want to know if it offers a better image quality and maybe character than the 24-70. I can live without the 24mm FL as long as i am blown away but the IQ of the lens.

Amateur Photog wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

Amateur Photog wrote:

I have finally managed to upgrade my equipment to the Canon R5. A definite step up from my previous setup. I love it!! However I have a hard time choosing lenses. I know i want a 70-200 because i love details in a landscape shot and in cities when travelling. However I want an everyday zoom which i can use during hikes.

As i said i shoot landscapes and cityscapes during travel and hikes along with occasional portraits. I have reviewed my usage through lightroom. But because i am relatively new to the field of photography (5 years) and i am not a working pro i dont have a large catalog, so i did a little bit of research in 500px and flickr. About 900 photos both from my own and online were selected. I saw a little pattern. 14-35 range and 24-70mm range were pretty much equal but the range of 24-35mm (FF terms) was the most popular, mainly because in my previous setup my widest was 24mm but i had the tendency to prefer photos in that range as well.

In the UWA lens territory, photos came mostly from online, while only a few photos were mine from when i used a 14mm prime of a friend. However i have to confess that shooting at that range (14-20mm) is so hard for me because i dont see the composition. Even if i do and lets say shoot 50 different photos in that range, i will end up liking 1 or 2 only.

To sum it up i am a bit torn between two ranges and 3 lenses. Should i go with an UWA-WA zoom lens, meaning the 15-35, or go with a more standard zoom like 24-70. The third lens is the 28-70. I have found a great deal that puts it in almost the same price as the 24-70. However i am kinda worried about its weight (i dont want to visit a doctor for tentonitis) and above all about it being very noticeable in a negative way.

Based on this info (and sorry for the lengthy essay) what would you recommend for someone like me? Is the UWA lens worth investing over the standard or should i prefer the standard zoom for its useful range? And lastly is the 28-70 worth investing over the 24-70?

I found the 28-70mm to be too big and heavy for my uses. Maybe you are bigger and stronger than I am or at least more willing. I would rather use the 24-70 and one or two prime lenses. That me and you are you. It depends on how you can spend which for many is a primary restriction. I love the RF24-240mm for hiking, biking and travel but it is not choice of everyone. I have amazed with the great IQ it can provide in a 10X $800 zoom which is definitely not commonplace.

Thank you for your reply! I have the same opinion that it is heavy. My main concern though is that it is noticeable. I attracts attention which sometimes may be unwanted especially during travelling. We got robbed with a friend of mine once and i just had a sony point and shoot, i dont remember which one but one of the expensive ones. But my friend lost his d810 along with the trinity of 2.8 zooms. It wasnt nice. And though i am careful i always have this fear. I think i can wield (or is it spelled weild...idk) that beast of combined weight of 2,5 kilos. I want to give it a try but i cannot rent it anywhere in my country.

I loved my 18-140 on my d7100 because of its versatility but since i tried the rf 70-200 2.8 it spoiled me for more specific zoom lenses rather than 10x zooms. But i cannot deny how useful they are during travelling.

I am saving for a long time and Canon has really impressed me since the launch of the rf mount and i saved a lot of money for this fine glass. But i am considering a lot what i am about to buy, i am thinking if it worths the investment or if it is foing to stay in the bag for the most time. Thats why i ask about the UWA vs the two standard zooms since i am having difficulty using the UWA or at least i am having a 5% keepers...maybe even less. And i am impressed about what the 28-70 can offer but i want to know if it offers a better image quality and maybe character than the 24-70. I can live without the 24mm FL as long as i am blown away but the IQ of the lens.

I am very happy with the 24-70. No point in reiterating review findings, you can look them up. It is an excellent high-end zoom by any metric. The 28-70 difference is the f/2 aperture; sharpness is only marginally better. I would say get it if f/2 is important to you in a zoom. I use faster, smaller and lighter primes for even better DoF control. For me, the 28-70 is just too big and heavy to carry it around. I am saying this while I do not mind carrying an 500/4 all day long if I am out birding. It is the size and weight relative to the use case that bothers me.

viska wrote:

I don't own an R5 yet but will purchase when the time is right.

The 24-240 is my first recommendation, its a quality superzoom.Much better than past SZs.I suggest as it covers most of what you have mentioned.

Along with 24/240 ,I'd suggest an adapter and an UWA ef mount used copy(17-40 or 16-35).

With these 2,you have everything you mentioned covered and can experiment and record your need for which/what lens you use more frequently.

The cheap RF primes 35/50/85 are worth the $.

All this glass can be discarded and sold down the track without too much loss.Buying into the top end glass brings a big depreciation factor.Renting may be an option too?

I already own the 70-200 and it has spoiled me against superzooms hahaha. But it is a fine recommendation!!

Here in Greece depraciation is non exiatent in photography gear. We get a pretty good deal when selling camera equipment with a vesry small loss. Unfortunately renting is also non existent at the moment as we can not rent online (there isnt a big retailer that does that).

RDM5546 wrote:

You are right it is noticeable and says rob me! It also gets you kicked out of places that do not want good pictures taken. Fear of the unknown perhaps. However, a cellphone works in many of those without the same reaction. Attracting thieves is another issue. In some international airports they get very upset with pictures being taken by good equipment. The 28-70mm is a very obvious lens and will attract nothing good. However, it is also very heavy for lens you sometimes may carry around for hours. It has many photographer fans for sure at it is not in any way poor performing lens. The IQ is quite good but so it the RF 24-70. I have the trinity of f2.8s and my 70-200f2.8 is a EF mk III version. I like the zoom control ring action more this one than on the new RF 70-200 which takes more twist which I find annoying and slower.

When you say kicked out of places? Ok i get it for countries like Turkey where they might think of you as a reporter and you may get in trouble. But in places like Cuba and Berlin, i dont think it will be a problem. In general not only with the 28-70. I dont disagree with you on the IQ of the 24-70 but many that own it argue that it has a distinct character. Maybe they are trying to justify their purchases but it has a very nice rendering in my opinion almost prime like.

Oh yeah, the RF 28-70 does not generate as strong isolation or bokeh as a f1.2 or f1.4 lenses though but some people feel it magical. I feel my three Sigma Art primes are magical when required but heavy and big of course. To each their own.

I have used wide aperture primes, one of them being the great 35mm art. But i dont shoot portraits most of the time. But even when i do, as i am travelling i want to include a little more background to give context. If i melt it away in oblivion with a 1.2 prime or 1.4 it will lose something for me. So i always am in the neighbourhood of 1.8-2.2. Thats why i am not bothered by the f2 aperture. But i get your point and i am considering it carefully.

The RF 15-35 is the best UWA I have used. It is fantastic and it vidal indoor when there is no room for more shootng distance. In my opinon it is technically the best of the RF trinity but you have to want the UWA images and it is a boatload of money. The Sigma 14-28mm is an amazing lens for a lot less money. The 14mm is in mind a major advantage in cases where large depth of field is required in tight spaces. 1mm may not seem much but it makes a big difference at times and offer significantly more depth of field. Not for all occasions but somes the 1mm matters. I do not have the Sigma but it very good IQ. I find the wider 2.5X zoom of the 15-35mm more useful more often for me than the benefits of the UWA Sigma zoom. Sometimes I carry only the 15-35 and 70-200mm lenses for less weight and ease of carry. It all depends on the expected use.

I was at first thinking of the same combo. 15-35 and 70-200 with a 50mm bridging between. But after reviewing my own photos i rarely was under 24mm. In 500px and flickr  i mostly liked pictures taken in 24-35. Photos wider than that were mostly astro and aurora photos or a really creative photo at a really magical place. However i could not unnotice the distortion at most of the these photos. That got me thinking of changing the setup a bit

70-200 will be way more noticeable than any of the other lenses. Eyes are drawn to brightness, think about walking through a crowd of people, you’re more likely to notice a white sun dress than a black hoodie. The RF is smaller than the EFs, but it’s still bright and about 11 inches fully extended with the white hood on. 28-70 is thick but it’s short and most people won’t notice it. It may stand out if they focused on it it but they’ll skim over it. It’s just some person standing there with a black camera, just like every other camera. Same with the other lenses..24-70, 15-35. The average person couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. If you can get a $3000 lens for 2300, snatch it up..that’s a wicked good deal.

RB556 wrote:

70-200 will be way more noticeable than any of the other lenses. Eyes are drawn to brightness, think about walking through a crowd of people, you’re more likely to notice a white sun dress than a black hoodie. The RF is smaller than the EFs, but it’s still bright and about 11 inches fully extended with the white hood on. 28-70 is thick but it’s short and most people won’t notice it. It may stand out if they focused on it it but they’ll skim over it. It’s just some person standing there with a black camera, just like every other camera. Same with the other lenses..24-70, 15-35. The average person couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. If you can get a $3000 lens for 2300, snatch it up..that’s a wicked good deal.

I get your point. Most of the time i dont use the 70-200 in the city. Mostly because i am more interested in documenting life. But i do use it when i want on a landmark in the distance and want to compress the image. Thats about 5-10% of my city photography.

However i do use it a lot when it comes to landscapes. I am far more likely to live in th 70-135 range rather than below 24. I like to pick details in the landscapes something that you would often ignore. I will shoot a wide vista mostly to remember the place or if it so dramatic that i have to shoot it. When i am in the countryside i dont worry as much about my equipment because we are group and it is hard for someone to get close without me noticing.

In fact the 28-70 costs 3500 euro in Greece but i found a deal of about 2600. Its practically as low as it gets for such a new lens in Greece. I am really considering buying it. That would save me from buying a 15-35 or 24-70 with a prime (mostly at 50mm). Its a saving of more than 2500 euro and i will save about half a kilo in my bag. Maybe later i will add a prime like the 35 but it will depend.

Amateur Photog wrote:

RB556 wrote:

70-200 will be way more noticeable than any of the other lenses. Eyes are drawn to brightness, think about walking through a crowd of people, you’re more likely to notice a white sun dress than a black hoodie. The RF is smaller than the EFs, but it’s still bright and about 11 inches fully extended with the white hood on. 28-70 is thick but it’s short and most people won’t notice it. It may stand out if they focused on it it but they’ll skim over it. It’s just some person standing there with a black camera, just like every other camera. Same with the other lenses..24-70, 15-35. The average person couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. If you can get a $3000 lens for 2300, snatch it up..that’s a wicked good deal.

I get your point. Most of the time i dont use the 70-200 in the city. Mostly because i am more interested in documenting life. But i do use it when i want on a landmark in the distance and want to compress the image. Thats about 5-10% of my city photography.

However i do use it a lot when it comes to landscapes. I am far more likely to live in th 70-135 range rather than below 24. I like to pick details in the landscapes something that you would often ignore. I will shoot a wide vista mostly to remember the place or if it so dramatic that i have to shoot it. When i am in the countryside i dont worry as much about my equipment because we are group and it is hard for someone to get close without me noticing.

In fact the 28-70 costs 3500 euro in Greece but i found a deal of about 2600. Its practically as low as it gets for such a new lens in Greece. I am really considering buying it. That would save me from buying a 15-35 or 24-70 with a prime (mostly at 50mm). Its a saving of more than 2500 euro and i will save about half a kilo in my bag. Maybe later i will add a prime like the 35 but it will depend.

Yeah, the 70-200s are fantastic lenses and incredibly versatile. Can’t go wrong with one of them. As far as standing out though, it’ll be the most noticeable by far. If you’re worried about weight, the 28-70 is only like 4 or 5 ounces heavier than the 70-200 with tripod mount and hood on. If you can handle the 70-200, the 28-70 won’t be a problem. And 2600 is still a great price..that’s less than what I paid here in the US lol. Just shop according to your priorities. 15-35 with a 70-200, and a 50mm is a great setup as well.

davev8 wrote:

you don't say whether you like or need fast aperture in your main zoom lens

if you was considering the 28-70 F2 you can buy the 24-105 F4 and all the F1.8 primes 35/50/85 and a EF 16-35F4is with an adaptor for about the same money (UK prices)

this will give you 16mm to 105 at f4 with one lens swop and 35and 85 at F1.8 with macro and the 50

the 35 and the 50 will make discret streat lenses

all there's lenses will give very good results ...but if you need every last bit of IQ i would say you need to look at better content in your photos

That would be a lot of lenses during travel. I dont like swapping lenses when out and about. I am a clumsy person and i can definitely drop a lens. I know i could leave the 24-105 all day long and swap to primes during dusk but that too is a bit problematic for me. I like a more minimalistic approach where less is more. I need a fast aperture lens thats why i am looking at the 28-70 f2. That range would cover about 50% of my needs. I have a 70-200 that would cover another 30%...All thats left is the wide angle side but i could stich or ask a friend to use his 16-35. Hahaha the more i talk about it the more i like the concept and the more i prefer the 28-70 over the 24-70

RB556 wrote:

Amateur Photog wrote:

RB556 wrote:

70-200 will be way more noticeable than any of the other lenses. Eyes are drawn to brightness, think about walking through a crowd of people, you’re more likely to notice a white sun dress than a black hoodie. The RF is smaller than the EFs, but it’s still bright and about 11 inches fully extended with the white hood on. 28-70 is thick but it’s short and most people won’t notice it. It may stand out if they focused on it it but they’ll skim over it. It’s just some person standing there with a black camera, just like every other camera. Same with the other lenses..24-70, 15-35. The average person couldn’t pick them out of a lineup. If you can get a $3000 lens for 2300, snatch it up..that’s a wicked good deal.

I get your point. Most of the time i dont use the 70-200 in the city. Mostly because i am more interested in documenting life. But i do use it when i want on a landmark in the distance and want to compress the image. Thats about 5-10% of my city photography.

However i do use it a lot when it comes to landscapes. I am far more likely to live in th 70-135 range rather than below 24. I like to pick details in the landscapes something that you would often ignore. I will shoot a wide vista mostly to remember the place or if it so dramatic that i have to shoot it. When i am in the countryside i dont worry as much about my equipment because we are group and it is hard for someone to get close without me noticing.

In fact the 28-70 costs 3500 euro in Greece but i found a deal of about 2600. Its practically as low as it gets for such a new lens in Greece. I am really considering buying it. That would save me from buying a 15-35 or 24-70 with a prime (mostly at 50mm). Its a saving of more than 2500 euro and i will save about half a kilo in my bag. Maybe later i will add a prime like the 35 but it will depend.

Yeah, the 70-200s are fantastic lenses and incredibly versatile. Can’t go wrong with one of them. As far as standing out though, it’ll be the most noticeable by far. If you’re worried about weight, the 28-70 is only like 4 or 5 ounces heavier than the 70-200 with tripod mount and hood on. If you can handle the 70-200, the 28-70 won’t be a problem. And 2600 is still a great price..that’s less than what I paid here in the US lol. Just shop according to your priorities. 15-35 with a 70-200, and a 50mm is a great setup as well.

Hahaha to be honest it costs about 3150 dollars if you do the math. So if i could i would buy the lens from the US and still be cheaper. But probably i wouldnt have the insurance of canon here in greece

David Pavlich wrote:

I look at it as a budgetary issue more than anything else. I must be a lucky photographer. I've done a substantial amount of street photography/cityscape shooting and have never been bothered by anyone. Heck, I walked the streets of New Orleans with a 5DIV w/grip and a 70-200 f2.8 on it and the only comment I got was a question about the lens.

I'm probably not the one to ask, but if the budget supports it, get the best. You've already got one of the best FF cameras on the market. Again, I may be the wrong person to ask since where and when I shoot, weight of my gear isn't a concern either.

But, any choice you make in the RF line considering your needs will be terrific.

David

First of all i love the quote in your signature. Its something we Greeks say often!

Second. Weight is not an issue for me either when travelling. I am trying to keep my camera equipment below 4 kilos, with a total in my bag of 7 kilos with laptop and chargers. The only reason weight concerns me is if the lens is a lot front heavy. I find it difficult to hold such lenses. Thats why i disliked the a7r iii with the 24-70. It felt off balance to me. Fortunately after watching a lot of videos and finding a group of canon shooters in Greece i was informed that though the lens is heavy it is very well balanced and not so much a strain on your hands. I was lucky to talk to a guy who bought it last month and lives near me so i will have a chance to try it out.

Moreover the only real issue was the size of the lens. Because i have been robbed once i know how it feels but we were in a very iffy neighbourhood and we were advised against it. So partly our fault. Since that day i try to keep gear at a minimum to avoid lens changes in public which would put me at a risk of being robbed. Now the only issue for me is whether or not i will miss those extra 4mm at the wide end. I have made up my mind that i will not buy the 15-35 as my own usage below 20mm is very rare but 24-35 and above is were i mostly shoot.

Amateur Photog wrote:

I have finally managed to upgrade my equipment to the Canon R5. A definite step up from my previous setup. I love it!! However I have a hard time choosing lenses. I know i want a 70-200 because i love details in a landscape shot and in cities when travelling. However I want an everyday zoom which i can use during hikes.

As i said i shoot landscapes and cityscapes during travel and hikes along with occasional portraits. I have reviewed my usage through lightroom. But because i am relatively new to the field of photography (5 years) and i am not a working pro i dont have a large catalog, so i did a little bit of research in 500px and flickr. About 900 photos both from my own and online were selected. I saw a little pattern. 14-35 range and 24-70mm range were pretty much equal but the range of 24-35mm (FF terms) was the most popular, mainly because in my previous setup my widest was 24mm but i had the tendency to prefer photos in that range as well.

In the UWA lens territory, photos came mostly from online, while only a few photos were mine from when i used a 14mm prime of a friend. However i have to confess that shooting at that range (14-20mm) is so hard for me because i dont see the composition. Even if i do and lets say shoot 50 different photos in that range, i will end up liking 1 or 2 only.

To sum it up i am a bit torn between two ranges and 3 lenses. Should i go with an UWA-WA zoom lens, meaning the 15-35, or go with a more standard zoom like 24-70. The third lens is the 28-70. I have found a great deal that puts it in almost the same price as the 24-70. However i am kinda worried about its weight (i dont want to visit a doctor for tentonitis) and above all about it being very noticeable in a negative way.

Based on this info (and sorry for the lengthy essay) what would you recommend for someone like me? Is the UWA lens worth investing over the standard or should i prefer the standard zoom for its useful range? And lastly is the 28-70 worth investing over the 24-70?

For a first RF lens I'd recommend the RF 24-105 4L IS. Great lens. I really cannot say enough good things about this lens.  Better than any standard zoom I've ever owned and overall I'd say more useful than a 24-70 2.8. Cost is reasonable too.

For a UWA lens you might consider adapting the EF 16-35 4L IS. Unless you need f2.8 it is superb IQ wise and really right up with the RF 15-35 2.8. Nothing wrong with the 15-35 but it is expensive and a used 16-35 goes for about one third of the cost. If $ is no option then go for the 15-35.

It seems like you know what you want on the long end so it's probably just a matter of what f stop you want to pay up for.  Hope this helps.

jwilliams wrote:

Amateur Photog wrote:

I have finally managed to upgrade my equipment to the Canon R5. A definite step up from my previous setup. I love it!! However I have a hard time choosing lenses. I know i want a 70-200 because i love details in a landscape shot and in cities when travelling. However I want an everyday zoom which i can use during hikes.

As i said i shoot landscapes and cityscapes during travel and hikes along with occasional portraits. I have reviewed my usage through lightroom. But because i am relatively new to the field of photography (5 years) and i am not a working pro i dont have a large catalog, so i did a little bit of research in 500px and flickr. About 900 photos both from my own and online were selected. I saw a little pattern. 14-35 range and 24-70mm range were pretty much equal but the range of 24-35mm (FF terms) was the most popular, mainly because in my previous setup my widest was 24mm but i had the tendency to prefer photos in that range as well.

In the UWA lens territory, photos came mostly from online, while only a few photos were mine from when i used a 14mm prime of a friend. However i have to confess that shooting at that range (14-20mm) is so hard for me because i dont see the composition. Even if i do and lets say shoot 50 different photos in that range, i will end up liking 1 or 2 only.

To sum it up i am a bit torn between two ranges and 3 lenses. Should i go with an UWA-WA zoom lens, meaning the 15-35, or go with a more standard zoom like 24-70. The third lens is the 28-70. I have found a great deal that puts it in almost the same price as the 24-70. However i am kinda worried about its weight (i dont want to visit a doctor for tentonitis) and above all about it being very noticeable in a negative way.

Based on this info (and sorry for the lengthy essay) what would you recommend for someone like me? Is the UWA lens worth investing over the standard or should i prefer the standard zoom for its useful range? And lastly is the 28-70 worth investing over the 24-70?

For a first RF lens I'd recommend the RF 24-105 4L IS. Great lens. I really cannot say enough good things about this lens. Better than any standard zoom I've ever owned and overall I'd say more useful than a 24-70 2.8. Cost is reasonable too.

For a UWA lens you might consider adapting the EF 16-35 4L IS. Unless you need f2.8 it is superb IQ wise and really right up with the RF 15-35 2.8. Nothing wrong with the 15-35 but it is expensive and a used 16-35 goes for about one third of the cost. If $ is no option then go for the 15-35.

It seems like you know what you want on the long end so it's probably just a matter of what f stop you want to pay up for. Hope this helps.

Thank you so much for your response! Although i love the usability and cost of the 24-105 i would like a faster lens to use it for a bit of portraiture as well. I have saved enough for every lens i just want to make the right buying choice.

I have concluded to buy a standard zoom as i dont shoot that much in the uwa end. Plus i have a friend who owns a 16-35 so i could use that when i need it. For the time being i will only add the 28-70 f2 to my kit making it a 2 lens setup. Maybe later i will add a prime but that wont happen for the next couple of years