I am thinking to return a brand new 28-70mm f2 RF lens

You can pry my 28-70 from my cold dead hands!

Just for giggles, I added the 50 1.8 (because, RF!) and have eyeballed the 35 1.8 as well. In both cases I keep thinking about the compactness and weight savings. Then as time goes on, I never even put the 50 in my bag. Granted, the 2L is in an entirely different league for other reasons, but size and weight be damned, I'll gladly 'suffer' with the big gun for the range and quality vs. a bucket of primes.

Edit: And 90% of my shooting is backcountry hiking/backpacking. I buy overpriced top-tier ultralight everything else, just to have some headroom for luxuries like a more spacious tent, pack space for bourbon and cigars, and big camera gear

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

3. You will need another zoom when you want less weight and the ability to zoom. If you have the RF f/2.0 zoom and the f/4.0 L zoom, there's no redundancy.

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

3. You will need another zoom when you want less weight and the ability to zoom. If you have the RF f/2.0 zoom and the f/4.0 L zoom, there's no redundancy.

This!

Basically there is a good justification for having most lenses. At least I usually manage to find one! 😀😆

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

There's no redundancy if you absolutely need to shoot a lot at 35mm and it's critical to shoot at f/1.8 not f/2.0. I'd say the difference is going to be negligible.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

Again you you really use f/1.2 a lot.

If you have to carry all the lenses with you, there's a lot of redundancy.

If the lenses of all possible apertures and focal lengths stay on your shelve and you sometimes pick one for particular  purpose, there's no redundancy in your camera bag but there is a lot of money spent on lenses you may only use just a few times in their lifetime.

Its perfectly fine if you budget allows that though.

Quarkcharmed wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

There's no redundancy if you absolutely need to shoot a lot at 35mm and it's critical to shoot at f/1.8 not f/2.0. I'd say the difference is going to be negligible.

You're missing the point. There's a difference in weight on the camera. That's what makes these lenses nonredundant.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

Again you you really use f/1.2 a lot.

Or rarely. Or f/1.4. Of f/1.8.

And if f/1.2 of f/1.4 isn't valuable, why are some starving to death to have f/2.0 in their standard zoom in stead of f/2.8?  You simply can't say "I need that f/2.0 zoom accepting 1430 grams and 3300 euro, but a larger aperture doesn't matter to me."

I'm not saying you need to have all those larger aperture primes in your bag next to that zoom. But some primes next to that zoom aren't necessarily redundant for several reasons.

If you have to carry all the lenses with you, there's a lot of redundancy.

For me, if I would own the f/2.0 zoom, it would still make sense to have both that zoom and the 40mm f/1.4 Art in the bag, and an RF 35mm f/1.8 for when stuff gets heavy on my camera.

If the lenses of all possible apertures and focal lengths stay on your shelve and you sometimes pick one for particular purpose, there's no redundancy in your camera bag but there is a lot of money spent on lenses you may only use just a few times in their lifetime.

The same could be true for lenses being to heavy to shoot conveniently a longer period of time, while changing light primes or lighter zooms would be a lot easier on the wrists.

Its perfectly fine if you budget allows that though.

Not buying the f/2.0 zoom frees up quite some budget: 3300 euro.  I've spend 1000 euro on another zoom 350 on the 50mm Art, 850 on the 40mm Art and 350 on the  EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM as a light weight option.  So that's 750 euro spare change.

Yes, you need to change lenses, and yes, it's more weight in the bag, but it's less weight on the camera when you don't need the weighty lenses, and you will get your blur and one stop extra at 40mm.

A camera like R5 deserves statement lens  like RF 28-70 and the RF 100-500. Add the EF 11-24 and you have everything covered

sobrien wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

3. You will need another zoom when you want less weight and the ability to zoom. If you have the RF f/2.0 zoom and the f/4.0 L zoom, there's no redundancy.

This!

Basically there is a good justification for having most lenses. At least I usually manage to find one! 😀😆

That is how I ended with 25 lenses!! I have 8 RF lenses but no 28-70f2. I have RF50f1.2 (excellent prime and best Canon 50mm ever IMHO) as well as RF 70-200f2.8 which produces plenty of boken at 200mmmf2.8. I prefer the adapted EF85mmf1.4L IS for indoor sports action (it is fast focus) and sometimes for portraits but I have other 85mm f1.4 and 1.2 lenses that are not as good as the 85mm1.4 IS for focus speed and heavier that I acquired over the years for head shots but they all slower in focus speed if the subject is not moving. The Sigma 85f1.4 ART is good for boken and plenty sharp corner to corner and the EF85f1.2L MK II is sharp in the middle and has plenty of portrait character but it is a slower for moving subjects and run and gun shooting than the EF85f1.4L IS that is sharper in the corners and much faster focus.

I would think my hypothetical event shoot use of the RF28-70f2 would be better served by some combination of my RF50f1.2 for localization and extreme edge to edge sharpnes and my RF24-70f2.8 but that me and it would all depend on the venue and how close to location alternative lenses were being kept.   Part if my concern is f2 is a compromise for localization and not as shallow as f1.2 or f1.4 that also create risk of being too shallow in some cases and time consuming or impossible to achieve with excellence at even f2 when there are two subjects at tending to be slightly different distances and f2.8 can be better.   There is no perfect lens but there are plenty of heavy lenses to choose from.

thunder storm wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The f/2.0 zoom doesn't replace primes and doesn't replace light weight zooms.

1. You will need primes when you want less weight with a large aperture. If you have bot the f/2.0 zoom and the 35mm f/1.8 prime, there's no redundancy.

There's no redundancy if you absolutely need to shoot a lot at 35mm and it's critical to shoot at f/1.8 not f/2.0. I'd say the difference is going to be negligible.

You're missing the point. There's a difference in weight on the camera. That's what makes these lenses nonredundant.

Definitely. Is it worth the price of an additional lens is a different question.

2. You will need primes when you want an even larger aperture. If you have the f/2.0 zoom and primes like the Sigma 28 and 40mm Art or the RF 50mm f/1.2, there's no redundancy.

Again you you really use f/1.2 a lot.

Or rarely. Or f/1.4. Of f/1.8.

And if f/1.2 of f/1.4 isn't valuable, why are some starving to death to have f/2.0 in their standard zoom in stead of f/2.8?

For low light, background blur etc.

Again if you have a budget for all the lenses you may ever need - it's entirely up to you.

You simply can't say "I need that f/2.0 zoom accepting 1430 grams and 3300 euro, but a larger aperture doesn't matter to me."

I'm not saying you need to have all those larger aperture primes in your bag next to that zoom. But some primes next to that zoom aren't necessarily redundant for several reasons.

If you have to carry all the lenses with you, there's a lot of redundancy.

For me, if I would own the f/2.0 zoom, it would still make sense to have both that zoom and the 40mm f/1.4 Art in the bag, and an RF 35mm f/1.8 for when stuff gets heavy on my camera.

The question is, as above, it's it worth spending money on additional +f0.2 and less weight, but only at 35mm. I don't know.

There's a portrait photographer who uses almost exclusively an old Nikkor 35 f/1.4. That's a part of his style. Does the OP need it? - I don't know. Honestly, most likely he doesn't.

If the lenses of all possible apertures and focal lengths stay on your shelve and you sometimes pick one for particular purpose, there's no redundancy in your camera bag but there is a lot of money spent on lenses you may only use just a few times in their lifetime.

The same could be true for lenses being to heavy to shoot conveniently a longer period of time, while changing light primes or lighter zooms would be a lot easier on the wrists.

Depends on your stamina

I'd use a tripod or monopod. In fact I was using it a lot with the much heavier EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II IS

Its perfectly fine if you budget allows that though.

Not buying the f/2.0 zoom frees up quite some budget: 3300 euro. I've spend 1000 euro on another zoom 350 on the 50mm Art, 850 on the 40mm Art and 350 on the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM as a light weight option. So that's 750 euro spare change.

Yes, you need to change lenses, and yes, it's more weight in the bag, but it's less weight on the camera when you don't need the weighty lenses, and you will get your blur and one stop extra at 40mm.

Yes - it sounds like a trade-off based on the needs and the budget.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)