Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Colin_Photos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8
1

Howdy -

My wife currently shoots full time with a Canon R5.  We have a handful of lenses, listed below, but I am debating purchasing either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 15-35 f/2.8 along with another R5 body for my personal use/learning, as well as being a second shooter with my wife for family sessions.  Or do I go with the EF16-35 f2.8 with the RF adapter and save a couple hundred?

Personally, I am primarily looking to learn shooting landscape and weather systems as they roll through as well as eventually dabble into astro.  Also would love to use it for city-scape, architecture shooting.  We just relocated from the country to right outside a major city, so my opportunity to shoot has gone up drastically.  My gut is telling me to grab the 24-70 as the more versatile lens, but really love the reviews of the 15-35.  Would love some recommendations here as I don't want to purchase both right now due to their extremely high costs.  My wife uses the Sigma as one of her primary lenses in shooting, but wondering if maybe another Sigma instead would be the better buy?  Just want to invest into the RF system once to grow into it fully.

We currently have:

EF Canon 100-400mm F4.5

EF Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

RF Canon 25-104mm f4 (R5 kit lens)

Thank you!

RD

Canon EOS R5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Craig Gillette Forum Pro • Posts: 11,869
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

I was thinking of the Sigma 17-50 as an aps-c lens?  Does it need to be cropped, either by the system or to deal with image circle issues?   If cropped, then you're in territory pretty well covered by the 24-105/4?  Likewise, if you add a 24-70/2.8, it duplicates much of the 24-105 with the f2.8 aperture .

Which would suggest the two wide zooms xx-35 add a focal length range you don't cover yet.  (If the Sigma's not a crop lens, then it covers the focal length range that you propose from the new wide zooms. ?  My impression (I'm a Sony user) is that the Canon dslr lenses adapt well so you might need to look closely to what both lenses offer to see if you want to go with the adapter.  Which would also be available for other lenses that might not be conveniently available in the new mount, too.

My first impression/suggestion would be one of the two wide zooms for new focal length range coverage.  That said, the 24-70 range is extremely useful and popular and you might find both of you want/need it simultaneously if you only have the one lens in that range?

Perhaps spend a little more time seeing what seems "missing" from your kit.

beagle1 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,490
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

RedDragon_BZ wrote:

Howdy -

My wife currently shoots full time with a Canon R5. We have a handful of lenses, listed below, but I am debating purchasing either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 15-35 f/2.8 along with another R5 body for my personal use/learning, as well as being a second shooter with my wife for family sessions. Or do I go with the EF16-35 f2.8 with the RF adapter and save a couple hundred?

Personally, I am primarily looking to learn shooting landscape and weather systems as they roll through as well as eventually dabble into astro. Also would love to use it for city-scape, architecture shooting. We just relocated from the country to right outside a major city, so my opportunity to shoot has gone up drastically. My gut is telling me to grab the 24-70 as the more versatile lens, but really love the reviews of the 15-35. Would love some recommendations here as I don't want to purchase both right now due to their extremely high costs. My wife uses the Sigma as one of her primary lenses in shooting, but wondering if maybe another Sigma instead would be the better buy? Just want to invest into the RF system once to grow into it fully.

We currently have:

EF Canon 100-400mm F4.5

EF Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

RF Canon 25-104mm f4 (R5 kit lens)

Thank you!

RD

The Canon R5 can easily use EF lenses with adapter

For landscapes the 15-35 or EF 16-35 or a wide prime

OP Colin_Photos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

beagle1 wrote:

RedDragon_BZ wrote:

Howdy -

My wife currently shoots full time with a Canon R5. We have a handful of lenses, listed below, but I am debating purchasing either the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 15-35 f/2.8 along with another R5 body for my personal use/learning, as well as being a second shooter with my wife for family sessions. Or do I go with the EF16-35 f2.8 with the RF adapter and save a couple hundred?

Personally, I am primarily looking to learn shooting landscape and weather systems as they roll through as well as eventually dabble into astro. Also would love to use it for city-scape, architecture shooting. We just relocated from the country to right outside a major city, so my opportunity to shoot has gone up drastically. My gut is telling me to grab the 24-70 as the more versatile lens, but really love the reviews of the 15-35. Would love some recommendations here as I don't want to purchase both right now due to their extremely high costs. My wife uses the Sigma as one of her primary lenses in shooting, but wondering if maybe another Sigma instead would be the better buy? Just want to invest into the RF system once to grow into it fully.

We currently have:

EF Canon 100-400mm F4.5

EF Sigma 17-50mm f2.8

RF Canon 25-104mm f4 (R5 kit lens)

Thank you!

RD

The Canon R5 can easily use EF lenses with adapter

For landscapes the 15-35 or EF 16-35 or a wide prime

Absolutely and we run the adapter.  Looking to purchase essentially a second lens so that I can support my wife while shooting, but also one that I can potentially adapt to the other purposes I outlined above.  Just trying to kill two birds with one stone essentially.  Appreciate your reply.

OP Colin_Photos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

Craig Gillette wrote:

I was thinking of the Sigma 17-50 as an aps-c lens? Does it need to be cropped, either by the system or to deal with image circle issues? If cropped, then you're in territory pretty well covered by the 24-105/4? Likewise, if you add a 24-70/2.8, it duplicates much of the 24-105 with the f2.8 aperture .

Which would suggest the two wide zooms xx-35 add a focal length range you don't cover yet. (If the Sigma's not a crop lens, then it covers the focal length range that you propose from the new wide zooms. ? My impression (I'm a Sony user) is that the Canon dslr lenses adapt well so you might need to look closely to what both lenses offer to see if you want to go with the adapter. Which would also be available for other lenses that might not be conveniently available in the new mount, too.

My first impression/suggestion would be one of the two wide zooms for new focal length range coverage. That said, the 24-70 range is extremely useful and popular and you might find both of you want/need it simultaneously if you only have the one lens in that range?

Perhaps spend a little more time seeing what seems "missing" from your kit.

Good suggestions, and we were just discussing that this morning with the adjustments in focal length from APS-C to FF.  Appreciate the thoughts.

CameraCarl Veteran Member • Posts: 8,042
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

Why do you think you need an f2.8 lens if your main uses are going to be for landscape and architecture? I would think that you already are covering the focal length ranges with existing lenses and f4 is more than adequate for landscapes  and architectural photos where you are likely to be photographing at f8, f11 or f16.

OP Colin_Photos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

That's a fair challenge.  I don't, frankly.  Was just looking to have a second lens so as my wife carries those lenses at her shoots (outside of the telephoto), leaving me none.  Haha!

CameraCarl Veteran Member • Posts: 8,042
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8
1

That makes sense. If it were me I'd get the 24-70 of the two you mention as it would be far more versatile.  However when I bought into the RF system and wanted to get one dedicated RF lens (in addition to the various EF lenses I am adapting), I got the 24-240.  The price is right from the Canon Store in Refurbished condition and it covers so much of the range I often photograph that I expect I will only need to carry the one lens on many of my trips.

AchilleasEmm Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8
1

Craig Gillette wrote:

I was thinking of the Sigma 17-50 as an aps-c lens? Does it need to be cropped, either by the system or to deal with image circle issues? If cropped, then you're in territory pretty well covered by the 24-105/4? Likewise, if you add a 24-70/2.8, it duplicates much of the 24-105 with the f2.8 aperture .

Which would suggest the two wide zooms xx-35 add a focal length range you don't cover yet. (If the Sigma's not a crop lens, then it covers the focal length range that you propose from the new wide zooms. ? My impression (I'm a Sony user) is that the Canon dslr lenses adapt well so you might need to look closely to what both lenses offer to see if you want to go with the adapter. Which would also be available for other lenses that might not be conveniently available in the new mount, too.

My first impression/suggestion would be one of the two wide zooms for new focal length range coverage. That said, the 24-70 range is extremely useful and popular and you might find both of you want/need it simultaneously if you only have the one lens in that range?

Perhaps spend a little more time seeing what seems "missing" from your kit.

I was in the same boat as you lately. At least you didn't have to go through choosin a system. I ended up with Canon mainly for their tiny 70-200 2.8 which is one of my most used lenses especially durin travels.

In my opinion check out the EXIF data in lightroom and see how often do you use wider FLs than 24. If it is more often than you use FLs like 50-70mm then go for the 15-35. If not then go for the 24-70

Another method that helped me a lot was with makin a chart of FLs ranging grom 14 to 200mm (and another for 200+mm) and looking for te EXIF data on photos i am interested in and liked on sites like 500px and flickr. That way i had some more data from places that i wanted to visit and perhaps some compositions that i liked in particular. Based on that more than 60% of my photos were shot between 24 and 70mm with another 25% between 70 and 200mm. Wider than that was only 12% and 3% for FLs above 200mm (mainly up to 400).

I ended up choosing 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 for my travels. I thought that if i wanted wider i could stich a panorama or if i wanted more zoom i could crop to about 320mm with about 16mp. Plenty for me and with some more room for a bit more crop in post. I dont shoot a lot of astro so an ultra wide was not a problem for me.

My 2 cents: get the 24-70. It will cover you for the most part. In the event you want wider you can buy the soon-to-be-announced 16mm f2.8. It probably wont be as sharp as the super expensive 15-35 but it is a prime and fairly bright and above all inexpensive (some say for a price ag around 300$). If you want all RF. If not you can probably buy an older DSLR lens and adapt it. Another option is to rent to see which one you like better and how often do you reach for one or the other.

OP Colin_Photos Junior Member • Posts: 48
Re: Canon RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF 15-35 F2.8

AchilleasEmm wrote:

Craig Gillette wrote:

I was thinking of the Sigma 17-50 as an aps-c lens? Does it need to be cropped, either by the system or to deal with image circle issues? If cropped, then you're in territory pretty well covered by the 24-105/4? Likewise, if you add a 24-70/2.8, it duplicates much of the 24-105 with the f2.8 aperture .

Which would suggest the two wide zooms xx-35 add a focal length range you don't cover yet. (If the Sigma's not a crop lens, then it covers the focal length range that you propose from the new wide zooms. ? My impression (I'm a Sony user) is that the Canon dslr lenses adapt well so you might need to look closely to what both lenses offer to see if you want to go with the adapter. Which would also be available for other lenses that might not be conveniently available in the new mount, too.

My first impression/suggestion would be one of the two wide zooms for new focal length range coverage. That said, the 24-70 range is extremely useful and popular and you might find both of you want/need it simultaneously if you only have the one lens in that range?

Perhaps spend a little more time seeing what seems "missing" from your kit.

I was in the same boat as you lately. At least you didn't have to go through choosin a system. I ended up with Canon mainly for their tiny 70-200 2.8 which is one of my most used lenses especially durin travels.

In my opinion check out the EXIF data in lightroom and see how often do you use wider FLs than 24. If it is more often than you use FLs like 50-70mm then go for the 15-35. If not then go for the 24-70

Another method that helped me a lot was with makin a chart of FLs ranging grom 14 to 200mm (and another for 200+mm) and looking for te EXIF data on photos i am interested in and liked on sites like 500px and flickr. That way i had some more data from places that i wanted to visit and perhaps some compositions that i liked in particular. Based on that more than 60% of my photos were shot between 24 and 70mm with another 25% between 70 and 200mm. Wider than that was only 12% and 3% for FLs above 200mm (mainly up to 400).

I ended up choosing 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 for my travels. I thought that if i wanted wider i could stich a panorama or if i wanted more zoom i could crop to about 320mm with about 16mp. Plenty for me and with some more room for a bit more crop in post. I dont shoot a lot of astro so an ultra wide was not a problem for me.

My 2 cents: get the 24-70. It will cover you for the most part. In the event you want wider you can buy the soon-to-be-announced 16mm f2.8. It probably wont be as sharp as the super expensive 15-35 but it is a prime and fairly bright and above all inexpensive (some say for a price ag around 300$). If you want all RF. If not you can probably buy an older DSLR lens and adapt it. Another option is to rent to see which one you like better and how often do you reach for one or the other.

Really appreciate your reply!  I ended up picking up the R5 body only and just rented the 15-35mm.  I'm going to shoot with that this weekend and likely also rent the 28-70 f/2 as I am helping my wife with an event shoot this weekend.  Excited to try the 28-70 as well.  So will probably round that out with renting the 24-70 in another week when I'm taking a trip and making a pick out of that.  The 70-200 is a nice lens as well, but I have the EF 100-400 f/4.5 already, so can cover that focal range with that lens for anything needing a zoom.

Honestly probably going to grab some landscape in the next two weeks and then hit the local hockey rinks to try and snag some photos of some youth hockey with the zoom for fun.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads