A thank you to everyone who pointed up that there is an error in the last bit of the video. Talking about the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L USM. Must have been wishful thinking for the RF 35mm f/1.2... hopefully one day...
You never want faster like a 1.4 or 1.2 maybe 50mil for indoor or low light or more reach like 200? Never tempted by a super zoom or do you just want super sharp
I actually shot on both the 50mm 1.2 and the 28-70 f2, and I have to say, even though some shots are a little better on the 50, but the 28-70 is just so much more fun, and the quality is really like a prime lens (almost identical), and in my experience it can even be sharper sometimes. And the versatility is just unmatched.
I have the canon EOS R, with the RF 24-105 F4 L, so after that I purchased the RF 70-200 F4 L, And Just recently received the RF 14-35 F4 L, to complete my kit. I use the Freewell 77mm filter system for all three lenses making taking photos, while swapping lenses an absolute joy. Im fortune enough to live in Hawaii, and take photo during the day outside, and sunrise and sunset, so F4 is more than enough. And the quality of the photo's are professional level, more than enough to make a living on MAUI!!!!
Yup. Totally agree. I have the same three you do, plus I have the 100mm macro. Can’t go wrong with the RF native glass. Expensive, but worth every penny. Pair it with the R5, and you’re golden.
Canon EOS R5 & R6 shooter. RF 15-35 F2.8L, RF 24-70 F2.8L, RF 70-200 F2.8L. Funny thing is, I wish I had bought the RF 50mm F1.2L instead of the 24-70mm. I find the 15-35 gets me the ultra wide. The 70-200mm gets me all the telephoto I could want. Great for everything from portraits to landscape with compression. The 50mm F1.2L would fit perfectly between them and give me a lens with better bokeh, and a lighter lens that would work for street photography to portrait work with lots of separation. Love your setup! I’m a Canon shooter spending the next few years in Thailand. Let me know if you make your way out this way. Cheers.
Just got the EF 85mm 1.4 IS L for my R6, and I'm more then pleased with the results: yes, I have to use the mount adapter for this one, but AF performance seems not impacted at all, it's half the price of the RF 1.2 prime, relatively light with stunning build quality, and I can use it on my 80D, too.
I am using a Canon EOS RP with Canon RF F/4 IS 14-35mm and RF F/4 IS 70-200mm. They are great outdoor lenses. The 70-200mm is amazingly sharp, the eye detect focus spot on and when I magnify, I could see tiny hairs on the skin and fuzz on my wife's jumper. I am stunned because the shots was taken 10 metres away. The RF F/4 14-35mm, is light and fun to use for street, architecture and landscape photography. I love its ability to get shots of old historical two-storey high buildings from across the street, skyscrapers, landscapes and tight indoor spaces. But when you go indoors, the shutter speed needs to slow down and ISO increased slightly if you want to shoot at inside buildings or objects inside rooms. The Image Stabilisation helps a lot when taking shots slower than 1/125s. However if you are photographing people moving normally inside a room, the lens is a little too slow and the human subjects appear blurry. You need to increase shutter speed and increase ISO to 3200-6400 to capture them. For a non-professional photographer, the high ISO is not an issue but professional photographers definitely need faster lens like the RF F/2.8 IS 15-35mm. But my primary purpose is outdoor photography. These two lenses are relatively light and have 77mm filter threads. If I need an indoor lens, I'm thinking of either the RF F/2.8 15-25mm or the RF F/2.8 24-70mm. I like the RF F/2 28-70mm but it hasn't got IS,
I have an eos R and a couple of primes for the EF system using with an Adapter. But i got one RF lens, i would say is worth buying this cam. Its the 35mm 1.8 Macro. This Lens is a beast. Its really sharp at 1.8, focus is great, its small and light, it has a small filter size. Macro funktion is amazing, got a achromat so i can go almost 1:1 Macros. Its stableized and the price is just insane. Bought it used for 380euro. for me one of the most amazing lens i ever used. But having more options is also nice, if you wanna go and have a rf 70-200mm 2.8 look, but dont want to spend the money, then buy the EF 200mm 2.8L ii , its at 2.8 super sharp and i got it used for less than 400euro.
As far as 35mm, i actually really enjoy the 1.8 macro. If you compare bokeh, it's not a huge different between that and a 1.2. And the short range is great. Super fast, very crisp. Worth checking out in my opinion
The 35 macro is my main edc lens! It’s what I have on my camera 70% off the time and its works great! If I need true “people” portraits, I switch to the nifty 50, but I really enjoy the look of portraits at 35mm!
Depending on what you shoot the RF28-70 f2 is a prime killer. For weddings and events the main hurdle is missing the moment. No time to change lenses. Primes will work for set up shots but you will miss the moment during the ceremony switching lens. The picture quality is amazing. For studio work fast primes are better.
9:56 small issue, I guess you mean f2.8 on the 15-35. Other than that, thanks for the great video. I own all RF lenses up to 200mm, but if I needed to take just one to a desert island... well, it would be the 24-70 f2.8, which is actually the lense that I like least in my collection. Not the 28-70/2.0, because it's too heavy and not stabilized, not the 15-35/2.8 since it is too special, and not the 70-200/2.8 because it is not versatile enough. If I were entitled to take TWO lenses to my desert island, it would be the 15-35 and the 50/1.2, with three lenses I would then add the 70-200/2.8. And so on. You made me smile stating that most top picks came from the 15-35. Same here! I think we all miss primes for RF, and for me it's the 24mm/f0.75 that I would love to see. Some say 35mm/1.2, but however. Using the EF-RF converter is not really an option, since the sharpness suffers too much.
The trinity of my preference? a) light wight fun in nature: RF16, RF 35Macro, RF 100-400 b) worth the adapter: EF 35 1.4, EF 85 1.4 IS, EF 200-400 c) Those occupying the body most of the time: RF100-500, RF100 Macro, RF24-105L A trinity in itself: pure photography, cream&crisp, best aperture star in the industry: RF 50 1.2 The 3 2.8 zooms are all great but not too often in action in my sujets.
I have an R6 with the 24-105 f/4 and the 50 1.2. This is my travel kit and it covers everything I shoot. The IQ the 50 gives me is astonishing. Never saw anything like it. The 24-105 is noticeably better than the 24-105 f4L EF lens I had on my old beloved 5D III. There’s nothing else I need.
I chose the 100-500 over the 70-200. Like you, I was worried it was going to be niche. I'm finding I'm carrying that lens with me everywhere and using it the most for almost everything! I never expected that. I'm still very curious about the 70-200 b/c of the ability to open it up a bit more, but I can't speak highly enough of about the 100-500. My 2nd go-to is my 28-70 F2, and finally the 15-35 2.8 that you used here. Overall, I don't have any complaints about any of my choices, but I'm still also thinking about a 50mm 1.2 some day! :)
I'm a beginner, hobbyist shooting mostly landscapes, astro and lately birds and wildlife on the RP. I've amassed six RF lenses since purchasing the camera a little over a year ago. The three I leave home with most often: the RF 15-35mm f/2.8, the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3, and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. I also have the RF 50mm f/1.8 (mostly use for family portraits) the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 (kit lens now mostly redundant with the 24-240), and a Rokinon RF 14mm f/2.8 manual focus (I used for astro before purchasing the 15-35).
Thanks for the video and your recommendations, I travel a lot, so weight is the primary driver for me, so I have the RF 14-35mm F4 L, the RF 24-105mm F4 L and the RF 70-200mm F4 L all used on my Canon R5, this save me over 3.5lb (approx 1.5kgs) in my bag over the F2.8 variants and also I need 1/4 less bag space, which works for me. Oh and I saved $3k when I purchased them 😀
I don't have a "wishlist" per say, but as an amature hobbist this is what I've collected for my first kit. I have a Canon EOS RP with the kit 24-105mm ƒ4-7.1, the 50mm ƒ1.8, and the 100-400mm ƒ5.6-8. For "getting into it," I feel like this isn't a bad combo, however I think the first change I'd make is to probably replace the kit lens with the constant aperture ƒ4 lens. My favorite is the 100-400mm because for $650, it's quite a lens given the focal length. Definitely not perfect, but it's great for the price because the 100-500mm is a heck of a lot more money, particularly for somebody who is doing this for fun. The 50mm ƒ1.8 is the best value. Good 'ol nifty fifty.
Bought a second hand Canon EOS RP today came with the kit lens 24-105 and seen a video comparing this to the constant aperture 4 version that works better in low light but having similar in good light if you need to switch to manual on the lens and extra function rings and of course weighs more. My next lens to add is open and dont know why white painted lenses look better
I'm a Canon R5 shooter with the RF 15-35mm F2.8L USM ,RF 28-70mm F2.0L USM and the most recent addition is the RF 70-200mm F2.8L USM. The 28-70 is the most used lens in my kit. I know the RF primes are much sharper but can't beat the zooms for versatility and practical use with me.
I used to go strictly with primes all the way back to the early 60’s with my old M3 film camera and the crystal sharp Leitz and Summicron lenses. One day about 40 years ago I was chatting with a pro and talk got around to zooms over fixed. He asked me how often I blew up photos to poster size or bigger. Just being a serious amateur I answered never. He told me that modern quality zooms like the better Canon EF’s are totally adequate and I’d never be able to tell the difference in quality. I’ve done a photo safari once when my navy ship was in Mombasa and even then the good zooms I found were adequate. That was 40 years ago and the L lenses from Canon have improved a lot since then. I find zooms totally fulfill my needs and add great versatility. The most used lens I have is my 15-35 EF f 2.8. I often go out carrying only it. The rest of the time its that and the 70-200 EF f 2.8. These lenses are so bright and the superlative low noise at high ISO on my R6 make a flash unneeded except for special effects. I do have a good flash but haven’t used it in over a year. I wanted the R5 but the extra $1400 just for the body made my mind up for my choosing the R6 and it’s a choice I haven’t regretted. Somehow, it’s 20 MP gets the job done really well. I can imagine the R5 doing better with its 45 MP when serious cropping is needed but with me that’s so rare it’s an easy compromise. I do carry a 2X extender at times and it’s very useful. In the early days with film limiting the ISO’s and later when early digital cameras were limited to much lower ISO’s and even then they were very grainy. That’s not the case with the R6 so an extender is back in my bag and getting used. My only fixed lenses are a 50mm F2 macro for close work and a 1200mm for long range wildlife and astronomy shots but those 2 aftermarket lenses are on the shelf at home 99.9% of the time. I don’t foresee replacing my EF L lenses with RF ones anytime soon either when the quality ones cost 3x or more the cost of my fine EF L lenses. Canon needs to seriously look at their new pricing or they will lose a lot of the market for serious amateurs such as myself.
I keep going back and forth on the 14-35 vs the 15-35. Appreciate the video. I love my 50mm rf 1.2. And I typically love the 85mm focal length better. But that 50 is magical.
On Nikon Z6 II. Lens kit is as follows: 35mm f/1.8S, 85mm f/1.8S, 24-70mm f/2.8S, 70-200mm f/2.8S, 105mm f/2.8S MC for macro. If I had three lenses to pick, they would be: 24-70, 70-200, and 85 prime. The zoom lenses give me flexibility but 85mm is my go to for portraiture because of the compression and just the look of it. Z glass is just astonishing. When the 85mm f/1.2S comes out, I’ll be swapping out my prime.
I decided to make a clean jump to RF and traded in all of our EF stuff. R5 for me, R6 Mark II for wifey. 28-70/2 for me, 24-105/4 IS for her plus the 24-240 as a "mom lens". 14-35/4 IS as our first wide and 70-200/4 IS as our first "good" telephoto. 85/2 IS Macro to give us a macro option and a starter headshot prime (with the 70-200/4 IS as backup, or vice versa). Next will likely be the 135/1.8 IS prime, then probably the 50/1.2, though the 70-200/2.8 may wiggle its way up the list. Time will tell!
I agree that the 15-35 and 70-200 are crowd pleasers in that they create perspectives beyond what the human eye is used to seeing. I use them and they’re probably necessary in my kit but I am personally more fond of the 50 mm because it’s more relatable. In fact the 35, 50, and 85mm perspective would be my trio if I was just picking lenses that bring me the most joy. I just wish that Canon would release a pro 35 mm already. It’s been too long of a wait!
I'm really wishing for the 24mm 1.2 L .. Because I don't bring multiple lenses with me on my hike. I just have one lens. And with the R5 I can always crop in and make the 24 to a 35mm with plenty of pixels.
12:35, I've been thinking the same about the 14-35 vs 15-35. For the most part when I'm shooting landscapes, I don't really open up to F2.8. It's almost a waste of money that could be used elsewhere. Ultimately, lowlight is why I chose to stick with the 15-35, but I'm honestly reconsidering it. Great video as always.
I was in the same spot and I bought the 15-35 2.8 because when u need the low light u have that option but if u go f4 u dont, best example i can think of is when I went to photograph inside a museum, the lighting is terrible, and it was an event, so I needed the wide angle and that 2.8 saved me, of course low light shotting is way better now with my R5 and dxo pure raw for noise, but i'm old school get it right in the camera first.
Thank you for saying that the 28-70 F2 is not a prime killer! I just paid to rent it before buying it, seeing if it could replace my primes as other TH-camrs have said. 🤦🏻♂️ No f*ing way… 2.0 ain’t cuttin it. This kit you described is exactly what I concluded I’d get. But 15-35 over 14-35 for the extra stop of light 💡🤙 Appreciate the vid!
Out of my Kit my 28 - 70 f2 is the workhorse; it's reliable, produces great images and is so much more enjoyable to shoot with than my EF 24-70 2.8 II's ever were. My 85 1.2 DS is probably my favourite lens. It's perfect for weddings, and I love the unique DS look, and the ability to shoot at 1.2 during sunny days without needing an ND filter. it's so much quicker than the EF, tracks motion acurately, and can even produce great landscape shots with edge to edge sharpness, at 1.2. I picked up a 50 1.2 recently, and it is a great lens, lighter than the 85, so easy to just have on the camera - it is the lens I have that lets in the most light, and the focus is acurate and sharp; reliable even at 1.2 - you don't get as much separation or DOF as the 85, but it's easier to walk and compose with without needing to take steps back. I do have a 70-200, 100, and EF 11-24 f4 that lives on an adapter, but most of those lenses are more used as needed - I am really keen for the 135 1.4, or 35 1.2 to launch!
Comparing 85 and 50, yes 50 „lacks“ in DOF but you have a wider perspective which creates a different impression than a more focussed in portion with that additional separation at f/1.2 with the 85. Both great lenses. I can‘t justify a 85 f/1.2 due to the weight, cost and more special purpose. A 70-200 f/2.8 would do that job for me, as I can get even dreamier bokeh with it st 200, although at the price of losing perspective compared to the 85 😅.
A secret weapon of mine is combining the RF 50mm f/1.8 with some Meike extension tubes to handle my macro photography needs. It may not be as specialized as the dedicated 100mm f/2.8 macro, but I don't take macro often enough to justify the larger more expensive lens; plus I can take the tubes off and enjoy the low profile 50mm to do nighttime photography without attracting the kind of attention large lenses bring.
Laowa 14mm f/4 (MF), 35mm f/2.8 STM, 24-105mm STM (variable) ... I have a Canon 35mm FL TS-E though .. it's basically a landsacpe shift goodie that comes with me time and again, but landscape w/ long exposures (NDx10) is where I'm at. Kit is SUPER light, easy to walk 10 miles with on my back. You're kit is amazing, but at 1/5th the cost on my RP budget with RF glass ... be hard pressed to not tip a slider in LR that wouldn't match your photos. But that's just me. Lots of people do the jump out of the car vlog style, vs. deep pack hard work stuff for "that shot" that no-one has. I mean I could use an iPhone or PIxel if I had to - but the kit just allows me to roll out, walk 10 miles, enjoy my day from out behind the camera, then snap when I need and go home. It's more a life life, vs. shorten my trips. We all have our mantra, that's just mine.
A little bit late to the party but I have the RF 14-35 4L, RF 24-105 4L (a great walking around or travel lens), 70-200 4L , RF 50 1.8 and new RF 24 1.8 - on the R5 , I came from a similar EF situation spanning 18 years making the change at the end of 2021. Really enjoy your channel . Cheers from NZ
I just rented the RF 70-200 for a week. I have an RP with an EF adapter as I was saving some money on EF lenses (canon 100mm- Sigma 35 1.4- nifty fifty) so I was going to rent the EF 70-200 so I don't have to switch out the adapter... but then I saw that the size and weight of the RF is amazing compared to the EF. So I ended up renting the RF and just taking the camera with that single lens for the week. Today is Day 1 of that and I'm looking forward to see what the lens sees!
Thank you for the insightful video I’m new to mirrorless photography after many years away from my SLR hobby… just purchased the R6 Mark II and 24-105 f4 as my first lens while I get to know the R6M2. Glad to hear your initial lens was also a 24-105. My wish list lenses are the 100 prime for macro photography, which I really enjoy as a biologist and the 100-500 for wildlife… thanks again 👍🏻
Of all my 6 RF lenses, the only one I would not part with is the 70-200 f/4L, the rest don't particularly blow my mind, like the EF 135 did with my Canon DSLR's. They work and perform well but the f/4L resolves in a special way.
I love the RF 70-200F4L, but coming from the EF 70-200 F4L III, I haven’t been able to capture the same magical images with the RF version, I think it’s too sharp 🤣
Got the RF 15-35 f2.8 because the 28-70 wasnt available, but now its available so i have the 28-70 f2.0. I also have a old adapted ef 70-200 f2.8 L USM. With that setup i cover all the focal lengths. The one i use most is the 28-70!
As an amateur, mostly bird photographer, I use the 100-500 and the 24-105mm. I kinda cover my rare need for wide angle with the very inexpensive 16mm prime.
I shoot mostly landscapes (some BIF and wildlife) and only occasional "family and friends" portraits, so having super wide apertures wasn't as important to me as size and weight. I currently only have 3 RF lenses: The RF 24-105 f/4 (bought with my R5), the RF 70-200 f/4, which made a lot more since for me as I hike a lot and shoot a lot of landscapes, and I also bought a refurbished RF 85 f/2 with the money I saved not buying the 70-1200 f/2.8 over the f/4. The 85 f/2 is a very decent portrait lens with very good separation for the money. It also doubles as a pseudo-macro lens. One of the best values in the RF lineup in my opinion. I have 5 EF-mount lenses that I am quite happy with and probably will just keep: EF50 f/1.4 (a very nice portrait lens that is compact and light, even with the adaptor), EF 135 f/2 (I love this lens. Even though it's old the IQ is phenomenal), EF 300 f/4 prime (another rather older EF lens, but it gives me great results. I use this often on my back porch to shoot humming birds), Sigma 150-600mm (there had been complaints about focus pulsing but I used Duade Patton's suggested camera / lens settings which has all but eliminated this minor problem. I am more than happy with this lens for shooting birds in flight). Finally, I have poor man's ultra side angle, the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. This manual focus lens is primarily used for milky way photography, for which it is excellent. There are currently two more lenses on my bucket list: RF 14-35 f/4 (again, I shoot landscapes and prefer light weight over an extra stop of light), the RF 100 f/2.8 macro. If I was ever to just go nuts and decided I had to have some super lens with incredible IQ and bokeh, subject separation, etc, I would probably want the RF 28-70 f/2. A friend has that lens and it is insanely good for things like people shots. The IQ is almost too sharp and he sometimes puts a filter to soften it a bit.
Having been spoilt for lens in my past job and through ownership in the EF mount I spent weeks looking at how I shot both Landscapes and Portraits before buying RF lenses. So instead of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I went with the RF 70-200mm f4L. Instead of the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II I went with the RF 24-105mm f4L and instead of the EF 50mm f1.2L I went with the RF 50mm f1.8. Now I still use the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM the only EF I use on the RF system and I wish Canon could produce a series of f1.4L primes not being a fan of f1.2 lenses and their increased weight & size. The fact is I cannot see any down sides at all I rarely shot with the zooms at 2.8 and rarely shot at 1.2 with the 50mm. The RF 70-200mm f4L in particular is really sharp at f4 and I appreciate the extra reach of the 24-105mm over a 24-70mm. We all get drawn in by hype rather than evaluating our photography and what works for us. The upshot for me was three fold, cheaper lenses, lighter lenses and in one case better reach.
The 24-105mm f/4 L is such an underrated lens. Made a video about it almost two years ago. Probably could do another one. That lens is just so versatile. Appreciate your insights. Thank you so much for sharing and my best to you!
I now need to amend the above. Whilst I still stand by my main thrust that we should evaluate our photography and thus the needs before purchasing lenses (and cameras) that’s not set in stone. After trying the new RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM as a loaner from Canon on a portrait shoot it is a big improvement over the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II so much so that I relented and bought one. The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM will still remain my primary lens in that focal range but for portraiture the RF 24-700mm f2.8L IS USM will be my go to lens.
Nice set you got I usually run with only 2 due to my bag 15-35mm 24-240mm Canon eos r And I usually have my deity mic or DJI mic system with two aperture lights in the bag
Just got a Canon R5 before finding this video. I funny enough got two of the three you mentioned here. I got the 15-35mm and the 50mm. On my way to Fear Expo to use it on my first shoot as I type this. Cannot wait to see my results. I have been shooting on the Canon SL3 since it came out. Started picking up jobs here and there. Now I have been contracted with a company for the next year as their videographer. Figured I should finally pull the trigger and get pro level equipment. Looks like the 70-200mm is what I will get next. Thanks for the advice.
R5 shooter, my trinity of lenses is the RF100-500 because that’s all I could afford 😉. That said, I really, really like it. When I can afford two additional lenses it will be the 100 macro and the 14-35.
I mostly shoot with the 50 1.2. Despite being heavy and large, it creates such amazing photos. Additionally I have the RF100 Macro for, well, Macro and fort portraits. When travelling I use the 24-105 f4. It’s the first time since 2000, that I didn’t opt for the 24-70 f2.8. But with the rf50, the rf100 and hopefully not too far away a better 35mm prime with 1.4, there is not really a need for the 2.8. Doing no event/wedding stuff.
After I picked up the R5 I decided to buy one RF lens. I have a dozen + EF lenses but wanted to try an RF. In LRCC I filtered the last couple years of work by lens and the 70-200 2.8 was by far the winner. It’s my ‘normal’ lens. And everything you said about that lens is spot on. The EF lenses work fantastic and I really see no reason to buy more RF lenses but it would be nice to have that 50 1.2 without the converter. And until they come out with an RF i still have my 35 1.4 EF. But switching back and forth with the converter isn’t fun.
I have the holy trinity of RF - 15-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm f2.8. I also have a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 that I use for night sky photos. I'm halfway considering selling the 15-35 and getting the 14-35 f4 since I primarily use it for landscapes. I'm tempted to add the 100-500mm for wildlife photography to complete my kit but I haven't been able to convince myself it is worth the $$$$ required.
Thank you for that video! I did really appreciate your insights on why you made which choice back then and how you think about these decisions now that you've been using your lenses for a while. It is these kinds of considerations that are really helpful when making a purchase decision. I'm coming from an EF mount camera (5Dmk3) and I am currently using my EF glass on an R6. I am now trying to figure out which of my EF lenses I should be replacing (if at all) and when doing so what would be the best (= most cost effective) set of lenses to buy. This video helps a lot! Cheers!
Hahah! I just fell into these 3 exact lenses as well. I was holding on with the adapted EF 16-35 f/4 and the EF 24mm 1.4 II (prime combo of EF 24mm 1.4 and RF 50mm 1.2), but I really wanted to pair down my kit and I was looking for a really good travel lens so I picked the RF 15-35mm and sold my EF 24mm 1.4 II and the EF 16-35mm F/4. No longer needing an adapter I feel liberated. I'll tryout this setup for 2022 and see how things are looking after some of my trips this summer. I'm interested in an RF 24mm 1.2 or a RF 35mm 1.2. We'll see. Thanks for the content!
I was travelling recently and the only equipment I brought was an R5 and the 50mm 1.2. I wound up being asked at the last minute to shoot an engagement party because their photographer cancelled. I knew it was at a restaurant, but didn't know that it was an outdoor space... at night. You couldn't design a worse scenario really, if you tried. The 50 1.2 was awesome, and I don't think I would ever have chosen to use it naked like that if there had been any choice. The bride to be was thrilled, and I have to admit that even I was a little surprised at how well it all turned out. I agree completely about the 70-200, and I love the 50 1.2. I compromised at the short end and went with the 14-35 even though it is F/4 - but that turned out to be a good fit for me as well. I like the 100mm macro, but honestly don't pull it out often enough to really think of it as a go-to. All that being said, you really should find a way to get some experience with the 100-500. I know it's larger than the lenses in your list, but I can't imagine going on a trip without it anymore. If I absolutely HAD to lighten the load and the bulk, most of the time I would pack that 100-500 and the 50 1.2 and live with it.
Great breakdown. I struggled with dropping the cash for the RF 70-200 f/2.8 - BUT so worth it. I just ordered the 14-35 f/4 pretty much for the reasons you just stated. That lens will be used for very specific purposes and saving that $700 made sense.
Thank-you for the video! R6 with RF 85mm f/1.2 is what I useless this past wrestling season, indoors and can sit mat side. There have been some situations I wished for the R5 to crop. Considered the RF 70-200 for its size, but have the EF 70-200 2.8L IS III LENS and can’t justify the exchange cost yet.
R6: RF 24-105mm f4, RF 50mm f1.2, RF 70-200mm f2.8, EF 16-35mm f4. I also have and 80D and I use my Tamron 24-70mm f2.8. I've used the Tamron adapted on my R6, but I do prefer it on my 80D.
excellent video Agree with much of what you said. I personally own the rf 100-500, rf70-200 f2.8, rf24-70 f2.8 , rf 50 f1.8....however i still use the EF 16-35mm f4 and EF 100mm f2.8 macro....As stated, i agree with you that dont really need a f2.8 wide zoom, and for me the 16-35mm f4 is a superb lens that i see no reason to switch to the rf 14-35 ( at least for me)
Depends if you are shooting astro or indoors with no external lighting, then you will need the extra light. Otherwise you won't ever need a wide lens with f1-2:8. No need outdoors in daytime.
I'm glad you made the comment about the filter size. I'm slowly converting to all RF from EF and as it currently stands all my lenses are 77 which is nice to not have to buy more filters. As an amateur spending 2k for an RF lense is hard to do and can be tough to explain to the spouse. Changing the adapter in the filed from lense to lense is a pain and takes longer and leaves your sensor exposed for more time.
My main lenses right now with my R6 are RF 800mm F11, RF 100-500, EF 24-105, EF 85 F1.8 and RF 35 macro. I use a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for ultra wides right now, but can only use it at 16mm between F4.5-F9 or I get rounded corners since it's an APS-C lens, otherwise I use an EF-s 10-18 IS with my 7Dii. I really want a 15-35 or 14-35 and would grab the 14-35, but would like the F2.8 aperture if the 15-35 for astrophotography and other low light shooting. I only just replaced my EF 100-400 with the RF 100-500 so the ultra wide upgrade will have to wait
I'm a bit late to the party but I'm now into the R system with an R5, 15-35 2.8, and 50 1.2....and for the third lens I have extreme anxiety of what to get next. Budget only allows ONE more lens my kit for the foreseeable future. I shoot a wide variety things, mostly hobby stuff but some paid work here and there. My HEART tells me I need the 85 1.2 but I don't think it's a need, more of a want. I've always been a 3 prime lens shooter(35/50/85) for anything and everything from portraits to weddings to events to whatever else. Sometimes a wide for landscape stuff. But the 85 is currently in the same range as the 28-70 which I love for versatility and is MORE than the 70-200. Leaning towards the 28-70 as the quality is just insane and it's a good range. But that 70-200 has also impressed me and everyone I know that has tried it. Maybe I'll sell a kidney and get all of them.
Thanks for sharing such an interesting engaging video, I’m always intrigued on what other photographers use for tools, I have the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 it’s just only new I have used it twice and so far it’s amazing it’s for a Fuji mount, I also have the Fuji 18mm f1.4, 33mm f1.4, 50mm f1.0 and the 90mm f2 all amazing primes, and I mainly use these for my wedding and portrait gigs, I also have the 50-140mm f2.8 its great very versatile but like you I use this more for travel, landscape and also at ceremonies for weddings, it’s also great for the speeches but that’s about all I use it for weddings. I also have a canon R6 with some EF lenses, but yeah it’s been disappointing as I’m not getting the best out of it using older EF glass, my Fuji out resolve it and I prefer the colour science from the Fuji also. The focus and low noise on the R6 is probably the best asset but I’m pretty much regretting I should have probably invested in the R5 with more pixels to play with and being a bit more future proof, But I do use it at times when I do night shoots as it holds up well in really low light environments and also dark receptions. I just find the RF system so expensive and for not that much improvement in quality, so I’m holding off a bit confused on which way to go in the future. But honestly it’s nice having 2 systems both have there pros and cons and enjoy shooting with them both. I’m hoping Tamron and Sigma will start manufacturing RF glass, that’s the only way I think I can justify keeping the Canon system going forward. We wait and see.
Thank you so much for leaving this note. Tons of great insights and yes hopefully we see some sigma and tamron glass for the RF mount soon! My best to you.
I have an R5 with a 15-35 RF, 24-70 RF, 70-200 2.8 RF, 100-500 RF and a 1.6 extender. I don't think the 70-200 replaces the 100-500 because you can't put an extender on it. Yes you can crop. So, maybe. But, I like shooting with the 100-500 in certain situations, - don't want to be without it. Some say you can use the 100-500 to replace the 70-200. Again, I don't agree. The 100-500 is big and heavy and for a lot of use - portraits for example, its just too darn big. The 70-200 is much better for that.
Two things wrong with the RF 70-200 f2.8. Price and price. I’m not a pro. I’m also retired and not rich. I have the EF 70-200 L f 2.8 and it’s less than 1/3 the price of the RF. It’s ONLY drawback for my uses is it’s heavier than the RF. That’s easily remedied with a tripod or monopod. I also have the 15-35 EF L f 2.8. The same argument applies. You can find a clean used one for under $600 instead of $2700. Canon HAS to wake up. Their new RF prices are losing all but the better paid pros who get their equipment at a big discount or free and then get a good tax write off on whatever they do pay. I do like my RF6 and don’t regret buying it. It’s a light year better than my 5D Mk IV. With it and the $50 adapter and my 2 old EF lenses I’m satisfied. I may add an 80 mm f 1.2 EF but probably at no time soon unless prices drop. I have a cheap 50mm F2 macro that works fine for those rare times I prefer a 50 fixed over my 70-200. My only other lens is an after market cheap 1200mm f11 that I use (sometimes with a 2x extender) and definitely on a tripod for wildlife and astronomy pix. I do those rarely.
R6 shooter with the RF 15-35mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f4. Most likely going to pick up the RF 50mm f1.8 when I purchase a water housing in a few months. Like you said in the video, the 15-35mm is my most shot with lens too.
Great video! I mostly agree with everything, but in my opinion the 14-35mm is kinda not worth it (at least here in Finland), as the 15-35mm costs only 200€ more than the 14-35mm, and you don't get quite as good optics and definitely not the low light capabilities of the f2.8 version. I would consider the f4 version only if you know you will never use f2.8 or just want the lightest ultra wide zoom possible
Wow yeah a 200 euro spread is a much tighter window than here in the states where its about a $700 difference not including taxes. The optics are the same though. Both are L series with the same high quality 16 elements running on a USM motor. but yeah if you can go f/2.8 and have the money, it's nice to have that option. Thank you for sharing your note here and my best to you!
When I preordered my R5, , the first two lenses I ordered (my credit cards cried that day) were the RF 28-70 2.0, and the RF 70-200 2.8. I went back and forth deciding whether to get the 24-70 2.8, or the 28-70 2.0, between the price, and the size. I'm very glad that I went with the 2.0. Since I mostly do sports & wildlife, I then bought the RF800, figuring it would tide me over until I can save up for the RF 100-500, but it only made me want it more. I liked the RF800, but between the 20' min focus distance, smaller AF zone and the lack of telephoto, I finally decided to jump in and get the 100-500. I have since bought the 2.0 teleconverter, figuring I could then sell my RF800, but I've continued to hold on, and use them all. I have yet to really want or feel I was missing on a wider angle, so the 15-35 does not feel like a "need" yet for me, however I have been looking at the RF 100mm Macro.
I didn't find the 28-70 to be a must-have for my work, and I went with the 14-35 on the short end, and it lives up around 20mm most of the time. The one thing I wish Canon would release is something along the line of a 12mm rectilinear 1.8 or wider. With that, plus what I already own, I'm not sure I would ever buy another lens. I can tell you that I got the bug for the 100 macro, but I don't find enough excuses to use it. If you're a true macro enthusiast, you will. But I've actually considered selling it and doing without on those rare occasions where I "need" it.
I used to consider myself a member of team Brand and Canon fanboy-ish person. But I realized it might not be a bad idea to have a photo buddy shooting Nikon. It just eliminates so many awkward moments when you get asked to lend a lens :D
I found this video through looking up what my next lens will be (looking at the 85mm OR the 28-70 if I can even find one). So I saw this video pop up and was like hell yeah. This is the video I need. And it just so happens that these three lenses are the exact and only ones that I have currently. Great lenses! And good video. Keep it up.
Such a good video! At the moment I rock a eos R with a 15-35mm f2.8 and I’m tossing up between the 70-200mm f2.8 or the f4 mainly because of the price difference I mostly do weddings and starting to do basketball work, so trying to figure out if f4 is going to be efficient enough
The extra stop of light will be helpful for basketball and the shallower DOF will make a big difference for portraits and details. Both are super sharp lenses and a similar construction so if the weight of the f2.8 version isn't a worry, I'd keep saving up until you're comfortable with the price tag
My lens trinity for my Canon EOS RP is: Canon RF 16mm 2.8. Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 (with adapter). Canon RF 70-200mm 4. Like you, I’m eagerly awaiting an RF 35mm 1.2. Will replace the Sigma.
I bought the 14-35 because of size and weight only. The cheaper price was a bonus. I sold my 2.8 70-200 because I didn’t carry it around often the bag was just getting too heavy. I may get the F4 70-200 one day but I hate the white lens hood on these white lenses. I plan on getting a 20mm 1.4 Sigma or native RF if it ever comes. I have the 50 1.2, but will probably sell it if a 50 1.4 comes out. Canon needs their ass kicked- the 35 and 50 1.8 are so good they should have offered a non-macro weathersealed version..so it fits a real lens hood.. I’d pay the cash!
Just picked up the R8 moving from the RP. Lens package includes RF 24-105 F/4.0, RF 50 F/1.8, RF 35 F/1.8 IS I also have th EF 24-70 F/2.8 II with the RF EF adapter and it work fine I am looking forward to getting my hands on the RF 70-200 F/4.0
I’m plain Jane. All RF. All 2.8. 15-35, 24-70, 70-200. For my work though I’ve really started to think about the 28-70 to replace the 24-70. Still on the fence though
Have the 15-35 f2.8, 24-105 f4... waiting to see what i can get as my third. I kinda want the rf 100-400 as the 100-500 is out of my range. The 50mm 1.2 intrigues me as well. I have an EF 50 f1.4 and ef 75-300 m3 but wouldn't mind selling either to upgrade, but they don't have much value
Hey Mr Foster thank you for the video, I found it informative and eye opening, I have been trying to decide on what canon lense to buy to start and really I would like to buy them all but I thought that 50 mm 1.2 would be a great start but after seeing your pictures from the 18- 35 I think that is the way to go. Thank you for opinion as a photographer 😎😎😎
Legit! I recently added the RF 15-35 and it really does compliment my 50 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8. I considered the f/4 but so need that extra bit of low light performance. Great video production. Excellent points and examples.
My first canon kit had those same 3 EF lenses. I was smart once. Bought a dozen more L primes, not special, moved to Zeiss primes, sold off all but the 70-200. Now it’s too damn heavy and considering the RF 70-200 f4.
Great breakdown. The landscape lenses I use RF 15-35, 70-200, and technically the 800 f11 but I don't think of it as my landscape kit. I've been thinking about a travel kit, something to take on vacations or where I want to shrink a kit. So I've been looking at the set of cheaper primes, RF 16, 35, 50, 85, and I have the 100-400 all ready. Any thoughts on that vs the Rf 14-35 over the 16 and 35? Or how about the RF 50mm comparisons? Also love the point of shooting at f4. My counterpart would always shoot at 2.8 like fool. although I've been doing our show at 2.8 no problem or good enough.
This was a gr8 video. I’ve r5 & 24-70/2.8. I’m trying to build a trilogy with 15-35 & 70-200/2.8. But this video helps me re-evaluate b/w 15-35/2.8 vs 14-35/f4. I might go w/ 14-35/4 instead of 15-35/2.8. Thanks Till
I have the RF 15-35 and tried the 14-35. My advice: get the EF 16-35 F4. It's a better optic overall, no vignetting, homogene and charp. you can get one for 500 now.
I run the same setup. Rf70-200 2.8, rf50 1.2, rf15-35 2.8 and just added a sigma 35 1.4 art I got a good deal on. I am still waiting as well on that RF 35 1.2, but that sigma will hold me over till then.
I have the same lens setup! Lol we’ll just added the 70-200 this wk, I’m not used to seeing the slight chromatic aberration after using the 50 f1.2 so often which has sharp corners. Do you use your 70-200 that often?
I got a trinity zoom. - RF 14-35 F/4 - RF 28-70 F/2 - RF 70-200 F/2.8 I am really asking myself if I should not purchase a RF 50 1.2 for indoor portraits. It is hard to spend more than 2.6 k€ only for this as I got a kind of similar results at 70 F/2 or 200 F/2.8 but in indoors often the case, I can’t use the 70-200 at 200 or the 28-70 at 70… I clearly lack of bokehlicious option in indoors portrait
Just ordered the rf 14-35 can not wait especially after hearing your review and thoughts . So my everyday kit will be Rf 14-35 Rf 24 -105 Rf 100-400 I also have Rf 16mm. 2.8 Rf 35mm. 1.8 Rf 85 mm 2.0 I might sell the 16 and 35 after I get to know the new lens Quick update got the 14-35 did not like how slow it was so returned it and got the 15-35 and loving it . It's my 1# lens now
![รวมมิตร ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #4 SS2 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kl86m9gnLt8/mqdefault.jpg)
A thank you to everyone who pointed up that there is an error in the last bit of the video. Talking about the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L USM. Must have been wishful thinking for the RF 35mm f/1.2... hopefully one day...
My trinity of lenses are: 16mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/2. Cheap but lightweight plus they’re all the focal lengths I want 99% of the time.
same here!
same
hope you know what trinity of lenses means.
You never want faster like a 1.4 or 1.2 maybe 50mil for indoor or low light or more reach like 200? Never tempted by a super zoom or do you just want super sharp
Are you using this on a full frame or crop sensor?
I actually shot on both the 50mm 1.2 and the 28-70 f2, and I have to say, even though some shots are a little better on the 50, but the 28-70 is just so much more fun, and the quality is really like a prime lens (almost identical), and in my experience it can even be sharper sometimes. And the versatility is just unmatched.
the 50.12 has this special look to it though that i cant describe
Thanks, Ive just ordered the 28-70mm...
I’ve got the RF 28-70 f2.0 and my old Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART instead of the RF 50mm f1.2. The 28-70 is a unicorn and love it.
I have the canon EOS R, with the RF 24-105 F4 L, so after that I purchased the RF 70-200 F4 L, And Just recently received the RF 14-35 F4 L, to complete my kit. I use the Freewell 77mm filter system for all three lenses making taking photos, while swapping lenses an absolute joy. Im fortune enough to live in Hawaii, and take photo during the day outside, and sunrise and sunset, so F4 is more than enough. And the quality of the photo's are professional level, more than enough to make a living on MAUI!!!!
im planning to buy a similar kit , i either start with just a 24-105 , or 14-35 and later buy the 70-200 , what would you recommend
Yup. Totally agree.
I have the same three you do, plus I have the 100mm macro.
Can’t go wrong with the RF native glass. Expensive, but worth every penny.
Pair it with the R5, and you’re golden.
I own the RF 14-35 F4 L, RF 50mm F1.2 L & RF 70-200 F4 L and I love them all. The 50mm F1.2 is my favorite!
Canon EOS R5 & R6 shooter. RF 15-35 F2.8L, RF 24-70 F2.8L, RF 70-200 F2.8L. Funny thing is, I wish I had bought the RF 50mm F1.2L instead of the 24-70mm. I find the 15-35 gets me the ultra wide. The 70-200mm gets me all the telephoto I could want. Great for everything from portraits to landscape with compression. The 50mm F1.2L would fit perfectly between them and give me a lens with better bokeh, and a lighter lens that would work for street photography to portrait work with lots of separation. Love your setup!
I’m a Canon shooter spending the next few years in Thailand. Let me know if you make your way out this way. Cheers.
Just got the EF 85mm 1.4 IS L for my R6, and I'm more then pleased with the results: yes, I have to use the mount adapter for this one, but AF performance seems not impacted at all, it's half the price of the RF 1.2 prime, relatively light with stunning build quality, and I can use it on my 80D, too.
I got that used for 1200$ and a local photo store and I love every bit of it in my r5
@@Itaketoomanypicsgot my ef 85mm f1.2 II used for sub 700 USD , LOTS OF AWESOMENESS
I am using a Canon EOS RP with Canon RF F/4 IS 14-35mm and RF F/4 IS 70-200mm. They are great outdoor lenses. The 70-200mm is amazingly sharp, the eye detect focus spot on and when I magnify, I could see tiny hairs on the skin and fuzz on my wife's jumper. I am stunned because the shots was taken 10 metres away. The RF F/4 14-35mm, is light and fun to use for street, architecture and landscape photography. I love its ability to get shots of old historical two-storey high buildings from across the street, skyscrapers, landscapes and tight indoor spaces. But when you go indoors, the shutter speed needs to slow down and ISO increased slightly if you want to shoot at inside buildings or objects inside rooms. The Image Stabilisation helps a lot when taking shots slower than 1/125s. However if you are photographing people moving normally inside a room, the lens is a little too slow and the human subjects appear blurry. You need to increase shutter speed and increase ISO to 3200-6400 to capture them. For a non-professional photographer, the high ISO is not an issue but professional photographers definitely need faster lens like the RF F/2.8 IS 15-35mm. But my primary purpose is outdoor photography. These two lenses are relatively light and have 77mm filter threads. If I need an indoor lens, I'm thinking of either the RF F/2.8 15-25mm or the RF F/2.8 24-70mm. I like the RF F/2 28-70mm but it hasn't got IS,
I have an eos R and a couple of primes for the EF system using with an Adapter. But i got one RF lens, i would say is worth buying this cam. Its the 35mm 1.8 Macro. This Lens is a beast. Its really sharp at 1.8, focus is great, its small and light, it has a small filter size. Macro funktion is amazing, got a achromat so i can go almost 1:1 Macros. Its stableized and the price is just insane. Bought it used for 380euro. for me one of the most amazing lens i ever used. But having more options is also nice, if you wanna go and have a rf 70-200mm 2.8 look, but dont want to spend the money, then buy the EF 200mm 2.8L ii , its at 2.8 super sharp and i got it used for less than 400euro.
As far as 35mm, i actually really enjoy the 1.8 macro. If you compare bokeh, it's not a huge different between that and a 1.2. And the short range is great. Super fast, very crisp. Worth checking out in my opinion
Ive got this lens too, its great for so many things phots amd video.
The 35 macro is my main edc lens! It’s what I have on my camera 70% off the time and its works great! If I need true “people” portraits, I switch to the nifty 50, but I really enjoy the look of portraits at 35mm!
Depending on what you shoot the RF28-70 f2 is a prime killer. For weddings and events the main hurdle is missing the moment. No time to change lenses. Primes will work for set up shots but you will miss the moment during the ceremony switching lens. The picture quality is amazing. For studio work fast primes are better.
9:56 small issue, I guess you mean f2.8 on the 15-35.
Other than that, thanks for the great video. I own all RF lenses up to 200mm, but if I needed to take just one to a desert island... well, it would be the 24-70 f2.8, which is actually the lense that I like least in my collection. Not the 28-70/2.0, because it's too heavy and not stabilized, not the 15-35/2.8 since it is too special, and not the 70-200/2.8 because it is not versatile enough.
If I were entitled to take TWO lenses to my desert island, it would be the 15-35 and the 50/1.2, with three lenses I would then add the 70-200/2.8. And so on.
You made me smile stating that most top picks came from the 15-35. Same here! I think we all miss primes for RF, and for me it's the 24mm/f0.75 that I would love to see. Some say 35mm/1.2, but however. Using the EF-RF converter is not really an option, since the sharpness suffers too much.
The trinity of my preference?
a) light wight fun in nature: RF16, RF 35Macro, RF 100-400
b) worth the adapter: EF 35 1.4, EF 85 1.4 IS, EF 200-400
c) Those occupying the body most of the time: RF100-500, RF100 Macro, RF24-105L
A trinity in itself: pure photography, cream&crisp, best aperture star in the industry: RF 50 1.2
The 3 2.8 zooms are all great but not too often in action in my sujets.
I have an R6 with the 24-105 f/4 and the 50 1.2. This is my travel kit and it covers everything I shoot. The IQ the 50 gives me is astonishing. Never saw anything like it. The 24-105 is noticeably better than the 24-105 f4L EF lens I had on my old beloved 5D III. There’s nothing else I need.
I chose the 100-500 over the 70-200. Like you, I was worried it was going to be niche. I'm finding I'm carrying that lens with me everywhere and using it the most for almost everything! I never expected that. I'm still very curious about the 70-200 b/c of the ability to open it up a bit more, but I can't speak highly enough of about the 100-500. My 2nd go-to is my 28-70 F2, and finally the 15-35 2.8 that you used here. Overall, I don't have any complaints about any of my choices, but I'm still also thinking about a 50mm 1.2 some day! :)
I’ve been going back and forth between the 14 and 15 mm to 35 and this really helped me decide on the 14-35! Ty dude!
I've been leaning towards the 14-35 as well but lower aperture would be better for astrophotography
I'm a beginner, hobbyist shooting mostly landscapes, astro and lately birds and wildlife on the RP. I've amassed six RF lenses since purchasing the camera a little over a year ago. The three I leave home with most often: the RF 15-35mm f/2.8, the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3, and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1. I also have the RF 50mm f/1.8 (mostly use for family portraits) the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 (kit lens now mostly redundant with the 24-240), and a Rokinon RF 14mm f/2.8 manual focus (I used for astro before purchasing the 15-35).
Thanks for the video and your recommendations, I travel a lot, so weight is the primary driver for me, so I have the RF 14-35mm F4 L, the RF 24-105mm F4 L and the RF 70-200mm F4 L all used on my Canon R5, this save me over 3.5lb (approx 1.5kgs) in my bag over the F2.8 variants and also I need 1/4 less bag space, which works for me. Oh and I saved $3k when I purchased them 😀
I don't have a "wishlist" per say, but as an amature hobbist this is what I've collected for my first kit. I have a Canon EOS RP with the kit 24-105mm ƒ4-7.1, the 50mm ƒ1.8, and the 100-400mm ƒ5.6-8. For "getting into it," I feel like this isn't a bad combo, however I think the first change I'd make is to probably replace the kit lens with the constant aperture ƒ4 lens. My favorite is the 100-400mm because for $650, it's quite a lens given the focal length. Definitely not perfect, but it's great for the price because the 100-500mm is a heck of a lot more money, particularly for somebody who is doing this for fun. The 50mm ƒ1.8 is the best value. Good 'ol nifty fifty.
Bought a second hand Canon EOS RP today came with the kit lens 24-105 and seen a video comparing this to the constant aperture 4 version that works better in low light but having similar in good light if you need to switch to manual on the lens and extra function rings and of course weighs more. My next lens to add is open and dont know why white painted lenses look better
I'm a Canon R5 shooter with the RF 15-35mm F2.8L USM ,RF 28-70mm F2.0L USM and the most recent addition is the RF 70-200mm F2.8L USM. The 28-70 is the most used lens in my kit. I know the RF primes are much sharper but can't beat the zooms for versatility and practical use with me.
I used to go strictly with primes all the way back to the early 60’s with my old M3 film camera and the crystal sharp Leitz and Summicron lenses. One day about 40 years ago I was chatting with a pro and talk got around to zooms over fixed. He asked me how often I blew up photos to poster size or bigger. Just being a serious amateur I answered never. He told me that modern quality zooms like the better Canon EF’s are totally adequate and I’d never be able to tell the difference in quality. I’ve done a photo safari once when my navy ship was in Mombasa and even then the good zooms I found were adequate. That was 40 years ago and the L lenses from Canon have improved a lot since then. I find zooms totally fulfill my needs and add great versatility. The most used lens I have is my 15-35 EF f 2.8. I often go out carrying only it. The rest of the time its that and the 70-200 EF f 2.8. These lenses are so bright and the superlative low noise at high ISO on my R6 make a flash unneeded except for special effects. I do have a good flash but haven’t used it in over a year. I wanted the R5 but the extra $1400 just for the body made my mind up for my choosing the R6 and it’s a choice I haven’t regretted. Somehow, it’s 20 MP gets the job done really well. I can imagine the R5 doing better with its 45 MP when serious cropping is needed but with me that’s so rare it’s an easy compromise. I do carry a 2X extender at times and it’s very useful. In the early days with film limiting the ISO’s and later when early digital cameras were limited to much lower ISO’s and even then they were very grainy. That’s not the case with the R6 so an extender is back in my bag and getting used. My only fixed lenses are a 50mm F2 macro for close work and a 1200mm for long range wildlife and astronomy shots but those 2 aftermarket lenses are on the shelf at home 99.9% of the time. I don’t foresee replacing my EF L lenses with RF ones anytime soon either when the quality ones cost 3x or more the cost of my fine EF L lenses. Canon needs to seriously look at their new pricing or they will lose a lot of the market for serious amateurs such as myself.
@@dennisfahlstrom2515 yes. I think zooms today are way better than they used to be. The r5 have can produce useable raw files even at ISO 6400.
I keep going back and forth on the 14-35 vs the 15-35. Appreciate the video. I love my 50mm rf 1.2. And I typically love the 85mm focal length better. But that 50 is magical.
Get the rf 15-35mm f2.8L.
I have the RF 14-35 and it's a very sharp lens.
I’ve weighed it up and I’d rather get the 15-35 than the 14-35 as I’ll only buy it once and don’t want to regret not buying the 15-35.
On Nikon Z6 II. Lens kit is as follows: 35mm f/1.8S, 85mm f/1.8S, 24-70mm f/2.8S, 70-200mm f/2.8S, 105mm f/2.8S MC for macro.
If I had three lenses to pick, they would be: 24-70, 70-200, and 85 prime. The zoom lenses give me flexibility but 85mm is my go to for portraiture because of the compression and just the look of it. Z glass is just astonishing. When the 85mm f/1.2S comes out, I’ll be swapping out my prime.
I decided to make a clean jump to RF and traded in all of our EF stuff. R5 for me, R6 Mark II for wifey. 28-70/2 for me, 24-105/4 IS for her plus the 24-240 as a "mom lens". 14-35/4 IS as our first wide and 70-200/4 IS as our first "good" telephoto. 85/2 IS Macro to give us a macro option and a starter headshot prime (with the 70-200/4 IS as backup, or vice versa). Next will likely be the 135/1.8 IS prime, then probably the 50/1.2, though the 70-200/2.8 may wiggle its way up the list. Time will tell!
I mainly shoot sports with my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 with my 90d which I hope to upgrade to a r7.
I agree that the 15-35 and 70-200 are crowd pleasers in that they create perspectives beyond what the human eye is used to seeing. I use them and they’re probably necessary in my kit but I am personally more fond of the 50 mm because it’s more relatable. In fact the 35, 50, and 85mm perspective would be my trio if I was just picking lenses that bring me the most joy. I just wish that Canon would release a pro 35 mm already. It’s been too long of a wait!
How is the 50mm more 'reliable' what does that mean?
@@jonathan_careless Relatable is the word I used not reliable. Because the 50mm is close to how the human eye sees, it’s a more familiar perspective.
I'm really wishing for the 24mm 1.2 L ..
Because I don't bring multiple lenses with me on my hike. I just have one lens. And with the R5 I can always crop in and make the 24 to a 35mm with plenty of pixels.
12:35, I've been thinking the same about the 14-35 vs 15-35. For the most part when I'm shooting landscapes, I don't really open up to F2.8. It's almost a waste of money that could be used elsewhere. Ultimately, lowlight is why I chose to stick with the 15-35, but I'm honestly reconsidering it. Great video as always.
I was in the same spot and I bought the 15-35 2.8 because when u need the low light u have that option but if u go f4 u dont, best example i can think of is when I went to photograph inside a museum, the lighting is terrible, and it was an event, so I needed the wide angle and that 2.8 saved me, of course low light shotting is way better now with my R5 and dxo pure raw for noise, but i'm old school get it right in the camera first.
I get that it overlaps with the 70-200, but the 85 1.2 is easily my most important and favorite lens
I had both in EF, right now i only have the 85 and am getting the 70-200 soon... both are just really great lenses!
Thank you for saying that the 28-70 F2 is not a prime killer! I just paid to rent it before buying it, seeing if it could replace my primes as other TH-camrs have said. 🤦🏻♂️
No f*ing way… 2.0 ain’t cuttin it. This kit you described is exactly what I concluded I’d get.
But 15-35 over 14-35 for the extra stop of light 💡🤙
Appreciate the vid!
Out of my Kit my 28 - 70 f2 is the workhorse; it's reliable, produces great images and is so much more enjoyable to shoot with than my EF 24-70 2.8 II's ever were. My 85 1.2 DS is probably my favourite lens. It's perfect for weddings, and I love the unique DS look, and the ability to shoot at 1.2 during sunny days without needing an ND filter. it's so much quicker than the EF, tracks motion acurately, and can even produce great landscape shots with edge to edge sharpness, at 1.2. I picked up a 50 1.2 recently, and it is a great lens, lighter than the 85, so easy to just have on the camera - it is the lens I have that lets in the most light, and the focus is acurate and sharp; reliable even at 1.2 - you don't get as much separation or DOF as the 85, but it's easier to walk and compose with without needing to take steps back. I do have a 70-200, 100, and EF 11-24 f4 that lives on an adapter, but most of those lenses are more used as needed - I am really keen for the 135 1.4, or 35 1.2 to launch!
Comparing 85 and 50, yes 50 „lacks“ in DOF but you have a wider perspective which creates a different impression than a more focussed in portion with that additional separation at f/1.2 with the 85. Both great lenses. I can‘t justify a 85 f/1.2 due to the weight, cost and more special purpose. A 70-200 f/2.8 would do that job for me, as I can get even dreamier bokeh with it st 200, although at the price of losing perspective compared to the 85 😅.
A secret weapon of mine is combining the RF 50mm f/1.8 with some Meike extension tubes to handle my macro photography needs. It may not be as specialized as the dedicated 100mm f/2.8 macro, but I don't take macro often enough to justify the larger more expensive lens; plus I can take the tubes off and enjoy the low profile 50mm to do nighttime photography without attracting the kind of attention large lenses bring.
Laowa 14mm f/4 (MF), 35mm f/2.8 STM, 24-105mm STM (variable) ... I have a Canon 35mm FL TS-E though .. it's basically a landsacpe shift goodie that comes with me time and again, but landscape w/ long exposures (NDx10) is where I'm at. Kit is SUPER light, easy to walk 10 miles with on my back. You're kit is amazing, but at 1/5th the cost on my RP budget with RF glass ... be hard pressed to not tip a slider in LR that wouldn't match your photos.
But that's just me. Lots of people do the jump out of the car vlog style, vs. deep pack hard work stuff for "that shot" that no-one has. I mean I could use an iPhone or PIxel if I had to - but the kit just allows me to roll out, walk 10 miles, enjoy my day from out behind the camera, then snap when I need and go home.
It's more a life life, vs. shorten my trips. We all have our mantra, that's just mine.
A little bit late to the party but I have the RF 14-35 4L, RF 24-105 4L (a great walking around or travel lens), 70-200 4L , RF 50 1.8 and new RF 24 1.8 - on the R5 , I came from a similar EF situation spanning 18 years making the change at the end of 2021. Really enjoy your channel . Cheers from NZ
I just rented the RF 70-200 for a week. I have an RP with an EF adapter as I was saving some money on EF lenses (canon 100mm- Sigma 35 1.4- nifty fifty) so I was going to rent the EF 70-200 so I don't have to switch out the adapter... but then I saw that the size and weight of the RF is amazing compared to the EF. So I ended up renting the RF and just taking the camera with that single lens for the week. Today is Day 1 of that and I'm looking forward to see what the lens sees!
Thanks for your video. I'm just moving to canon from Sony so very helpful 👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you for the insightful video I’m new to mirrorless photography after many years away from my SLR hobby… just purchased the R6 Mark II and 24-105 f4 as my first lens while I get to know the R6M2. Glad to hear your initial lens was also a 24-105. My wish list lenses are the 100 prime for macro photography, which I really enjoy as a biologist and the 100-500 for wildlife… thanks again 👍🏻
Of all my 6 RF lenses, the only one I would not part with is the 70-200 f/4L, the rest don't particularly blow my mind, like the EF 135 did with my Canon DSLR's. They work and perform well but the f/4L resolves in a special way.
I love the RF 70-200F4L, but coming from the EF 70-200 F4L III, I haven’t been able to capture the same magical images with the RF version, I think it’s too sharp 🤣
Got the RF 15-35 f2.8 because the 28-70 wasnt available, but now its available so i have the 28-70 f2.0. I also have a old adapted ef 70-200 f2.8 L USM. With that setup i cover all the focal lengths. The one i use most is the 28-70!
Agree with your choice of RF lenses, these are the first three lenses I bought… waiting to get the RF100-500.
Same but got the 100-500 first will get the 70-200later, I do more wildlife than portraits, when shooting landscapes usually at F8 or higher.
As an amateur, mostly bird photographer, I use the 100-500 and the 24-105mm. I kinda cover my rare need for wide angle with the very inexpensive 16mm prime.
I shoot mostly landscapes (some BIF and wildlife) and only occasional "family and friends" portraits, so having super wide apertures wasn't as important to me as size and weight. I currently only have 3 RF lenses: The RF 24-105 f/4 (bought with my R5), the RF 70-200 f/4, which made a lot more since for me as I hike a lot and shoot a lot of landscapes, and I also bought a refurbished RF 85 f/2 with the money I saved not buying the 70-1200 f/2.8 over the f/4. The 85 f/2 is a very decent portrait lens with very good separation for the money. It also doubles as a pseudo-macro lens. One of the best values in the RF lineup in my opinion.
I have 5 EF-mount lenses that I am quite happy with and probably will just keep: EF50 f/1.4 (a very nice portrait lens that is compact and light, even with the adaptor), EF 135 f/2 (I love this lens. Even though it's old the IQ is phenomenal), EF 300 f/4 prime (another rather older EF lens, but it gives me great results. I use this often on my back porch to shoot humming birds), Sigma 150-600mm (there had been complaints about focus pulsing but I used Duade Patton's suggested camera / lens settings which has all but eliminated this minor problem. I am more than happy with this lens for shooting birds in flight). Finally, I have poor man's ultra side angle, the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. This manual focus lens is primarily used for milky way photography, for which it is excellent.
There are currently two more lenses on my bucket list: RF 14-35 f/4 (again, I shoot landscapes and prefer light weight over an extra stop of light), the RF 100 f/2.8 macro. If I was ever to just go nuts and decided I had to have some super lens with incredible IQ and bokeh, subject separation, etc, I would probably want the RF 28-70 f/2. A friend has that lens and it is insanely good for things like people shots. The IQ is almost too sharp and he sometimes puts a filter to soften it a bit.
Having been spoilt for lens in my past job and through ownership in the EF mount I spent weeks looking at how I shot both Landscapes and Portraits before buying RF lenses. So instead of the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II I went with the RF 70-200mm f4L. Instead of the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II I went with the RF 24-105mm f4L and instead of the EF 50mm f1.2L I went with the RF 50mm f1.8. Now I still use the EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM the only EF I use on the RF system and I wish Canon could produce a series of f1.4L primes not being a fan of f1.2 lenses and their increased weight & size.
The fact is I cannot see any down sides at all I rarely shot with the zooms at 2.8 and rarely shot at 1.2 with the 50mm. The RF 70-200mm f4L in particular is really sharp at f4 and I appreciate the extra reach of the 24-105mm over a 24-70mm. We all get drawn in by hype rather than evaluating our photography and what works for us. The upshot for me was three fold, cheaper lenses, lighter lenses and in one case better reach.
The 24-105mm f/4 L is such an underrated lens. Made a video about it almost two years ago. Probably could do another one. That lens is just so versatile. Appreciate your insights. Thank you so much for sharing and my best to you!
I now need to amend the above. Whilst I still stand by my main thrust that we should evaluate our photography and thus the needs before purchasing lenses (and cameras) that’s not set in stone. After trying the new RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM as a loaner from Canon on a portrait shoot it is a big improvement over the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II so much so that I relented and bought one.
The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM will still remain my primary lens in that focal range but for portraiture the RF 24-700mm f2.8L IS USM will be my go to lens.
Nice set you got
I usually run with only 2 due to my bag
15-35mm
24-240mm
Canon eos r
And I usually have my deity mic or DJI mic system with two aperture lights in the bag
Just got a Canon R5 before finding this video. I funny enough got two of the three you mentioned here. I got the 15-35mm and the 50mm.
On my way to Fear Expo to use it on my first shoot as I type this. Cannot wait to see my results.
I have been shooting on the Canon SL3 since it came out. Started picking up jobs here and there.
Now I have been contracted with a company for the next year as their videographer. Figured I should finally pull the trigger and get pro level equipment.
Looks like the 70-200mm is what I will get next. Thanks for the advice.
R5 shooter, my trinity of lenses is the RF100-500 because that’s all I could afford 😉. That said, I really, really like it. When I can afford two additional lenses it will be the 100 macro and the 14-35.
I mostly shoot with the 50 1.2. Despite being heavy and large, it creates such amazing photos. Additionally I have the RF100 Macro for, well, Macro and fort portraits. When travelling I use the 24-105 f4. It’s the first time since 2000, that I didn’t opt for the 24-70 f2.8. But with the rf50, the rf100 and hopefully not too far away a better 35mm prime with 1.4, there is not really a need for the 2.8. Doing no event/wedding stuff.
After I picked up the R5 I decided to buy one RF lens. I have a dozen + EF lenses but wanted to try an RF. In LRCC I filtered the last couple years of work by lens and the 70-200 2.8 was by far the winner. It’s my ‘normal’ lens. And everything you said about that lens is spot on. The EF lenses work fantastic and I really see no reason to buy more RF lenses but it would be nice to have that 50 1.2 without the converter. And until they come out with an RF i still have my 35 1.4 EF. But switching back and forth with the converter isn’t fun.
I have the holy trinity of RF - 15-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm f2.8. I also have a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 that I use for night sky photos. I'm halfway considering selling the 15-35 and getting the 14-35 f4 since I primarily use it for landscapes. I'm tempted to add the 100-500mm for wildlife photography to complete my kit but I haven't been able to convince myself it is worth the $$$$ required.
Thank you for that video! I did really appreciate your insights on why you made which choice back then and how you think about these decisions now that you've been using your lenses for a while. It is these kinds of considerations that are really helpful when making a purchase decision. I'm coming from an EF mount camera (5Dmk3) and I am currently using my EF glass on an R6. I am now trying to figure out which of my EF lenses I should be replacing (if at all) and when doing so what would be the best (= most cost effective) set of lenses to buy. This video helps a lot! Cheers!
Still adapting to EF. RF is still crazily priced
Same setup in my bag for many of the same reasons. I have the 24-70 too, but it just can’t do what the 50 1.2 can. Love the videos, bro!
Hahah! I just fell into these 3 exact lenses as well. I was holding on with the adapted EF 16-35 f/4 and the EF 24mm 1.4 II (prime combo of EF 24mm 1.4 and RF 50mm 1.2), but I really wanted to pair down my kit and I was looking for a really good travel lens so I picked the RF 15-35mm and sold my EF 24mm 1.4 II and the EF 16-35mm F/4. No longer needing an adapter I feel liberated. I'll tryout this setup for 2022 and see how things are looking after some of my trips this summer. I'm interested in an RF 24mm 1.2 or a RF 35mm 1.2. We'll see. Thanks for the content!
I was travelling recently and the only equipment I brought was an R5 and the 50mm 1.2. I wound up being asked at the last minute to shoot an engagement party because their photographer cancelled. I knew it was at a restaurant, but didn't know that it was an outdoor space... at night. You couldn't design a worse scenario really, if you tried. The 50 1.2 was awesome, and I don't think I would ever have chosen to use it naked like that if there had been any choice. The bride to be was thrilled, and I have to admit that even I was a little surprised at how well it all turned out.
I agree completely about the 70-200, and I love the 50 1.2. I compromised at the short end and went with the 14-35 even though it is F/4 - but that turned out to be a good fit for me as well. I like the 100mm macro, but honestly don't pull it out often enough to really think of it as a go-to.
All that being said, you really should find a way to get some experience with the 100-500. I know it's larger than the lenses in your list, but I can't imagine going on a trip without it anymore. If I absolutely HAD to lighten the load and the bulk, most of the time I would pack that 100-500 and the 50 1.2 and live with it.
Great breakdown. I struggled with dropping the cash for the RF 70-200 f/2.8 - BUT so worth it. I just ordered the 14-35 f/4 pretty much for the reasons you just stated. That lens will be used for very specific purposes and saving that $700 made sense.
Thank-you for the video! R6 with RF 85mm f/1.2 is what I useless this past wrestling season, indoors and can sit mat side. There have been some situations I wished for the R5 to crop. Considered the RF 70-200 for its size, but have the EF 70-200 2.8L IS III LENS and can’t justify the exchange cost yet.
R6: RF 24-105mm f4, RF 50mm f1.2, RF 70-200mm f2.8, EF 16-35mm f4. I also have and 80D and I use my Tamron 24-70mm f2.8. I've used the Tamron adapted on my R6, but I do prefer it on my 80D.
excellent video Agree with much of what you said. I personally own the rf 100-500, rf70-200 f2.8, rf24-70 f2.8 , rf 50 f1.8....however i still use the EF 16-35mm f4 and EF 100mm f2.8 macro....As stated, i agree with you that dont really need a f2.8 wide zoom, and for me the 16-35mm f4 is a superb lens that i see no reason to switch to the rf 14-35 ( at least for me)
Depends if you are shooting astro or indoors with no external lighting, then you will need the extra light. Otherwise you won't ever need a wide lens with f1-2:8. No need outdoors in daytime.
I use a fuji 16-80 f/4 (24-120 f/6 ff equiv) and 35 1.4 (52mm f/2.1 equiv), for long-term documentary/travel photography
I'm glad you made the comment about the filter size. I'm slowly converting to all RF from EF and as it currently stands all my lenses are 77 which is nice to not have to buy more filters. As an amateur spending 2k for an RF lense is hard to do and can be tough to explain to the spouse. Changing the adapter in the filed from lense to lense is a pain and takes longer and leaves your sensor exposed for more time.
You just talked me into the 14-35, You made a great point, I would never really use 2.8 on a wide angle as I never shoot indooors
My main lenses right now with my R6 are RF 800mm F11, RF 100-500, EF 24-105, EF 85 F1.8 and RF 35 macro. I use a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for ultra wides right now, but can only use it at 16mm between F4.5-F9 or I get rounded corners since it's an APS-C lens, otherwise I use an EF-s 10-18 IS with my 7Dii. I really want a 15-35 or 14-35 and would grab the 14-35, but would like the F2.8 aperture if the 15-35 for astrophotography and other low light shooting. I only just replaced my EF 100-400 with the RF 100-500 so the ultra wide upgrade will have to wait
I'm a bit late to the party but I'm now into the R system with an R5, 15-35 2.8, and 50 1.2....and for the third lens I have extreme anxiety of what to get next. Budget only allows ONE more lens my kit for the foreseeable future. I shoot a wide variety things, mostly hobby stuff but some paid work here and there. My HEART tells me I need the 85 1.2 but I don't think it's a need, more of a want. I've always been a 3 prime lens shooter(35/50/85) for anything and everything from portraits to weddings to events to whatever else. Sometimes a wide for landscape stuff. But the 85 is currently in the same range as the 28-70 which I love for versatility and is MORE than the 70-200. Leaning towards the 28-70 as the quality is just insane and it's a good range. But that 70-200 has also impressed me and everyone I know that has tried it. Maybe I'll sell a kidney and get all of them.
I'm rocking the EF 70-200, RF-14-35 and the RF 28-70 as my holy trinity.
Thanks for sharing such an interesting engaging video, I’m always intrigued on what other photographers use for tools,
I have the Viltrox 13mm f1.4 it’s just only new I have used it twice and so far it’s amazing it’s for a Fuji mount, I also have the Fuji 18mm f1.4, 33mm f1.4, 50mm f1.0 and the 90mm f2 all amazing primes, and I mainly use these for my wedding and portrait gigs, I also have the 50-140mm f2.8 its great very versatile but like you I use this more for travel, landscape and also at ceremonies for weddings, it’s also great for the speeches but that’s about all I use it for weddings. I also have a canon R6 with some EF lenses, but yeah it’s been disappointing as I’m not getting the best out of it using older EF glass, my Fuji out resolve it and I prefer the colour science from the Fuji also. The focus and low noise on the R6 is probably the best asset but I’m pretty much regretting I should have probably invested in the R5 with more pixels to play with and being a bit more future proof, But I do use it at times when I do night shoots as it holds up well in really low light environments and also dark receptions. I just find the RF system so expensive and for not that much improvement in quality, so I’m holding off a bit confused on which way to go in the future. But honestly it’s nice having 2 systems both have there pros and cons and enjoy shooting with them both. I’m hoping Tamron and Sigma will start manufacturing RF glass, that’s the only way I think I can justify keeping the Canon system going forward. We wait and see.
Thank you so much for leaving this note. Tons of great insights and yes hopefully we see some sigma and tamron glass for the RF mount soon! My best to you.
I have an R5 with a 15-35 RF, 24-70 RF, 70-200 2.8 RF, 100-500 RF and a 1.6 extender. I don't think the 70-200 replaces the 100-500 because you can't put an extender on it. Yes you can crop. So, maybe. But, I like shooting with the 100-500 in certain situations, - don't want to be without it. Some say you can use the 100-500 to replace the 70-200. Again, I don't agree. The 100-500 is big and heavy and for a lot of use - portraits for example, its just too darn big. The 70-200 is much better for that.
My Trinity is RF 15-35 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2 and 70-200 f/2.8 it's perfection.
Two things wrong with the RF 70-200 f2.8. Price and price. I’m not a pro. I’m also retired and not rich. I have the EF 70-200 L f 2.8 and it’s less than 1/3 the price of the RF. It’s ONLY drawback for my uses is it’s heavier than the RF. That’s easily remedied with a tripod or monopod. I also have the 15-35 EF L f 2.8. The same argument applies. You can find a clean used one for under $600 instead of $2700. Canon HAS to wake up. Their new RF prices are losing all but the better paid pros who get their equipment at a big discount or free and then get a good tax write off on whatever they do pay.
I do like my RF6 and don’t regret buying it. It’s a light year better than my 5D Mk IV. With it and the $50 adapter and my 2 old EF lenses I’m satisfied. I may add an 80 mm f 1.2 EF but probably at no time soon unless prices drop. I have a cheap 50mm F2 macro that works fine for those rare times I prefer a 50 fixed over my 70-200. My only other lens is an after market cheap 1200mm f11 that I use (sometimes with a 2x extender) and definitely on a tripod for wildlife and astronomy pix. I do those rarely.
R6 shooter with the RF 15-35mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f4. Most likely going to pick up the RF 50mm f1.8 when I purchase a water housing in a few months. Like you said in the video, the 15-35mm is my most shot with lens too.
Good thing now…vs the f4, is we can pickup the 15-35 f2.8 for about $1450 used. Not a bad deal
Great video! I mostly agree with everything, but in my opinion the 14-35mm is kinda not worth it (at least here in Finland), as the 15-35mm costs only 200€ more than the 14-35mm, and you don't get quite as good optics and definitely not the low light capabilities of the f2.8 version. I would consider the f4 version only if you know you will never use f2.8 or just want the lightest ultra wide zoom possible
Wow yeah a 200 euro spread is a much tighter window than here in the states where its about a $700 difference not including taxes. The optics are the same though. Both are L series with the same high quality 16 elements running on a USM motor. but yeah if you can go f/2.8 and have the money, it's nice to have that option. Thank you for sharing your note here and my best to you!
When I preordered my R5, , the first two lenses I ordered (my credit cards cried that day) were the RF 28-70 2.0, and the RF 70-200 2.8. I went back and forth deciding whether to get the 24-70 2.8, or the 28-70 2.0, between the price, and the size. I'm very glad that I went with the 2.0. Since I mostly do sports & wildlife, I then bought the RF800, figuring it would tide me over until I can save up for the RF 100-500, but it only made me want it more. I liked the RF800, but between the 20' min focus distance, smaller AF zone and the lack of telephoto, I finally decided to jump in and get the 100-500. I have since bought the 2.0 teleconverter, figuring I could then sell my RF800, but I've continued to hold on, and use them all. I have yet to really want or feel I was missing on a wider angle, so the 15-35 does not feel like a "need" yet for me, however I have been looking at the RF 100mm Macro.
I didn't find the 28-70 to be a must-have for my work, and I went with the 14-35 on the short end, and it lives up around 20mm most of the time. The one thing I wish Canon would release is something along the line of a 12mm rectilinear 1.8 or wider. With that, plus what I already own, I'm not sure I would ever buy another lens.
I can tell you that I got the bug for the 100 macro, but I don't find enough excuses to use it. If you're a true macro enthusiast, you will. But I've actually considered selling it and doing without on those rare occasions where I "need" it.
I think these focal lengths is a pretty good set up, they are all versatile and can get alot done
I used to consider myself a member of team Brand and Canon fanboy-ish person. But I realized it might not be a bad idea to have a photo buddy shooting Nikon. It just eliminates so many awkward moments when you get asked to lend a lens :D
My plan is:
14-35 F4
24-70 F2.8
70-200 F4
Rf 50 F1.2
Samyang 85 F1.4
35 F1.2 (if it ever becomes available)
Your review of the the 15-35mm has the aperture at f1.2, might confuse people. Nice review though
Thank you, I thought I had put a pinned comment here addressing that but I guess something got messed up. I have it up there now. Thank you again!
I found this video through looking up what my next lens will be (looking at the 85mm OR the 28-70 if I can even find one). So I saw this video pop up and was like hell yeah. This is the video I need. And it just so happens that these three lenses are the exact and only ones that I have currently. Great lenses! And good video. Keep it up.
Since I shoot wildlife, my trinity is 1) 600mm f/4 2) 400mm f/2.8 3) 70-200mm f/2.8. All Canon
Such a good video! At the moment I rock a eos R with a 15-35mm f2.8 and I’m tossing up between the 70-200mm f2.8 or the f4 mainly because of the price difference I mostly do weddings and starting to do basketball work, so trying to figure out if f4 is going to be efficient enough
The extra stop of light will be helpful for basketball and the shallower DOF will make a big difference for portraits and details. Both are super sharp lenses and a similar construction so if the weight of the f2.8 version isn't a worry, I'd keep saving up until you're comfortable with the price tag
@@JohnStremble yeah I ended up going with the f2.8 and don’t regret it one bit! It’s a absolute workhorse
I have the 14-35 for vlogging and is really amazing !!!! , I’m glad that i did the right choice for me
My lens trinity for my Canon EOS RP is: Canon RF 16mm 2.8. Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 (with adapter). Canon RF 70-200mm 4. Like you, I’m eagerly awaiting an RF 35mm 1.2. Will replace the Sigma.
R5 + 70-200mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/2... All i need!
I bought the 14-35 because of size and weight only. The cheaper price was a bonus. I sold my 2.8 70-200 because I didn’t carry it around often the bag was just getting too heavy. I may get the F4 70-200 one day but I hate the white lens hood on these white lenses. I plan on getting a 20mm 1.4 Sigma or native RF if it ever comes. I have the 50 1.2, but will probably sell it if a 50 1.4 comes out. Canon needs their ass kicked- the 35 and 50 1.8 are so good they should have offered a non-macro weathersealed version..so it fits a real lens hood.. I’d pay the cash!
I use canon ef 100mm macro lens with RF adapter on my canon R7. And 16mm plus sometimes cheap canon ef 50mm
Gosh, such a lot of info, knowledge, skill and experience pouring out for our delectation and digestion; really brilliant, thanks mate !!
RF50F1.2L produces best colors in this planet
Just picked up the R8 moving from the RP.
Lens package includes RF 24-105 F/4.0, RF 50 F/1.8, RF 35 F/1.8 IS
I also have th EF 24-70 F/2.8 II with the RF EF adapter and it work fine
I am looking forward to getting my hands on the RF 70-200 F/4.0
I’m plain Jane. All RF. All 2.8. 15-35, 24-70, 70-200. For my work though I’ve really started to think about the 28-70 to replace the 24-70. Still on the fence though
What's your work?
Have the 15-35 f2.8, 24-105 f4... waiting to see what i can get as my third. I kinda want the rf 100-400 as the 100-500 is out of my range. The 50mm 1.2 intrigues me as well. I have an EF 50 f1.4 and ef 75-300 m3 but wouldn't mind selling either to upgrade, but they don't have much value
Hey Mr Foster thank you for the video, I found it informative and eye opening, I have been trying to decide on what canon lense to buy to start and really I would like to buy them all but I thought that 50 mm 1.2 would be a great start but after seeing your pictures from the 18- 35 I think that is the way to go. Thank you for opinion as a photographer 😎😎😎
Legit! I recently added the RF 15-35 and it really does compliment my 50 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8.
I considered the f/4 but so need that extra bit of low light performance.
Great video production. Excellent points and examples.
My first canon kit had those same 3 EF lenses. I was smart once. Bought a dozen more L primes, not special, moved to Zeiss primes, sold off all but the 70-200. Now it’s too damn heavy and considering the RF 70-200 f4.
I'm about to replace my stolen (and outgrown) kit - these are the three that I've landed on. Good to hear of your experience.
I use the 50 with the Komodo for my last feature. It’s sooooooo good I put in a request with my biz partner to purchase a camera for stills
I just bought 14-35; I am glad your recommendation. Thanks!
This is great!! 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 are my go-tos but I’m still on EF. A 50 prime would probably be a good move though to replace 24-70
Yes, replace the middle zoom with a fast 50. But I’m a 28 and 50 shooter.
Great breakdown. The landscape lenses I use RF 15-35, 70-200, and technically the 800 f11 but I don't think of it as my landscape kit. I've been thinking about a travel kit, something to take on vacations or where I want to shrink a kit. So I've been looking at the set of cheaper primes, RF 16, 35, 50, 85, and I have the 100-400 all ready. Any thoughts on that vs the Rf 14-35 over the 16 and 35? Or how about the RF 50mm comparisons?
Also love the point of shooting at f4. My counterpart would always shoot at 2.8 like fool. although I've been doing our show at 2.8 no problem or good enough.
This was a gr8 video. I’ve r5 & 24-70/2.8. I’m trying to build a trilogy with 15-35 & 70-200/2.8. But this video helps me re-evaluate b/w 15-35/2.8 vs 14-35/f4. I might go w/ 14-35/4 instead of 15-35/2.8. Thanks Till
I have the RF 15-35 and tried the 14-35. My advice: get the EF 16-35 F4. It's a better optic overall, no vignetting, homogene and charp. you can get one for 500 now.
A compact full frame travel kit.... pair of RP bodies...RF16...RF35...RF85 macro.. EF70-300/4-5.6 L IS USM ... (I am 70 yrs young so small is good)
I run the same setup. Rf70-200 2.8, rf50 1.2, rf15-35 2.8 and just added a sigma 35 1.4 art I got a good deal on. I am still waiting as well on that RF 35 1.2, but that sigma will hold me over till then.
I have the same lens setup! Lol we’ll just added the 70-200 this wk, I’m not used to seeing the slight chromatic aberration after using the 50 f1.2 so often which has sharp corners. Do you use your 70-200 that often?
I got a trinity zoom.
- RF 14-35 F/4
- RF 28-70 F/2
- RF 70-200 F/2.8
I am really asking myself if I should not purchase a RF 50 1.2 for indoor portraits.
It is hard to spend more than 2.6 k€ only for this as I got a kind of similar results at 70 F/2 or 200 F/2.8 but in indoors often the case, I can’t use the 70-200 at 200 or the 28-70 at 70… I clearly lack of bokehlicious option in indoors portrait
Canon does offer a 35mm RF lens... Great video though! Im currently saving up for that 70-200mm. I think it will be great for wedding video!
Just ordered the rf 14-35 can not wait especially after hearing your review and thoughts .
So my everyday kit will be
Rf 14-35
Rf 24 -105
Rf 100-400
I also have
Rf 16mm. 2.8
Rf 35mm. 1.8
Rf 85 mm 2.0
I might sell the 16 and 35 after I get to know the new lens
Quick update got the 14-35 did not like how slow it was so returned it and got the 15-35 and loving it . It's my 1# lens now