$10,000 lens budget.

[Ozarker]

You have your existing body. All your lenses were lost in a tragic turnip harvesting accident.

You have $10k to rebuild. What do you get? No used lenses. Only RF. Don't include sales tax in the USA.

 

[docsmith]

What do you shoot? A little of everything? Events? Wedding? Portraits? Wildlife? Small birds?

Assuming a little of everything, prices taken from B&H:
RF 14-35 f/4: $1,300
RF 24 f/1.4: $1,500
RF 24-70 f/2.8: $2,100
RF 85 f/1.2: $2,600
RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: $2,600

$10,100

Especially if the $10k is a hard cap, I could pivot here or there. The RF 24 f/1.4 is a bit of if you want low light landscapes. If not, it would not be needed and the money could be spent elsewhere. The EF 85 f/1.2 is a portrait lens aimed at when you want exceptional photos. If flexibility is more important then the RF 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[Loswr]

For me, personally:
RF 10-20/4: $2300
RF 24-105/2.8: $3000
RF 100-500: $2600
TS-E 17/4: $2150

Total: $10,050

Can't stick to the 'RF only' requirement, since there are no TS lenses for the RF mount.

The Pareto principle (aka 80/20 rule) rears its head yet again. The above four lenses (all of which I own) would cover a very broad range of my shooting needs – 80% is a reasonable estimate, and that $10K represents a bit under 20% of the value of my lens kit.

 

[LuckyOne]

70-200 f2.8 Z L : USD 2,999
24-105 f2.8 Z L : USD 2,999
100-500 f4.5 - f7.1 L : USD 2,599
15-35 f2.8 L : USD 2,099

A bit over your budget but what I carry around in various combinations for everything from astro to cityscapes to landscapes to portraits to wildlife.

With patience, this is probably obtainable within your budget if you wait for sales.

Of course, you might have a completely different vision and wants.

I am just an enthusiastic hobbyist who is very fortunate to be able to buy glass that is far ahead of my skills.

My dream lens that will break the budget is a 180-600 f4.5 - f6.3 L lens to replace my 100-500.

 

[Ozarker]

For me, personally:
RF 10-20/4: $2300
RF 24-105/2.8: $3000
RF 100-500: $2600
TS-E 17/4: $2150

Total: $10,050

Can't stick to the 'RF only' requirement, since there are no TS lenses for the RF mount.

The Pareto principle (aka 80/20 rule) rears its head yet again. The above four lenses (all of which I own) would cover a very broad range of my shooting needs – 80% is a reasonable estimate, and that $10K represents a bit under 20% of the value of my lens kit.

Of course. I hadn't realized there weren't T/S lenses for RF yet. I wonder how many of those a $10k budget will allow?

My horizon has shifted with the advent of the RF 24-105mm Z and your mention of the RF 100-500. That's a pretty impressive "budget" two lens combo for guys living out here in Green Acres. Under $6k!

Neuro, have you got the RF 10-20mm f/4? I've not read anything about it.

 

[john1970]

Interesting question, but knowing what type of photography you do does impact my selection.

1) Canon RF 24-105 f2.8 Z $2999.00 (fast all-purpose lens)
2) Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 Z $2999.00 (fast telephoto zoom, with TCs can become a 400 mm f5.6.)
3) Canon RF 100 mm f2.8 L Macro $1199.00 (often on sale for $999)
4) Canon RF 200-800 mm f6.3-f9 $1899.00 (Nice superzoom for budget wildlife photography).
5) Canon RF 35 mm f1.4 VCM $1499.00. (Excellent all-purpose travel lens).

Total Cost is $10595. I know it is a bit over, but if you wait for holiday promotions or buy refurbished directly from Canon you might be able to get them for <$10K.

 

[koenkooi]

With that budget I’d recommend looking at a relatively cheap 2nd body as well, like a refurb R8. Not needing to change lenses is such a quality of life improvement, especially when the wind is blowing sand and dust around.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

1- just one RF 100-300/2.8. $9500 with $ left to get a 1.4 or 2x ;-)

2- or, wonderful value points for full range
RF 15-35/2.8 IS
RF 24-105/4 IS
RF 70-200/4 IS
RF 100-500 or 200-800
1.4x

3- or speed and higher end:

28-70/2
24-105/2.8 Z (internal zoom)
70-200/2.8 Z. (internal zoome + takes tele x)
1.4x and 2x

I use all of the above except the 100-500 and 200-800 but I have the EF 200-400 and an R600

 

[Deleted member 380853]

Of course. I hadn't realized there weren't T/S lenses for RF yet. I wonder how many of those a $10k budget will allow?

My horizon has shifted with the advent of the RF 24-105mm Z and your mention of the RF 100-500. That's a pretty impressive "budget" two lens combo for guys living out here in Green Acres. Under $6k!

The Z lenses are not "budget" at all. Maybe that was sarcasm? The best value is in the two I mentioned in my post, the two RF f4 24-105 and 70-200. Also wonderful for keeping it light and compact with the smaller non-pro bodies. It's amazing how small a space those two and an R5 can fit into but with such great coverage. With an ibis body like the R5/II, the f4 "limitation" is really one of of background bokeh. It's nothing like dslr days of being stuck with a slow lens on mechanical shutter in low light.

 

[Ozarker]

The Z lenses are not "budget" at all. Maybe that was sarcasm? The best value is in the two I mentioned in my post, the two RF f4 24-105 and 70-200. Also wonderful for keeping it light and compact with the smaller non-pro bodies. It's amazing how small a space those two and an R5 can fit into but with such great coverage. With an ibis body like the R5/II, the f4 "limitation" is really one of of background bokeh. It's nothing like dslr days of being stuck with a slow lens on mechanical shutter in low light.

Well, I did put "budget" in quotes. A single f/2.8 lens with awesome image quality that covers 24-105mm is budget for me. Especially considering I once had the 28-70 f/2, 50mm f/1.2, and the 85mm f/1.2. That's near $10k and doesn't cover the range. Post pandemic, I'm a fruit farmer way out in the country.

Now, the 24-105mm f/4 is more budget, but seriously, for the average person it isn't budget either. So yes, sarcasm. There ain't nothing budget about ILC photography.

Since I still shoot portraits of my, now two, beautiful grandsons, I want f/2.8 minimum. The RF 24-105 z paired with my EF 135mm f/2 is really really budget for a portrait kit, in my opinion. It would also cover shots of my orchard and vineyard It's a huge drop compared to my former near $30k kit.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

Having recently started using the RF 100-300/2.8.... ooh so nice.

Your 10k budget: this one lens and a 2x TC.

Done, simple, awesome. ;- )

Or, you need to be weird and wide, no TC, but BOTH of the $250 STM 16 and 28 compact lenses.

Also freakishly simple. Super wide, Wide miscellaneous, and everything else.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, have you got the RF 10-20mm f/4? I've not read anything about it.

Missed this. But yes.

RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM

I suspect the profile isn’t marking those areas as ‘out of frame, paint it black’, which means it tries to stretch the neighboring pixels to fill it. I wonder if Adobe is experimenting with having generative AI fill in those black borders and forgot to turn on the settings for the ‘dumb’ border...

www.canonrumors.com

 

[plusnq]

Like neuro I have a lot of equipment . I have the 10-20mm f4L , 24-105mm f2.8 and 100-300mm f2.8 and both teleconverters. It is my all round general purpose kit that covers 10mm to 600mm and still portable. Outside the budget but food for thought.

 

[JohnC]

If I had to start over with lenses:

RF 15-35
RF 24-70
RF 70-200 f4
RF 100-500


Not sure how close that is to the 10k but should be in the neighborhood.

 

[SereneSpeed]

RF 14-35
RF 28-70 f2
RF 50 f1.4
RF 100-500
1.4x

 

[Ozarker]

Missed this. But yes.

RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM

I suspect the profile isn’t marking those areas as ‘out of frame, paint it black’, which means it tries to stretch the neighboring pixels to fill it. I wonder if Adobe is experimenting with having generative AI fill in those black borders and forgot to turn on the settings for the ‘dumb’ border...

www.canonrumors.com

Thanks