I got into Canon just when the 17-35 came out around '96, so had the 17-200 trinity at f/2.8 and a couple TC's.
I think many shooters would be best-served with an f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-400 (this last going to f/5.6 or what have you at the narrow end). Besides a lot more range of focal lengths, it offers overlap so you don't need to have a specific lens for a specific focal length. The wide and narrow zooms are close enough arguably you don't need a middle zoom, or can use a 50/1.2 when you really need to bridge that gap.
Alternatively, 10-24, 24-105, and 100-500.
f/2.8 was a necessity when you didn't have a bright viewfinder at f/4, and had film grain by ISO 400. Now we only don't need it for those reasons. The third reason might be depth of field, but remember that bokeh really comes not from f-stop, but from the entrance pupil's aperture in mm. And the 70/2.8 and 105/4 both have a 25mm entrance pupil, so comperable bokeh albeit at a little bit different focal length. 200/2.8, 400/5.6, and 500/7.1 all have comperable apertures of 72mm and 70.5mm at the long end, so again similar aperture. Granted the focal length is now substantially different to the naked lens, but still quite similar look to the 70-200/2.8 with TC.
I suppose another direction that one could go is a 20-50 and 50-300 or something? Would a two-lens outfit like that be better than the alternatives above?
And what about a new-school replacement for the 35-350? Anyone miss that lens on RF and what should the focal length be now?
I think many shooters would be best-served with an f/4 trinity of 14-35, 24-105, and 70-400 (this last going to f/5.6 or what have you at the narrow end). Besides a lot more range of focal lengths, it offers overlap so you don't need to have a specific lens for a specific focal length. The wide and narrow zooms are close enough arguably you don't need a middle zoom, or can use a 50/1.2 when you really need to bridge that gap.
Alternatively, 10-24, 24-105, and 100-500.
f/2.8 was a necessity when you didn't have a bright viewfinder at f/4, and had film grain by ISO 400. Now we only don't need it for those reasons. The third reason might be depth of field, but remember that bokeh really comes not from f-stop, but from the entrance pupil's aperture in mm. And the 70/2.8 and 105/4 both have a 25mm entrance pupil, so comperable bokeh albeit at a little bit different focal length. 200/2.8, 400/5.6, and 500/7.1 all have comperable apertures of 72mm and 70.5mm at the long end, so again similar aperture. Granted the focal length is now substantially different to the naked lens, but still quite similar look to the 70-200/2.8 with TC.
I suppose another direction that one could go is a 20-50 and 50-300 or something? Would a two-lens outfit like that be better than the alternatives above?
And what about a new-school replacement for the 35-350? Anyone miss that lens on RF and what should the focal length be now?