TRINITY IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE TRINITY! (OR???)

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,738
One of my points is that with modern lens design nous, and without the pressure to produce f/2 or f/2.8 optics, they're able to get very wide zoom ranges with high IQ.
If your point is based on the assumption that there is no need or desire for f/2.8 or faster lenses, your point is pointless because that assumption is flawed.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,180
887
Davidson, NC
In traveling with my small cameras, now the G5X II, I have found that the 24–120mm range is plenty long almost all the time. (I’m doing usual touristy things, not on safari.) But 24mm is not wide enough for cramped interiors, scenic vistas, or sometimes decorative ceilings. I take shots to be stitched together back home. Were I to take my DSLR on such trips, the 16–35mm zoom would definitely be in the bag. The 100–400mm would not. I might throw in the 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 for low-light situations if space and weight were not a consideration, since the f/1.8 on the wide end of the G5X II comes in really handy in many buildings of interest, but then I’d miss the wide view. Maybe I’d buy something faster and wider instead. Or maybe the moral for me is that the small travel camera is the right tool for the job in my case. I’m mostly posting pictures on the web and printing out a few of the best shots on 13” x 19” paper for framing, so the 20MP is not a problem.

Anyhow, I’m just suggesting that folks look at their experience in deciding lens choices, as many of you already do. In thinking about adding a prime lens, one might profit from looking at the metadata from shots made with zooms to see what focal lengths are really used the most.

I decided almost 30 years ago not to travel with a camera at all, since I was more serious about photography then, and it got in my way of seeing and doing things on trips. Eventually, I would take something simple and small along, and now have graduated to something rather sophisticated, thanks to technology. Looking at the thoughts in the first paragraph, I see that I am making a virtue out of self-imposed necessity. And I still have the option of a bigger sensor and a choice of lenses when photography is the point and not just a possible distraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EricN

rpg51

CR Pro
Oct 7, 2021
7
3
There isn't one. Get the lenses that fit your needs. My 'trinity' is currently the EF 16-35/4 IS, RF 24-105/4 IS, and RF 70-200/2.8 IS. I will likely add the RF 24-70/2.8 IS soon, but may end up keeping both the f/2.8 and f/4 standard zooms.

I have the EF 11-24/4 if I want to go wider, and the RF 100-500 if I want to go longer (and the 600/4 II for beyond that).
I'm building a Canon lens kit from scratch. I'm pretty much going to start with RF only. I have an R6 body. Might upgrade body someday. Who knows. But, so far I have 15-35 f/2.8 and RF 100-500. I'm struggling with what to get for the middle. Should I get 24-105 f/4? v. 24-70 f/2.8? Also, RF 70-200 f/4 v. 70-200 f/2.8? Every day I come to a different conclusion. Some primes might be on the horizon, but that is for later down the road. The money is significant obviously. But, I'm about to retire and this is my last hurrah. So, less concern about the money than I had years ago. You can't take it with you.
 

EricN

EOS 90D
Aug 10, 2021
134
229
I'm building a Canon lens kit from scratch. I'm pretty much going to start with RF only. I have an R6 body. Might upgrade body someday. Who knows. But, so far I have 15-35 f/2.8 and RF 100-500. I'm struggling with what to get for the middle. Should I get 24-105 f/4? v. 24-70 f/2.8? Also, RF 70-200 f/4 v. 70-200 f/2.8? Every day I come to a different conclusion. Some primes might be on the horizon, but that is for later down the road. The money is significant obviously. But, I'm about to retire and this is my last hurrah. So, less concern about the money than I had years ago. You can't take it with you.
Is weight a consideration?
 

rpg51

CR Pro
Oct 7, 2021
7
3
Is weight a consideration?
Sure - it always is a consideration. But, I'm using this 15-35 now and while it is big and heavy, it isn't bothering me. So, no, not a big deal. I got the 2.8 version of the ultra wide zoom because I anticipate that lens may be used for some night stuff and indoors a bit. So, I have that at 35mm for a certain amount of more "normal" focal length stuff when fast lens needed. I'm not really sure I need a fast lens for the middle - but, will I want it sometimes? Maybe. I am not yet accustomed to the high iso performance of the R6 but I'm told it is a lot better then what I am used to (prior experience is film only) and so that would seem to mitigate the issue somewhat. Still, fast is nice to have and sometimes its nice to have the somewhat shallower depth of field. I'm torn. I think if it weren't for the big price difference I would go f/2.8 all the way. So, maybe the price thing is really the biggest psychological hurdle I have to get over.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,738
I'm struggling with what to get for the middle. Should I get 24-105 f/4? v. 24-70 f/2.8? Also, RF 70-200 f/4 v. 70-200 f/2.8? Every day I come to a different conclusion.
Those are tough choices. In the DSLR world, F2.8 meant better AF performance, but that’s no longer the case. If you’re using the 24-xx and/or 70-200 for indoor action or for portraits, the F2.8 is a better choice.
 

rpg51

CR Pro
Oct 7, 2021
7
3
Those are tough choices. In the DSLR world, F2.8 meant better AF performance, but that’s no longer the case. If you’re using the 24-xx and/or 70-200 for indoor action or for portraits, the F2.8 is a better choice.
Yea. The AF was a major stumbling block for me as I move into digital photography after a long long hiatis. I hated the AF that was on cameras long ago. But, this R6 AF seem excellent and I am already adjusting and getting good focus quickly. I love it actually.

Will the 24-70 satisfy me as a general purpose lens and for street and people type shots,family portraits etc? I could hold off on the 70 - 200 purchase and use the RF 100-500 I already have for wildlife and sports stuff. Hold off and let the bank account build up a bit again before I pick up a 70-200? Leave that decison for another day. Does that make any sense?
 
Last edited:

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
The f/2.8 trinity isn’t going anywhere for those who need to stop fast action in low light. 400/5.6 may provide equivalent OOF blur as 200/2.8, but the perspective is very different and I don’t want to have to shout at portrait subjects.

The RF f/2.8 trinity runs from 15-200mm instead of starting at 16mm, both the UWA and the standard zooms have IS, and the 70-200 is much lighter and more compact. Significant improvements.

The f/4 trinity now starts at 14mm and the 70-200 is much lighter and more compact. Decent improvements, but not as substantial as the f/2.8 trinity.

But the RF trinity for ‘most people’ should more likely be the 16/2.8, 24-105 f/4-7.1, and 100-400. A 16-400mm range for lower cost than most of the single lenses in either fixed-aperture trilogy.
16/2.8 shouldn't be anywhere close to be on on that list. As of now it does not take good enough photos without heavy cropping to get an ok image.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,738
16/2.8 shouldn't be anywhere close to be on on that list. As of now it does not take good enough photos without heavy cropping to get an ok image.
It's on a list of consumer-grade lenses since the correction profile corrects distortion and upscales the image the results are in line with expectations for such lenses. It's an ultrawide moderately fast prime and it costs $300. Some people expect exceptional optical performance and very low cost, and some people believe in unicorns.
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
It's on a list of consumer-grade lenses since the correction profile corrects distortion and upscales the image the results are in line with expectations for such lenses. It's an ultrawide moderately fast prime and it costs $300. Some people expect exceptional optical performance and very low cost, and some people believe in unicorns.
We have/had 4 of them, sent 3 back. They are absolute garbage in the current state. There is currently no LR correction profile and the correction in DPP4 (which is the only correction profile available right now) is trash.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,738
We have/had 4 of them, sent 3 back. They are absolute garbage in the current state. There is currently no LR correction profile and the correction in DPP4 (which is the only correction profile available right now) is trash.
What makes it ‘garbage’?

Sounds like it’s not the lens for you. It’s the #3 best-selling mirrorless lens on B&H right now (down from #2 a couple of days ago), so clearly it is the lens for many people.

Some people buy a Toyota Prius and they are surprised that it won’t tow their 8000 pound trailer. Your expectations are probably too high for a $300 ultrawide lens.
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
What makes it ‘garbage’?

Sounds like it’s not the lens for you. It’s the #3 best-selling mirrorless lens on B&H right now (down from #2 a couple of days ago), so clearly it is the lens for many people.

Some people buy a Toyota Prius and they are surprised that it won’t tow their 8000 pound trailer. Your expectations are probably too high for a $300 ultrawide lens.
You know what else was a number 1 seller this time last year? Cyberpunk 2077.... and it ended up being a disaster and one of the most refunded games in gaming history... Just because people buy it doesn't make it good, man you have to be brighter than that. This lens was so hyped people are jumping all over it not realizing until later they cant even process the photos correctly in LR. Only a SMALL % of the people buying this lens will be able to figure out how to do corrections using other lens profiles ect in LR. Lots of Real Estate photog probably jumped at this thinking it was going to be a decent lens for that to find out later its not. IF your ok with cropping away a chunk of the photo to get sharp edges and it no longer being a 16mm image, sure its ok.... but that defeats its purpose. We were trying to use them as basic BASIC RE lenses for training purposes only and didn't feel the images after correcting and cropping were even good enough for that. I kept 1 of the initial 4 we were able to get to use for video as the video I cant argue with and for my personal testing. We were hoping to end up with around 20 of these total to outfit all of our training cameras.

Cannon is putting the cart before the horse on this lens. Most of us have figured out they are going to drop an APS-C RF mount at some point that this lens will be amazing on. Why will it be amazing? because its going to crop the image to something closer to a 24mm and get past the soft blown out edges. THAT camera is what was in mind when they put this out.
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,920
1,861
[..] This lens was so hyped people are jumping all over it not realizing until later they cant even process the photos correctly in LR. Only a SMALL % of the people buying this lens will be able to figure out how to do corrections using other lens profiles ect in LR.[..]
What percentage of people buying this lens actually shoot RAW *and* use LR for processing?
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
178
65
You know what else was a number 1 seller this time last year? Cyberpunk 2077.... and it ended up being a disaster and one of the most refunded games in gaming history... Just because people buy it doesn't make it good, man you have to be brighter than that. This lens was so hyped people are jumping all over it not realizing until later they cant even process the photos correctly in LR. Only a SMALL % of the people buying this lens will be able to figure out how to do corrections using other lens profiles ect in LR. Lots of Real Estate photog probably jumped at this thinking it was going to be a decent lens for that to find out later its not. IF your ok with cropping away a chunk of the photo to get sharp edges and it no longer being a 16mm image, sure its ok.... but that defeats its purpose. We were trying to use them as basic BASIC RE lenses for training purposes only and didn't feel the images after correcting and cropping were even good enough for that. I kept 1 of the initial 4 we were able to get to use for video as the video I cant argue with and for my personal testing. We were hoping to end up with around 20 of these total to outfit all of our training cameras.

Cannon is putting the cart before the horse on this lens. Most of us have figured out they are going to drop an APS-C RF mount at some point that this lens will be amazing on. Why will it be amazing? because its going to crop the image to something closer to a 24mm and get past the soft blown out edges. THAT camera is what was in mind when they put this out.
I would think that most people who can't figure out how to do corrections in LR for this are probably shooting in jpg and therefore don't need to do corrections.

What do you mean by the corrections in DPP being "trash"?
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
What percentage of people buying this lens actually shoot RAW *and* use LR for processing?
Considering the 4 cameras this lens fits, none of them are entry level.... you would hope its a pretty high % shooting RAW. LR/PS is the most widely used image processor. Capture One is not something your average person even knows exist, not even Canon DPP for that matter. We cycle through hundreds of students in a year and I can tell you most of them have never heard of capture on but most of them have heard or have used/are using LR.
 

RexxReviews

I'm New Here
Sep 3, 2021
23
14
I would think that most people who can't figure out how to do corrections in LR for this are probably shooting in jpg and therefore don't need to do corrections.

What do you mean by the corrections in DPP being "trash"?
Exactly that.... its not good. The new LR correction profile they added in for the RF 50mm 1.8 (FINALLY after a year) has a much better result than the DPP correction profile. This lens will most likely not be any different.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,132
4,738
This lens was so hyped people are jumping all over it not realizing until later they cant even process the photos correctly in LR.
The new LR correction profile they added in for the RF 50mm 1.8 (FINALLY after a year)
So people buying lenses in that price class and using LR knew there was no profile for the 50/1.8 for a year, then were surprised that there was no profile for the new 16/2.8? Man, you need to keep your stories straight.

IF your ok with cropping away a chunk of the photo to get sharp edges and it no longer being a 16mm image, sure its ok.... but that defeats its purpose.
What you lose is MP, not FoV. The lens is wider than 16mm, cropping away the mechanical vignette gives you a 16mm FoV. Canon processing upscales the image to the 'native' resolution output. I'm not sure what LR will do, nor do I personally care since 1) I have no plans to buy the lens (already have the RF 14-35/4 and the EF 11-24/4 if I need wider) and 2) I use DxO PhotoLab to process RAW files, not LR.

Exactly that.... its not good.
Well, thanks for that excellent and erudite description. :rolleyes:
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
178
65
Exactly that.... its not good. The new LR correction profile they added in for the RF 50mm 1.8 (FINALLY after a year) has a much better result than the DPP correction profile. This lens will most likely not be any different.
"It's not good" isn't very informative. In what way is it not good? Is the distortion not corrected? If you just mean that the corners aren't completely sharp after applying the profile, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the profile, just that the lens is soft in the corners, which we know. Lens profiles generally correct distortion and vignetting, they don't improve sharpness or resolution.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 28, 2013
1,543
194
67
I used to have the EF 16-35mm f4L, EF 24-70mm f2.8L II and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II. I sold the EF 16-35mm because I rarely used it and when I did it was always at 16mm.
So for my RF system Ive got the RF 16mm f2.8, RF 24-105mm f4L & the RF 70-200mm f4L as my main stay lenses. For portraiture I have the RF 50mm f1.8 and use the adaptor for the EF 85mm f1.4L
For wildlife given how little its used Im sticking with the EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II and Ive the 1.4 converter for this. If Canon replace the EF 85mm f1.4L with an RF version then likely I will buy it and then sell off the Canon 5DS, EF 25-70mm f2.8L II and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II and buy the R5 to add to the EOS R and the R6.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
421
304
I'm building a Canon lens kit from scratch. I'm pretty much going to start with RF only. I have an R6 body. Might upgrade body someday. Who knows. But, so far I have 15-35 f/2.8 and RF 100-500. I'm struggling with what to get for the middle. Should I get 24-105 f/4? v. 24-70 f/2.8? Also, RF 70-200 f/4 v. 70-200 f/2.8? Every day I come to a different conclusion. Some primes might be on the horizon, but that is for later down the road. The money is significant obviously. But, I'm about to retire and this is my last hurrah. So, less concern about the money than I had years ago. You can't take it with you.

I was in the same boat as you a while back. I went w/ the f2.8's and don't regret it.

Here was my reasoning, IMO the f2.8 trinity lenses are better than the f4's. The f2.8 weight (to me) was not that much more than the f4's so it was a non-issue, but the 1 stop faster and IQ was the main selling point. Although 24-105/4 is a cool lens, the full trinity covered that range, so a non-issue there (actually I sold my 24-105/4 for the mid range f2.8). And I really wasn't to keen on getting the f4's and then also getting the f2.8's later on when I wanted/needed more. Although the cost of entry was higher, I didn't have to double up on lenses with similar focal lengths in the immediate future.

For the 100-500, I consider that my main fourth lens (quadrinity). For that, I could see it filling the place of the 70-200/4 (if fast isn't needed past the 24-105/4), but not the f2.8.