What would you do?

[Ozarker]

Well, it looks like I'll finally be able to start getting RF lenses next year. 1 per year. I've just about decided to get the 28-70 for the sake of versatility. I already have 5 various 135mm lenses and other manual lenses. It just seems the 28-70 will be a good starting point for me... like it was the last time around.

The only focal length I don't have covered for portraits is 85mm.

What is your plan?

 

[kaihp]

I'd get the EF-RF adapter

 

[chrysoberyl]

I got the adaptor but I also got the RF 85 f/1.2L. I am really glad I got the RF 85 - it is amazingly sharp.

 

[Del Paso]

Well, it looks like I'll finally be able to start getting RF lenses next year. 1 per year. I've just about decided to get the 28-70 for the sake of versatility. I already have 5 various 135mm lenses and other manual lenses. It just seems the 28-70 will be a good starting point for me... like it was the last time around.

The only focal length I don't have covered for portraits is 85mm.

What is your plan?

Welcome back!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, it looks like I'll finally be able to start getting RF lenses next year. 1 per year. I've just about decided to get the 28-70 for the sake of versatility. I already have 5 various 135mm lenses and other manual lenses. It just seems the 28-70 will be a good starting point for me... like it was the last time around.

The only focal length I don't have covered for portraits is 85mm.

What is your plan?

I find a general purpose zoom starting at 24mm to be much more versatile than one starting at 28mm. I do have the 28-70/2 but also the 24-105/4 and I use the latter more often. If I had to pick just one lens of the RF standard zoom options, it would be the 24-70/2.8 IS.

 

[Maximilian]

... If I had to pick just one lens of the RF standard zoom options, it would be the 24-70/2.8 IS.

Same opinion here.

 

[unfocused]

I prefer the 24-105. For me, 70mm is not long enough, I prefer the slightly longer 105 mm and I'm not a bokeh person, so I don't care about the extra stop. It just depends on your use case. But, for the price of the 28-70, you can get the 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 or be halfway to the 70-200 f2.8.

 

[jd7]

I generally agree with Neuro about a general purpose zoom beting more versatile if it starts at 24mm rather than 28mm. However, it depends on what you want to shoot, of course. I believe you do a lot of people photography, and if people photography is what you care about, the 28-70 f/2L probaby is a good way for you to go - because of the f/2 aperture - particularly if you have a 135mm lens to pair it with. Especially for people photography, you should be able to do a lot of damage with a 28-70 f/2 and a 135 f/2! On the other hand, 24-70 f/2.8 instead of the 28-70 f/2 would still be good for people shots really, and would give you the added versatility of being able to go to 24mm as well as being significantly lighter. Pick your poison!

 

[Ozarker]

I generally agree with Neuro about a general purpose zoom beting more versatile if it starts at 24mm rather than 28mm. However, it depends on what you want to shoot, of course. I believe you do a lot of people photography, and if people photography is what you care about, the 28-70 f/2L probaby is a good way for you to go - because of the f/2 aperture - particularly if you have a 135mm lens to pair it with. Especially for people photography, you should be able to do a lot of damage with a 28-70 f/2 and a 135 f/2! On the other hand, 24-70 f/2.8 instead of the 28-70 f/2 would still be good for people shots really, and would give you the added versatility of being able to go to 24mm as well as being significantly lighter. Pick your poison!

I think you are correct for my use. I really got smitten with that 28-70. There was just something I really liked about it. Thanks.

 

[Ozarker]

I'd get the EF-RF adapter

Already have it.