Which RF lenses for coming R5?

daniela

EOS RP
Aug 19, 2012
255
2
Tyrol, Austria
Hi Guys!
The R5 will be my next camera body.
Which RF lenses should <200mm I buy for it?
I will definitively buy the RF70-200 2.8.
But which of the normal zooms around 24(28)-70mm? 2.0 or 2.8, if I use it for hiking (landscape) and family shots?
As an wideangle lens, I have 16-35mm F4. Is the RF 2.8 version so much better? Or should I wait for the F4 10-24mm?


A lot of questions, I know. But I own an high rebate card that expires in a few weeks. So I am a little bit in hurry.

Thank you a lot.
Daniela
 

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
681
207
Adelaide, Australia
Hi Daniela

You say you have a high rebate card - expiring in a few weeks, and so you seem to want to spend something on that... well I sorta get that. But I would advise, only spend money if you really need / highly want photographic gear/items, not just to 'use money'. (I am planning to get the R5 also, though probably when the first 'deals' on it come available).

As you stated you will use the camera for hiking and family photos. So, if you want a native RF normal zoom, maybe go for the RF 24-105mm f/4 which already has very pro and good user reviews with the EOS R and RP. (Imho, the 24-105mm f/4 is more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 28-70mm f/2 - the latter of which in particular, is more of a specialist lens option).

If I were in your shoes (which I know I'm not), I advise you stick with lighter options so you are more likely to take them hiking. (As much as there is a place for brighter lenses)... So for wide angle, potentially keep the EF 16-35m f/4 you have... as that's already a great lens. The 15-35mm f/2.8 is larger/ heaver / more expensive, while being just a smidge sharper than the ultrawide you already have, but for all practical purposes, they'll produce almost identical images. (I have compared on various websites and in actual images). Ok, you do get 1 extra mm, and 1 stop with the RF 15-35mm, but you are paying for that in weight (and size/cost). So, unless you do event photography, I'd stick with the 16-35mm f/4.

I like IS in lenses - and with the R5 having IBIS too, best of both worlds. You wrote you are already planning to get the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, which is a great lens from all accounts. That makes sense as a telephoto for this body. (I have the 70-300mm L, and plan to keep that. However I will also definitely try the 100-500mm f/4-7.1 lens, which actually interests me a lot, as I do a fair bit of wildlife, and don't need a super fast lens).

So, my advice as to 'what lens to get' is to think about buying a prime, if you really feel like you want/need an addition to listed above. The first one that comes to mind is the 35mm f/1.8 STM IS (which can be used as a handy little prime and macro for certain situations when hiking). I can see me using my 100mm L IS USM n the R5 a lot (with the RF-EF adapter). So the 100mm L macro might be another lens option / consideration for you, even though it's not an RF... but it will work great with the RF-EF adapter, I've used it on the R, and it's really great!

The other primes you might want to consider are the RF 50mm f/1.2 or the RF 85mm f/1.2, but these are again quite specialist lenses (big / heavy / expensive, but great optical quality). So you might want to consider the 50mm f/1.8 STM (a surprising good lens, and with IBIS in the R5, it'll will work a treat in low light!)

I trust this helps.

Paul
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,233
893
While I do agree the 24-105/4 is more versatile, it is the right size and weight (and price), and I think it really works well for shooting video with the IS, for people shots I definitely prefer any other lens that I have over it, the 24-70/2.8 looks more pleasing, it is easier achieve a fast shutter speed with it to stop motion, it does not seem that much bigger and heavier, and it does not loose out in the IS department either (of course it costs a lot more)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Random Orbits

EOS 5D Mark IV
Mar 14, 2012
2,444
328
For general purpose shooting, I prefer the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS. It is bigger and heavier than the RF 24-105 f/4 IS, but I like the larger aperture for portraits or when using it inside. If you're comfortable with f/4 as a max aperture, then the RF version is a good choice. The 28-70 is much heavier and bigger than the other two lenses -- it's definitely a specialized lens, and the other two are better for general purpose situations. I've used all three. I tend to use the f/4 for video (widest focal length range), the f/2 for indoor events, and the f/2.8 for everything else. If I could only use one, I'd pick the f/2.8.

For the ultrawide, I'd suggest keeping the EF f/4 for now. The 16-35 f/4 IS was the first good ultrawide from Canon. The EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS continues that tradition, but you're paying a lot for the extra stop. If the RF 10-24 is similar to the EF 11-24, then it'll be another heavy, big and specialized lens. Both the EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS vignette heavily wide open but the vignetting is similar to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS at f/4. Are you ok with that? Switching the adapter from lens to lens can be a pain, but if depends on how many EF lenses you plan to keep. If it's just a couple, it might be worth getting an adapter for each EF lens you use regularly. The EF lenses have dropped in value, but you'd still be paying a lot for the RF premium. If you feel like you want to switch to a f/2.8 UWA lens in the future, then I'd probably opt for the RF over the EF version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten
Feb 15, 2020
508
348
For general purpose shooting, I prefer the RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS. It is bigger and heavier than the RF 24-105 f/4 IS, but I like the larger aperture for portraits or when using it inside. If you're comfortable with f/4 as a max aperture, then the RF version is a good choice. The 28-70 is much heavier and bigger than the other two lenses -- it's definitely a specialized lens, and the other two are better for general purpose situations. I've used all three. I tend to use the f/4 for video (widest focal length range), the f/2 for indoor events, and the f/2.8 for everything else. If I could only use one, I'd pick the f/2.8.

For the ultrawide, I'd suggest keeping the EF f/4 for now. The 16-35 f/4 IS was the first good ultrawide from Canon. The EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS continues that tradition, but you're paying a lot for the extra stop. If the RF 10-24 is similar to the EF 11-24, then it'll be another heavy, big and specialized lens. Both the EF 16-35 f/2.8 III and RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS vignette heavily wide open but the vignetting is similar to the EF 16-35 f/4 IS at f/4. Are you ok with that? Switching the adapter from lens to lens can be a pain, but if depends on how many EF lenses you plan to keep. If it's just a couple, it might be worth getting an adapter for each EF lens you use regularly. The EF lenses have dropped in value, but you'd still be paying a lot for the RF premium. If you feel like you want to switch to a f/2.8 UWA lens in the future, then I'd probably opt for the RF over the EF version.
Wow you own the 24-105, 24-70 and 28-70? That is a lot of overlap!
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,188
1,262
Hi Daniela

You say you have a high rebate card - expiring in a few weeks, and so you seem to want to spend something on that... well I sorta get that. But I would advise, only spend money if you really need / highly want photographic gear/items, not just to 'use money'. (I am planning to get the R5 also, though probably when the first 'deals' on it come available).

As you stated you will use the camera for hiking and family photos. So, if you want a native RF normal zoom, maybe go for the RF 24-105mm f/4 which already has very pro and good user reviews with the EOS R and RP. (Imho, the 24-105mm f/4 is more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 28-70mm f/2 - the latter of which in particular, is more of a specialist lens option).

If I were in your shoes (which I know I'm not), I advise you stick with lighter options so you are more likely to take them hiking. (As much as there is a place for brighter lenses)... So for wide angle, potentially keep the EF 16-35m f/4 you have... as that's already a great lens. The 15-35mm f/2.8 is larger/ heaver / more expensive, while being just a smidge sharper than the ultrawide you already have, but for all practical purposes, they'll produce almost identical images. (I have compared on various websites and in actual images). Ok, you do get 1 extra mm, and 1 stop with the RF 15-35mm, but you are paying for that in weight (and size/cost). So, unless you do event photography, I'd stick with the 16-35mm f/4.

I like IS in lenses - and with the R5 having IBIS too, best of both worlds. You wrote you are already planning to get the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, which is a great lens from all accounts. That makes sense as a telephoto for this body. (I have the 70-300mm L, and plan to keep that. However I will also definitely try the 100-500mm f/4-7.1 lens, which actually interests me a lot, as I do a fair bit of wildlife, and don't need a super fast lens).

So, my advice as to 'what lens to get' is to think about buying a prime, if you really feel like you want/need an addition to listed above. The first one that comes to mind is the 35mm f/1.8 STM IS (which can be used as a handy little prime and macro for certain situations when hiking). I can see me using my 100mm L IS USM n the R5 a lot (with the RF-EF adapter). So the 100mm L macro might be another lens option / consideration for you, even though it's not an RF... but it will work great with the RF-EF adapter, I've used it on the R, and it's really great!

The other primes you might want to consider are the RF 50mm f/1.2 or the RF 85mm f/1.2, but these are again quite specialist lenses (big / heavy / expensive, but great optical quality). So you might want to consider the 50mm f/1.8 STM (a surprising good lens, and with IBIS in the R5, it'll will work a treat in low light!)

I trust this helps.

Paul
Very good advice, Paul !
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,334
2,186
Hi Daniela

But I would advise, only spend money if you really need / highly want photographic gear/items, not just to 'use money'.

Everything you said sounded like good advice except this. It too, is usually good advice, but she's got some use-it or lose-it money, she pretty much has to spend it on SOMETHING.

Hypothetically if there weren't something worthwhile for Daniella to spend it on, she could spend it on something she can resell with a minimum loss, and thereby turn it into more lasting cash with only a partial loss. However, there's plenty of worthwhile stuff to spend that on; it depends on what Daniella is interested in doing with her camera.
 

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
681
207
Adelaide, Australia
Everything you said sounded like good advice except this. It too, is usually good advice, but she's got some use-it or lose-it money, she pretty much has to spend it on SOMETHING.

Hypothetically if there weren't something worthwhile for Daniella to spend it on, she could spend it on something she can resell with a minimum loss, and thereby turn it into more lasting cash with only a partial loss. However, there's plenty of worthwhile stuff to spend that on; it depends on what Daniella is interested in doing with her camera.

Hi SteveC

Thanks for your comment... I probably didn't realise how her 'high rebate' card from another country works... (I'm in Australia). I thought maybe she was getting a discount / loyalty points, and not actually a 'use-it-or-lose-it' situation. If that's actually the case, I would advise her to buy the RF 35mm f/1.8 or either of the RF f/1.2 primes. :)
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,334
2,186
Hi SteveC

Thanks for your comment... I probably didn't realise how her 'high rebate' card from another country works... (I'm in Australia). I thought maybe she was getting a discount / loyalty points, and not actually a 'use-it-or-lose-it' situation. If that's actually the case, I would advise her to buy the RF 35mm f/1.8 or either of the RF f/1.2 primes. :)


As I go back and read...it's possible you were right and I was wrong. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think you were right. If it was simply "money" that they owed you, it probably wouldn't have an expiration date.

Either way, it also depends on how big the amount is. If it's a substantial fraction of the cost of a lens you want to get anyway, jump on it; it's like a personal 60% off sale, but will end soon.



My personal "short list" is the RF 24-105 L as a kit with whichever R I end up buying, and the EF 16-35mm 4.0L (adapters don't bother me). I already have the 100-400 II L, and a smattering of low-end primes for the EF mount; some of which I just go ahead and use on my EF-Ms. I've had a good time with the 100-400 on the M6-II as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

pj1974

80D, M5, 7D, & lots of glass and accessories!
Oct 18, 2011
681
207
Adelaide, Australia
As I go back and read...it's possible you were right and I was wrong. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think you were right. If it was simply "money" that they owed you, it probably wouldn't have an expiration date.

Either way, it also depends on how big the amount is. If it's a substantial fraction of the cost of a lens you want to get anyway, jump on it; it's like a personal 60% off sale, but will end soon.



My personal "short list" is the RF 24-105 L as a kit with whichever R I end up buying, and the EF 16-35mm 4.0L (adapters don't bother me). I already have the 100-400 II L, and a smattering of low-end primes for the EF mount; some of which I just go ahead and use on my EF-Ms. I've had a good time with the 100-400 on the M6-II as well.

Thanks for your understanding, and looking at it again.. could be either of us are close to accurate about how much financial sense it makes for Daniela to go and spend $X on RF lens/es. :)

I like your short list - the RF 24-105 and EF 16-35mm are both great L lenses, and cover a lot of useful focal lengths, plus- as you said, you have the 100-400mm II.

My experience with using some friends' EOS R cameras, and playing in store - I think I'd possibly get the RF 24-105mm for the R5 as a 'walk-about' combination, and go with other lenses and some primes for special purposes. The way I take photos, I don't mind adapters for specialty lenses.

I have the 70-300mm L and have used it (for fun) on my M5 - and it's doable, but I find it balances much better on my 80D or 7D. With the M5, I support the weight differently (most with my left hand holding the lens). But the R5's ergonomics are much closer to my 7D.

Best wishes,

PJ
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,334
2,186
I think I'd possibly get the RF 24-105mm for the R5 as a 'walk-about' combination, and go with other lenses and some primes for special purposes. The way I take photos, I don't mind adapters for specialty lenses.

My thinking precisely. Except that Plan B, if the R5 turns out to be over 3.5-4K, is to go with the RP. I'll lose a lot of features doing so but the money saved will make it worth it. (I just can't see myself with the R6 and its mere 20mpx, and I suspect I'd really hate the R's touchbar--the R with no touchbar would be on my list of possibles if such a thing existed; a 30 mpx R6 would be, too, depending on price.)

[edit to add--one thing the RP would save me is the cost of extra batteries, as it takes the same kind of batteries two of my other cameras take, and I already have extra batteries for them.]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974