Help choosing lens.. Worth selling the RF 14-35 f4 and 24-105 f/4 for the new 24-105 f2.8?

[JEJE12]

Hello

I am a newbie and really got into wildlife photography the past two years.. I am planning my first safari next year and often to to Montana and British Columbia to take photos.. 

I currently own an R5 and R6 and 3 lenses.. The RF 14-35 F4, RF 24-105 RF and RF 100-500 F4. I am considering selling the 14-35 and 24-105 and use a small bonus I recently received to invest in the new 24-105 F2.8.. It seems that this lens can do whatever the other two lenses do for me but I would benefit from the f2.8... I strictly shoot wildlife, landscape and some astrophotography. I have learned the hard way buy right once or buy wrong twice and I am simply seeking a bit of guidance from some of the most seasoned photographers on this forum. An other alternative I was considering was to keep my current lenses and eventually purchase a 70/200 f2.8.. to have at least one lens below F4... But just having two lenses, the 24-105 F2.8 and the 100-500 F4 seems like I can do most of what I am interested in.. I would be very grateful for any input. While in Africa, I am assuming I will be using the 100-500 the most and with the 24-105 2.8 I'd be covered for low light situation, close ecounters but also be able to take amazing landscape photos at sunset and sunrise or while in the air balloon.. 😉 

Thank you

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings,

I'm feeling like Ernie does.  You have a good range of FL's covered.

RF 14-35 f4 (keep)

Since you have an R6, I assume your 24-105 is an f4 kit lens and not the variable aperture copy? (if so keep)

The 24-105Z is an exceptional lens.  Its heavy and the tripod collar cannot be removed.  Be mindful, only the foot comes off. if this bothers you.

24-105 Z

Ernie has said this 100 times and I agree.  The 70-200 f2.8 (EF or RF) is far and above one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.  When you put this lens on a camera, magic happens.  

I was equally impressed with the RF 100-500.  Since you own it, you already know.  😃

Its a tough call, but for Africa, I'd get in line for the RF 200-800, and potentially leave the RF 100-500 at home.  The other thing to look forward to and possibly consider.  We expect to see a RF 70-200 Z mkII internal zoom (announcement maybe June).  Not sure when your trip is.

Yes, there are different ways to go.  Like Ernie pointed out, its unlikely you will be shooting wide open enough of the time to warrant the f2.8.  If its something you want for home (walk-around) use, then buy the RF24-70 f2.8 and complete your kit with a RF 70-200 f2.8.  Then you can dump the RF 24-105 f4 confidently.  

The 24-105Z is much heavier than the 24-70 f2.8 and if you plan to get the 70-200, the smaller lens might be more manageable.  I would hate to talk you out of something you really want, so your choice of course.      

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings.

You'll never go wrong with the RF Trinity.  Having the f2.8 across the entire focal range is something I've never regretted, Lens changes in Africa can be a dirty proposition so be sure to bring a rocket blower for dustier days.

Having 2 bodies is helpful so you can dedicate one body to super telephoto.  This can be the difference of getting or missing a shot.  I haven't been to Africa, but experienced this firsthand in Alaska last summer. I fell behind a few times swapping lenses and some of our guides got a little peeved while I was changing glass.  I was there and I wasn't coming back, so I was going to get the shots.  Having 2 bodies really helps.

[ebiggs1]

I wouldn't switch and use what you have. You have a lot of FL covered and your type of shooting is not likely to benefit from going to f2.8 from f4. One stop!

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings,

I'm feeling like Ernie does.  You have a good range of FL's covered.

RF 14-35 f4 (keep)

Since you have an R6, I assume your 24-105 is an f4 kit lens and not the variable aperture copy? (if so keep)

The 24-105Z is an exceptional lens.  Its heavy and the tripod collar cannot be removed.  Be mindful, only the foot comes off. if this bothers you.

24-105 Z

Ernie has said this 100 times and I agree.  The 70-200 f2.8 (EF or RF) is far and above one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.  When you put this lens on a camera, magic happens.  

I was equally impressed with the RF 100-500.  Since you own it, you already know.  😃

Its a tough call, but for Africa, I'd get in line for the RF 200-800, and potentially leave the RF 100-500 at home.  The other thing to look forward to and possibly consider.  We expect to see a RF 70-200 Z mkII internal zoom (announcement maybe June).  Not sure when your trip is.

Yes, there are different ways to go.  Like Ernie pointed out, its unlikely you will be shooting wide open enough of the time to warrant the f2.8.  If its something you want for home (walk-around) use, then buy the RF24-70 f2.8 and complete your kit with a RF 70-200 f2.8.  Then you can dump the RF 24-105 f4 confidently.  

The 24-105Z is much heavier than the 24-70 f2.8 and if you plan to get the 70-200, the smaller lens might be more manageable.  I would hate to talk you out of something you really want, so your choice of course.      

[JEJE12]

Thank you , I really appreciate the feedbacks. I might invest in the 70-200 f.28 and go to Africa with my 14-35 f/4 the 70-200 2.8 and my RF 100-500 along with my R5 and R6 as second body and the 1.4 extender... Unless I decide to rent the 200-800. I recently rented it for a trip in Montana and it was really fun to have! 

I was considering selling the 14-35 and get the 15-35 f2.8 instead ( I really want to take nice photos of African sunsets, wide open with some animals but I have a few months to learn my gear better and I feel I should be able to take some nice shots with the R6 or even the 70-200 2.8 instead. 

[Tronhard · Accepted solution]

I am a retired wildlife photographer, and I agree with Ernie and Rick that you don't need to go to the f/2.8, at the cost of considerable expense, bulk and weight to get the shots you want.

For the wildlife you will need reach  - given that large macro predators are usually kept at distance and even grazing animals can be very dangerous if they feel threatened - then you are likely to work at the longer end of the focal range.  Absolutely, the holy trinity of f/2.8 lenses is brilliant for people and events, but I would submit, not for wildlife - you are paying too much in cost and weight.  So, if  you are really concentrating on wildlife I would go for reach rather than that super wide aperture that only is available up to 200mm, which is way too short for wild animals.

I hate changing lenses in the field, for a couple of reasons.  First, it takes too long to take one lens off, and put on the other - and this goes for teleconverters too.  Second, you must also turn the camera off when switching lenses unless you want a high risk of dust on your sensor (which is a real pain), especially in a dusty place like Africa.  So, ideally, you want a lens + body combo that goes from something like 100mm to 800mm, without changing your gear.

To achieve this, you could use the feature of the R5 to shoot in 1.6 crop mode.  This would reduce the image size from 45MP to about 17.8MP, which is pretty close to your current native R6 resolution of 20MP. Much depends on how much resolution you need to produce your desired output.  Social media, digital display and moderate sized prints are much less demanding than extremely large, high definition print images. 

Now, switching that 1.6 crop on the camera is essentially the same as cropping in post, but what you see through the viewfinder is indicative of what the cropped result will be and that is advantageous for composition.  By having the feature (normally on the first page of the first (red) tab, as the default menu option, or assigning to a custom menu item or button, you can make that switch much faster than switching lenses, and with no risk of dust infiltration, as you are not opening up the camera body.  If you have the 100-500 on the R5, you can have a FoV 45MP from 100-500 and 17.8MP with an equivalent FoV from 160-800mm, all from the convenience of camera controls.

While you could take the 1.4x teleconverter, that requires you to take the lens off, put on the converter and put it back on again (too slow and dusty) and on the 100-500 you can't use the converter at physical FL's below 300mm - so you may be switching frequently, which is not good.  Honestly, I would leave the teleconverter at home and save the weight and bulk on your travels.

This method would give you a lot of range of reach without any financial cost, but if you want to invest in a native lens with the reach, then do consider the RF 200-800.  You could try renting it there to save transporting it, but if you really want the reach, I suspect you will want to keep that optic for use in the future.

I have the 14-35 f/4 and have tried the 15-35 f/2.8.  However, with the copies I used, there was a slight image quality advantage to the 14-35, and honestly, for landscape or sunset images, I would question if you need to go down to f/2.8 - I would argue you want the extra DoF of at least f/4 for landscapes.  During the day you will have so much light  you will need to use higher f/stops anyway and, for those sunset shots, there should still be enough light to use that one higher f/stop.  I often shoot above that hand-held, but if you need to you can always use some solid object for stability.

I would take the 24-105 f/4 you currently have during the day -  giving you an unbroken range of 24-500mm between the two lenses, or 24-800 if you use the cropping trick.  The 24-105 will be great on the R6 body for animals that get close, or general landscapes.  The wider FoV from the 14-35 f/4 will be a great option for night time when you want to capture sky at least as much as terrain and you can switch lenses back at the accommodation under much more controlled conditions.

As always, these are just my opinions, but based on using these optics myself, in similar contexts.

[shadowsports · Accepted solution]

Greetings.

You'll never go wrong with the RF Trinity.  Having the f2.8 across the entire focal range is something I've never regretted, Lens changes in Africa can be a dirty proposition so be sure to bring a rocket blower for dustier days.

Having 2 bodies is helpful so you can dedicate one body to super telephoto.  This can be the difference of getting or missing a shot.  I haven't been to Africa, but experienced this firsthand in Alaska last summer. I fell behind a few times swapping lenses and some of our guides got a little peeved while I was changing glass.  I was there and I wasn't coming back, so I was going to get the shots.  Having 2 bodies really helps.