Low budget RF lens recommendations

[ken18au]

My question is how many of you use either RF 24-240mm F4-6.3  or  the RF 100-400 mm F5-6.8 . My type photography is pretty much general photography  walk around . eg Landscape , Cities , bit of wild life . Family gatherings . Thinking May be the RF 100-400mm and perhaps RF 35  1.8 combo . What are your thoughts only new using R6 mrk ii 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

These 3 lenses are budget friendly and respectable performers.  I have the RF 100-400.  I purchased it to replace the EF 70-300 USM II as a lightweight travel zoom.  Its a nice lens with modest reach.  It will pair nicely with an R62.  The other 2 also have their merits.  The 35mm is popular for video and street photography.  Some use the RF 24-240 as a walk around lens.  Did you have a budget for the lens or lenses you plan to purchase? 

Have you considered the RF 24-105 f4~f7.1.  It with the RF 100-400 would provide a good deal of FL coverage on a modest budget.  I'm not trying to talk you out of the 35mm which by all accounts is a sharp prime.  If you need a lens for low light it fits the bill.  

[ken18au]

Thanks for your feed back , My  budget  is my biggest issue , just can afford RF L lense , why I’m thinking low budget lens . The 24-240mm gives little more wider range I guess . But the 100-400mm more reach . I have the EF 24-105mm F4 from my canon 7D with EF EOS RF control ring adapter 

[Aurora4233]

Absolutely love both the 24-240 and 100-400 for different uses.  Since you mentioned 'City, family, landscape' and only a 'bit of wildlife' I'd go with the 24-240.  If the ratio was reversed the 100-400 is all sorts of better for wildlife, and since you have the outstanding 24-105L already that is probably the best regardless of ratio.  Add the wide aperture 35mm prime and you'd have a stellar kit.

You caught me with the 'city, family, and landscape' though because the 24-240 is such a competent lightweight comfortable does it all lens.  I always have it on whatever body I'm carrying IF I don't absolutely know that I need 400 or 500mm reach or a wider aperture.

If you didn't already have the 24-105 I would argue the 24-240 is a no-brainer but you had to complicate it a little so even though I think the use case ratio you described leans toward the 24-240 the 100-400 may better round out your kit... coin toss... (an inexpensive wide aperture prime 28/35/50 is a gimme regardless of the other lens choice, just do it! 😉 )

These pics are all with the 24-240 in Vegas recently to demonstrate the versatility.  (There is a little cheating zoom wise because 1/3 of these are on an R7 crop sensor but most are R8 full frame which would be your R6m2 perspective)

[ken18au]

Thankyou so much I appreciate your feed back yes RF 24-240mm seems to be the go with the RF 35mm 1.8 

[ken18au]

I’m sorry, meant to add nice photos you have taken very crisp 

[ebiggs1]

I did a fire hydrant shoot a long time ago. They are an interesting topic and lots of variations and decorations.

[ken18au]

My budget isn’t to high Au $1300

[ken18au]

Hard one , like the longer  reach  in the RF 100-400mm but I think I want the RF 35mm 1.8 for low light and wide shots of city building as walk around lens . But is a toss up RF 24-240mm is good choice walk around lens . As slow budget 

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

Thanks for the extra bit of information.  I wasn't sure if you were upgrading or just starting out.  The RF 100-400 makes the most sense from a FL perspective, giving you broad coverage with your EF 24-105 f4.   This lens performs admirably adapted.  I'm not a huge fan of primes like I was previously.  Many are razor sharp and can fit a specific need.  I'd hang on to your EF 24-105 until you can replace it with RF.  The biggest advantages of the RF 35mm will be indoor and low light photography.  It will also do nice macro, leaves, flowers and insects.