RF lens for street photography in the city?

[gazzo]

I have a Canon R6 II and im looking for a lens to use for street photography (specifically portraits).

Have seen various videos of people using the 35, 50 and 85mm. These seem to be the lightest of Canons RF lineup thus far.

Has anyone here got suggestions, or owns one that they specifically use and can reccomend for street portraits? Looking for something lightweight and fast that I would rent for a week. Thanks!

[Waddizzle]

Portraits.  That covers a pretty wide range of creativity.

[p4pictures]

I used the RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM lens on my EOS R6 and it was great for portraits in all sorts of situations including on the street. The lens is also compact and that can be a significant advantage compared to the huge RF 85mm F1.2L. 

Actually the RF 24-105mm F4L is a good choice with a broad range of focal lengths, and not too large to be obtrusive or scary to your portrait subjects. All that said, I use the RF 28-70mm F2, it's size does not make it inconspicuous, but it's a "bag of primes" in one lens 😁

[Tronhard]

When you say that you take portraits - are they likely to be head and shoulders, or full figure, or both?  That can have a significant impact on lens choice.

[ebiggs1]

90% of the time you are going to want and use one of the 24-70mm or 24-105mm zooms. And this goes for all photograph in general not just "street" "portrait" photography.

"Notice on your old FD lenses, as you zoom the lens the rear element moves closer to the focusing screen,..."

Primes are way more restricting vs zooms. Only buy a prime after you get a good zoom like the 24-70mm f2.8L

[justadude]

I have both the RF 35mm and RF 50mm.  Both are great for street photography.  However for mostly portraits, I would not use the 35mm.  My 50mm is my favorite walk around lens when I am downtown doing street shots on my R6 Mk ll... lightweight, wide enough to grab architecture if I am not close, and great for candid people shots.  

If you want closeup portraits that block out most of the street background, then you might want to consider an 85mm.,

[ebiggs1]

I think people fall for the "lure" of a prime. There is this mystic that a prime lens is far better. And in fact there was a time when that was true. However today in 2024 it is not. Zooms have advanced so far that primes, except for the name "prime", are not any, or any appreciatively bit better. Even the usually faster aperture is vanishing. When you consider how much you give up with a prime lens they really don't make much sense especially if it is your only lens. If you must, buy a good zoom first and then buy a prime.

[justadude]

Great advice to what EB and Brian said about zooms!

I agree about the lure of primes, and agree that in general the image quality is going to be the same these days.  I hear the opposite so often, and just shake my head.  New zoom lenses have excellent optical quality.

The appeal of a prime to many (and myself) is that you can often get a wider aperture at a lower cost than on a zoom (the RF 35 & 50 are good examples).  You can still find very fast apertures on zooms, but you pay more for that.  That is totally dependent on YOUR budget. Another nice benefit to small primes is if you are going to be walking around all day, sometimes lighter and smaller is better.  I'll take my camera on 8 hour hikes around the city, or in the woods.  I want the lightest lens I own, one camera body, a spare battery, and nothing else.

Personally, I love carrying only a single prime to locations I have shot many times with a zoom - but want to force myself to look at things differently.  You have to learn to be creative when you can't zoom in or out on a subject.

All that being said, I agree with the rest of the group here that at least one (or more) good zoom lens would be in my kit first.  Many times, (like for event photography) I'd be lost with only a prime.  

However, I respectfully disagree with just a small part of EB's comment "90% of the time you are going to want and use one of the 24-70mm or 24-105mm zooms. And this goes for all photograph in general not just "street" "portrait" photography".  That is very true for most photographers, but it is just the opposite for many as well.   While I would never only own a prime lens, most of the time I only bring one lens with me, and it's usually a prime.   You have to decide which is best for your style (after you buy at least one zoom - lol).

[ebiggs1]

Gary I symptomize with the size and weight of photographic gear as well as the brutal hits taken by football players.

But my main come back is if you don't like being hit and slammed to the ground you need to choose another sport. The same is basically true in photography. The gear is what the gear is. If you find it too big and too heavy perhaps you need to choose another hobby. Now of course that is not to say you can't or shouldn't minimize the size and weight just like utilizing football pads and helmet.  And of course my background is probably way different than yours so I see it differently I suspect. I was in a position that if you don't get the shot, you don't get paid. For most of you folks its just an "Oh well, missed that one!"

[ebiggs1]

" I respectfully disagree with just a small part of EB's comment "90% of the time you are going to want and use one of the 24-70mm or 24-105mm zooms. And this goes for all photograph in general not just "street" "portrait" photography". "

Of course you certainly entitled to your opinion. But think this out further. The statement should be taken more as the basic context of FL of the two lenses mentioned. I.E. lets include the 18-55mm zooms. Think of all the Rebels and D3xxx Nikons sold. What do they ship with? Why do they ship with it? Canon and Nikon both know this is the FL that is most useful to most folks even the step up intermediate kits ship with a 24-105mm.