What RF Lenses to Buy

[msalderson]

Good morning everyone!

I have been a Canon guy since 1976 when I purchased my Canon F-1, I loved that camera, had it for about 25 years. I moved to digital back in the late 90's, and settle on an Olympus C2100 Ultra Zoom for a few years (really excellent camera for the time, even at only 2.1 megapixels, it produced great photos. Got back with Canon with the 60D, which was a very nice camera, and eventually stepped up to the 70D and then the 80D. I had several EF and EF-S lenses, a couple of L lenses. I wanted to step up to full frame, but waited for the mirrorless R line to come out. I also decided to sell all my EF and EF-S glass. I decided that I was going to go with the RF line. I started with the R with the RF 24-105 F4 L (still one of my favorites) and also got the RF 35 1.8.  When the R6 came out, I waited for about a year and stepped up. I never really got the R6 set up exactly right for me. So with the big price drop on Canon bodies, I just stepped up to a R6 MKII from my R6. I know that a lot of rumors are going around the Canon is going to drop an R6 MKIII soon, and maybe they will, but I'm thinking it will be next year.

So, enough history. I have some extra cash to invest in some new RF L glass, maybe sell some of my RF glass and condense my stuff down. I'm trying to get myself reenergized into my beloved hobby. Here are the lenses if have currently:

RF 24-105 F4 L, RF 35 F1.8, RF 24 F1.8, RF 85 F1.8, RF 100-400 F5.6-8

My thought might be to replace the 100-400 with the 100-500 L and maybe replace the 24 and 35 with an RF 15-35 2.8 L, any opinions? I'm just looking for ideas. Thanks!

[kvbarkley]

We need to know what you want to shoot.

[msalderson]

I shoot a little of everything, wildlife and travel mostly. I'm also a drone pilot, aerial photos and video. As I'm now 71, I'm trying get my kit down to a smaller number of lenses, and carrying the big heavy bag with everything in it on a trip just isn't as appealing as it once was. Just looking for some engaging conversation on options, with those who have had experience.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

What you buy really depends on you.  As kvbarkley pointed out, the type of photography you enjoy and your budget. 

It's not necessary, but I enjoy the RF Trinity.  I don't always carry every lens I own.  Depends on the subject, location, weather and how far I'm traveling to get there.  

Last year I carried 4 lenses to Alaska and a laptop in a Protactic 450 AWII.  I had a tripod too.  It was a heavy pack, but I unloaded it most days and only carried 2 lenses with me.  There are some who want to travel, walk and see, and there are people like me who want all that and photos.  Most days I carried a 24-70 and 100-500.  I don't really do primes any more as I'd rather zoom than move myself. I'm only actively using 1 prime today.

From a consolidation standpoint. One piece of advice I often recommend is looking at a batch of recent photos.  What FL and aperture did you shoot at most?  Target a lens or lenses that will offer the most FL coverage, max aperture with the least amount of overlap.  

There are 100 ways to cut it.  Zooms offer a high degree of flexibility, primes are great for specific purpose.

[ebiggs1]

"We need to know what you want to shoot." "I shoot a little of everything, wildlife and travel ..."

This is so very important but you already know what your basic bag should look like don't' you?

"I'm now 71, I'm trying get my kit down to a smaller number of lenses, and carrying the big heavy bag with everything in it on a trip" "RF 24-105 F4 L, RF 35 F1.8, RF 24 F1.8, RF 85 F1.8, RF 100-400 F5.6-8"

Well the very first thing to do is get rid of the redundancy. RF 24-105 F4 L, RF 35 F1.8, RF 24 F1.8, RF 85 F1.8, RF 100-400 F5.6-8. Now you only have two lenses in your bag and you have covered the exact same FL as before. You just sacrificed a couple f-stops but the R6 can easily handle that. Personally I would not trade off the 100-400mm for the 100-500mm. Now the 15-35mm, yeah, pretty nice lens but again are you gaining enough FL to add the unwanted weight to the bag? Hmmm, 24mm --->15mm, yeah, I can see that might be worth it.

My basic bag that goes everywhere with me has the ef 16-35mm f2.8L, ef 24-70mm f2.8L and the ef 70-200mm f2.8L. This is the FL of a general purpose bag. And, if you wanted a total change over that is exactly what I would recommend you get. This points out the reason I would not trade the 100-400mm for the 100-500mm because you are most likely not going to need anything over 200mm for everyday work. Yes, you need long tele lenses for that special purpose but not constantly. When I do want a tele I want some well above 400mm or even 500mm and that is my Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon.

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

Given your indicated range of subjects, and the range of lenses you have, it seems to me you have a surfeit of lenses, which seem to be based on preference for wide-aperture primes.   As my highly-respected colleague EBIGGS1 commented, you could afford to lose those because the sensors of the R6 series are able to handle higher ISO values. 

I would suggest one lens for each function:
For scenery and interiors: consider, instead of the 15-35L f/2.8, the much lighter, significantly less bulky and cheaper 14-35 f/4.  It also takes a standard 77mm filter for use with slim filters - it even takes a slim polarizer or ND filter.  I have one and it's excellent:
EOS R6, RF14-35L@35mm, f/20, 15sec, ISO-100

For general purpose work, you already have the RF 24-105 f/4, which I too have, but oddly use it far less than the RF 24-240 IS USM.  I got this while waiting (for 5+ months) for delivery of the 24-105L f/4 and found it to a brilliant optic.  It would be a great general-purpose, and almost all-in-one travel lens if you really want to travel light.  
Canon EOS R5, RF 24-240@28mm, f/10, 1/400sec, ISO-200  Canon EOS R6, RF 24-240@240mm, f/8, 1/400sec, ISO-200
I went to some effort to compare the performance of the two lenses. in the fairly dim light of the local museum:
R6, RF24-105@24mm, f/3.6, 1/60sec, ISO-500  R6, RF23-240@24mm, f/3.6, 1/80sec, ISO-250
R6, RF23-240@24mm, f/6.3, 1/4sec, ISO-250  R6, RF24-105@24mm, f/6.3, 1/15sec, ISO-1600
R6, RF24-105@50mm, f/6.3, 1/15sec, ISO-1600  R6, RF24-105@50mm, f/6.3, 1/2sec, ISO-250
For detail quality of the Rf 24-240:
R6, RF 24-240@61mm, f/5, 1/13sec, ISO-1600  The same image 100% crop

For wildlife, I personally prefer the RF100-500L.  It has twin nano-USM motors for superior focusing speed and its optics are truly brilliant.  That 100mm of reach makes a difference, especially with a FF camera, when trying to get close-up shots of birds or dangerous mammals without disturbing them.

That combos - either:
14-35, 24-105, 100-500 gives you an unbroken focal range from 14-500, with great optics.
14-35, 24-240, two-lens kit for travelling very light, also great optics

[Tronhard]

Post Script:
If you are in the US, Canon are offering refurbished RF 100-500 lenses for $1799, down from $2699.  See:
https://www.canonrumors.com/refurbished-canon-rf-100-500mm-f-4-5-7-1l-is-usm-1799-reg-2699/ 

[msalderson]

Thanks for all of your comments and ideas/recommendations. Some good ideas that I will look into.

Thanks, Mark