Starting lens for an EOS R?

[EzraCaleb]

Hello everyone, as the title of the post states, I'm looking to get more opinions on the best starter lens for an EOS R. I've been using a T6 for the past 3 years and I'm finally about to buy my first full frame (used). I've messed around with portraits the past few years, mainly using my 50 F1.8, but I've recently gotten into Automotive photography also, and it seems like I'd be doing that more in the future. The 2 main lenses I've been eyeballing are the Sigma 35 F1.4 and the 24-70 F2.8, as both are a good fit for car photos. In a perfect world I'dobviouslyjust buy both, but I'm on a budget for now. I do, plan to keep doing portraiture, but I'd like to get a 85mm for that further down the line when I increase my skill (and my clientele). As far as aperture and bokeh go, I'd love the 35 1.4 for both portraits and cars, but I know the 24-70 would be more robust in terms of flexibility and usability. Both lenses are around $500 on the used market, and I'm kind of torn on which to get to start off with. Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? Maybe also give any other input on lenses, tips, etc. Thanks!

[rs-eos]

While you certainly can do portraits with a 35mm, note that on your current crop sensor, such a lens would give you a field of view as a 56mm.  And your current 50 has a field of view as if it was an 80mm.   On a full frame camera, the field of view will be wider; now actually being 35mm and 50mm respectively.

For portraits, non-telephoto lenses will exaggerate features closest to the lens (e.g. nose).   For that reason and others, you typically go for telephoto for portraits.  My personal favorite being 135mm.

Having said that, it sounds like you'd be better off with the 24-70.  That gives you a short telephoto for portraits, gives you a 35mm option, and of course it can go wider.

[shadowsports]

Agree with Ricky 100%

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens  

Yes, its a small investment, but you will use it now and take it with you to the next mirrorless body, then the one after that too..  

My 24~70 is my preferred walk-around lens.  Grab it and call it a day.   

[SBK]

If the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is too much for the budget, you can still go for the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS for less than half of the money.

Or, depending on your needs, for the same money than the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS, you can have these two more luminous lenses:

- RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM
- RF 85mm f/2 IS Macro STM

You'd lose the versality of the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS though.

[shadowsports]

I still feel the one lens (f2.8) is worth the investment.

I would personally avoid the f4.  The 24~70 has always outperformed the 24~105 in IQ.  There's a reason why it costs more. 

Going with primes is also limiting as SBK points out.

One of the best uses for the 35mm is street photography.  Its F1.8 works exceptionally well for night time scenes.  85mm is similar, if you want portraits with buttery soft bokeh the 85 f2 is a stunner, but again adds the burden of you as the photographer moving in and out to get the desired composition and framing. 

So a zoom is going to offer the most versatility for a "starting lens"...  and...  When you enter a building that doesn't allow flash photography all of the "extra" money you spent on a f2.8 over a f4 becomes immediately apparent.    

[ebiggs1]

"If the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is too much for the budget, you can still go for the RF 24-105mm f4 L IS for less than half of the money."

I like this answer and I agree with it.  I never suggest anyone buy a prime lens as a first only lens. Primes are specialized lenses.  Either zoom will be far more useful at the start. I have no problem adding primes as you get a larger more diversified bag but start with either zoom.  Both are great lenses.