EOS R8 all-purpose lens for photography?

[lloyd64]

I am looking for advice on lens. I am new to photography and would like a lens that helps me capture everything and I am able to carry the camera around everywhere to get into a habit of clicking. This way I can find what I enjoy most whether its cityscape, street or portraits and then I can commit to a better niche lens.

Any suggestions?

Budget is entry level or upto 400-500 dollars

[SignifDigits]

Oh, yeah, and just for clarity, 50mm would NOT be my personal first choice.  I chose to take the R8 to Iceland with very limited space (16 of us on a small tour bus for 9 days - one suitcase and a lap bag was it).  I took the RF 50mm, RF 16mm and RF 28mm instead of my RF 24-240 as I didn't own either a 24-105 f/4 nor 16-35 f/2.8  at the time.  I used the 28mm and 16mm by far the most and the 50mm came in last.   That was fun and fine other than the lens release seizing midway into the trip which would not have happened the 24-240.   Another argument for a zoom - less chance of getting your sensor dirty or problems changing lenses.  I got kind of mad at the 50mm to be honest as that one was the one that, of course, got stuck.  And, as you point out, it is a challenging field of view.  I sold it off blaming it rather than the camera.  But I recently got another.

My main point was not to start with 50mm, and I'm sorry if that was what I communicated, but what a bargain and how fun prime lenses can be.    I was certainly very happy I had those extra f-stops when I was shooting indoors (or even outdoors some days - Iceland can be like that).  The R8 has no IBIS to compensate and while the 24-240 does have IS, I just felt more confident with the prime lenses being fun and portable in that situation.  They fit into my coat pocket and quite easily.

But.  I admit it.  I am weird.  I bought an R50V and have the 28mm on it and am loving it as a portable camera.  I don't care that it doesn't have the all-important EVF.  Neither did the Hasselblad medium format film, or Deardorf 8x10 (never shot a Deardorf and only a bit with the Hasselblad.  I think I can manage - at least seems fun to try it.   I also have used the R50V a bit with the RF 200-800.  Works fine for stills of birds - will try tracking when the weather warms up - should be interesting! 

It will definitely also be used for macro work.

[justadude]

I have the lens that John Hoffman is recommending.  Even though I have much more expensive lenses, this RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 gets used often.  It really is underrated, and very sharp for the price.  The focal length of this zoom comes in very handy for most subjects.  You are not going to find a one size fits all lens (they don't make one) but for general photography, this comes as close as you are going to get.  I've also been highly recommending this lens to others for a few years now.

[justadude]

"Learning on a prime lowers cost and weight, reduces complexity and gets higher image quality at lower cost."


I just want to comment on this sentence. Yes, it lowers cost and weight.  Less complex?  Yes, however I feel the single focal length of a prime actually leads to frustration to those starting out.  Most newbies these days at least have used their phone cameras, and are used to zooming in and out on those.  Not having that anymore with a new camera and only one lens would bother most people.  

As for the image quality of primes vs. zooms, that was very true back with old film lenses. When shooting film I will more often grab a prime for that reason alone.  With the newer technology in digital lenses these days, that is no longer true. Today's zoom lenses are just as sharp as primes.  I've found that true even with the cheaper ones.  What I've noticed more is a difference in sharpness once you reach the expensive lenses vs. less expensive lenses, regardless of prime or zoom. But even there, many of the cheap zooms (and primes) are very sharp these days.

[SignifDigits]

Excellent points Gary.  I'll "cease and desist" with my personal preference, as I think you and ebiggs1 are correct in that most people are used to phones and zooms and would find primes frustrating.  As I said earlier I've always been off the beaten path a bit.  My goal was to encourage creativity and options to consider but I for sure would not want to cause frustration.

Sharpness isn't the only thing to compare.  Equally priced zooms don't compare 1:1 with in inexpensive primes in low-light performance.  Maybe they will someday via IS.  I might trade my RF 16mm and RF 28mm for the Canon RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM but that's still a $400 step up.  Currently I'm enjoying a bit of "old school" using the control ring on primes for setting aperture on a tiny R50V.  I find it fun.  Also zoom lenses are dust pumps for cameras like the R50V that don't have built in sensor cleaning. 

I think I would have been very frustrated to have traded the low-light performance in Iceland in the museum and other places where no flash was allowed if had I traded that in for the ability to zoom.

But I'll rein in my own quirkiness regarding primes from now on when it comes to beginners.  I also don't want to cause them confusion.  There is enough of that associated with just learning shooting fundamentals and their new camera much less choosing a lens.