Need help selecting new RF lenses vs my existing EF lenses

[SteveBouck]

I have an EOS R6 Mark II body that I recently purchased and am considering replacing my existing lenses. My primary interest is Landscape photography and Wildlife Photography.  My current lenses are as follows:

• EF-S 10-22mm F4
• EF-28-135MM
• EF-RF Lens Adaptor with Filter Slot

Questions:
1. Is there a big enough difference in the RF lenses to justify the high upgrade cost?
2. From a Wide Angle perspective, would I be better off buying a used EF11-24mm F4 or is there a big enough advantage that I should buy the RF10-22mm F4?
3. I love my EF28-135mm lense because ithe range covers so much of what I shoot. When I look at RF, all I really see is RF24-105, then RF70-200, and RF100-500mm. I don't want to carry 4 lenses to cover the entire spectrum, so what lense combinations would you recommend to replace the EF28-135 most and why?

I've thought about the following combinations:

1. EF 11-24mm F4, RF24-105mm and RF100-500mm
2. EF 11-24mm F4, RF70-200mm and RF100-500mm but would I have to low a gap on the low end?
3. Skip the Ultra Wide angle, and go with RF24-105mm and RF100-500 mm.

As you can see, I am frustrated trying to figure out the best combination for my outdoor photography. Any suggestons are much appreciated.

thanks,

Steve

[kvbarkley]

The EF-S lens will degrade your resolution since it only uses the center APS-C portion of your sensor, so if wide-angle is your bag, this is one to be replaced.

If the EF28-135 is working for you, keep it.

Since you don't currently have a telephoto get the RF 100-500 for wildlife.

[SteveBouck]

Thank you very much. Thats the kind of guidance I was looking for.

[ebiggs1]

"The EF-S lens will degrade your resolution since it only uses the center APS-C portion of your sensor, ... this is one to be replaced."

I would not be so quick to discard this lens. Take some shots and look them over carefully. They may be and look perfectly fine for your requirements. Keep in mind the center section of your camera's sensor is the best part.

This is a hotly debated question and really can only be answered by you.

[kvbarkley]

"Keep in mind the center section of your camera's sensor is the best part"

I think you mean the lens. Other than *maybe* the very edge, and that is a strong maybe, modern semiconductor manufacturing techniques make pretty much every photosite the same. The wafers are 12" across!

[shadowsports]

From a consistency standpoint, I'm also leaning towards encouraging replacement of the EF-S lens.  Best part of the sensor aside.  A 24 megapixel camera would be reduced to capturing at 9.3MP.   Yes. It depends on what someone is going to do with the output... You could probably get away with 11x14 images, but why start out with an arm tied behind your back 😄.  At that point, any modern cell phone is going to give these photos a run for their money.  It's like owning a 200 mph race car but today you only get to drive it at 90.  

@SteveBouck you can give it a try, but it's not something I would consider as a long term viable solution.  I feel it represents a highly specialized use case with diminishing returns.  You'll have to make that decision as mentioned previously.

[March411]

The RF 100-500mm is a brilliant lens, other than weight I have zero complaints and carry it often. You don't mention whether you would go f2.8 or f4 on the 24-105mm, if it's f2.8 I'm in.... but if it's f4, well I picked up the RF24-240mm for landscapes and travel, thought there would be times I was disappointed, I was wrong. Great little lens at an insane price point. 

RF24-240mm East Coast - Sunrise

[TomRamsey]

I would go with your option 3.  I have the same camera with a RF24-105 and DF200-800.  I love the telephoto and it doesn't leave the camera often.  I shoot landscapes, mostly with another system, but the 24-105 is good for landscapes too.  In my other APS-C system I go down to 15 mm, but seldom shoot under 20.  24mm in full frame will give you as much field of view as 16mm in APS-C.  So if you are currently taking a lot of landscapes below 16mm you may want to cover that, but I'm guessing you aren't.  Good luck in whatever you decide.

[SteveBouck]

Thank you very much Tom, as that information is extremely helpful. I never would have known that. Might even save me buying one lense I don't need.

[justadude]

While the ultra wide lenses on full frame are not the best for landscapes - especially because of the fisheye distortion at 11mm, there are times that they are very nice.  But mostly with lenses that wide I find them the best choice for night sky photography.  It really depends a lot on what you shoot that wide.

As for your three options, I think you might regret the second option with the gap in the area where most people do a lot of shooting (again, depending on what YOU shoot).  I would be lost if I skipped focal lengths between 24mm and 70mm since that is roughly half of my work.  

The Canon RF 24-105mm lenses are nice - all three of them.  I own just the kit version which is f/4-7.1.  I never expected much from this lens, but after a few years of use I can honestly say that I love it.  It is very sharp, and yeah... f/7.1, but with the low light ability of this camera (R6 Mk ll) I have been surprised at the results at night when I bump up the ISO a little bit.

Option 4?... Same as option #3 but instead of skipping the wide angle, buy a wide prime lens.  There are many options to choose, but my personal favorite is the Venus Optics Laowa RF 15mm f/2 Zero-D.  It's a manual focus, but basically anything further away than 8' is set at infinity focus.  I've heard that the RF 16mm f/2.8 is pretty nice as well for an inexpensive lens, but I have not used it myself.  The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is also manual focus, but they are great lenses.  I owned three different version (different mounts for different brand bodies) until I upgraded to the Laowa.