RF lens recommendations for projects, buildings, cafes, people, conferences

[oganifrun]

If you are a photographer and own these lenses:

RF 85mm 1.2

RF 50mm 1.8

RF 35mm 1.8

RF 16mm 2.8

and your budget allows you to buy only one lens, either a 24mm 1.8

or an RF24-105mm 4-7.1

and you specialize in photographing projects, buildings, cafes, people, and conferences, which one would you choose wisely?

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

If I owned the above primes, I'd grab the RF24-105 f4~7.1 for its versatility.

[ebiggs1]

" I'd grab the RF24-105 f4~7.1 for its versatility."

Without hesitation. WIth what you have adding a 24mil is not at all a logical choice. Plus, IMHO, I would dump the 50mil, too. A small case can be made for keeping some or all the other lenses because of the faster f-stops ability but not much. Zoom lenses are where it's at, so much easier to use.

[SignifDigits]

Agreeing with my colleagues - mostly.  I have owned all of the those lenses at one time and have kept the RF 50mm, RF 16mm  and RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM.  You haven't shared which camera that you have and what exactly you want your 24mm separate lens for (maybe you hate cropping 16mm?) and your top priorities for the lens.  If you are absolutely targeting shallow depth of field and bokeh at 24mm as your highest priority you will lose some of that that with the 24-105. That would be the biggest "con" for that lens.  If you're shooting indoors without IBIS on your camera you'll have to live with higher ISOs at longer focal lengths even with IS.  So, in general I agree with my colleagues but I will point out that I, at least, don't have all of the information to say that 100% of the time in all situations I would recommend the 24-105mm over the 24mm.  That said, I love mine and think it's an incredible bargain on any camera with IBIS and getting up to 5 stops of IS isn't anything to sneeze at either.

One warning, you may find the zoom addictive and decide you enjoy not swapping primes and zooming with your feet.    Or perhaps not - everyone is different.

[TomRamsey]

The zoom would give you versatility that you dot really have.  But, it is also not nearly as fast as your other lenses, which could show up on indoor shots unless you are using a tripod.  But, noise reduction in software is pretty good these days.

If I'm shooting something like a building, I'm going to use different focal lengths and I really don't want to be changing lenses all that much, I really prefer not to change lenses outside if I don't have to.  I would choose the zoom.

[ebiggs1]

"If you are absolutely targeting shallow depth of field and bokeh ..."

I keep forgetting most of you don't post edit but bokeh is no problem in Photoshop. Filter > Neural Filters > Depth Blur > Focal Range slider. DPP4 has somewhat of a bokeh adjustment, Bokeh Shift but its not anywhere near as good as PS. You really limit yourself if you don't post edit.

"...you'll have to live with higher ISOs at longer focal lengths even with IS."

I agree and made that concession.

"A small case can be made for keeping some or all the other lenses because of the faster f-stops ability ..."

[SignifDigits]

@ebiggs1  - the Google AI says "Actual (optical) bokeh is the natural, physical blur produced by a camera lens's optics, whereas digital (computational) bokeh is simulated through AI and software. Actual bokeh offers flawless edge separation, realistic depth, and unique aesthetic lens qualities, while digital bokeh sometimes struggles with fine hair or object boundaries."  I use digital bokeh, but only on my phone. 

Given the choice I assume most photographers would  prefer capturing optical bokeh in camera rather than the potential hit-or-miss of software and/or time required to get anywhere close digitally.

And I am guessing most of us shoot RAW and post-edit.  I certainly do.  I just choose to limit my photos for my personal use and this site to DPP4.  If I'm, say building a web site, then any digital art is in bounds.  

[ebiggs1]

When I said, "I keep forgetting most of you don't post edit ...", it doesn't mean the times you just use and editor to lens correct, crop or change the WB, etc. Of course most people do that or at least they should. And, yes, in that sense they do post edit but nowhere even close to what is possible. You caused me to rethink of it in a different way.

I always urge people to use raw but the truth of the matter is, if you don't post edit, there really isn't, or at least, the benefit of raw diminishes a great deal. For folks like that, jpg is probably the better choice. Using jpg you let the camera post edit your images but there is still enough data left for certain limited abilities in a real post editor like DPP4 or better Photoshop.

I can tell, or glean, from your reply you have no idea of the power of Photoshop in the hands of a person proficient in it capabilities. I understand as it is not an easy app to master but even at my level in PS it is extremely powerful. A tool and as important and capable as any lens or camera.

"...I assume most photographers would  prefer capturing optical bokeh in camera...". Perhaps but don't you believe it and don't you bet more than you can afford to lose.

You know in the last 10 years or so Lightroom has taken over as the most used post editor in pro shops. LR has become so advanced a ot of the time you can make all your edits without using Photoshop. There are some Ai,  Luminar Neo for example, advanced apps coming to market but as of yet and at my advanced stage in life I have no use for one. But basic curiosity in them for sure and from what I have seen they are amazing.