Jump to content

Canon R6 Lense purchase sequence advice sought


SRV1981
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moving to R6 and would like to get some help with analysis for practical use as well as financial options.

Between Now and March I will be ...

-Filming short documentary interviews, b-roll for my students (teach history, politics, reading, writing, etc.) should be decently lit with sun, etc.

-Filming/Photo events (baby shower, holiday parties) should be both a mix of well-light and low light situations

-Filming/Photo Track and Field (indoor and outdoor) a mix of well-light and low light situations

Next Spring/Summer I will be ...

-Filming documentary/cinematic road trip across the west coast of the US and a mix of well-light and low light situations

Zooms (16-35; 24-70; 70-200)

Primes (35, 85, 135)

It seems that EF mount with an adapter is a good way to go to save $$$ over RF mount, so I am open to those options.

What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date?

Thoughts on EF vs. RF

Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Zooms (16-35; 24-70; 70-200)

Primes (35, 85, 135)

Do you have those already in EF mount, or are those the ones you are debating to get?

If you've already got them in EF-mount, all you need is the adapter. I've had the R5 since launch, and the only RF lens I've bought is that RF 100mm 2.8 macro, simply because I needed a macro. The RF-lenses are better, but you'll do fine with EF if that's what you've got.

If you're looking into buying new lenses, I would say a 16-35 + 50mm 1.8 would be sufficient for all your scenarioes. I find 50mm lenses to be very versatile, but there are certain shots, especially in documentaries, where they are simply not wide enough.

The RF 35mm 1.8 might be a bit more exciting since it has IS and semi-macro, but it will overlap with the 16-35 and is also more expensive. Both the 35 mm 1.8 and 50 mm 1.8 are good, but not outstanding optically ( http://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff ). If you've already got the focal lengths covered by EF lenses, they are not really worth the upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have an R6, so you might want to stop reading my response here, but...

On my Panasonic S1 and S5 cameras, I think the panasonic 24-105 f/4 is a really, really good all-around focal length, and f/4 is fast enough / bright enough for most things. In the not too distant past, professional wedding shooters / event shooters said that an f/2.8 zoom was a necessity, but today's cameras have significantly better ISO performance (both for stills and for video) than the cameras they used, so I think that an f/4 zoom on a contemporary body would be equivalent of an f/2.8 zoom on a prior body, at least in terms of noise or latitude.

Again, I don't know anything about Canon RF glass and have only minimal experience with EF glass (I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L adapted on my Panasonic full frame bodies). The Panasonic lens has 1:2 macro capability, and if an RF lens (or the EF 24-105 f/4 L) has 1:2 macro, that might make a terrific first lens to do about 90% of your needs.

Anyway, I guess for me if I were to choose between a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4, I would probably go with the 24-105 f/4... but that's just me.

Do you need a 16-35 zoom??? I use mine ALL THE TIME but I shoot real estate for a living. Personally, for landscape use I find 24mm wide enough, and even if I were shooting high-end architecture, I would use 20mm as the widest and more likely 24mm or 28mm. Alas, for REAL ESTATE they want WWWIIIIDDDEEE shots.

As @UncleBobsPhotography mentioned, maybe look at the EF 35 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be good.

Filming (and photographing) track and field would be the most difficult for me. For video, I might shoot 4K in aps-c mode for the extra reach. But I think for stills I would shoot in full frame mode. 

Anyway, hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

Do you have those already in EF mount, or are those the ones you are debating to get?

If you've already got them in EF-mount, all you need is the adapter. I've had the R5 since launch, and the only RF lens I've bought is that RF 100mm 2.8 macro, simply because I needed a macro. The RF-lenses are better, but you'll do fine with EF if that's what you've got.

If you're looking into buying new lenses, I would say a 16-35 + 50mm 1.8 would be sufficient for all your scenarioes. I find 50mm lenses to be very versatile, but there are certain shots, especially in documentaries, where they are simply not wide enough.

The RF 35mm 1.8 might be a bit more exciting since it has IS and semi-macro, but it will overlap with the 16-35 and is also more expensive. Both the 35 mm 1.8 and 50 mm 1.8 are good, but not outstanding optically ( http://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff ). If you've already got the focal lengths covered by EF lenses, they are not really worth the upgrade.

I have no canon lenses!  My brain turned back on and I remember that my thought process with my A7III was to buy a 24-70 equivalent and then add a wide 14-16 and a macro 85-135 instead of another zoom?  Could that get me covered for docs, sports, etc?

 

10 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I don't have an R6, so you might want to stop reading my response here, but...

On my Panasonic S1 and S5 cameras, I think the panasonic 24-105 f/4 is a really, really good all-around focal length, and f/4 is fast enough / bright enough for most things. In the not too distant past, professional wedding shooters / event shooters said that an f/2.8 zoom was a necessity, but today's cameras have significantly better ISO performance (both for stills and for video) than the cameras they used, so I think that an f/4 zoom on a contemporary body would be equivalent of an f/2.8 zoom on a prior body, at least in terms of noise or latitude.

Again, I don't know anything about Canon RF glass and have only minimal experience with EF glass (I use a Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L adapted on my Panasonic full frame bodies). The Panasonic lens has 1:2 macro capability, and if an RF lens (or the EF 24-105 f/4 L) has 1:2 macro, that might make a terrific first lens to do about 90% of your needs.

Anyway, I guess for me if I were to choose between a 24-70 f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4, I would probably go with the 24-105 f/4... but that's just me.

Do you need a 16-35 zoom??? I use mine ALL THE TIME but I shoot real estate for a living. Personally, for landscape use I find 24mm wide enough, and even if I were shooting high-end architecture, I would use 20mm as the widest and more likely 24mm or 28mm. Alas, for REAL ESTATE they want WWWIIIIDDDEEE shots.

As @UncleBobsPhotography mentioned, maybe look at the EF 35 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses would be good.

Filming (and photographing) track and field would be the most difficult for me. For video, I might shoot 4K in aps-c mode for the extra reach. But I think for stills I would shoot in full frame mode. 

Anyway, hope this helps.

Thanks!  I like the discussion of 24-70f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4.  What are the pros and cons of each?

 

If i go with the 24-70 f/2.8 I would add a 14-16 and 85, 100, or 135 over a few months/year

If I go with 24-105 f/4 i'd probably need the same add-on lenses ?  I'd need 1-2 faster (1.8) primes to deal with low light situations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Moving to R6 and would like to get some help with analysis for practical use as well as financial options.

Between Now and March I will be ...

-Filming short documentary interviews, b-roll for my students (teach history, politics, reading, writing, etc.) should be decently lit with sun, etc.

-Filming/Photo events (baby shower, holiday parties) should be both a mix of well-light and low light situations

-Filming/Photo Track and Field (indoor and outdoor) a mix of well-light and low light situations

Next Spring/Summer I will be ...

-Filming documentary/cinematic road trip across the west coast of the US and a mix of well-light and low light situations

Zooms (16-35; 24-70; 70-200)

Primes (35, 85, 135)

It seems that EF mount with an adapter is a good way to go to save $$$ over RF mount, so I am open to those options.

What lenses, combos, etc. would make most sense now versus being able to put off till a later date?

Thoughts on EF vs. RF

Thoughts on 3rd party EF/RF vs. Canon?

Have you shot these things, or other things, before?

If so, what did you shoot, what gear did you use and how did it work for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't have any EF lenses I would go straight to RF, they are better after all. Not just in sharpness, but also autofocus and stabilization.

The 24-70 2.8 is of course a safe but fairly expensive choice.

The non-L primes is a good option if you've got a smaller budget.

The 24-105 4.0 is half the price of the 24-70 and is also sharp.

There isn't really any right or wrong choice among the RF lenses, it depends more on your shooting style.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I have no canon lenses!  My brain turned back on and I remember that my thought process with my A7III was to buy a 24-70 equivalent and then add a wide 14-16 and a macro 85-135 instead of another zoom?  Could that get me covered for docs, sports, etc?

 

Thanks!  I like the discussion of 24-70f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4.  What are the pros and cons of each?

 

If i go with the 24-70 f/2.8 I would add a 14-16 and 85, 100, or 135 over a few months/year

If I go with 24-105 f/4 i'd probably need the same add-on lenses ?  I'd need 1-2 faster (1.8) primes to deal with low light situations?

 

Like others have said, if you are starting from zero you are better going straight to RF. Before I even finished reading all of your use cases the 24-105mm was all I could think of. It is the most hated lens in my collection but if I could only take a single lens on a trip (and I have done just that before), I would take the 24-105mm. 

The 24-105mm F4 is my most hated lens because the barrel falls down (or up) if you don't hold the zoom ring (EF mount version not sure if RF fixes this) and it is a very boring lens; not fast enough for low light situations, not shallow enough for great bokeh, and not long enough to really reach anything far away. 

But....if I could only have a single lens it would be the 24-105mm. For lowlight you just have to crank the ISO a bit, for that shallow depth of field you just have to punch into 105mm at F4 and you'd be surprised at the bokeh if you are close enough to the subject, and for those times when you need that wide shot you are really thankful for that 24mm end. 

Of course the other problem with the lens is it overlaps nearly every other lens which is just as annoying as every other attribute of the lens, but it truly is the best all around general purpose walk around lens out there. I have filmed landscapes, talking heads, detail shots, tourist attractions, car shows (really great for car shows where you want to film the interior then get a shot of the lineup with a single lens), conferences, etc. all with this single lens. If I truly don't know what I am walking into, I take the 24-105mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

I'm sold! Thanks all - I can use the 24-105 to see how often i use different focal lengths and then get primes that meet those goals with faster speeds.  looks like amazon has the best inventory.

I think that is a perfect strategy, for portraits just punch in to 105mm, for groups open up to 24mm, for talking heads punch in to around 50mm or 85mm, landscapes 24mm, gimbal work 24mm...etc. I shoot literally everything (real estate, promo videos, hype videos, music videos, sports, branding shoots, commercial work, fashion, models, events, drone work, underwater, etc.) and I can tell you after years of shooting photography + video 50/50 below are the only lenses I use (all EF):

  • Photography
    • Landscape - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Real Estate - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Portraits - 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Detail Shots - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Weddings - 24-70mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Travel/Car Shows/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Videography
    • Gimbal Work - 24mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Handheld - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Monopod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Tripod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon) or 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Talking Head - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma) or 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Travel/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)

My lenses are all pretty much middle of the road, nothing exotic about them, but they deliver on every job I get hired to do. For those rare occasions I need more I just rent the lens for the project. Here and there I will need 400mm or 600mm and I just rent those. Oh and in case you are wondering....yes the 24-105mm F4.0 Canon EF lens will balance on the Ronin S gimbal at least for the Panasonic S5 camera body with EF adapter that I use but the 24mm F2.8 prime is the only gimbal lens I use if I have it with me.

The most expensive lens that I regret is the 24-70mm F2.8. I don't shoot many weddings and that is really the only time I find that lens useful. Also the EF mount 24-70mm F2.8 has a different outer diameter so I cannot use any of the ND filters that work for my other lenses so its a PITA all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R5 user here.

For video:

  EF ND adapter + EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 24 1.4 II, EF 50 1.2 (Gimbal, handled)

  EF ND adapter + EF 200-400 F4 (tripod plus electric zoom motor)

  RF 70-200 2.8 (tripod plus electric zoom motor, handheld) + ND

 

For sports

  EF 200-400 4

  RF 70-200 2.8

Remote:

  EF 16-35 2.8 or EF 24-70 2.8

              

For travel/photo/family some combination of the following:

  RF 16 2.8

  RF 35 1.8

  RF 24-105 7.1

  RF 70-200 2.8

 

I just got the RF 16 I will do some test against the EF 16-35 II if it is ok (not expecting that is on pair but I don't need to be) I will sell the 16-35 as I have many options from >= 24.

The RF 70-200 2.8 is best lens I ever had only missing thing is the ND and the ridiculous hood that stays at home most of the time as it is so big. Lens is small, light for a 2.8 and super sharp. With IBIS and IS I can do a lot handheld videos too.

If I would start from zero with your use cases I would take normal adapter + ND adapter + used EF 24-70 2.8 II + used EF 70-200 2.8 II (not the III they are the same and you save money). As an alternative but more expensive. RF 24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8 plus NDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I think that is a perfect strategy, for portraits just punch in to 105mm, for groups open up to 24mm, for talking heads punch in to around 50mm or 85mm, landscapes 24mm, gimbal work 24mm...etc. I shoot literally everything (real estate, promo videos, hype videos, music videos, sports, branding shoots, commercial work, fashion, models, events, drone work, underwater, etc.) and I can tell you after years of shooting photography + video 50/50 below are the only lenses I use (all EF):

  • Photography
    • Landscape - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Real Estate - 16-35mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Portraits - 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Detail Shots - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Weddings - 24-70mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Travel/Car Shows/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
  • Videography
    • Gimbal Work - 24mm F2.8 (Canon)
    • Handheld - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Monopod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Tripod - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon) or 50mm F1.4 (Sigma)
    • Talking Head - 50mm F1.4 (Sigma) or 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)
    • Travel/Everything Else - 24-105mm F4.0 (Canon)

My lenses are all pretty much middle of the road, nothing exotic about them, but they deliver on every job I get hired to do. For those rare occasions I need more I just rent the lens for the project. Here and there I will need 400mm or 600mm and I just rent those. Oh and in case you are wondering....yes the 24-105mm F4.0 Canon EF lens will balance on the Ronin S gimbal at least for the Panasonic S5 camera body with EF adapter that I use but the 24mm F2.8 prime is the only gimbal lens I use if I have it with me.

The most expensive lens that I regret is the 24-70mm F2.8. I don't shoot many weddings and that is really the only time I find that lens useful. Also the EF mount 24-70mm F2.8 has a different outer diameter so I cannot use any of the ND filters that work for my other lenses so its a PITA all around.

Thank you! I will reread this several times to process - great stuff here!

 

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

R5 user here.

For video:

  EF ND adapter + EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 24 1.4 II, EF 50 1.2 (Gimbal, handled)

  EF ND adapter + EF 200-400 F4 (tripod plus electric zoom motor)

  RF 70-200 2.8 (tripod plus electric zoom motor, handheld) + ND

 

For sports

  EF 200-400 4

  RF 70-200 2.8

Remote:

  EF 16-35 2.8 or EF 24-70 2.8

              

For travel/photo/family some combination of the following:

  RF 16 2.8

  RF 35 1.8

  RF 24-105 7.1

  RF 70-200 2.8

 

I just got the RF 16 I will do some test against the EF 16-35 II if it is ok (not expecting that is on pair but I don't need to be) I will sell the 16-35 as I have many options from >= 24.

The RF 70-200 2.8 is best lens I ever had only missing thing is the ND and the ridiculous hood that stays at home most of the time as it is so big. Lens is small, light for a 2.8 and super sharp. With IBIS and IS I can do a lot handheld videos too.

If I would start from zero with your use cases I would take normal adapter + ND adapter + used EF 24-70 2.8 II + used EF 70-200 2.8 II (not the III they are the same and you save money). As an alternative but more expensive. RF 24-70 2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8 plus NDs

I am curious why you're not recommending the 24-105 that most are?  I am curious what the average cost will be for your suggestion? I like the idea just would like to unpack this a bit.

 

I like the idea of used/adapter as it may be cheaper - how's the quality - any major loss?

 

Lastly, why not 3rd party. like Sigma/Tamron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Thank you! I will reread this several times to process - great stuff here!

 

I am curious why you're not recommending the 24-105 that most are?  I am curious what the average cost will be for your suggestion? I like the idea just would like to unpack this a bit.

 

I like the idea of used/adapter as it may be cheaper - how's the quality - any major loss?

 

Lastly, why not 3rd party. like Sigma/Tamron?

I had the EF 24-105 for a long time and I did not like it at all, the EF II is a bit better and the RF version is good but the 2.8  both EF II and RF are sharper. At the end the main point for me is that I do action/sport a lot and 2.8 vs 4 is iso 4000 vs iso 8000. Just shooting 2h ago a CSI Horse Showjumping event indoor and that was the condition.

You don’t loose quality with adapter nor AF speed. RF lenses are new design so in some cases are a bit better is some other much better but cost/performance used EF are a good deal, I would not buy new EF at this point. Should check which on supports mechanical 12 fps some old one do not support and camera go lower fps.

3party is a hit and miss they tend to loose value quicker, so you may save at buy but loose at sell. Some have AF quirks. I’m sure there are good ones…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

I had the EF 24-105 for a long time and I did not like it at all, the EF II is a bit better and the RF version is good but the 2.8  both EF II and RF are sharper. At the end the main point for me is that I do action/sport a lot and 2.8 vs 4 is iso 4000 vs iso 8000. Just shooting 2h ago a CSI Horse Showjumping event indoor and that was the condition.

You don’t loose quality with adapter nor AF speed. RF lenses are new design so in some cases are a bit better is some other much better but cost/performance used EF are a good deal, I would not buy new EF at this point. Should check which on supports mechanical 12 fps some old one do not support and camera go lower fps.

3party is a hit and miss they tend to loose value quicker, so you may save at buy but loose at sell. Some have AF quirks. I’m sure there are good ones…

 

Thanks!  Where do you recommend I look for used glass?  Also, not familiar with the adapters you mentioned - any good places to buy/read up on?

I'm actually thinking of purchasing the R6 body on Amazon and find a place to buy the used lenses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Thanks!  Where do you recommend I look for used glass?  Also, not familiar with the adapters you mentioned - any good places to buy/read up on?

I'm actually thinking of purchasing the R6 body on Amazon and find a place to buy the used lenses

Don't forget that there are tradeoffs with switching lenses as well.

A 24-105 or other zoom lens might not be the "best" in a direct comparison (not the sharpest, not the lightest, not the fastest, not the nicest bokeh, etc etc), but if you're shooting an event and have just taken a portrait and something suddenly happens that requires a wide, the zoom will give you an average quality benign wide shot and a dedicated portrait lens won't give you any usable shot at all, and a photo from an average lens beats no photo from the best lens every single time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, kye said:

Don't forget that there are tradeoffs with switching lenses as well.

A 24-105 or other zoom lens might not be the "best" in a direct comparison (not the sharpest, not the lightest, not the fastest, not the nicest bokeh, etc etc), but if you're shooting an event and have just taken a portrait and something suddenly happens that requires a wide, the zoom will give you an average quality benign wide shot and a dedicated portrait lens won't give you any usable shot at all, and a photo from an average lens beats no photo from the best lens every single time.

Excellent response.  You've made me think and I think my response is that I am never really in a situation that I can't change lenses - shooting mini controlled docs don't necessitate rapid changes in lens distance.  Also for sports it's fairly controlled on Track and Field - i can anticipate distance ahead of an event and use the appropriate lens.

I'm thinking that a 70-200 is 100% necessary for video/photo needs BUT ironically i think the beloved 24-70 is a wasted set of focal lengths?  

Doesn't it make more sense to do this:

  • 70-200 f/2.8 zoom (sigma or canon EF w/Adapter to R6)
  • 16-35 f/2.8 zoom OR 16 and 35 primes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Excellent response.  You've made me think and I think my response is that I am never really in a situation that I can't change lenses - shooting mini controlled docs don't necessitate rapid changes in lens distance.  Also for sports it's fairly controlled on Track and Field - i can anticipate distance ahead of an event and use the appropriate lens.

I'm thinking that a 70-200 is 100% necessary for video/photo needs BUT ironically i think the beloved 24-70 is a wasted set of focal lengths?  

Doesn't it make more sense to do this:

  • 70-200 f/2.8 zoom (sigma or canon EF w/Adapter to R6)
  • 16-35 f/2.8 zoom OR 16 and 35 primes?

 

I really think at the end of the day only you will be able to decide what lens you truly need and if you decide to go used vs new EF vs RF etc. Also, keep in mind that changing a lens on set is more than just about time....personally I hate changing lenses at a venue due to dust and debris as well. Where I live I am frequently shooting at beaches, outdoors where it is windy, etc. I avoid if at all possible changing lenses due to that as well.

If budget is your number one concern then I would get the EF adapter and used EF lenses, but with used lenses the main concern is ensuring there are no scratches in the glass so as soon as you get one hold it up to the sunlight and inspect it from every angle possible before the return window closes.

If budget is not that great of a concern and you want to be future proof then I would go with RF and simply build my collection slowly over time, RF is the mount of the future and while it is more expensive...as they say bodies come and go; lenses are forever.

2 hours ago, kye said:

Don't forget that there are tradeoffs with switching lenses as well.

A 24-105 or other zoom lens might not be the "best" in a direct comparison (not the sharpest, not the lightest, not the fastest, not the nicest bokeh, etc etc), but if you're shooting an event and have just taken a portrait and something suddenly happens that requires a wide, the zoom will give you an average quality benign wide shot and a dedicated portrait lens won't give you any usable shot at all, and a photo from an average lens beats no photo from the best lens every single time.

 

Kye said it perfectly here, people really get pulled into the pixel peeping and lens reviews, and its easy to get pulled in by the hype. But at the end of the day the 24-105mm is a true workhorse that doesn't do anything perfectly but does everything well.  I have never had a customer tell me they need a reshoot because I used a 24-105mm lens vs a 50mm prime.

Just me personally, if I were starting with nothing at all right now I would get the 24-105mm RF lens and build my collection over time...doing just what you said, seeing what focal lengths I use the most. Also, you could always rent other lenses when you think you need something for a specific project before buying your next lens. This way you could test out each lens before you buy it vs. being stuck with an expensive lens you never use (like me and my 24-70mm lens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Excellent response.  You've made me think and I think my response is that I am never really in a situation that I can't change lenses - shooting mini controlled docs don't necessitate rapid changes in lens distance.  Also for sports it's fairly controlled on Track and Field - i can anticipate distance ahead of an event and use the appropriate lens.

I'm thinking that a 70-200 is 100% necessary for video/photo needs BUT ironically i think the beloved 24-70 is a wasted set of focal lengths?  

Doesn't it make more sense to do this:

  • 70-200 f/2.8 zoom (sigma or canon EF w/Adapter to R6)
  • 16-35 f/2.8 zoom OR 16 and 35 primes?

Traditional logic is that you can have gaps in your lens lineup without issues, and in-fact, you should because it gives you greater range from the lenses you do carry.  The traditional question is 24-70 + 70-200, and the answer is 16-35 + 70-200 or 24-70 + 100-400 and you can crop a bit in post if you need to cover that gap.  That was about stills images, and now is true for video too as cropping in-post for video is now completely fine (add a bit of sharpening to match the look).

In terms of primes vs zoom, think about the total experience.  You've answered the speed consideration, but do you need to get shots that are in-between 16 and 35?  A normal prime set would include a 24 in there to cover that space.  Also think about apertures - primes can obviously be faster and that's great, but think about how much aperture you DON'T need.  For example, if you aren't shooting in low light, then maybe 2.8 is fast enough (not a lot of bokeh at the wider focal lengths normally anyway), and that would mean that for the same financial cost and weight cost, you might be able to get 16, 24 and 35 f2.8 primes rather than the 16-35/2.8 or 16/1.4 + 35/1.4 primes.

The key thing is really understanding what you shoot.  I have gaps in my focal lengths and my "everyday" lens collection mixes primes with zooms based on what and how I like to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...