RF below and above the 24-105L?

Here's the short version, no need to go beyond this paragraph unless you like finer detail. On an R6, what 2 lenses would you pick to compliment the 24-105L lens on either side of it? On my last setup (crop) I used 10mm FAR more often than putting on the 70-300 telephoto by a factor of 50 to 1 at least.


I'm brand new to full frame having just gone from a 7D2 to an R6. I do FAR more on the wide side than the telephoto side. I had a 70-300 II in the bag and probably mounted it a dozen times at most so I definitely can't justify the new 100-500 RF offering (at this time). I was planning on using the 70-300 on the R6 with the adapter I bought but low and behold the person who just bought my 7D2 kit would only buy if I sold them that lens as well. Since I was only getting lowball offers and no love for the Sigma 17-70 I was selling with it I thought it best to make the buyer happy and move on!

So back to my question - as a seldom user of telephoto but just like being ready for anything, should I try and grab another 70-300 EF and use the adapter I already own or is there another logical option? I couldn't find any.

On the other end . . . the 10-22 EF-S lens I just put up for sale was on the 7D2 about 49.9% of the time (the other 49.9% was the Sigma and the .2% was the 70-300!). What a wonderful lens that was on the 7D2, I bought it mainly for boat sales pics and at 10mm I had to be careful to keep my feet out of the frame! I know with the 24-105 open all the way I'm only 8mm difference from what I was using on the crop sensor (10mm x 1.6) but I was looking at the Rokinon or Samyang 14mm which is available with the RF mount for this type of job. The reviews I've found so far say it's decent but I'm not seeing a lot of love for the EF version here so I thought I would check.

Thanks.

I am like you in pulling out WA far more often than pulling out long telephoto.

With 24-105mm lens in your possession already, my inclination is to grab a 16-35mm FL range...the bit of overlap in FL with your other lens minimized the 'got to change lenses for this shot' frequency of occurrance.

Very much a WA shooter too, and I did research the Samyang options 9 months or so ago. Most of the Samyang (U)WAs are excellent, including the AF ones, so no problem recommending any of them.
Personally, I went for the 10 mm F/3.5 XP Premium, which from my research was the best 10 mm lens out there from all 9 to 13 mm lernses available for Canon. It was the best and actually still is.

If you have a bit more budget, I'd consider getting the RF 15-35L, but that is rather expensive. I actually ordered this lens myself a few days ago, waiting for feedback from the store currently - they do not have them in stock normally.

Tele-wise is difficult. If you don't use tele a lot, you could possibly combine it with macro, IOW, get a macro lens. The 100L or 100 non-L will do fine, but if you have the budget, I'd personally recommend the 180L Macro. At the moment you can get them for very decent prices used.

Anyway, so far my ramblings.

Kind regards, Wim

Do not forget that 'only 8mm' is grossly under-representing the change of AOV and FOV at the wide end of the FL spectrum!

• 24mm on FF sees 9' x 15' FOV at a shooting distance of 10'...84 degrees diagonal
  
• 16mm on FF sees 15' x 22.4' FOV at a shooting distance of 10'...107 degrees diagonal
  

15-35 and 100-500

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 is pretty good, and you can put filters unlike Samyang.

raytracer wrote in post #19119190
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 is pretty good, and you can put filters unlike Samyang.

This is the lens I am using for UWA on my EOS R -- but I already owned the lens, as I used it with my 5D3. If/when Canon offers an RF version, I will probably upgrade. For now, though, the EF version with an adapter works very well with the R.