Rf 50 1.2 or Rf 70-200 2.8

Portrait and Family photos.

Rf 50 1.2 or Rf 70-200 2.8.. Happy New Years!!

50 1.2 RF is the ugliest and overpriced lens I have ever seen among common fifties.
70 has nothing to do with 50.

Give it another try

Why did you land on these two to be head to head?

Snydremark wrote in post #19324839
Why did you land on these two to be head to head?

Two I like. Happy New Years!

James Crockett wrote in post #19324799
Portrait and Family photos.

Rf 50 1.2 or Rf 70-200 2.8.. Happy New Years!!

By "portraits and family photos", I'm assuming you want a versatile lens to use when you are in the backyard, on vacation, at a party, or just out for a daytrip. Of the 2 choices you provided, the 50mm is easily the better option due to smaller size, all-purpose focal length, and low-light capability. The 70-200 is actually a great lens for outdoor portrait sessions, but I don't think that's what you are really looking for. I owned the 70-200II for many years. Other than my wedding work and youth sporting events (smaller fields), it never got used much. You need lots of space to use the 70-200 lens properly and f/2.8 is still going to put you at high ISO values with indoor artificial lighting.

If I may offer a 3rd option, I'd think about comparing the RF 50L f/1.2 and the the RF 24-70L IS. That essentially comes down to getting a more useful focal range and the added bonus of IS for landscapes, still life, etc. (Remember, IS will do nothing for you when taking pictures of anything that moves), versus a fixed focal length with f/1.2 (which gives you creative flexibility of shallow DOF while allowing you to keep shutter speeds high and ISO low for low-light situatons).