Would like to get some opinions on what lens(es) you might buy for the RP if you were me

Hey everyone, recently sold my 60D and bought myself a Canon RP. I sold all my lenses along with the 60D too and I'm currently re thinking what I want to own.

I mostly shoot landscape, some astrophotography, occasional car shots and a bit of portrait shooting here and there as well. I am not a professional by any means, and am not looking to spend a ton of money on many different lenses. So I'm trying to see if I can settle on just 1 zoom or maybe 1-2 primes to handle all my use cases.

I currently have the RF 50mm 1.8, and while it's a great portrait lens, it's not nearly wide enough for astro, landscape or city walkaround stuff.

The lens I really really want would be the 24-70 2.8L - the EF mkII version. No way can I justify the RF. But the EF is also really stretching the budget.

I was also considering a combo of two lenses out of the RF 16 2.8, RF 24 1.8, RF 35 1.8 and the RF 50 1.8 that I already own.

Would the 16 & 35 make sense? 16 for astro/landscapes and the 35 also for landscape and walkaround/car shots/occasional portraits? Or would I be better off with the 24 and 50 for instead maybe?

If the 24-70 would be ideal, I am willing to stretch the budget and just bite the bullet on that, but I am trying to see if I can get away with two primes perhaps. They have the added benefit of making the camera super compact and lighweight. The 24-70 is a clunker, but it's a sacrifice for the range and aperture.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you!

Considering you shoot landscapes, and that is your main subject, I would not hesitate in acquiring the 16 F/2.8. It may well double up nicely for astrophotography too, as I understand it has little astigmatism, and is fairly fast. An alternative to this would be one of the many excellent Samyang 14 mm EF-lenses, to be used with the RF adapter. You could even go for the AF version in that case. Do check out the reviews, however, I can;t remember off the top of my head which is best. The Samyang won't be as compact as the RF 16, however, not by a long shot.

As to your second lens, I do not consider a 35 mm a portrait lens at all. Possibly for group portraits, but in that case I personally prefer 24 mm. Up to you really what you prefer shooting with. The RF 35 F/1.8 certainly is a good lens, no qualms about it, but it si rather close to the 50..

Since you did mention portrait shooting, did you actually consider the RF 85 F/2.0? It is a very good lens, can also do macro, and great for short tele landscapes as well. Maybe just something to consider too.

My combo of choice for a set of 3 lenses for your subjects of choice, without blowing a lot of many, would be the RF 16, the RF 50 you already own, and the RF 85.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thank you for your thoughts, much appreciated!

I was very close to settling on the 16 f/2.8. It's such a tiny and light lens, plus it's the second most affordable RF prime after the 50mm. Ultimately after some consideration, I think the 16mm might end up being a bit *too* wide. In combination with the 50mm, I won't have a proper walk-around lens. I find 50mm too tight for that. I'm currently leaning towards getting the 24mm and keeping the 50mm. 24 would cover walk-around perfectly as well as cover landscapes and astro (bonus that it's a 1.8 which is nice for astro) and the 50 works nicely for portraits and a few other situations.

I did look at some of the Samyangs, but as you mentioned they are not anywhere as compact as the RFs. If I'm going bulkier, I feel like I might as well just get the 24-70 f2.8 and call it a day.

wimg wrote in post #19504393
Considering you shoot landscapes, and that is your main subject, I would not hesitate in acquiring the 16 F/2.8. It may well double up nicely for astrophotography too, as I understand it has little astigmatism, and is fairly fast. An alternative to this would be one of the many excellent Samyang 14 mm EF-lenses, to be used with the RF adapter. You could even go for the AF version in that case. Do check out the reviews, however, I can;t remember off the top of my head which is best. The Samyang won't be as compact as the RF 16, however, not by a long shot.

As to your second lens, I do not consider a 35 mm a portrait lens at all. Possibly for group portraits, but in that case I personally prefer 24 mm. Up to you really what you prefer shooting with. The RF 35 F/1.8 certainly is a good lens, no qualms about it, but it si rather close to the 50..

Since you did mention portrait shooting, did you actually consider the RF 85 F/2.0? It is a very good lens, can also do macro, and great for short tele landscapes as well. Maybe just something to consider too.

My combo of choice for a set of 3 lenses for your subjects of choice, without blowing a lot of many, would be the RF 16, the RF 50 you already own, and the RF 85.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

The RF 24-240 is a really nice lens for the money

I shoot a lot of landscapes, and the lens combo I have settled on for that with my current EOS R is the RF 24-105L f/4 IS (got it as part of a kit with the R) and RF 16mm f/2,8. I don't shoot a lot of ultra wide angle landscapes, so one of the UWA RF zoom lenses wasn't practical from a cost or size/weight aspect. The 16mm takes up very little space in the bag, and is small enough to fit in a pocket when I'm walking around with the 24-105L.

I also have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8 for indoor family events, and the RF 100-400 and RF 800mm f/11 for wildlife. I have sold most of my EF lenses -- all I have left is the EF 100-400L II and a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro. I am planning on selling the EF 100-400L, EF 1.4x TC III, and EOS R to help fund an upgrade to the EOS R6 Mark II. I love that EF 100-400L, but I am trying to make my kit lighter as I get older.

Lok3sh wrote in post #19503762
...
I mostly shoot landscape, some astrophotography, occasional car shots and a bit of portrait shooting here and there as well. I am not a professional by any means, and am not looking to spend a ton of money on many different lenses. So I'm trying to see if I can settle on just 1 zoom or maybe 1-2 primes to handle all my use cases.
...

Based on these criteria (no wildlife, varied subject matter, minimal number of lenses, budget), I recommend the following to complement your RF50mm and RP:

RF 16mm f/2.8 (I don't own it so I'm going by the specs) - for astro, landscapes, creative automotive
RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM - for everything else you listed (it is lightweight and inexpensive)


The latter is currently on sale: https://www.usa.canon.​com …-rf24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm

I have a little pile of EF lenses from before, so I've actually not bought any RF lens yet. I use my EF with adapters.
If I should by an RF lens, it would be something doing something my EF lenses can't. But all RF lenses fulfilling that claim are pretty expensive.

apersson850 wrote in post #19505592
I have a little pile of EF lenses from before, so I've actually not bought any RF lens yet. I use my EF with adapters.
If I should by an RF lens, it would be something doing something my EF lenses can't. But all RF lenses fulfilling that claim are pretty expensive.

I have gone in the other direction, as I have re-evaluated my lenses and how I use them as part of this transition to mirrorless. So, I have sold some of my EF lenses and gone to lighter, less expensive RF versions:

EF 50mm f/1.2 L -> RF 50mm f/1.8 (never really needed f/1.2)
EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L -> RF 16mm f/2.8 (don't shoot a lot of UWA landscape)
EF 100-400mmL II -> RF 100-400 (The L will be for sale soon, as the RF, while a little slower, is much smaller and lighter)

As I still have my earlier cameras, I do of course keep the EF lenses for them.
The mirrorless ones aren't best for all applications.

Scott M wrote in post #19505249
I shoot a lot of landscapes, and the lens combo I have settled on for that with my current EOS R is the RF 24-105L f/4 IS (got it as part of a kit with the R) and RF 16mm f/2,8. I don't shoot a lot of ultra wide angle landscapes, so one of the UWA RF zoom lenses wasn't practical from a cost or size/weight aspect. The 16mm takes up very little space in the bag, and is small enough to fit in a pocket when I'm walking around with the 24-105L.

I also have the RF 35mm f/1.8 and RF 50mm f/1.8 for indoor family events, and the RF 100-400 and RF 800mm f/11 for wildlife. I have sold most of my EF lenses -- all I have left is the EF 100-400L II and a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro. I am planning on selling the EF 100-400L, EF 1.4x TC III, and EOS R to help fund an upgrade to the EOS R6 Mark II. I love that EF 100-400L, but I am trying to make my kit lighter as I get older.

Like you, I am trying to keep my kit light. I don't want to own more than two lenses. I'm starting to narrow it down to either a combo of the 24 + 50 or the 24-70 f2.8L. While 16 might be nice, I think I can get away with 24 pretty easily. The 24-105 is a great and versatile range but the f/4 isn't going to work for me.

View_Finder wrote in post #19505259
Based on these criteria (no wildlife, varied subject matter, minimal number of lenses, budget), I recommend the following to complement your RF50mm and RP:

RF 16mm f/2.8 (I don't own it so I'm going by the specs) - for astro, landscapes, creative automotive
RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 IS STM - for everything else you listed (it is lightweight and inexpensive)

The latter is currently on sale: https://www.usa.canon.​com …-rf24-105mm-f4-7-1-is-stm

Thank you for the recommendations!

Lok3sh wrote in post #19503762
.
The lens I really really want would be the 24-70 2.8L - the EF mkII version. No way can I justify the RF. But the EF is also really stretching the budget.

Would love to hear your thoughts.
.

.
Hopefully you are considering used lenses. . Not used lenses for sale by companies like KEH or B&H that overprice them, but used lenses from individuals who sell on classified ads here on this forum, on the Fred Miranda forum, and on Craigslist. . That is by far the best way to get a good price on the lens you want. . And no there aren't lots of problems with such transactions, as many inexperienced or under-experienced buyers will lead you to believe.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19505902
.
Hopefully you are considering used lenses. . Not used lenses for sale by companies like KEH or B&H that overprice them, but used lenses from individuals who sell on classified ads here on this forum, on the Fred Miranda forum, and on Craigslist. . That is by far the best way to get a good price on the lens you want. . And no there aren't lots of problems with such transactions, as many inexperienced or under-experienced buyers will lead you to believe.


.

I don't think I've ever bought a new lens or camera body in my life haha. It's always been here, eBay, Craigslist or FB Marketplace etc.

Lok3sh wrote in post #19504530
Thank you for your thoughts, much appreciated!

I was very close to settling on the 16 f/2.8. It's such a tiny and light lens, plus it's the second most affordable RF prime after the 50mm. Ultimately after some consideration, I think the 16mm might end up being a bit *too* wide. In combination with the 50mm, I won't have a proper walk-around lens. I find 50mm too tight for that. I'm currently leaning towards getting the 24mm and keeping the 50mm. 24 would cover walk-around perfectly as well as cover landscapes and astro (bonus that it's a 1.8 which is nice for astro) and the 50 works nicely for portraits and a few other situations.

I did look at some of the Samyangs, but as you mentioned they are not anywhere as compact as the RFs. If I'm going bulkier, I feel like I might as well just get the 24-70 f2.8 and call it a day.

Well, I am a landscape shooter who always tends to get as close as possible to the way I want to frame things, rather than crop (yes, a habit learned while shooting film back in the days), and my last purchased and most used WA lens currently is a Samyang 10 mm F/3.5 .
It is big, and relatively expensive, but it is better than anything else around for that FL. It is also the only third party lens I own, other than that it is all Canon for my Canon camera.

For me, things can't be wide enough when it comes to wide, and that was caused inittially by needing a lens that would allow to shoot entirel outcrops of walls in narrow ravines, or voerviews of enormous pits, all to be able to see geological structures. Started with 20 mm back in the days, as 15 mm lenses were totally out of my budget back then, but over the years I 'progressed' to 17 mm, then 16, 15, 14, and eventually 10 mm IOW. I just love that lens, as big as it is .... You just set it to F/8, and IQ is outstanding, and no worries about DoF either, obviously.

I still own an EF 24L II, but I find I rarely use it these days.

Kind regards, Wim

I will express a dissenting opinion on the purchase of an ultrawide WA to use for landscape photos, as a general use lens for that purpose.
Ultra-ultra wide angle has a use, but probably NOT what you think!

Here is a shot with 55mm FL on APS-C format camera, just taken from my backyard, looking across to a hillside less than 1 mile from camera position. Behind that hillside is a second hillside, about another 1 mile back.