For filmmaking (meaning, narratives) with a non-crop R camera, you need these: 1. 24-70 f/2.8 IS (main lens) 2. 70-200 f/2.8 IS 3. A fast 35 or 50 prime for low light and "normal" shots 4. An ultra-wide at around 17mm. That's all. This covers anything you'd ever need for your short films or features.
LOL! That biker! I absolutely love the 24-105. The more I use it, the more I love it, and the more indispensable it becomes. The quality and range almost makes other ranges obsolete if you know how to use them and aren't in need of specific specs. I can carry my 35mm, and the 24-105 in my smaller camera bag for trips and whatnot. Great recommendation of lenses brother; and thank you for all of your help throughout the year.
Hey Tony, great video. I picked up an EOS R very recently and for the first time ever I picked it up with the 24-105 and I am absolutely blown away by it. It is SO SHARP, and focuses so well, i'm having so much fun with it. Also, the IS is unbelievable, even today I got a 105mm shot at 0,4'' and it was SHARP. I have always carried arround my 16-35 as my main for everything but I'm in love with the 24-105 at the moment. Can't wait to pick some other RF lenses in the future, i'm personally waiting for a 70-200 f4
@@TonyMellinger I was thinking of getting the 85mm 1.4 for my Canon R, any reasons as to why I shouldn't? I can't quite afford the RF 85 1.2 and do not think the 85mm F2 is a good compromise.
Really need help with this My Ef 24-70 lens is broken. The repair is around 600€ I mostly use the canon R5 with the adapter and this lens and sometimes my RF 35mm I've been researching and I'd like to know what you think is the best option: Buy canon RF 85mm F2 and the new RF 16mm (since I already have the RF 35mm) or Just buy the RF 24-105 f4 lens (everybody seems to love this lens) The difference between the two options is just 100€ I can't decide between this 2 options. What would you do? Also which lenses do you think have the best quality and durability? Thank you ❤️
The 24-105 L f4 kit lens is surprisingly stunning. I hate to say it but it is the lens I tend to use all the time. I dont use the 35mm because I have the 15-35 2.8 R, simply amazing. Then for telephoto, I use the EF L 100-400. With the R adapter, sometimes with the 1.4x TC.
I'm getting an R6 Mk II in a couple of weeks along with the kit RF 24-105 f4. I've also snagged a good price on pristine 2nd hand RF 24 f1.8 & RF85 f2, along with the tiny 16 f2.8 & 50 f1.8. To complement this I'm looking at getting the EF 100-400 mark II (great lens at bargain 2nd hand prices), and just for the fun of it the RF 800 f11 & a 2x extender to get silly shoots at 1600 f22 😜
As an amateur shooting for approximately 6 months, I initially jumped in with both feet into the RF system. Learning how to shoot on the Eos R and RF 50 1.2 was really great.. IQ and bokeh is truly spectacular. My second lens arrived last week the RF 28-70 F2 - looking forward to testing that out in the coming days. No regrets with choosing Canon and RF glass.
When I can justify the purchase of an R5, the 28-70 f2 will be the first lens I get. Now I don't have a 24-70 f2.8, so the 28-70 is a natural purchase for me, but it is also something you can't get for any other brand of camera and it has a very useful zoom range.
Just got my R6 Mk II a couple of weeks ago, and part of the purchase was an EF >RF adapter so that I could use my beloved 24-105 with the mirrorless. It's as good a pairing of camera and lens as I've ever seen.
I bought an R as a retirement gift, c/w the 24-10 f4 kit lens, which seemed a no-brainer. My first FF digital camera. It’s a really nice camera to use and the lens is extremely versatile. It’s the one I use most of the time. Add an extension tube, and it’s a reasonable ‘macro’ performer. I later bought the 70-200 f2.8 and later again the 15-35 f2.8, both of which produce some stunning results, even in my hands. The 70-200 has very close native focus, but add an extension tube and the ‘macro’ results are really good. I’m now waiting for the “unique” macro lens that Canon promised when the R was launched, for true macro. It’s a little disappointing that the 2 x teleconverter does not work with the 70-200, but perhaps there will be another solution eventually. The only other lens that I would like would be a native RF wide-angle zero distortion lens from Laowa, rather than their current 12mm offering, which has been adapted from an older lens.
I love the f4 L lenses personally. Not a pro photographer and do not shoot in super low light so its never been an issue. That being said my kit is fairly extensive... the 14 to 35 f4 L, the 25 to 105 f4L and the 70 to 200 f4L make up my core kit. I also have a range of the standard prime lenses because they are also amazing and would do well in low light if I needed it. I have the RF 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, and the EF Sigma Art lenses on an adapter in the same sizes. I use these for mostly portrait photography and urban photography. All shooting on an EOS R8. I think my next lense needs to be the 24 to 70 f2.8 L. That thing is a beast that could replace a whole bunch of lenses in my kit.
Depends what you're doing with it. 35 prime or 50 is a good knock around. A 24-70 is a good alaround 70-200 for portraits. 800 f11and 600 f11, 100-400 for sports and wildlife
You echo my feelings exactly. I’m not a pro, just a long time serious amateur (60 years since starting with a used M3 and a 50mm Summicron). My last was the D5 Mk IV so I already have the L series 16-35mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8. I’ve got to believe Canon is pushing prices beyond where most amateurs want to be. When they lose enough of that market prices will be forced down. I like your video. Good pace and details I need. Keep them coming!
I am actually going with this lineup but adding the 85 f2 as well. The 35 mm should work well and being able to make it a 50mm with the 1.6 crop is a win-win.
Right! I haven’t used the crop mode really yet, something I’d like to play around with more! I’m looking forward to the 85 f2 as well, the 85 f1.4L IS is one of my favorites!
Can I ask what you mean with the 1.6 crop (I thought that was something that belonged to the old crop sensor camera days when I had my 60d)? Thanks a lot!
Susanne Geert yes that’s the crop. The efs lenses are made for a crop sensor so if you stick it on a full frame camera the outer 1/3 of the frame would just be a black circle. The RF-EF adaptor accepts efs lenses and automatically adds the crop so you get the best image you can. I’m so glad they added the ability to use efs lenses though. Something you couldn’t ever do with full frame dslrs
EF lenses are still viable. Example, the EF/RF versions of the 70-200 2.8L are almost identical in optical tests and the EF version will never be a dust sucker as all functions are internal. I may buy a RF 35 but if I had the money, I'd buy the EF 35 1.4L II in a heartbeat.
2022. The RF24105L costs 50% more than in 2020. You have a two-month wait to get one, and it's almost impossible to get second-hand. With the release of the R6 and its noise management, this lens has become the lens of choice for more and more social and wedding photographers. It is the only RF lens that has increased in price, month over month since 2020. It is in high demand.
Pretty crazy huh… mine has been used hard and put away wet. I wonder if I could get the front element buffed or replaced, I should send it in instead of trying to replace it ha!
@@TonyMellinger I just have bought my own 24-104 L to pair it with my new brand R6 (bought with real kit 24-105 f4-7.1). Here, in Poland - this is only one lens of L-line excluded from cashback... magic....
Yea I’ve heard great things about the 15-35, I just haven’t been able to get on board. I don’t do a ton of super wide shots so the 24 helps me with the wide, I can imagine it’s great for ultra wide.
My impression of the Canon ND Filter Adapter is that it's probably made for videographers. I got one for myself and often struggled with it because the dial spins too smoothly without a dial lock to keep the stops I like to work with. So I ended up spinning the dial without knowing and that threw me off quite a bit. I was asking myself why Canon wouldn't put a dial lock then realized that having the dial spin smoothly without a clicking sound is better for the video. So I ended up buying separate ND filters for each RF lens I have. I'm still keeping it in case I need it again.
When I got the R5 I got the RF 50mm f/1.8 as a freebie from the place I bought the R5. The next purchase was the RF 24-105 f/4L. And I still have the EF70-300mm L. I traded in the EF24-70mmf/2.8L first series which was a beautiful lens but was big and heavy and I often left it at home. I was considering the EF24-70mmf/4 which is a cute lens but held off. Canon don’t make a RF24-70mmf/4L so I got the 105mm.
@@TonyMellinger I haven’t gotten it yet, but I’m still planning to buy one. I’ve watched your video on the 50mm and that’s also a lens I’m considering buying, thanks again for the help!
I got eos-R with 24-105 f4 as well and love it. What do you think about 15-35 and could that replace 35mm prime in your set? I have original 16-25 f2.8 and like the focal range, but mot sure yet about the upgrade, because the photo is just pricey hobby for me :)
A nice 2-lens setup at a lower cost keeps the 35mm lens and uses the 100/2.8L IS II macro for the telephoto range. You get f/2.8, IS, and a super clean image with virtually no distortion. It’s great for portraits and you get the added advantage of macro for those ring shots. It’s also black, so it’s stealthier than the 70-200. (I’ve shot with the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS on the street, and it felt like a big, heavy neon sign. The smaller size of the RF is a big deal.) Alternatively, for video or landscapes, use the 16-35/2.8, rather than the 35 prime. For video, it solves the tight space problem. Could get the group shot at a wedding. But it doesn’t solve the low light problem. Anyway, the three recommendations are good and can be adjusted for need and budget.
The 100mm macro f2.8L is probably my most favorite lens ever. It’s so hard to beat. I never could find a place for the 16-35 in my kit. I just never really liked the look of it. I haven’t spent much time with the new 15-35 but I never really have felt the need to get wider than 24mm either.
Tony Mellinger - So true. The 100/f2.8L IS macro is great and isn’t limited to macro. On the 16-35/2.8L II, I agree that it’s not as magical as it could be. That said, I also own the 35/1.4L, and I will often just stick with the zoom, rather than change lenses. I might feel differently about the RF 35/2 IS though, given that it’s small, light, and has IS. The EF 35/1.4L isn’t nearly as compact. Aside from landscapes and wide establishing shots, an ultra-wide zoom is a real video problem solver. Personally, I prefer primes, but if you have a shot in an elevator, car, or other restricted space, it’s a lifesaver. Maybe an ultra-wide prime would work in an 8K world. Just over-frame the shot and crop in post. But with my 1080p cam, the 16-35 means I can always get that tight-space shot.
I am not a pro tog,. But an enthusiast. I started with the 24-105 F4L. And yes, this is my favourite. My next lens was the 35mm Macro... So i'm with you up until this point. But given the focal range of my 1st lens, I am bypassing the 70-200mm and opting for the 100-500mm L (I'll be getting shot of my beloved 70-200 F2.8L EF). I will be buying me one this coming weekend. Yes it's slightly more expensive, but given the ability of the Canon R mount mirrorless system to easily accommodate higher ISO values, I get more reach for my buck (500mm Vs 200mm) on my full frame. And that can only be good. We agree on one thing though... The R mount glass is fantastic. There is so much potential with it. Rumoured that the glass is designed to resolve with a future 90Mp sensor... We already benefit from the quality.
Yea! They 100-500 is very interesting! I’m actually really bummed the 70-200 doesnt work with the extenders. I’m sure that 100-500 will be incredible and not much bigger than the size of the EF 70-200
I now have 4 lenses on my RP; - 24-105 f4 - 70-200 f4 - 35 f1.8 - 85 f2 This suits my needs perfectly. Vacation/sightseeing; 24-105. Nice walk in nature/outside photo's of my toddler son; 70-200. Low light or #GIVEMEBOKEH? Get out the primes. If i need to discard 1, to keep in line with the video... I'd toss the 85.
@@mat1ashaukka yeah that’s one of my main setups tbh. You can have so many other lenses, but goodness, that RF24-105 f4 is amazingly versatile. I am a huge fan of the M50, i think it’s the closest thing to a crop sensor R series camera there is. Enjoy!
Good job, Tony, although I’m a fan of the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L. Love the 24-105L as you do and 35 1.8 macro. RF is the way to go. I’m keeping my EOS R and RP for now. Love them both and would like to get to know them better before jumping to the R6
That’s a great idea. I for some reason just have never spend much time at 50mm, but 85mm f1.4L is one of my favorites! That’s a good call to keep using your gear to the max!
My first 3 lenses: 1) 24-105mm f4-7.1 STM for general photography 2) 50mm f1.8 STM for portraits and bokehs. 3) Samyang 135mm f2 for astro. total cost is less than USD 800.
Can't believe I have only found your channel today. BUT, I think your channel is great - subbed. I got the EOS R in early 2020 and have been playing with it all year (and am still learning). I too love the F4 24-105 lens but am looking to get some more this year.
Nice video! Thanks :) I'm definitely going to be getting the 35 for my R5. Also, here's some production feedback you didn't ask for: Set the composition up and then fold the screen away. Or don't look at it/other stuff in the background. It's kind of like talking to someone while looking at one of their ears: They're eventually going to get annoyed/ask what you're looking at :)
Glad to hear your endorsement of the 24-105, I preordered the R5 kit and was wavering between spending the extra $1500 on the 24-70 or not for the 2.8 (I might get one later along with the 70-200)
I love flash photography. The 24-105 is especially great when paired with flash. The one I take when traveling. Swiss Army Knife. The quality is not the same as the great primes but who has time to switch lenses.
Just bought the EOS R with 24-105mm F/4 L kit from the recent refurb sale. Very excited as I have been waiting to pull the trigger for over half a year :-). I am upgrading from a T3i kit that came with the 18-55 and 55-250mm lenses. I loved the T3i and basically learned photography on it with great results! Those two lenses pretty much covered 90% plus of what I like to shoot. But now I am trying to figure out the most affordable way to get that 300-400 mm reach on my EOS R. I am leaning toward the EF adapter with a EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is Ii Usm lens as it seems very affordable with good results. But, if there was a 400mm lens that was also affordable, I might go for that. Anyone have any suggestions? I keep thinking they will come out with a RF 70-300, but no word yet.
My first 2 RF lenses are the 28-70 f2 , and the 85 1.2 DS :) got both on really good sales in anticipation of the R5 months ago :) I am planning to sell a few EF lenses before making any more purchases, I may try to keep using EF until the 14-28 f2, and I am curious to see how people rate the 70-135 f2 compared to the 70-200 and decide down the road :)
Tony Mellinger I highly recommend it! I tested it on an R at night in the city and was actually amazed how well it performed! It consistently nailed the focus, even on a moving Tram, at 1.2, and it’s incredibly sharp even wide open! It definitely outperformed what I could achieve with the 85 1.2 EF on a 5D4 :) really love how the bokeh looks up close at 100% as well... the IBIS should help push it that little bit further in situations where the subject isn’t moving :)
@@Manihsi the 28-70 actually gets the full 8 stops with the R5 IBIS (rated to the same level as the 2.8 :))) you come accustomed to the weight quickly, and the boksh / separation is enough to take the lens from a reliable all situation lens, to a really enjoyable lens! I haven’t hit a situation yet where the 28 has been not wide enough yet, although I have used my 11-24 with the EF adapter and been happy with the results!
I dont do portraits, etc and I am not a pro. I have eos r and the rf 24-105 and the ef 100-400ii I use with control ring adapter- it is quite long, but I have been able to use it without a tripod. I am debating myself on rf 70-200 f4, but I guess I should buy the rf 35 macro for less light scenarios.
Rafael Ludwig it’s a good one too! I just love being able to punch into 105 and using the f4 aperture creatively. No one can say there’s a shortage of good lenses these days!!
I have: 28mm 2.8 50mm 1.4 70-200mm 2.8 II 10-18mm 4.5-5.6\ (and a couple of other starter kit lenses not worth mentioning). I'm looking for my next lens. I take Portraits, Macro, and pictures of my family mostly. With this lineup, which one would you choose next?
Just picked up my Refurbished 24-105L from Canon Direct for $728.00 + shipping. So far I'm loving it and hoping that the IQ is as good or better than the Sigma 24-105 Art that I have been using. I used to have the EF 70-200 f/4.0 IS but for the type of traveling we do found the EF 70-300L f/4-5.6 to be more useful.
I traded a bunch of gear today for an R6 and some lenses. I got the 24-105, 70-200 f4, and two Zeiss primes, 25 f1.4 and the 50 f2m. My next lens will be the 600 f11.
Thank you for this video. I didn't know that filter step up ring existed! I was about to sell my filters. I'm still hesitating if I get the 24mm or the 35mm. I do a lot of landscaping and a bit of astro, I guess the 24mm would be more versatile, wouldn't it?
If you do quite a bit of Astro/landscape, you’d probably be more happy with the 24. If you want a little more versatile and want good photos of people with less distortion, I’d go for the 35 which is still very capable.
Really clear and helpful suggestions! I'm interested in moving over to RF cameras but it is good to know my 70-200 EF lens will work just fine with an adapter.
It actually will work better. The focus system(at least in the R5 and R6) feels much snappier, it wont drive the af motor faster, but it feels like it lock focus quicker(maybe less overshoot?) i tried my 85 1.2 and 100 macro on an R5 with adapter in a store.
I just bought the canon eos R and 24-105 f4-7.1 usm and 50mm 1.8 RF, I am pretty happy with these two and probably buy RF 70-200 2.8 in future if not then RF 85mm f2. that is all I need.
There adapter is not that big and several RF lenses are big and bulky. Put the 28-70 f/2 on and you will see what i mean. It would be a mistake to buy a 70-200 if you never use that focal range, so i think it is a mistake to recommend that as a starting lens. The 35 is a great deal and so is the refurb 24-105 f/4 on sale. I would go really slow on that 70-200 unless i knew for a fact i would be using it a lot. For example, some folks may find they enjoy wildlife, so the 1-500 RF would be way better and it costs the same. If someone sprung for that sweet looking 70-200 f/2.8 RF, they may be cash depleted for what they really want, that 1-500 RF. That person would be hurt by your blanket recommendation. The fact is, it really depends and it depends more as the price goes up!
Sure. I agree with you. And the 100-500 is a really attractive lens. I think once you get a few lenses you start to dial in your style of shooting and start to get a feel of what you’re looking for. That said, I’ve never heard anyone complain about the 70-200. I can’t wait to try out the 100-500 sometime!
I ended up with an R5, 15-35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.2, and 70-200 2.8. This gives me wide zoom, telephoto zoom, and a 50mm prime which I cannot live without. However, I am sort of wondering if I should've went with the 28-70 as everyone says it's comparable or straight up better than the 50 1.2, and can zoom. There was a sale at a local store but it's gone now sadly. Still love the 50 though, probably the best 50 I've ever used(and that counts a few Leica ones I've worked with.)
So my first 3 RF lenses(while I wait for my backordered EF/RF adapter) is the 24-240, 35mm 1.8 and Samyang 14mm 2.8 manual focus. Im trying to make photography a second career being unemployed for 6 months. I purchased an RP simply to launch me into RF lenses. I'll invest in a better body soon.
The RP is an incredible budge camera with tons of potential. Totally capable of pro results! Good luck in making some extra cash to help with the unemployment!!
Awesome!!! Thanks so much for watching. I had the eos r and now have the R5 and R6 now 🤣 they’re so good! Thanks for the sub!! I’ll check out your channel!
I'm seriously looking for a new lens for my EOS R but my budget is nowhere near what I really want. I was leaning towards the 35mm you have on this video but I just saw the RF85mm F2 Macro IS STM on Canon's site. What's your thoughts on this lens? As good or better than the 35mm? I'm wanting something for portraits and macro. I have a 24-240 f4 and really like it but I feel like I could do better as far as lenses go. Any advice would be nice :-)
Yea, they just released the new RF 85 with IS. I haven’t used it yet because it comes out in the next few months but I imagine it’s a great lens for the price. 85mm is pretty much my favorite focal length for portraits so if that’s what you’ll use it for, absolutely get the 85 over the 35 glad you’re enjoying the 24-240. Figure out where you spend most of your time and think about getting a lens at that focal length!
I have also those same three RF-lenses. The 24-105/4 zoom lens is my favourite, specially for travelling. I spent during 2019 all together four weeks in Russia shooting most of my pics with EOS R and 24-105. But my best shots I took with my old but reliable EF 16-35/2.8 II.The weight of my camera bag was only 4,3 kg. The RF 70-200/2.8 is my favourite for sports and portrait photography. That lens is so good by size, guality and sharpness. I hope Canon would produce smaller size lenses. Kind of B-versions. I hate, as an amatour photographer, those bulky RF f/2.0 lenses. For example I love my EF 50/1.2 lens. I never will buy the RF version of that. Should I replase my EF 100/2.8 macro and EF 16-35/2.8 with a RF versions right now? An expensive question.
Great video, thanks for sharing! Sold me on the 24-105 when I pick up my R6 next month.... don’t worry, the 70-200 is also on my list too. Thanks again!
I cant make up my mind with the 28-70 F2 or the 24- 70 F2.8 IS I know 1 with the R has IS but if I get the R5 then IS don't matter as much and then 100 -500 lol
I agree with the 24-105. I have every RF lens from the 15-35 to new 800 (and all in between) and the 24-105 is my everyday go to Lens. Its on my camera more than any other. But I disagree on the 35. its noisy, its NOT a Macro, it is a 1:2, its macro in name only, 1:1 is true macro, so so just ok lens. I do own it, but it is shelf ware, hardly touched. I would say, outside of the kit 24-105. I would suggest a 15-35 as the next one. Its amazing how many times you will find yourself grabbing the 15-35. I would suggest the 100-500 as the 3rd one. the 70-200 is a portrait and medium zoom lens that is a very specific type of lens, when they come out with a 70-200/4 maybe, but for now the 100-500 gives you more than double the zoom range for the same cost, and since your "first three" lenses you aren't going to be professional at this point, the 3 I suggested will give you from 15-500 in zoom range, those 3 and you can do anything.
@@TonyMellinger yes the RF Extenders fit the 100-500, 600, and 800 (won't fit the 70-200, the rear element as you know butts right up against the connector, and the extender protrudes. It also doesn't fit the EF/RF adapters, it doesn't fit through the opening on the gap of the adapters. Caveat also on the 100-500 though, it requires you to be at 300 before it fits. So if you attach a teleconverter to the 100-500, it won't let you retract closer than 600mm equivalent. My guess is just the retracted rear element. Always something with canon...lol
@@rjgmedia6298 yea, I was pretty bummed when I heard it didn't work with the 70-200mm. I was wondering how it was going to work anyways on my 70-200. Interesting thoughts on the 100-500 though. I hadn't heard that yet. Still... most of the time when I want the extension, I hang out at the farther zoom lengths. I may have to try it out sometime to see how it works!
@@TonyMellinger ya you will find when you get them, that when you attach the 2x, the protrusion will bump-stop against the back of the element that will prevent you from widening beyond 300mm.
I would marry my 28-70 f2 if they would let me. It’s so bright, so fast. Beautiful images, drops out backgrounds like a prime. Worth the money and the wait.
Awesome video i'm about to move over to the R system as well. Question: Does using the ring adapter increase the effective focal ranges of the EF lenses? So if i'm using the EF 16-35mm f4 lens and use the adapter on an R camera body will that 16-35mm now be different?
It doesn’t really change the focal length at all. The lens mount on the EF bodies is farther away from the sensor so with the adaptor on an RF body, it’s essentially the same place. But That’s also why the RF lenses can’t go on the EF bodies the mount would be in a much different location on the EF camera. On the R series, all of the EF lenses are essentially the same focal length.
It all depends on what you want to use it for as far as low light. For a wedding, I dont think it’s good enough. if you’re talking about Astro, some people dont like shooting under F4 so it would be fine. If i were going to get a dedicated lens for low light it probably wouldn’t be a zoom lens, but a fast aperture prime.
I have the kit lense as well and thinking of grabbing the affordable prime lenses next but I can't decide? What would you recommend? 35 f1.8 & 85mm f2 35 f1.8 & 50mm 1.8 50mm 1.8 & 85mm f2 (would it be too similar?) Or all three or one of these and save for the 70-200
Hello and thank you for this video. in your opinion, on a Canon RP, I would have the best image rendering with the RF 35 mm f1.8 or with the EF 35 mm f2 IS USM (taking the same aperture: f2. f4, f5.6, f8. ..) ??? Thank you in advance for your answers. (I only do Photo: Street photo, Portraits, landscapes. Regards, Philgood ...
I think you’ll get pleasing image out of both. The RF is probably sharper. Ditching the adapter is a big deal too. On the RP with the 35mm is a great feeling small setup.
I'm looking to buy the eos r as my first camera ever. I see you recommend the USM vs the STM. Is there a reason? I'm just trying to figure which lens is best for me.
The EOS R is a great camera. The big difference between STM and USM are STM focusing is more smooth and USM is more snappy. So... STM is better autofocus for video, and USM is better for photo. Although most of that has changed lately with the new lenses. Both systems are really good and very controllable. Typically the STM lenses are cheaper.
Wow I already got the 2, 24-105 and 35 rf..really leaning on getting the 85 1.4 RF Samyang (hope you can grab one and review it would be very helpful) then get the 70-200 after I made enough savings..Thanks for the tips a always..Keep em coming 😄👍
Nice video! And thankfully, you're talking in a relaxed fashion! Subscribed... By any chance, Do you know any stabilized RF ~12mm prime lens for low light?
Hey there. Thanks for the sub! No 12mm yet from canon, I’m excited for their 14-35 though, that’s probably the closest you’ll get. I”m not sure about third party lenses
I’m looking at an R, or R6. Current budget would allow for R6 with 24-105 f4-7.1, or R with 24-105 f4. Should I go for the better body, or better lens. Can’t get both at the moment. I do mainly video, but dabble with photography
I’ve had both the R and the R6 and personally I think the R6 is the better investment and will last you much longer. I would buy the r6 and save up for your lenses then.
I sold my RF 24-105, lacks nice enough bokeh, slow AF, not a fan of the zoom range and sharpness isn't what I expected from an L series lens, picked up the RF 15-35, 28-70 and 70-200.
wow, that's interesting, I haven't had any trouble wish sharpness. Interesting how we all need different lenses. I found the 15-35 underwhelming. and obviously a huge fan of the 70-200. ha!
@@frostybe3r Sometimes you need to micro adjust the lens. My EF 25-105 needed like +15 to be as sharp as it could. The EF 24-105 II was better but not perfect either.
@@frostybe3r Oh. I had no idea. I'm coming from 5D mkII/III/IV. Only now (whenever the R5 releases) dipping my toes into mirrorless. Thanks for the info :)
I was thinking of getting the 85mm 1.4 for my Canon R, any reasons as to why I shouldn't? I can't quite afford the RF 85 1.2 and do not think the 85mm F2 is a good compromise.
Love the 85mm f1.4. The only disadvantage is the adaptor. There’s nothing wrong with the ef lenses on the camera and in my perspective they work better than they do on EF mount cameras... but the RF lenses are next level. Hard to explain until you start using them for yourself.
Great video, this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for as an R owner. The 24-105 is so good that I'm struggling to motivate myself to get any of the other great lenses. Both the 35 and 70-200 are top of my list. Hey I love your b-roll footage especially the low light stuff
If you feel you aren't limited with the 24-105, keep plugging along! It's a great lens. the 35 is kind of a no brainer at that price too. Thanks for the watch and comment!!
Just ordered the R6(Canon refurb!) but the 24-105/4 is out of stock pretty much everywhere. I might go ahead and pick up that 35/1.8 so I can get some shooting in while I wait for the zoom to came back in stock. That said, I've also considered going for the 24-70/2.8 since that seems in good supply right now. I'd lose reach but gain a stop. Thoughts?
Congrats! You’ll love the R6. the 24-70 is quite a bit more expensive too, i think. It all depends on what you need the lens for, I love the 24-105, I ordered one for one of my second shooters and it was like 2 or 3 month wait which is crazy. As far as the 24-70, I’d personally hold out for the 24-105 because I’ve always felt limited with just the 24-70 with the focal range, but that’s totally personal preference. If you’ve already have the 35mm f1.8, it may feel a little limiting to just have the reach of 70, just a thought though.
@@TonyMellinger Sadly, I don't have ANY lenses yet, so I'm a bit torn. I rented the R6/24-105 combo before a week-long vacation, and loved it. That said, looking at the shots, every 105mm shot could have easily been achieved by taken a half-step forward. Still, the 24-70 is quite a bit more expensive.
Hi, I use a Canon 7Dii with sigma art 18-35mm f/1.8 lens which I love the most. I would like to upgrade my camera body to R6 and sell 7DII. But I would like to keep my Sigma Art lens. I would like to know your feedback about using this lens with EOS R adapter for both photography and videography. Thanks
I am not too familiar with Sigma glass, i typically just use Canon. BUT... all of my EF lenses have worked better on the R series cameras than they did even on my DSLRs. As far as the 18-35, that is an EF-S lens so there’s a few differences. EF-S lenses still work on the R6, but the MP count is smaller for photo. For video, it’s a great lens, it just has the APSC crop at 1.6. On the EOS R the 60fps for video didn’t work with EF-S lenses, but that is addressed in the R5 and R6 and 60fps works with EF-S lenses! I think for video, its a big upgrade. For photo, if you can deal with the smaller MP count (basically half) then it’s a great lens.
Hey Tony . Nice video as always . What about the upcoming 85mm rf macro lens canon will release in October ? I think this would be also a nice option . :)
Very intriguing lens and can't wait for it to come out. I am a huge fan of the 85mm focal length so it will be interesting to see how well it does! I haven't ordered one yet, I think I'll wait until I see how well it performs but I imagine it will be a great lens.
Thanks for this video! Let me ask you this. I have a canon ef 24-70 f/2.8 L 1st version - I’m have weird issues with it jittering when shooting video. I really want to replace it and was hoping the rf 24-105 f/4 was better at focusing specifically for video. Or I also thought about getting the ef 24-70 f/2.8 L II Thoughts?
The rf 24-105 is incredible. Some of those really old lenses just aren’t made for the new tech. They do work, sometimes better than they do on Ef mount cameras but the new RF glass is next level 😍
'Gear Used' is missing ND filters and step rings. I've recently spent couple hours trying to find some, but manufactures say nothing about the compatibility...
@@TonyMellinger yeah I managed to get one used for about $1000 USD I think that and I already have a 50mm EF lens is better than a RF 35mm and EF 50mm only. I hope it’s sharp and good for noobs though 🤣 I think when talking price the RF 35mm, 50mm, 24-105mm are your best value for money lenses it sounds like.
@@TonyMellinger I have but every video has directed me to the R lol I have the Canon m50 because I mainly Vlog and now I'm getting into more landscape photography/Vlogs :)
segrad1 - I’ll voice the other view. I used to have an EF 24-105L and found it to be my most boring lens. Maybe the new one is sharp enough to bring some wow factor, but I was underwhelmed with the original. From a professional standpoint of “just get the shot”, however, it could be a workhorse, at least until light falls. Just stand where you are, zoom from wide to medium tele, frame, let IS do its thing, autofocus, and click. But to get the most stunning shot, it can be more dramatic to shoot wider, longer, or with a wider aperture. I found my photos with the kit lens to have a documentary, rather than artistic, feel. But again, that was the older EF - as well as my limited abilities, available subjects, and lighting. A lens only contributes so much. Anyway, for artistic shooting, it wouldn’t be my first choice. As a workhorse without an f/2.8 budget, it might be exactly the right tool - especially if the new one is tack sharp.
@@JonFairhurst Thank you for the GREAT insight Brother John. I'm still learning but my focus has been on portraits, action figures (still a kid at heart) and some video. I'm probably not at the point where I would be able to discern the difference between the two lenses at this point in my photography journey. So for my needs, it would probably suffice. Once I make that job to the professional level, I would probably look to upgrade to the 2.8. PEACE from ATL ✊🏾📸🎥
Totally agree with you. The first time I used the original EF 24-105 I decided I would never use it again. They came out with the second version and it was absolutely an improvement but the RF version is by far better than all of the EF versions. Good insight!!
I know a lot of people really love it, but every time I’ve used it, i never thought it was really spectacular. I think part of it for me was the focal length, the other part was the price. It’s a really good lens, I just never really felt it connected with me...
Hi Tony, for still photography only, I had been using 24, 35 & 135mm primes (with my Sony system) largely for my interest in portraits and events. But I at times found it very cumbersome to change lenses. Meanwhile decided to get back to Canon system (planning to get an R6) So thought will pick up a 24-70 f2.8 (would blindly go for 24-105 but not sure of subject separation and low light flexibility 2.8 gives). But now been seeing a lot of 28-70 f2 reviews. So would you suggest 35+(70-200) combination or 28-70 f2 to start off say if we look at a budget of $3000. Or would you encourage me to dare a 35 + (24-105)? Thanks.
If you’ve got a budget of $300, I’d skip over the 35mm and get the 28-70. That will give you great portraits at 70mm and work well for face paced, quick changing environments. You may struggle with low light with the 24-105 f4 but you’d really appreciate the reach. I am able to get plenty of depth with the f4 so that wouldn’t be a concern for me
