# Ditching the 24-70 mm from holy trinity



## sercheese (Aug 10, 2020)

Hello, 
Just wandering - does it make any sense to ditch the RF 24-70 mm and just buy RF 15-35 mm, RF 70-200 mm and to wait for a RF 50 mm F/1.8 prime?
I like to hike, that's the reason for wide lens. RF 70-200 mm would be a face portait and for tourism. And the RF 50 mm would be for photos of my girlfriend during holidays or evening walks. 
I'm thinking about combining those lenses with R6 as my advance amature kit.
What are your opinions?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2020)

Depends on your personal shooting style. Personally, I'm not a fan of 50mm and most of my work is either wide angle or telephoto. I prefer the 24-105 as a general purpose lens because it does offer a bit more reach without having to change lenses. For portraits, I prefer at least 70mm and usually longer, often 200mm, but again that's just my taste. Are you missing shots with the 24-70 because it's not wide enough? How much of a pain would you find it to juggle three lenses instead of two?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 11, 2020)

My 24-70 gets most of the work, I sold off my wider angle lens due to lack of use. It all depends on your usage, whats right for you is the key.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 11, 2020)

I did something similar years ago with EF: 16-35/50/70-200 before the 24-70 II came out. Now I have a 24-70. It's one one of my more used lenses (usually after the 100-400), but it's one that I could mos easily do without. For event work going from individual to group portraits, a 24-70 is really handy.

You have well defined use cases for the lenses, so you'll be fine. And even if you do pick up the 24-70 down the road, the 50 prime would still be better as a compact walk-around lens.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 11, 2020)

Yep - for my own tastes, if I were shooting the Holy Trinity, I would absolutely cut the 24-70, since I don't much like the focal lengths from about 40mm to 80mm.


----------



## Durf (Aug 11, 2020)

sercheese said:


> Hello,
> Just wandering - does it make any sense to ditch the RF 24-70 mm and just buy RF 15-35 mm, RF 70-200 mm and to wait for a RF 50 mm F/1.8 prime?
> I like to hike, that's the reason for wide lens. RF 70-200 mm would be a face portait and for tourism. And the RF 50 mm would be for photos of my girlfriend during holidays or evening walks.
> I'm thinking about combining those lenses with R6 as my advance amature kit.
> What are your opinions?



My holy trinity (Mostly for landscape and nature photography) is the Canon 16-35mm f4, the Tamron 45mm f1.8, and the Canon 70-200mm f4 lenses. This seems to be the best combo for what I mostly shoot, the 45mm is the lens that mainly stays on the camera the most.
I also have the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 that I sometimes use if I know I will be wanting to travel light and only use/carry 1 lens....


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 13, 2020)

Personally I love the 50mm focal length for it's mild compressiom and natural perspective. I went for ef 16-35 f4, rf 50mm f1.2, rf 85mm f1.2, ef 135 f2... just waiting for the rf 35mm f1.2 to complete my own holy trinity 

So having said that, I like your plan to ditch the 24-70 and go for a 50mm 1.8 instead... no overlap that way


----------



## stevelee (Aug 14, 2020)

Back in film days when I didn't shoot zoom lenses, I used to take a 28mm, an 85mm, and a 200mm lens along and could shoot about anything I wanted to. 

These days, my default lens is the EF 24–105mm STM. If I need wider, I use the 16–35mm, and for longer, the 100–400mm II. I think of my other lenses as special purpose, the 100mm for macro and the 85 f/1.8 for portraits, mainly. My 50mm doesn't get much use since I went full frame. Traveling, I find the 24–120mm equivalent of the G5X II covers everything I need, pretty much the same as my FF default.


----------



## monkeywizard (Sep 10, 2020)

Like others said, it's all personal preference. Since I've got 5 kids, and do a lot of indoor shooting, I couldn't be without that focal length, and I find zoom lenses invaluable (have a number of EF primes, and switching from 28 to 35, to 50 to 85 is a pain & I'm never too sure which to bring places).

I went another route and instead of getting the 24-70 2.8, I went with the 28-70 2.0. I'm a big guy so the weight isn't much an issue, and knowing I won't have to cover those focal lengths with primes, (unless I want something really fast like a 1.2) so that'll justify/offset the cost difference. 

If that's not a focal length you use a lot, or don't need a zoom, then I say go for it!


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 16, 2020)

I like the 24-70 f2.8 as it's fast for those times when you don't have a lot of light and can't use a flash. The 28-70 would be a good choice except that you're starting to miss the somewhat wider lens of the 24-70 but it gives you almost another stop of light. I started when there was no such thing as a zoom lens and normally walked around with 3 Canon F1's around my neck but I think I'd miss my 24-70 wide-to-portrait lens a bigger percentage of the time than an ultra wide or long telephoto. This is another one of those decisions where there is no right answer for everyone.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 16, 2020)

monkeywizard said:


> Like others said, it's all personal preference. Since I've got 5 kids, and do a lot of indoor shooting, I couldn't be without that focal length, and I find zoom lenses invaluable (have a number of EF primes, and switching from 28 to 35, to 50 to 85 is a pain & I'm never too sure which to bring places).
> 
> I went another route and instead of getting the 24-70 2.8, I went with the 28-70 2.0. I'm a big guy so the weight isn't much an issue, and knowing I won't have to cover those focal lengths with primes, (unless I want something really fast like a 1.2) so that'll justify/offset the cost difference.
> 
> If that's not a focal length you use a lot, or don't need a zoom, then I say go for it!


I agree with your use of zoom lenses. It's a lot easier to use a zoom rather than a prime lens. Zoom lenses have gotten so good that most people would never notice the difference between a prime and a zoom lens. Especially if you consider that with a zoom you can fill the frame with the subject and a prime you will have to crop which will degrade the final image. I for one doubt that I'll ever buy another prime lens. Plus I've run out of kidneys to sell, so will not be buying any more lenses for awhile.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 16, 2020)

Unless there is something wrong with your Rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, it is probably one of the best lenses in the world. Just hard to beat in any situation with anything else--unless you absolutely need a wider aperture at 50mm. But even so, I cannot imagine that a 1.8 version, a budget lens, could fill the gap. Just doesn't make sense. Hold on to the 24-70 and, if after having time to save up, a year or more, you still feel the need for something spectacular, ADD the Rf 50mm f/1.2L to your collection. But for now, there is no nifty-fifty RF, so just enjoy your 24-70mm!

As for the 15-35mm, it's good, but truly not quite in the IQ class, based on MY copies, of the 24-70. If you need that little extra wideness for some drama\dynamic shots or some occasional tight shooting, well, ok. But remember, it is NOT distortion free, and Canon might come out with some really amazing 14-24mm alternative down the line. If you need wider for landscape, you can take great shots with the 24-70mm creating panoramas.

I can tell you--I made a decision to sell off most of my EF glass. Fine. All good--except getting rid of the 100-400mm II was dumb. I should have kept it, but at the time I was so focused on portraits, I just let it go. So, during the whole lockdown period, I had no longer lens, and now to get one, it's a tough, expensive decision.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 21, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Unless there is something wrong with your Rf 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, it is probably one of the best lenses in the world. Just hard to beat in any situation with anything else--unless you absolutely need a wider aperture at 50mm. But even so, I cannot imagine that a 1.8 version, a budget lens, could fill the gap. Just doesn't make sense. Hold on to the 24-70 and, if after having time to save up, a year or more, you still feel the need for something spectacular, ADD the Rf 50mm f/1.2L to your collection. But for now, there is no nifty-fifty RF, so just enjoy your 24-70mm!


As my credit card has melted into a puddle on the floor, my 100-500mm EOS lens is on the UPS truck as we speak. My 15-35 f2.8L showed up a few days ago and with the 100-500 I'll have my own Trinity of Lenses. Every photographer has his/her own needs and those may/may not meet other photographers' requirements so I don't think there is a perfect set of lenses for everyone. It's like the old computer saying, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." With the new technology of the RF (and R & RP) body of cameras, you have little choice to buy third party lenses with the same autofocus and IS that native lens have. So for the foreseeable future, a lot of us are forced to stick with Canon products, especially if you're older as I am and your eyesight isn't 20-20.

Personally I went with the 2.8L lenses for my wide and normal lens because I shoot a lot of indoor stuff where I can often get away without a flash by relying on IBIS and IS to allow me to shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds. Having said that, I've always found that proper use of a flash will often improve 90% of my shots. In Sin City, the sun is brutal and while it seems counter intuitive to use a flash outdoors, fill flash will help to brighten up the shadows outdoors. Indoors, it gives you a uniform light source that (a) you can control, (b) will allow you to use higher f stop to increase the DOF, and (c) most lenses at f8 are the sharpest, unless you are going for wide open bokeh.

Sorry for getting off track as learning how to use flash properly with my R5 is my current project but always take advice in the manner it was given. Don't jump in because someone says this is better than that but assess your own needs to be sure that what you're buying is what you need.


----------



## john1970 (Sep 21, 2020)

When I travel for photography, the 24-70 mm is a very good lens. When I went to Alaska in 2019 I took two cameras and three lenses: 24-70 mm, 100-400 mm, 400 mm f2.8 with TCs. For most of the wildlife photography I used the 400 mm f2.8 with 2x TC. For landscapes the 24-70 worked fine. Just my opinion...


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 24, 2020)

I'm in a similar predicament...

Talking just RF (since I sold all of my EF & EF-S glass prior to converting)...

Had & sold the R w/ the 24-105 f4 kit (sold both mainly because it was easier to sell the kit CIB). Kept the 50 f1.2 & 70-200 f2.8. Got the R5 + 100-500 f4.5-7.1. Love all 3 of the lenses I currently have and no regrets on any of them.

My goal was to fit the R5 w/ an awesome lens for the 'mid' range (replacing the 24-105). Got the 28-70 f2 (I mean why not, I have IBIS now). But the size/weight was not what I expected... I needed that lens as at least something I can somewhat carry around for periods of time... which the f2 is not (at least for me). So that went back...

Actually, this made me want to skip the whole f2 range and go with a 35 & 85 f1.2 at some point... but not rushing for those before I fill more of my kit. Thought process is if I 'need' f2, would I rather have access to 1.2 instead? (I know the 35 is a rumor still, but it's last on my list.)

So now I'm debating getting the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 again to fill in that range for the walk around... but this topic had me thinking of an alternative.

Should I get the 15-35 f2.8 instead of the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 to fill my wide range first... relying on my 50 f1.2 to fill the small gap between 35-70? And if I really need, wait till Black Friday sales hoping for a deal on the 24-105 f4 for the walkaround mid range (that's lens has to be due for a good sale). Or keep the 24-105 f4 as a distant memory... instead filling out the kit w/ the 24-70 f2.8 (better f-stop but smaller range) at some point in time? I could probably get away with the 24-105 f4 (for the size/weight/range) with the 50 f1.2 as the low light/nice bokeh backup. The thing that has me doubting the 50 is I really like a zoom more often than not for any focal range (I'm never standing still and foot-zoom sometimes isn't practical)... so I currently only grab the 50 if I know I need it.

Ug, the choices... and dang be that GAS.

But (back on topic)... if I already had the 24-70 f2.8 on hand, I don't know that I would part with it (since you don't have a fast 50 yet). However if it's a matter of choosing 1 lens or another... than only you can make that call.

Back when I had the 24-105 & 70-200, I can say there were times I went light and took one or the other. If I had no idea what to expect, I took the 24-105. If I knew I wasn't going to take any close portraits (limited space) than the 70-200 went. If I knew the lighting wasn't going to be the best, I would go for the 70-200. However towards the end, my 70-200 got more on-camera time.


----------



## rightslot (Sep 24, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I'm in a similar predicament...
> 
> Talking just RF (since I sold all of my EF & EF-S glass prior to converting)...
> 
> ...


THANKS! for making my evening! You made me laugh and laugh. I'm still laughing. You took me thru your whole thinking pattern on these lenses. AND I FEEL THE SAME WAY. You want it all. Hilarious. I'm still laughing.  

In the end, you want two shelves full of lenses. That way you are set for whatever is the situation. Shelf one has only RF lenses, shelf two the better of EF and the cheaper EF to RF adapter. I love when you said: "But (back on topic). Funny, funny, funny.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 24, 2020)

rightslot said:


> THANKS! for making my evening! You made me laugh and laugh. I'm still laughing. You took me thru your whole thinking pattern on these lenses. AND I FEEL THE SAME WAY. You want it all. Hilarious. I'm still laughing.
> 
> In the end, you want two shelves full of lenses. That way you are set for whatever is the situation. Shelf one has only RF lenses, shelf two the better of EF and the cheaper EF to RF adapter. I love when you said: "But (back on topic). Funny, funny, funny.



I know... right! I will say my end goal is to eventually get more lenses, but it's the order that's killing me. Because I know any way I approach it, I'll be second guessing it the whole way thru.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 24, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> I'm in a similar predicament...
> 
> Talking just RF (since I sold all of my EF & EF-S glass prior to converting)...
> 
> ...


I went with the 24-70mm f2.8L for my walking around lens over the similar f4 version to gain the extra light when I didn't have a flash. So far I'm very happy with it but all Canon glass is top notch.


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2020)

Maybe you will not use it much if you care for wide and tele more. 
But, prepare to change lenses like crazy if you have only one body.
In that sense the 24-70 is a (very) useful lens.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 24, 2020)

Kit construction is going to be unique to everyone. 

One of the more interesting minimalist kits I've come across was 14 mm prime, 35 mm f/1.4 prime, and then the 70-200 f/2.8. The purpose was mostly travel photography, but they did the occasional wedding but would rent a 24 mm prime or other lens as they felt needed. But, I do get and, in a way, love the simplicity. Typically if you want wide, you want really wide. The 35 mm f/1.4 is great as both general purpose lens, low light, landscape, and even some portraits. Very flexible. Then, the 70-200 f/2.8 for tighter shots. Great IQ, fast glass, I really have always admired that kit.

As for what you describe, I think it would work well, but would encourage you to consider how often you would need to change lenses. If you are going to walk around and go from 24-35 mm out to needing more reach (50-70 mm), then I would consider the 24-70/24-105 so that you are not always switching lenses. If when shooting UWA, you will not want to suddenly switch to telephoto, then you kit works.


----------



## rightslot (Sep 24, 2020)

I think we are stuck, until some Japanese company canon/NIKON/maybe even Panasonic or even Fuji comes up with a small Japanese Swiss Army knife equivalent for 24-70, we are stuck.
{By Swiss Army knife I mean some kind of Japanese engineering magic!}. 

Seems to me if we want the light gathering capability of full frame we are stuck with a bigger kit. And I know what it is to have smaller because when I had my Fuji XT-3 the 18-55 was on my camera 85% of the time.

But of course that is a smaller sensor to allow for those smaller lenses. I wouldn’t consider the RF 24- 70 a walk around lens but for an upcoming trip I’m going to use it as such. I am sure after a while it’s going to get on my nerves – – the size and weight. But it’s only lens I’ll take so I’m going to have to get used to it.


----------



## navastronia (Sep 24, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Kit construction is going to be unique to everyone.
> 
> One of the more interesting minimalist kits I've come across was 14 mm prime, 35 mm f/1.4 prime, and then the 70-200 f/2.8. The purpose was mostly travel photography, but they did the occasional wedding but would rent a 24 mm prime or other lens as they felt needed. But, I do get and, in a way, love the simplicity. Typically if you want wide, you want really wide. The 35 mm f/1.4 is great as both general purpose lens, low light, landscape, and even some portraits. Very flexible. Then, the 70-200 f/2.8 for tighter shots. Great IQ, fast glass, I really have always admired that kit.
> 
> As for what you describe, I think it would work well, but would encourage you to consider how often you would need to change lenses. If you are going to walk around and go from 24-35 mm out to needing more reach (50-70 mm), then I would consider the 24-70/24-105 so that you are not always switching lenses. If when shooting UWA, you will not want to suddenly switch to telephoto, then you kit works.



The minimalist kit you describe is a lot like mine. I shoot primes at 14, 35, 85, and 200, with no zooms at all. I like that working this way challenges me to move to get the shots I want. I shoot mainly theatre, portraits, and events.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 24, 2020)

rightslot said:


> I think we are stuck, until some Japanese company canon/NIKON/maybe even Panasonic or even Fuji comes up with a small Japanese Swiss Army knife equivalent for 24-70, we are stuck.
> {By Swiss Army knife I mean some kind of Japanese engineering magic!}.
> 
> Seems to me if we want the light gathering capability of full frame we are stuck with a bigger kit. And I know what it is to have smaller because when I had my Fuji XT-3 the 18-55 was on my camera 85% of the time.
> ...



I don't consider the rf 24-70 to be too big as a walk around lens as it isn't even a half of a pound more than the 24-105 which is a good weight to image quality imo.

Here's something to chew on for a few of the rf zooms (also neat tidbit for reference is a can of diet soda is about 0.82 lbs)...
24-105 f4 = 1.54 lbs
24-70 f2.8 = 1.98 lbs
70-200 f2.8 = 2.64 lbs w/ mount
28-70 f2 = 3.15 lbs
100-500 f4.5-7.1 = 3.35 lbs w/ mount

For walkaround even the 70-200 is just doable for me and the 28-70 is not. Oddly enough the shape of the 100-500 is better than the 28-70 for me... go figure.


----------

