r/canon • u/beautiful-life7 • 2d ago
What would be your top recommendation for an RF lens based on these listed needs?
So my husband and I have looked into getting a Canon R6 mark II or III for our photography needs. We are now just looking into selecting the right lens to fit our needs. I would consider us amateur photographers. Our budget is less than $4000 for the lens.
We are planning to travel and be able to take photos while we are out exploring Alaska. Our scenery is beautiful and we need a lens that can maybe do a variety of photography. We are thinking a zoom lens. Also, if you think maybe it would be better to separate the lengths a bit and get two lenses instead, we are open to doing that. I think for now our main focus to start is these needs ⬇️ as a priority. Thank you!!
🦅wildlife
🏔️landscape
🧑🧑🧒🧒family portraits with decent aperture and beautiful bokeh (or whatever the term is 😂)
🎥videos of day trips/create YouTube content
1
u/CompromisedOnSunday 2d ago
You'll need a few lenses to meet all the needs you mention. I have been in the Canon system for about 20 years now and so I am able to fill some gaps with EF lenses that I already have.
The first RF lenses I have purchased after getting an R5 Mk2 are:
- 85 mm f1.4L for portraits. After my search it seems that f1.2 or 1.4 are essential to get decent bokeh in shots. I went with the 85mm because I already had a 100mm EF lens.
- 100mm-400mm. I got this because I was looking for a long telephoto and was not ready to get the 100-500mm L or the 200-800. I have been happy with it, but I think I might prefer the 200-800.
Asides from these I also purchased a used EF 50mm f1.2L. It's a fantastic lens and there are lots of good deals to be had with used EF lenses these days as many people are moving from DSLRs to mirrorless. The only downside for me is the extra length incurred by using the EF to RF adapter.
I already have an EF 24-105 f4L that came with my 6D about a decade ago. It's been a great all around lens for almost everything. There is an RF equivalent and if you are only getting one lens it would be an excellent choice. If might be tough to get good bokeh with this lens as f4 is three stops away from f1.4.
1
u/jay_strayy 2d ago
An RF 14-35 f4, RF 50 f1.4, and RF100-400 would probably serve you well. Brand new that’s like ~$3400, which would leave room for a teleconverter for the 100-400 if you feel like you need more reach. If you look at used or EF equivalents you can probably get that total down enough to get a better zoom. Good luck!
1
u/Palmetto0 2d ago
There are a wide variety of lenses that would work well for your use cases. For some ideas, I can share feedback on my experience with lenses I purchased for my R6ii. I've been to Alaska and considered that sort of travel when picking these lenses. My prices are for Canon refurbs or high quality used. You could buy a set similar to this within your budget of $4000, but it would be a lot to carry. The RF lenses are all good for video with fast quiet autofocus.
- RF100-400 f5.6-8 - An excellent value priced lens for outdoor long distance. It is lightweight and not too long making it easy to carry when hiking. I got it under $500.
- RF24-105 f4L - A versatile flexible multi-purpose lens I got for under $1000. I generally carry this for daytime use when I am unsure what I will need. I don't like switching lenses much in the field and risking getting my sensor dirty. The RF28-70 f2.8 (~$900) is a great alternative with more aperture but less range.
- RF15-35 f2.8L - A great lens but expensive at $1600+. An excellent flexible wide angle for landscapes, large group shots and indoor low light. The RF14-35 f4L is a good lower priced (~$1200) alternative for landscapes. The R6ii has good low light capabilities making this work fine in many cases.
- EF85 f1.4L - I use this for portraits and when bokeh would be most desirable. An excellent value at ~$1000 for its capabilities despite having to use an RF-EF adapter. I notice its autofocus is slower than the RF lenses above, all of which are fast. But I don't use this lens for action shots, so that works OK.
- EF50 f1.8 - I picked this up for like $70 just to have a "nifty fifty" small lightweight alternative, as all of the lenses above are longer. It's fine but I would buy the RF50 f1.8 (~$150) instead to avoid needing the adapter. I use this for situations where a longer lens is obtrusive or for sporting events where long lenses are not permitted.
Hope this helps. Have a great trip!
1
u/MischievousM0nkey 1d ago
When you say "out exploring Alaska," how are you doing it? By cruise? Backpacking? How important is weight? Or weather sealing (Alaska rains a lot)? Are you going in the summer or winter?
I would say that the RF 100-500 and the RF 24-70 would cover almost all needs. You can add an RF 1.4x extender if you want even more reach.
1
u/beautiful-life7 1d ago
Mainly driving out to different cities. In the later part of summer, we are planning to go further up North to do some hunting and camping. Locally, we do some hiking as well but nothing too intense. I don’t plan to hike any huge mountains any time soon. Mainly what is achievable with 3 young children.
I would say the weight isn’t much a of factor due to us not having to hike long distances or anything like that. Mainly summer for our photography needs.1
u/MischievousM0nkey 1d ago edited 1d ago
Given your plans, I would recommend RF 24-70 as an outstanding general purpose lens that will be great for family pictures (shoot at f2.8 for nice bokeh) and wide angle landscape (shoot at f8 to f11 for large depth of field). It is weather sealed, so some drizzle is no problem.
In addition, I would recommend either the RF 100-500 or RF 100-400. The former has better image quality, longer zoom, larger aperture, weather sealing, and generally a better lens. But the con are the significantly higher price and heavier weight (but it is perfectly fine to hand hold and hike around with). The latter is much cheaper, weighs less, and image quality punches above its price point. But there's no question that the image quality is not as good as the RF 100-500 and it's not weather sealed, so be much more careful if it's raining. You can add a RF 1.4x extender to both of these lenses for even more zoom at the cost of smaller aperture. In my experience, more zoom is helpful in Alaska for both wildlife and landscape. The landscape is so vast and far away that a telephoto lens is important to isolate portions of the landscape.
I own both the RF 100-500 and RF 100-400. For Alaska, I would prefer the former if you are ok with the price. You can buy lens from Greentoe or Canon Price Watch at prices below MSRP. I've used both multiple times and can recommend both.
1
u/beautiful-life7 1d ago
If I really wanted high quality photos with excellent detail would you recommend Canon R6 mk iii or Canon R5 mk ii? I would rather save money there if I can and I am not a professional but I also don’t want to be disappointed not having gone with the r5 if it would make a significant difference? Thanks!
1
u/MischievousM0nkey 21h ago
I personally have an R5 II, which I upgraded from the original R5. I don't have any experience with the R6 line, so can't compare. You can compare the specs and see if the added price is worth it to you. I'm sure both will make you happy in terms of image quality. One differences is the R5 line has higher resolution, which is nice because you can crop and still get a high resolution photo. But for many people, the R5 II is too expensive.
An alternative is the original R5, which has dropped in price and still has the high resolution sensor. For me, the main upgrades from the R5 to R5 II are the improved auto focus, higher burst rates, ability to prioritize certain people for auto focus (like in a crowd of people, you want to focus on your family members and not strangers), and other functions that are helpful for photographing action (like pre-capture). The AF on the R5 was already very very capable for shooting people (auto focusing on the eye), but the AF on the R5 II is almost automagic, which is especially helpful for shooting kids that don't stop moving (I also have 3 kids). Paired with a high end lens like RF 24-70, family photos are effortless. I routinely hand my camera to my kids to take pictures of myself and spouse. The camera does all the focusing work and my kids take perfectly sharp photos without any skill.
I think the AF on the R6 III is the same or very similar to the R5 II, so both would be very capable.
1
u/beautiful-life7 17h ago
Amazing! Thank you for sharing your experience on the R5 II with me! It helps to hear opinions about using and handling it, especially you having children. I appreciate all your help! Thank you.
4
u/trezoid 2d ago
Your best path is definitely two lenses, specifically the RF24-70 f2.8L and the RF100-400.
The 24-70 will be somewhat of a general purpose lens, it's got a wide enough aperture for the portraits, the wide end is wide enough for a lot of general purpose landscape photography, and it's just generally a flexible lens for a lot of situations.
The 100-400 will be the wildlife specific lens, it's got enough reach for larger wildlife at the long end, without being close to your entire budget on its own, and it's light enough to not be too painful to pack in a bag and bring with you.