Wondered if it's worth a thread to hear where and how others have compromised or done trade-offs in their kit.
Couple weeks back I sold a nice Tamron 35mm 1.4 thinking to phase-out 35mm. But just this week while pondering doing a few more weddings, I found a great video by a wedding photographer, and it pertained to 35mm. I spent evenings reviewing videos about the RF 35mm 1.8 macro which I was very unfamiliar with and otther 35s. I realized Tamron 1.4 and Canon 1.4 are the lens in a perfect world. But at age 67 a lighter kit is something I can't disregard. Since I shoot redwoods a lot as composites, I decided to cover 35mm framing with my RF 50mm 1.2 L and 4 shots. And a light weight RF 35 1.8 can make it easier to retain the RF 85mm 1.2 L in my bag. Tamron 1.8 w/ VC is another possibility, but does need the EF/RF adapter, which I have. This may be the first time in 12 years where I'm setting aside getting something I prefer optically, to gain other benefits.
Anybody care to share a lens they preferred but didn't get due to another benefit that was necessary, or out-weighed their optical desires?
Cheers,
Mario
PS .. Two photos from a company party when our son worked for a bank. The wedding photographer's 35mm video got me digging into older 35mm photos and reminded me how I enjoyed the look of images from this night.
I like doing environmental portraits so a 35mm lens is a staple. I have the EF 35/1.4 L that I use with the R6MKII and two other 35mms for my Sony system. The 35L is not so heavy that I often partner it with the EF 85/1.2 LII. BTW, I'm even older than you. In my case I see no reason to replace the old 35L---I love the rendering and the bokeh. The only weakness is in some lighting conditions it will produce that dreaded purple fringing that I often fix with either Photoshop or DXO PL9 Elite.
I also have a 50/1.2 but again it is the old EF one. I seldom bring them together. Sometimes I shoot lifestyle/fashion with only the 50mm in my bag.
