Care to share lens kit compromises?
p.1 #1Care to share lens kit compromises?
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.
Edited on Aug 24, 2026 at 08:57 PM · View previous versions
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.
Edited on Aug 24, 2026 at 08:57 PM · View previous versions
Aug 24, 2026 at 07:09 PM
p.1 #2Care to share lens kit compromises?
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.
BTW, nice pictures!!
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.
BTW, nice pictures!!
Aug 24, 2026 at 08:40 PM
p.1 #3Care to share lens kit compromises?
I maintain inventory for multiple purposes, so typically 3 or even 10 lenses of the same focal lengh in various apertures, primes/zooms, and many are EF. I would rarely have one option that precludes another. For example I would not get a 70-200/2.8 without also having a 70-200/4 if I might use both for different activities.
I tend to rent rarely used more expensive lenses >$6K the past 10 years on a project by project basis.
EBH
I tend to rent rarely used more expensive lenses >$6K the past 10 years on a project by project basis.
EBH
Aug 24, 2026 at 09:54 PM
p.1 #4Care to share lens kit compromises?
EB-1 wrote:
I maintain inventory for multiple purposes, .... SNIP ....
I tend to rent rarely used more expensive lenses >$6K the past 10 years on a project by project basis.
EBH
If I understand, the omission of expensive lens purchases is the compromise enabling the entourage of a big ecosystem of moderate priced lenses (tools).
I maintain inventory for multiple purposes, .... SNIP ....
I tend to rent rarely used more expensive lenses >$6K the past 10 years on a project by project basis.
EBH
If I understand, the omission of expensive lens purchases is the compromise enabling the entourage of a big ecosystem of moderate priced lenses (tools).
Aug 25, 2026 at 12:15 AM
p.1 #5Care to share lens kit compromises?
EB-1 wrote:
... For example I would not get a 70-200/2.8 without also having a 70-200/4 if I might use both for different activities.
Sounds extreme to me, but also an opportunity to learn. Could you please elaborate.
... For example I would not get a 70-200/2.8 without also having a 70-200/4 if I might use both for different activities.
Sounds extreme to me, but also an opportunity to learn. Could you please elaborate.
Aug 25, 2026 at 01:56 AM
p.1 #6Care to share lens kit compromises?
I?ve tried so hard to work with the 35mm but it always frustrates me
For some bloody strange reason I find the 40mm on crop always seems to get me nice pictures. Both my canon and Pentax are fitted with 40mm pancakes. I use a diopter on the viewfinder and with both eyes open the view through the viewfinder is almost in perfect registery with my other eye.
For some bloody strange reason I find the 40mm on crop always seems to get me nice pictures. Both my canon and Pentax are fitted with 40mm pancakes. I use a diopter on the viewfinder and with both eyes open the view through the viewfinder is almost in perfect registery with my other eye.
Aug 25, 2026 at 05:23 AM
p.1 #7Care to share lens kit compromises?
35mm is the default lens for me and the one I use to shoot 90% of my photos. I could (and often do!) quite happily disregard every other focal length and head out on vacation or to a social event with just a 35. I owned the 35 1.8 RF Macro for several years and treated it basically as if it were a fixed lens on my original R6. I've since changed the pairing to the R5 II and 35 1.4 VCM, mainly because I have more money than sense (and little of either in absolute terms). Could quite happily go back to the 1.8, though.
Aug 25, 2026 at 06:41 AM
|
p.1 #8Care to share lens kit compromises?
So far the focus has been on 35mm lenses; I hope you don't mind if I take this thread a bit further afield:
I'm recently back from a trip to England where we split our time between London (museums) and hiking the Cotswold way. Quite a bit of walking in both places so I opted for my R7 + 18-150 vs the R5 + 24-105 f4 to save weight. No wildlife so the 100-500 was out of the equation.
The limitation of the 18-150 was not its IQ but its lack of 24mm equivalent wide and weather sealing in the Cotswolds where it rained on us every day. I was carrying a 10-18 but it was inconvenient to stop the family to change lenses back and forth. I used my cell phone in the rain.
Upon my return Canon announced the release of the 20-50 f4 L which I promptly pre-ordered. The R5 + 20-50 weighs a little over 1/2 lb more than the R7 + 10-18. It doesn't have the reach but I can crop to about 80mm equivalent which should cover most of my non-wildlife travel. It pairs nicely with the 70-200 f4 L and leaves a small gap if I need the 100-500.
I've now thoroughly tested the 20-50 and it is equal or better than the 24-105 where they overlap. The 20-50 weighs 1/3 less than the 24-105. Cropped 1.5 to 80mm, it focuses 1:2 mostly replacing the 35 f1.8 macro. It's 20mm wide means I probably won't carry the 16 f2.8. In my travels I've rarely needed faster than f4 and have more ISO freedom now than ever.
In my testing I included the RF-S 55-210 which didn't impress me on the R7 but looked pretty good on the R5. Only 17 MP but withstood the Topaz up-res to fit my 5K display. Only 9 oz and might consider it on trips with the 100-500 when I don't want to carry it hiking. Generally, when I have the 100-500 I bring my trusty 1 lb G1XIII since the 100-500 is usually on the R5. It would have been perfect on the Cotswold walk since its weather sealed, fits under a raincoat, covers 24-70, and has the same sensor as the 80D. Or R10 by photons to photos testing. It still has better IQ than recent cell phones. I should always just bring it.
These are my recent lens kit compromises. I've been using a 24-105 for travel since 2006. The 18-150 didn't survive real travel. We shall see if the 20-50 does.
I'm recently back from a trip to England where we split our time between London (museums) and hiking the Cotswold way. Quite a bit of walking in both places so I opted for my R7 + 18-150 vs the R5 + 24-105 f4 to save weight. No wildlife so the 100-500 was out of the equation.
The limitation of the 18-150 was not its IQ but its lack of 24mm equivalent wide and weather sealing in the Cotswolds where it rained on us every day. I was carrying a 10-18 but it was inconvenient to stop the family to change lenses back and forth. I used my cell phone in the rain.
Upon my return Canon announced the release of the 20-50 f4 L which I promptly pre-ordered. The R5 + 20-50 weighs a little over 1/2 lb more than the R7 + 10-18. It doesn't have the reach but I can crop to about 80mm equivalent which should cover most of my non-wildlife travel. It pairs nicely with the 70-200 f4 L and leaves a small gap if I need the 100-500.
I've now thoroughly tested the 20-50 and it is equal or better than the 24-105 where they overlap. The 20-50 weighs 1/3 less than the 24-105. Cropped 1.5 to 80mm, it focuses 1:2 mostly replacing the 35 f1.8 macro. It's 20mm wide means I probably won't carry the 16 f2.8. In my travels I've rarely needed faster than f4 and have more ISO freedom now than ever.
In my testing I included the RF-S 55-210 which didn't impress me on the R7 but looked pretty good on the R5. Only 17 MP but withstood the Topaz up-res to fit my 5K display. Only 9 oz and might consider it on trips with the 100-500 when I don't want to carry it hiking. Generally, when I have the 100-500 I bring my trusty 1 lb G1XIII since the 100-500 is usually on the R5. It would have been perfect on the Cotswold walk since its weather sealed, fits under a raincoat, covers 24-70, and has the same sensor as the 80D. Or R10 by photons to photos testing. It still has better IQ than recent cell phones. I should always just bring it.
These are my recent lens kit compromises. I've been using a 24-105 for travel since 2006. The 18-150 didn't survive real travel. We shall see if the 20-50 does.
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:03 AM
p.1 #9Care to share lens kit compromises?
mdvaden wrote:
Wondered if it's worth a thread to hear where and how others have compromised or done trade-offs in their kit.
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?
I will mention I have all of these lenses, but use the cheaper/poorer quality ones more due to convenience.
The 24-105mm f4 vs the 24-70mm f2.8. I've owned my 24-70mm f2.8L since 2007. Carried it around the world. Shot countless corporate events, charity gigs, group photos, portraits etc with it. Last year I bought a EF24-105mm f4L IS (v1) for traveling as its own compromise and I haven't used my 24-70mm f2.8 since.
The addition of IS and the extra length make it really handy. So while I know my 24-70mm f2.8L is sharper (and the EF v2 and RF even sharper than mine) I just find it easier to keep it on the RP for my general purpose photography. The 24-105mm is lighter too.
The other one is a medium telephoto like the 100mm f2 vs the 70-200mm. I love the 70-200mm range and quality. But for a lot of events, I use a SL1 with an EF100mm f2.0 instead of my R5/EF70-200mm f2.8L IS v2. The SL1 with this little 100mm makes for a very compact, light and discrete setup to shoot candids. It's sharp enough.
Wondered if it's worth a thread to hear where and how others have compromised or done trade-offs in their kit.
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?
I will mention I have all of these lenses, but use the cheaper/poorer quality ones more due to convenience.
The 24-105mm f4 vs the 24-70mm f2.8. I've owned my 24-70mm f2.8L since 2007. Carried it around the world. Shot countless corporate events, charity gigs, group photos, portraits etc with it. Last year I bought a EF24-105mm f4L IS (v1) for traveling as its own compromise and I haven't used my 24-70mm f2.8 since.
The addition of IS and the extra length make it really handy. So while I know my 24-70mm f2.8L is sharper (and the EF v2 and RF even sharper than mine) I just find it easier to keep it on the RP for my general purpose photography. The 24-105mm is lighter too.
The other one is a medium telephoto like the 100mm f2 vs the 70-200mm. I love the 70-200mm range and quality. But for a lot of events, I use a SL1 with an EF100mm f2.0 instead of my R5/EF70-200mm f2.8L IS v2. The SL1 with this little 100mm makes for a very compact, light and discrete setup to shoot candids. It's sharp enough.
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:39 AM
p.1 #10Care to share lens kit compromises?
tsangc wrote:
mdvaden wrote
Wondered if it's worth a thread to hear where and how others have compromised or done trade-offs in their kit.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?
The 24-105mm f4 vs the 24-70mm f2.8. I've owned my 24-70mm f2.8L since 2007. Carried it around the world. Shot countless corporate events, charity gigs, group photos, portraits etc with it. Last year I bought a EF24-105mm f4L IS (v1) for traveling as its own compromise and I haven't used my 24-70mm f2.8 since.
The addition of IS and the extra length make it really handy. So while I know my 24-70mm f2.8L is sharper (and the EF v2 and RF even sharper...Show more →
I’ll echo the SL1 + 100/2
It’s a great combo giving the FF equivalent of 160mm but with the fast F2 aperture. I’ve also had it on both M series and R100 too
Aug 25, 2026 at 01:41 PM
p.1 #11Care to share lens kit compromises?
Appreciate the comments so far. The circle of conversation is a nice environment through rumination of lens / kit configuration.
I can add following my first post, that I opted for the Tamron 1.8 VC lens. I prefer light weight of the RF 85mm 1.8 but I opted for weather sealing of the Tamron and bought one.
Now I added two more decisions / potential compromises.
1. Replace my RF 85mm 1.2 L with the lighter RF 85mm 1.4 L?
Likely going to keep the 1.2 L even though it's plenty heavier. Since 85mm seems to be my #1 focal length of all time, so why not carry the "heavy hitter" version since I can easily swap to lighter lenses at shoots.
2. Sell my 70-200mm f/2.8?
There's a big decision! I used the lens a lot. But I think many of the photos were out of convenience. I browed metadata in Lightroom and a lot of my zoom lens photos were between 100mm and 140mm which could easily have been done with a 135mm I understand that "compession" won't be as evident, but the percentage of 200mm images that I saved are not many and not all had a background pertinent to compression. I think this ocean situation below where the zoom "pulled" the rocks in closer is the most relevant, but these aren't common in my shooting. I kept 5 shots from this and most were 140mm to 170mm, not a huge leap from 135mm.
I can add following my first post, that I opted for the Tamron 1.8 VC lens. I prefer light weight of the RF 85mm 1.8 but I opted for weather sealing of the Tamron and bought one.
Now I added two more decisions / potential compromises.
1. Replace my RF 85mm 1.2 L with the lighter RF 85mm 1.4 L?
Likely going to keep the 1.2 L even though it's plenty heavier. Since 85mm seems to be my #1 focal length of all time, so why not carry the "heavy hitter" version since I can easily swap to lighter lenses at shoots.
2. Sell my 70-200mm f/2.8?
There's a big decision! I used the lens a lot. But I think many of the photos were out of convenience. I browed metadata in Lightroom and a lot of my zoom lens photos were between 100mm and 140mm which could easily have been done with a 135mm I understand that "compession" won't be as evident, but the percentage of 200mm images that I saved are not many and not all had a background pertinent to compression. I think this ocean situation below where the zoom "pulled" the rocks in closer is the most relevant, but these aren't common in my shooting. I kept 5 shots from this and most were 140mm to 170mm, not a huge leap from 135mm.
Canon EOS R6 TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A009 lens 172mm f/4.5 1/400s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
Aug 25, 2026 at 06:03 PM
p.1 #12Care to share lens kit compromises?
I'm not sure if I'd call these compromises, given that I don't shoot professionally, but pricing has kept me in more of the f/4 zooms than the 2.8L zooms. There's just a huge cost associated with, say, the 70-200 f/2.8L over the f/4 version. If I were using it in situations where the faster aperture were needed often, I'd have forked over the additional money for the faster lens.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate the nice f/2.8 lenses - the 24-70 f/2.8 II EF lens was truly excellent (and I should probably have kept it) but the cost of admission for a new RF version is just not worth it for my use. My desire to accumulate gear for the sake of accumulating gear may be slowly coming to an end.
That's not to say that I don't appreciate the nice f/2.8 lenses - the 24-70 f/2.8 II EF lens was truly excellent (and I should probably have kept it) but the cost of admission for a new RF version is just not worth it for my use. My desire to accumulate gear for the sake of accumulating gear may be slowly coming to an end.
Aug 25, 2026 at 06:29 PM
p.1 #13Care to share lens kit compromises?
Good points
One thing I'm realizing the past week or so is that for maybe 8 + years 90% of my attention has been on image quality and sharpness, with very little thought about what I could do better or different.
- Should I get rid of of one lens and more move?
- Will that help me compose better and make photos more interesting?
I'm going back and looking at some photos like the one below and many others and asking question like "what if I used a 135mm instead and just asked them to step back 2 paces closer to the pines?"
If I used a 35mm rather than 85mm for a reception table, what would a kneeling shot look like closer looking level at their eyes rather than downward over the heads of folks at the other table?
Canon EOS 5DS TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A009 lens 129mm f/4.5 1/200s 320 ISO 0.0 EV
Aug 25, 2026 at 07:14 PM
p.1 #14Care to share lens kit compromises?
I love compromising on lenses because I rarely care about absolute quality.
My current kit is 3 lenses from 3 decades:
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L representing the 90s. Sure, its corners are smeared and soft, but I typically don't shoot an UWA to get sharp corners (and when I do, I stop down to f/8). Otherwise, it's tough and does the job.
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS from the 00s. I've heard all the bad things and how so many lenses have improved upon this design, but it's light weight (for an L lens) and the IS is good enough.
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. This lens feels like it never caught on. It has great quality and it's lighter than most other white L lenses. It just doesn't have the reach (vs the 100-400), aperture (70-200 f/2.8) or pedigree (70-200 f/4 IS) as other more popular lenses.
Besides my current kit, there are a wide variety of "compromising" lenses that I still like:
EF 28mm f/1.8. Fast, small, cheap. I know its wide open quality isn't great, but I still enjoyed using it as a lightweight candid lens
EF 24-85 f/3.4-4.5. It's small and has a wide 24mm focal length . F/3.5 is nothing to sneeze at. Consumer grade quality is still good enough for a lot of photos.
EF 200mm f/2.8L. If you want f/2.8 and reach, this lens does exactly what you need on the cheap with fast AF. It's also half the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8. On a 7D II, you have a jr equivalent 320mm f/2.8L (j/k, or am I?)
EF 50mm f/1.4. Everyone's favorite lens to hate. It's not great, but it's a cheap f/1.4 lens. It has a lot of fun "character" that's fun to exploit for artistic purposes.
EF 100mm f/2. The EF 85mm f/1.8's red-headed step brother. It works great with less purple fringing (though, honestly, long primes were never my thing).
As far as 35mm lenses are concerned, i've not liked how bulky most of Canon's 35mm primes are. I had the EF 35mm f/2 IS and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS. Both were too large for my taste. The original EF 35mm's focus is loud, but it's nice and compact.
Honestly, I'm all-in on zooms for the foreseeable future. Once my son is old enough to play sports at school, I may get a 7D II and the 200L prime again for some parental sports photography, but until then, I'm cool with compromising on my "slow zoom" kick.
My current kit is 3 lenses from 3 decades:
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L representing the 90s. Sure, its corners are smeared and soft, but I typically don't shoot an UWA to get sharp corners (and when I do, I stop down to f/8). Otherwise, it's tough and does the job.
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS from the 00s. I've heard all the bad things and how so many lenses have improved upon this design, but it's light weight (for an L lens) and the IS is good enough.
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. This lens feels like it never caught on. It has great quality and it's lighter than most other white L lenses. It just doesn't have the reach (vs the 100-400), aperture (70-200 f/2.8) or pedigree (70-200 f/4 IS) as other more popular lenses.
Besides my current kit, there are a wide variety of "compromising" lenses that I still like:
EF 28mm f/1.8. Fast, small, cheap. I know its wide open quality isn't great, but I still enjoyed using it as a lightweight candid lens
EF 24-85 f/3.4-4.5. It's small and has a wide 24mm focal length . F/3.5 is nothing to sneeze at. Consumer grade quality is still good enough for a lot of photos.
EF 200mm f/2.8L. If you want f/2.8 and reach, this lens does exactly what you need on the cheap with fast AF. It's also half the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8. On a 7D II, you have a jr equivalent 320mm f/2.8L (j/k, or am I?)
EF 50mm f/1.4. Everyone's favorite lens to hate. It's not great, but it's a cheap f/1.4 lens. It has a lot of fun "character" that's fun to exploit for artistic purposes.
EF 100mm f/2. The EF 85mm f/1.8's red-headed step brother. It works great with less purple fringing (though, honestly, long primes were never my thing).
As far as 35mm lenses are concerned, i've not liked how bulky most of Canon's 35mm primes are. I had the EF 35mm f/2 IS and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS. Both were too large for my taste. The original EF 35mm's focus is loud, but it's nice and compact.
Honestly, I'm all-in on zooms for the foreseeable future. Once my son is old enough to play sports at school, I may get a 7D II and the 200L prime again for some parental sports photography, but until then, I'm cool with compromising on my "slow zoom" kick.
Aug 30, 2026 at 07:04 PM