and the site receives a small commission
RF 15-35mm f2.8
- Thread starter billmac
- Start date
- Messages
- 489
- Name
- Julian Elliott
- Edit My Images
- No
I think it depends on what you're ultimate goal is.
One thing Lightroom is good for is seeing how often you use a focal length. You can filter your catalog by focal length to see how often you use a particular one.
One thing Lightroom is good for is seeing how often you use a focal length. You can filter your catalog by focal length to see how often you use a particular one.
- Messages
- 49
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some questions to think about :
What do you shoot with the 70-200?
How often do you use it?
How often would you use the 15-35?
Your other lenses can cover the 70-200 focal length range so can you use your other lenses instead or not practical?
How long will it take you to save for the 15-35?
Would you end up buying the 70-200 again?
What do you shoot with the 70-200?
How often do you use it?
How often would you use the 15-35?
Your other lenses can cover the 70-200 focal length range so can you use your other lenses instead or not practical?
How long will it take you to save for the 15-35?
Would you end up buying the 70-200 again?
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think trade it as your other glass cover that FL range. A wide zoom is a useful thing to own for landscapes.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And then there is that excellent chain of thought
I scrub my post...keep it and just buy the other. If you find you never use it then maybe sell it then.
- Messages
- 1,097
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you need the f2.8?
The only point where f2.8 is actually needed (I find at least) is for dark interiors and astro. Personally, I have a 17-35mm but rarely use it. I can shoot all day on the 24-105.
There is an f4 wide angle on the way which will be cheaper but it may be a while.
You could sell the 70-200 and buy the 15-35 f2.8, then if you find you miss having a 70-200, you could buy the new RF70-200 f4 IS, which will be cheaper and lighter.
But since you already have 24-105 and 100-500 covered, you'd probably be ok without the 70-200, unless you do event/wedding photography.
The only point where f2.8 is actually needed (I find at least) is for dark interiors and astro. Personally, I have a 17-35mm but rarely use it. I can shoot all day on the 24-105.
There is an f4 wide angle on the way which will be cheaper but it may be a while.
You could sell the 70-200 and buy the 15-35 f2.8, then if you find you miss having a 70-200, you could buy the new RF70-200 f4 IS, which will be cheaper and lighter.
But since you already have 24-105 and 100-500 covered, you'd probably be ok without the 70-200, unless you do event/wedding photography.
- Messages
- 956
- Name
- Justin
- Edit My Images
- No
You have the 70-200mm focal lengths covered but there are other considerations...
Is the 100-500mm heavy? You might not want to lug that around instead of the 70-200mm
Do you need the faster aperture of the 70-200mm?
I know its not a cheap lens but personally I'd keep the 70-200mm and get by with the 24-105mm for landscapes until I could afford to add the 15-35mm. Actually I wouldn't I'd sell the 100-500mm but that wasn't your question!
Is the 100-500mm heavy? You might not want to lug that around instead of the 70-200mm
Do you need the faster aperture of the 70-200mm?
I know its not a cheap lens but personally I'd keep the 70-200mm and get by with the 24-105mm for landscapes until I could afford to add the 15-35mm. Actually I wouldn't I'd sell the 100-500mm but that wasn't your question!