Rate this potential lens set up…

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I have settled in to portrait/headshot and creative photography as my niche. I do some events and might try some sports since I’m an athlete. I don’t want drop $10k on lenses (I can’t justify that), and I think this might cover the bases fairly well. Interested to hear the thoughts on this.

-RF 50 1.2 (I use the RF 50 1.8 right now)
-RF 85 1.2 DS (I use the RF 85 2 right now)
-EF or RF 24-105 F/4 or EF 24-70 F/4 (I use the kit RF 24-105 STM right now. The images are great, even bumping ISO, but I want more DoF)
-EF or RF 70-200 F/4 (I don’t have one right now, probably EF L USM to save cash.)

I’m leaning EF for the zooms because I could probably find both in F/4 for under $1500. I think the F/4s would compliment the fast 50 and 85 for events. Thoughts?

 

[tpatana]

70-200 F2.8 is not an option? Especially the EF version can be found cheap and it's great for many sports. Can be used for portraits too.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

It’s just that they start right around $750-800 for L USM used models. The two RF lenses are close to $5k. I can find EF 70-200 F/4 L USM lenses in good condition for under $500.

 

[tpatana]

F4 vs F2.8 is big difference in sports though, I would seriously consider upgrading that one. Nobody ever regretted going for 2.8 if possible.

On other comments, I'd say stay away from EF 24-105 F4. It's one of the softest L lenses I've used. The 24-70 F4 is much sharper. Used to have that one too.

Personally I'm not fan of 50mm lenses. I have 85 DS for portraits and it's amazing. For wider I have 28-70. I've had some 50mm lenses but I never learned how to get proper shots with them, always had better luck with 85 or 30/35.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Update to this thread. I just found out I’m going to get creds for an AHL game this year (hopefully turns into a continuous thing…) I am leaning toward a 2.8, but I really can’t afford or justify the cost. I could save a little bit by buying a used EF lens, but I still have to go mark 2 or better to take advantage of H+ continuous mode. I watched the Fro use the RF F4 70-200 in a normal municipal arena and he was able to get shots at 1/1000, f/4 and iso 5000 on the R5. I have to think in a pro arena I could probably do the same at 5000 or a little better. I have a bad left shoulder injury and the weight/size savings of the F4 might be handy. I suppose I could always sell if for a slight loss if hockey photography turns into a continuous thing and I decide I need the 2.8…ugh photography just has to be so expensive

 

[Dwardski]

Update to this thread. I just found out I’m going to get creds for an AHL game this year (hopefully turns into a continuous thing…) I am leaning toward a 2.8, but I really can’t afford or justify the cost. I could save a little bit by buying a used EF lens, but I still have to go mark 2 or better to take advantage of H+ continuous mode. I watched the Fro use the RF F4 70-200 in a normal municipal arena and he was able to get shots at 1/1000, f/4 and iso 5000 on the R5. I have to think in a pro arena I could probably do the same at 5000 or a little better. I have a bad left shoulder injury and the weight/size savings of the F4 might be handy. I suppose I could always sell if for a slight loss if hockey photography turns into a continuous thing and I decide I need the 2.8…ugh photography just has to be so expensive

Have you considered renting a lens (or two) from the selection that you're considering? You could use them at the game to see which is best suited to your needs...

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

I looked into it, but since the game is unpaid the rental prices are too high. I have the 70-200 F4 and EF 16-35 F2.8 L II USM.

I’ve been doing some experimenting of my own recently and I am finding zero reason to be afraid of higher ISO values with the R6 Mark 2. When I say high, I mean high.