Thinking of shuffling my lenses again: Would like opinion from the group. I have a Canon RP. My lenses include an 85 EF, 50mm, 24-105 EF, 70-300 EF, 17-40L EF, Sigma 100-400, and Sigma...

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

Would like opinion from the group. I have a Canon RP. My lenses include an 85 EF, 50mm, 24-105 EF, 70-300 EF, 17-40L EF, Sigma 100-400, and Sigma 150-600. I am thinking about trading the 24-105 and 70-300 and getting a 24-240RF. I shoot sunsets, landscapes, the grandchildren, and the city (when it was safe). What do you think?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Rolaids...

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

You lenses seem to cover the wold of photography. I found that my go to lens has been my Tamron 28-300mm. I will take that and a canon wide angle in a my small National Geographic case to Europe, mAsia and the US when I travel. I picked the 28-300 over others as it is a fast focusing lens for shooting fast moving objects.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Longshadow wrote:

Rolaids...

My wife keeps plenty on hand for me.

I quit.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

Longshadow wrote:

Rolaids...

LOLOL

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sounds logical and doable to me - you might be giving up some IQ for convenience - but very small - if at all ....

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What / why are you holding onto any EF lenses? Yes, price would be a reason, but if not price, why? Go all-in mirrorless.

Long lens: RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS, sell all overlaps to this focal length

General purpose: any of the RF 24-105/240 options, sell all overlaps to this focal length

Wide: RF 15-35 F/2.8L, sell all overlaps to this focal length

When Canon puts out a RF 'nifty fifty', add that prime to the mix.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

Thanks Paul. It would be too expensive for me to replace all of them. I figure the 24-240 is a good walk around lens and gets me at least one RF lens. I think another trip to B&H is in the cards for this week.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rdemarco52 wrote:

Thanks Paul. It would be too expensive for me to replace all of them. I figure the 24-240 is a good walk around lens and gets me at least one RF lens. I think another trip to B&H is in the cards for this week.

Expense is one of the reasons holding me back, as well as a personal commit to live-out the 10 year plan on my EOS 5DIII. Gear lust makes it hard. I have my entire EF roster listed out with keep / sell designations, with the only reason to 'keep' is I want to use that lens on my older EOS film body. I have some primes approaching 20 years use on the 'sell' list (for now) as the RF zooms show superior comparative results.

twice_shooter

TUMS (Trade Up to More Stuff)

User ID

rdemarco52 wrote:

Would like opinion from the group. I have a Canon RP. My lenses include an 85 EF, 50mm, 24-105 EF, 70-300 EF, 17-40L EF, Sigma 100-400, and Sigma 150-600. I am thinking about trading the 24-105 and 70-300 and getting a 24-240RF. I shoot sunsets, landscapes, the grandchildren, and the city (when it was safe). What do you think?

.

DO THAT !!!

And do it now ... don’t wait for further confused and conflicting “expert” Hogsters to muddy the waters by offering useless alternatives just to prove that they listen to each other.

Your impulse is your gut feeling and so is the decision that will always feel right long after the last page of all the BS thaz about to follow.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

rdemarco52 wrote:

Would like opinion from the group. I have a Canon RP. My lenses include an 85 EF, 50mm, 24-105 EF, 70-300 EF, 17-40L EF, Sigma 100-400, and Sigma 150-600. I am thinking about trading the 24-105 and 70-300 and getting a 24-240RF. I shoot sunsets, landscapes, the grandchildren, and the city (when it was safe). What do you think?

Sounds good to me. That focal length should cover pretty much all of your needs for the type of shooting you say you do and being able to carry just one lens most of the time is a big bonus. The IQ of the lens may not be quite up to L standards but I would expect it to be quite good just the same. You could probably end up selling/trading most of your lenses except possibly the 17-40 and 150-600.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

User ID wrote:

.

DO THAT !!!

And do it now ... don’t wait for further confused and conflicting “expert” Hogsters to muddy the waters by offering useless alternatives just to prove that they listen to each other.

Your impulse is your gut feeling and so is the decision that will always feel right long after the last page of all the BS thaz about to follow.

I value CHG_Canon's advice very much and he has been an advocate of these lenses. Wish I could trade all of them but the cost would be prohibitive.

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

LFingar wrote:

Sounds good to me. That focal length should cover pretty much all of your needs for the type of shooting you say you do and being able to carry just one lens most of the time is a big bonus. The IQ of the lens may not be quite up to L standards but I would expect it to be quite good just the same. You could probably end up selling/trading most of your lenses except possibly the 17-40 and 150-600.

Thanks for your input. i do use all of those lenses, so more than others. I wish i could get all L lenses, but the cost of the divorce would kill me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rdemarco52 wrote:

Thanks for your input. i do use all of those lenses, so more than others. I wish i could get all L lenses, but the cost of the divorce would kill me.

Try selling the "logic" of consolidation.

The 70-300 and the two Sigmas (three lenses overall) become the RF 100-500. Who could argue against that logic, done for the good of the family. Another tactic might be both consolidation & used, rather than a new RF 100-500, how about a used 100-400L II and 1.4xIII converter?