I have bought a number of used lenses including my most expensive one. Not only did I save money upfront but if I decide to sell, my losses, if any, will be minimal. Right now in the Canon world, there a number of legendary EF lenses that can be bought for very reasonable prices. Since EF lenses work seamlessly on mirrorless bodies, they won't become obsolete either.
I should have mentioned earlier that everyone should get into the habit of looking at the histogram. "Exposing to the right" has always been a popular method to preserve details in the dark areas partly because recovering the details in post increases noise. This is less important with new cameras that control noise better and have greater dynamic range in the sensors as well. In this case, the OP should adjust the exposure to make sure the right side of the histogram isn't too close to the edge or, worse, cut off on the right. If it is cut off at the left, some dark detail will be lost but that's the compromise you have to make in a high contrast image.
When I am shooting a light object against a dark background, I typically reduce the exposure. 1/3 to 2/3 a stop usually does the trick. Conversely, if I'm shooting a dark object against a light background, I increase exposure.
I remember when you were agonizing over the choice. The size and weight make it a joy to use not to mention the IQ ranks among the best. It's my favorite hiking lens. Sometimes I'll put a 50 1.8 in my pocket in case I want a wider angle. I've been impressed with its ability for closeups too. I shoot a lot of wildflowers. You always have the 135 2L when you want to make magic, shallow depth of field images.
I have the RF 100-500. Resolution is close to my EF 300 2.8L II IS which is supposedly the sharpest EF lens made. More importantly, it produces beautiful images with vibrant color and nice bokeh for a "slow" lens. Most importantly, the AF performance is truly amazing. Its ability to pick tiny bird's eyes has to experienced to be believed. Finally, the light weight and balance makes it a joy to use and carry for long periods. The R5/lens combo weighs 5 lbs.
Google reviews of the lenses under consideration. I like to see what actual pros say, especially any negatives. Jan Wegner is a wildlife pro and reviews lenses from different manufacturers.
Why would any company choose to make a 70-200 f2.8 lens incapable of accepting converters? Major blunder.
According to Canon, they chose lighter weight over TC compatibility. The main complaint about the EF 2.8 version was weight. The RF versions of the 2.8 and 4.0 are much lighter.
The RF 100-500 max aperture at 200 is 5.0 so you would only gain 2/3 stop with the f/4. I own the RF 70-200 f/4 myself. Its size and weight make it a joy to use and the IQ ain't too shabby either, but I can't say if it would serve your needs.
Still shooting DSLRs, I like to walk around with the 16-35 f/4L IS and the nifty-fifty 50 f/1.8 in my pocket. With deep shorts pockets, I can swap the lenses, such as touring someplace both indoor and outdoor.
I guess we could say your strategy is the reverse of mine! LOL
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are needed for extreme macro, astrophotography, sometimes architectural photography, professional sports photography, underwater photography and special purpose lenses like the Canon RF 600 and 800 fixed aperture models. Environmental portrait photographers love their 35mm f/1.2’s.
But technology has seemingly made the 50mm prime no longer obligatory. My questions should have been, “do you find yourself using your 24 through 100 mm primes less often? If you didn’t own one currently would you buy one now?”
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are ne... (show quote)
I have more primes than zooms but my EF 24-70 2.8L II is my workhorse. I do sometimes wonder why I have primes in that range. However, I recently sold my 16-35. It was too heavy to haul with the 24-70. Now I have a RF 16 2.8 which I can stick in my pocket. The strategy works great! Sometimes I take my RF 70-200 4L hiking and can stick a nifty fifty in my pocket. I have no regrets about my longer primes (85 1.8, 100 2.8, 135 1.8 & 300 2.8) When I wish to create special images, I reach for one of those.
I agree with another poster mentioning that zooms can make you lazy. When I'm using primes, I do concentrate more on my position and composition.
If you already have an adapter, I'd recommend the EF 100 2.8L IS. You can buy nice used ones for 500-600 and you will have one of the legendary EF lenses. Google pro reviews. I also own a RP.
One big benefit of a R5 vs 5D4 is the increase in dynamic range. With the 5D4, if I tried recovering shadow detail in post, it would become unnatural looking and add a lot of noise. That's why a lot of photographers "expose to the right." With the R5, I can turn images that would have been hopeless with the 5D4 into beautiful natural looking images. This has offered me more opportunities to play with difficult lighting and be more creative. Is this because of being mirrorless or just sensor advancement? I don't know. Sony was always the leader in this respect and they were always mirrorless.
Interesting observation. But I see no evidence in this discussion or in the OP's profile that he uses Canon or any specific manufacturer's products. There is one reference to a Tamron lens.
I also find it incredibly interesting that Canon has decided to produce only one tier of products. That was not my impression when I was looking seriously at Canon when shifting to digital photography a few years ago. There seemed to be a range of choices from entry-level to quite esoteric, with many reasons for choosing one versus another.
Interesting observation. But I see no evidence in... (show quote)
One tier? The current lineup of RF lenses range from 159. to 20K. Full frame cameras range from 1000. to 6000.