After over a decade, I have upgraded my DSLR to a mirrorless camera. The Canon R6 Mark II + RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS USM (inbound, not yet arrived) (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

Personally, I think large maximum aperture lenses are mostly a waste of money in the digital era. For example, in the Nikkor Z line, I can spend $2,400 on a 24-70mm f/2.8 S and have an enormous, heavy, extremely expensive lens that's rather limited. Or, I can get a 24-120mm f/4 S (both are their top, "S" line) for less than half the cost, $1,100, and have a significantly more versatile lens that doesn't feel like a brick. The importance of "Bokeh" is horribly overstated. It simply is not worth paying more than double for a lens that, in the real world, is significantly less flexible.

Yes, we've had this discussion in the past. My zoom lenses are slower, and I supplement them with a few prime lenses for those occasions where I need something faster or lighter / more portable. Makes for a less expensive and lighter kit.

My current lens lineup:
RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS
RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS (this is an APS-C lens)
RF 16mm f/2.8
RF 35mm f/1.8 IS
RF 50mm f/1.8
RF 800mm f/11
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS macro (it's an EF mount)

 

[Carlo_M]

For me it's not just the bokeh, but the combination of being able to shoot in even lower light, and that in most lens families, the 2.8 variant has better engineering in it so that even at f/4, 5.6, 7 etc. it tends to be a bit sharper than its smaller aperture counterparts. Not always, but that tends to be true in the Canon L series.

It's all about the personal calculation between diminishing returns and what one feels justifies the expenditure of their hard earned dollars. It can legitimately be argued "okay your 2.8 lens takes slightly sharper shots at f/4, 5.6, 7 than the f/4 lens....will anyone be able to tell in shots you post on Instagram or jpeg reductions you send to friends?" For 99.9% of the people, probably not. But I'll know, and I'm the one I have to live with every second of every day.

It's the all-or-nothing part of my personality. When I pick up (or in this case, restart) a hobby, I tend to go hard (at least as much as I can without putting myself in financial hardship). Back in 2009, the 7D and that 17-55 lens (and a cheapie telephoto) was it. I stopped using the telephoto because the lens distortion and chromatic aberration at certain focal lengths were so bad. Yes I could take time and fix it all in post, but there's nothing like shooting RAW+jpeg and just giving your friends the jpeg off the card and knowing it's a high quality shot.

So now that I'm in a much better place financially, I'm getting back into the hobby in the way that I wanted 14 years ago, but just couldn't afford to. The few dozen shots I've taken in the past hour, when viewed on my 4K monitor, look good enough to just hand to someone without needing to edit in LR, DPP, etc. So that fulfills the convenience part. But I also know when it comes time for me to take those important shots (when I'm traveling abroad, or for my friends' first born expected in November), the gear is going to capture those moments beautifully. I can hand them the jpegs that night which they can share with family and friends. And then I can obsess over the RAWs at home knowing what was captured was the best possible version for the point I am in my life right now.

I look at lenses as a minimum 10 year investment, if not more. I don't tend to roll with a bunch of lenses. The 70-200 2.8 is next and at that point I may be done. Or I may finish the Canon Trinity with the 15-35 2.8.

If I ever get that itch to shoot with the prime lens+wide open apertures...well I live near several Samy's and other high end shops and I'll just rent them. But the 24-70 and 70-200 for sure are "with me all the time" lenses, at least when I'm traveling with my kit. And we'll see if, as I get back into shooting, I feel like I need wider than the 24. Hmm, now that I'm reminded of renting lenses, that's probably what I'll do with the 70-200 for the birth of my friends' first child. That will get me through that event and also buy me time until ver.2 comes out likely in 2024.

Dinner with a friend tonight in an outdoor mall. I think I'm going to bring it and see how it performs at night...

 

[JohnRice]

An increase in ISO of one stop on current digital cameras is undetectable. Same benefit as f/2.8 vs. f/4.

The "faster lenses are sharper" claim is rarely true with current lenses as well. These mirrorless lenses are astoundingly sharp in most cases.

 

[Citizen87645]

I've gradually moved away from the fast glass best glass mentality too, to the point the last couple family things I was shooting with the RF 100-400 at f/8 and damned the ISO.

But to be fair, if I were shooting concerts regularly, I would definitely be standardizing around f/2.8s.