Online
After much soul searching and watching about 300 YouTube review videos, I have decided to pull the trigger on TWO lenses:
1. Canon RF 70-200 f/4
My ultimate rational for the f4 vice the much more rxpensive f2.8 was that, if Iβm being honest, the amount of times I would βneedβ 2.8 are relatively limited. With the low light performance of the Canon R5, I can bump up the ISO in low light situations and, in the event thereβs a bit too much noise for my taste, I can run it through Topaz Denoise. The only thing Iβm really giving up then is a bit better background blur, but from the comparisons Iβve seen, I can live with the f/4 in this regard. The f4 version can still produce quite nice background blur and subject separation. Also, the f/4 is much smaller and lighter and, since I like to backpack, it will be easier to lug around.
Also, with the $ I saved, I have ordered a second βfunβ lens:
1. Canon RF 70-200 f/4
My ultimate rational for the f4 vice the much more rxpensive f2.8 was that, if Iβm being honest, the amount of times I would βneedβ 2.8 are relatively limited. With the low light performance of the Canon R5, I can bump up the ISO in low light situations and, in the event thereβs a bit too much noise for my taste, I can run it through Topaz Denoise. The only thing Iβm really giving up then is a bit better background blur, but from the comparisons Iβve seen, I can live with the f/4 in this regard. The f4 version can still produce quite nice background blur and subject separation. Also, the f/4 is much smaller and lighter and, since I like to backpack, it will be easier to lug around.
Also, with the $ I saved, I have ordered a second βfunβ lens:
- Canon RF 85 f/2 - This lens looks like an amazing prime for portraits and situations when I do want a bit more background blur and it has the added benefit of having macro capability, albeit not 1:1, but still should be fun to play with the macro capabilities.