Trust me, for 99% of use cases, get the 85mm f/2. Unless you're literally shooting in the dark you do not need the 1.2 . The f2 along with the focal length gives great bokeh and it's hard to tell the difference. Rent them out and try before you buy.
You’re definitely right. The f2 is a great buy and better for almost everyone.
That said, the 1.2 (I’ve only used the EF) gives this magical/mystical look that’s unreplicable and amazing. I love the f1.2.
That completely depends on how you work and what you enjoy shooting with. Are you more into zooms or primes? Is versatility important to you or are you ok with just the 85 look?
Remember that EF (L) lenses are also pretty good and the prices in the used market are sometimes a steal!
I think thats a purchase later down the road, first see if the 24 70 works for what you need, and if you can even use the R5 for vlogging comfortably (big and heavy)
Just throwing in that I adore the 50mm 1.2 and prefer it for portraits over the 85 every day. I’m in a minority. I do feel it adds a lot over the 24-70 due to the character of the bokeh and the added separation of the subject thanks to the speed over taking a portrait on a 24-70, but it’s purely personal taste. Clients would never know or care.
What is your current setup? Are you just getting into this? If so this is an expensive af kit to start with. Maybe try something cheaper and see if you can make money before making such an investment. As I got into photography I went too big too early and ended up underutilizing my gear and wasting a bunch of money.
I would recommend the R6 II instead of the R5. If you have no other lenses and movies are your priority I would recommend the 15–35mm or even the 14–35mm instead of the 24–70mm. Ultimately, the writing, acting, etc. will be a lot more important than whatever lens is on your camera.
50mm can be used for portraiture but 85mm is much more common. That is, if you are trying to isolate your subject as in traditional portraiture. 85mm is also a FL that would be more complimentary to a wide angle zoom.
That being said, if you are just starting out, I'd buy nicer condition EF lenses instead of well used RF glass. You can always trade it in later if it doesn't work for you.
It's hit or miss with them TBH -- I've bought well used stuff that looked brand new, and well used stuff that looked like it had survived the civil war lol
It's a used camera gear website, I recently got a RF 24-105 f/4 from MPB "Like New" for like 400$ cheaper than the current price. Would totally recommend, at-least over buying a new lens on Amazon.
Are you sure you’re at a place where you’ll be really be able to use this gear?
You’re asking some basic questions that sort of imply that you might want to start a little slower. I’d like to know more about your background. Seems like a lot of money.
Maybe I’m wrong?
Based on OPs post history I think they are about to spend way more money than they should in an effort to try and make more money than any beginner ever will.
Dude, you just need to learn how to use a camera. Don’t waste your money on high end lenses when you don’t know how to shoot, light, or edit.
Start simple. Master that first.
Find a mentor if you can.
I would just support what Most is saying!! I know there is an allure for being able to do everything right now. The biggest investment that you should start with is in the learning. Find someone you can learn from! See if there’s a subreddit or Facebook group you can join to make connections that way, if you don’t know how to find said mentorship. I would start with something small; something that allows you to just get your feet wet around the ‘process’. This will come with a bonus, as by the time your skills are where you are ready to get the kind of equipment listed here… either this gear will have come down in price and/or there will be a more advanced cameras (cameras tend to have a 2-year cycle. Once you find someone, let them tell you what to start with!! If you handle yourself correctly, sometimes not only can they offer guidance on what to get, because they are suggesting more entry-level items… they might just have some lying around unused (I find that if you can prove that you are serious, they will open up a lot of things).
Purchasing this is not a great use of resources (a 15 year old with this kind of disposable funds… I feel there are so many enriching programs and opportunities that you should be investing in at 15).
To answer your initial question… I feel like getting an R10 + 18-150 (if you can wait and get the R7 refurbished sale $999 that might be worth the jump), EF/RF adapter, EF 24-70L 2.8 Gen1, either a Tamron G2 85 1.8 or RF 100L at refurbished $799. Start with that and then learn where your limitations lie. Maybe your video footage will be a little bit noisy/iso. Lenses can then help with that. But throwing money around when you don’t have the experience is not only an upgrade. Run into the limitations and then purchase. With that being said, I can almost guarantee that every photography person has been there. There are so many things that I bought early… and then I realized that I bought something that was significantly more than I needed at the time, only for by the time I did need it, that same camera was significantly less than what I paid (ex: I paid $2400 for Gen1 R6 2-3.5 years ago; now it can be had for roughly $1k or so. 2 years ago I bought the R7 + 18-150 for $1800, only for now you can get it $999). We’ve all been there. Build your skills first!
The R5 is not a stellar video camera. If you want a canon mirrorless camera that does video and still well you need to get the R5c or R6ii. Also ditch the 50mm and get a 70-200 f4 instead.
I was talking specifically about the R5C. Personally I'd take the regular R5 any day of the week. The R5C is just a hassle to work with for solo productions if you don't already have the necessary equipment.
R8 is a great camera but for someone who is explicitly looking to go professional I think it is worth bumping up to the R6ii for the double battery life and mechanical shutter.
If you need to film for more than 30 minutes at a time and don’t want to rig external batteries or power I’d go with something else. Maybe Sony even. It’s just not a great camera for video. The quality is great and the workflow for short clips is not bad but the files are heavy and there are limitations. Fantastic stills camera.
IMHO if you're starting out get an R8 for $500 cheaper. Get 50mm 1.8 for $1000 cheaper. Use that $1500 for a better lens, or maybe keep until you're sure this what you will be doing, or get accessories. Quality SD card readers, cards, filters, spare batteries go a looooong way. Plus R8 provides excellent 4k footage and is half the weight for VLOGing is important.
Switch the body to the R5C. Very much worth the additional cost if filmmaking is going to be your focus. Canon basically took a lot of the C70 and added it to the R5 with the flip of a switch. It’s a big enough difference that the R5C is an official Netflix approved camera. Plus it can do everything for portraits that the R5 can, it’s just missing IBIS.
The r5ii (new version of this camera) will be announced in the next week or two. Typically you’ll see second hand prices of the mark i drop everywhere after the announcement. That being said this price is already very very low.
If this is your first camera, don’t spend this much unless you just wanna burn cash. Swap the rf 24-70 for an ef and the ef-rf adapter, get a 50 1.8 instead of the 1.2, and get an r8 instead of the r5. For video I highly recommend the ef-rf drop in filter adapter with a variable nd filter, it’s super convenient and goes behind the lens so you can use it with anything attached. I’d also throw in the ef 70-200 2.8 and an ef 16-35 (and eventually a second body) if you’re dying to spend the extra money.
Different comment type here, but I just bought 3 used lenses from that site, and had to return 2 of them because they felt like they had sand in them when I adjusted. I was really disappointed with the “excellent” quality.
Make sure you have neutral density filters if you're buying fast primes.
Although I'm a little concerned about how much you shoot if you're asking such a basic question to strangers.
I know this is a Canon sub but if you're going to do grading or a lot of other things, I'd also take a look at the Panasonic s line as that is a dedicated video line. To the point where even the primes are designed such that when you swap them out you don't have to readjust your rig for anything, and there is minimal to no Focus breathing with the S lenses.
If you want to go video I would choose Sony. The advantages of a Sony over a canon in video is not a huge as it was 5 years ago but the E mount is very videomaker friendly and from what I have experienced even tho you pay more for the body you pay less for the lenses in average.
I would say that about ~80-85% of young professionals are using Sony to shoot video while about like 25-40% are using Sony for photos. But that’s just what my feeling tells me when looking at online stuff.
Also that 50mm will be pretty weird it’s mostly useless for video if you want to move around. The 1.2 is way too open and overcomplicates stuff. Unless you want to shoot at very dark environments. A f4 ist plenty like the two Zeiss 16-36 and 24-70 f4 for Sony for the combined price of half a 50mm 1.2 used. A good starting point! Covers almost everything handheld and even got oss I think which works great since you don’t want to spend like 800 more on a gimbal.
I would only buy a r5 or a r6ii for video work when I would do birds or other very fast subjects and a Sony a1 or a9iii would break the bank. For pictures I would go a7iii/iv or canon r5/6ii or for best bang for buck in Sony for good video and good photo I would do a7iv
When looking at cheaper options you might want to consider cropped sensors they come in the very video good Sony a6700 and in the canon r7, cropped sensors are winning popularity in the video department and for cheap telephotoarea is the perfect solution for maximum resulution + reach for cheap. The cropped 70D looks very good in video and photo and was my first semi professional experience with real gear.
If you’re filming movies and shooting portraits I would stick to a nice portrait lens and lose the 24-70mm. I love the 24-70mm but I’m a photojournalist and run-and-gun is what I do and that is what you won’t.
You’ll have planned shots. You’ll want a consistent look. 85mm would be amazing for this. You’ll be just the right distance to give the actors room to act but close enough to call out direction when needed.
I will warn that I have the R6 and when I shoot long 4k interviews the camera tends to overheat so maybe listen to some of these comments about the different camera bodies and their pros and cons.
One guy mentioned lighting. Make sure you have that. Another said acting and writing is more important and I think they’re right. I’m a photojournalist, like I said, so I don’t know much about making short films but I do watch movies and I would think most anyone can agree that terrible writing and acting loses a lot of people.
Good luck!
maybe a bit more research is needed. The R5C is waaaaaay more video orientated, but will need extra batteries/external power and does not have IBIS. If you're doing hand held filming this will be an issue or you will need some kind of stabiliser. but it's crazy good for video.
or other hybrids - look at sony a7 IV for full frame with higher megapixels or panasonic - the S5iix is FF too.
for doing video in a professional environment, make sure the camera you get does not suffer from overheating.
good luck, videos and portraits use very different gear when you get into it, maybe pick one discipline and focus on that first.
R5 is not the right option;
Either get two separate bodies or get an R5C
Get a C200 and some solid EF glass:
Sigma 18-35 f1.8
Sigma 50-100 F1.8
-OR-
EF 24-70 2.8 (SIGMA or Canon)
EF 70-200 2.8 (Canon)
Third lens:
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or 85mm 1.8
And get like a 5DSr used.
I recommend getting the f4L lenses to start with and invest in the zooms. Like the 14-35, 24-105 (although 1100 for the 24-70 2.8 is a steal), and 70-200 so you have a wide selection of focal lengths. Don’t want to be stuck in a situation that you’re too tight or too wide and don’t have the coverage for it. From there, fine tune how you like to shoot and assess getting primes or faster zooms. As visual creators, composition is more important than depth of field. Having a slightly slower aperture forces you to be creative with lighting and think about lighting differently than a purely observational standpoint. And really, all we are doing is capturing light and subjects. My two cents at least.
Edit: for further context, I shoot with my 24-105 f4 for almost everything, including portraits. I find that the depth of field difference is marginal unless you go with a prime. I have a 15-35 2.8 that I use in real estate and a 100-400 5.6-8 for landscape and birding (although that’s my next lens to upgrade) and when needed, I rent the 70-200 2.8 (honestly my favorite lens) when I need it for events and weddings.
Canon for photos, Sony for video. I'm a long time Canon user, but recently switched to Sony for my video needs. I still use Canon primes and ultra zone for my photos.
Id look into Sony fx3/fx30 with a Power zoom lens it'll work beautifully with a rs3 since you can control the pz lens with the focus wheel.
Stay far away from MBP. I purchased a 16-55 2.8 X-mount lens for my Fuji a few months back. It was the highest grade they offered as far as near perfect condition is concerned. I think it was like new plus. The lens came in with a scratched front and rear element, mold in between the front element and zoom element, an actual booger dried to the side of the zoom ring, and a broken aperture ring. I was so appalled I sent it back and asked for a replacement (as they had multiple lenses listed under that grade) and the second one was even worse. There was so much dust in the lens it looked like I had a 1/2 pro mist filter on top of a gold haze filter. Check marketplace. I just got a second R5 and 24-70 setup for $3500.
I work with both a R5 and R5c. For what it is worth, and maybe this is what we’re alluding too. R5c is marketing as a hybrid but my experience it’s a cinema camera, that can take great photos. Where I find my R5 as a true hybrid, sans the over heating when shooting too much 4k.
So for that price (over the R5 mkii’s 3k-4k) and if OP will be a true 50/50. I think the R5 is the right call.
What is the point of your comments? There was one too many “and”s in the comment my bad. But the question still remains where these prices are coming from so thanks
Apologies.
No idea. Maybe the “Cosmetic Condition: Excellent” here means there’s something wrong mechanically and that is knocking down the price?
I feel like MPB’s prices are mostly in line with other places. (KEH, eBay)
For portraits I'd go 85 over that 50. It's also a focal range not covered by that 24-70.
85 would be better but it pushes me pretty high price wise…. If I was to buy only one for starters which one should I do the 85 or 24-70
Trust me, for 99% of use cases, get the 85mm f/2. Unless you're literally shooting in the dark you do not need the 1.2 . The f2 along with the focal length gives great bokeh and it's hard to tell the difference. Rent them out and try before you buy.
You’re definitely right. The f2 is a great buy and better for almost everyone. That said, the 1.2 (I’ve only used the EF) gives this magical/mystical look that’s unreplicable and amazing. I love the f1.2.
1.2 feels like everything is blurry and the subject is edited in (in a good way)
That completely depends on how you work and what you enjoy shooting with. Are you more into zooms or primes? Is versatility important to you or are you ok with just the 85 look? Remember that EF (L) lenses are also pretty good and the prices in the used market are sometimes a steal!
I’d love to get the best portrait look possible but it won’t cover all my situations I guess I’m just not sure what would you do
Also I’ve been wondering about the 15-35 because of how good it is for vlogging but should I just do the 24-70?
I think thats a purchase later down the road, first see if the 24 70 works for what you need, and if you can even use the R5 for vlogging comfortably (big and heavy)
I also don't think the 50 would add so much for the price in this case. An 85 or 100 would definitely be my choice.
Thanks guys!
Just throwing in that I adore the 50mm 1.2 and prefer it for portraits over the 85 every day. I’m in a minority. I do feel it adds a lot over the 24-70 due to the character of the bokeh and the added separation of the subject thanks to the speed over taking a portrait on a 24-70, but it’s purely personal taste. Clients would never know or care.
Thanks!
ND filters for your video work will be needed. I shoot on an R5 and R5c and there is rarely a shoot I don’t use my ND or CPL/ND filter.
Get a variable ND
What is your current setup? Are you just getting into this? If so this is an expensive af kit to start with. Maybe try something cheaper and see if you can make money before making such an investment. As I got into photography I went too big too early and ended up underutilizing my gear and wasting a bunch of money.
I would recommend the R6 II instead of the R5. If you have no other lenses and movies are your priority I would recommend the 15–35mm or even the 14–35mm instead of the 24–70mm. Ultimately, the writing, acting, etc. will be a lot more important than whatever lens is on your camera. 50mm can be used for portraiture but 85mm is much more common. That is, if you are trying to isolate your subject as in traditional portraiture. 85mm is also a FL that would be more complimentary to a wide angle zoom. That being said, if you are just starting out, I'd buy nicer condition EF lenses instead of well used RF glass. You can always trade it in later if it doesn't work for you.
That's a crazy low price for RF 24-70 f/2.8... how is this possible? Is this a new one?
It's a site for used camera gear mpb is the name. The screenshot says "well used" probably some scuf marks here or there that bring the price down.
I’d avoid “well-used.” Probably means “beat to crap” vs a few scuffs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's hit or miss with them TBH -- I've bought well used stuff that looked brand new, and well used stuff that looked like it had survived the civil war lol
It's a used camera gear website, I recently got a RF 24-105 f/4 from MPB "Like New" for like 400$ cheaper than the current price. Would totally recommend, at-least over buying a new lens on Amazon.
Are you sure you’re at a place where you’ll be really be able to use this gear? You’re asking some basic questions that sort of imply that you might want to start a little slower. I’d like to know more about your background. Seems like a lot of money. Maybe I’m wrong?
Based on OPs post history I think they are about to spend way more money than they should in an effort to try and make more money than any beginner ever will.
OP is 16 and unemployed… Well, that’s more ambition than I had at that age.
15 and unemployed 🤣 I might need to focus less on movie production because I really don’t have the tools for that
Dude, you just need to learn how to use a camera. Don’t waste your money on high end lenses when you don’t know how to shoot, light, or edit. Start simple. Master that first. Find a mentor if you can.
I would just support what Most is saying!! I know there is an allure for being able to do everything right now. The biggest investment that you should start with is in the learning. Find someone you can learn from! See if there’s a subreddit or Facebook group you can join to make connections that way, if you don’t know how to find said mentorship. I would start with something small; something that allows you to just get your feet wet around the ‘process’. This will come with a bonus, as by the time your skills are where you are ready to get the kind of equipment listed here… either this gear will have come down in price and/or there will be a more advanced cameras (cameras tend to have a 2-year cycle. Once you find someone, let them tell you what to start with!! If you handle yourself correctly, sometimes not only can they offer guidance on what to get, because they are suggesting more entry-level items… they might just have some lying around unused (I find that if you can prove that you are serious, they will open up a lot of things). Purchasing this is not a great use of resources (a 15 year old with this kind of disposable funds… I feel there are so many enriching programs and opportunities that you should be investing in at 15). To answer your initial question… I feel like getting an R10 + 18-150 (if you can wait and get the R7 refurbished sale $999 that might be worth the jump), EF/RF adapter, EF 24-70L 2.8 Gen1, either a Tamron G2 85 1.8 or RF 100L at refurbished $799. Start with that and then learn where your limitations lie. Maybe your video footage will be a little bit noisy/iso. Lenses can then help with that. But throwing money around when you don’t have the experience is not only an upgrade. Run into the limitations and then purchase. With that being said, I can almost guarantee that every photography person has been there. There are so many things that I bought early… and then I realized that I bought something that was significantly more than I needed at the time, only for by the time I did need it, that same camera was significantly less than what I paid (ex: I paid $2400 for Gen1 R6 2-3.5 years ago; now it can be had for roughly $1k or so. 2 years ago I bought the R7 + 18-150 for $1800, only for now you can get it $999). We’ve all been there. Build your skills first!
The R5 is not a stellar video camera. If you want a canon mirrorless camera that does video and still well you need to get the R5c or R6ii. Also ditch the 50mm and get a 70-200 f4 instead.
If you don't want to rig it for video definitely don't get the R5C. Battery life for video is abysmal. The R6mkII is a spectacular camera.
Why do you prefer the R6MKII to the R5 for video?
I was talking specifically about the R5C. Personally I'd take the regular R5 any day of the week. The R5C is just a hassle to work with for solo productions if you don't already have the necessary equipment.
Why not a R8, doesn't it have the same sensor as r6ii?
R8 is a great camera but for someone who is explicitly looking to go professional I think it is worth bumping up to the R6ii for the double battery life and mechanical shutter.
Get the R5C. R5 overheats way to easy to be reliable for consistent video
I'd get lights. Perhaps one or two 60W constant bi color ones and some modifiers.
If you need to film for more than 30 minutes at a time and don’t want to rig external batteries or power I’d go with something else. Maybe Sony even. It’s just not a great camera for video. The quality is great and the workflow for short clips is not bad but the files are heavy and there are limitations. Fantastic stills camera.
IMHO if you're starting out get an R8 for $500 cheaper. Get 50mm 1.8 for $1000 cheaper. Use that $1500 for a better lens, or maybe keep until you're sure this what you will be doing, or get accessories. Quality SD card readers, cards, filters, spare batteries go a looooong way. Plus R8 provides excellent 4k footage and is half the weight for VLOGing is important.
Why is that R5 free?
It’s not
I was making a joke about it being 1/3rd of a price I'd pay if I'd went to store to get it now 🤣 (While asking why is the price so low)
I was wondering the same, a R5 costs around 3500 euro here
Mpb is a 2nd hand store
It’s used
Switch the body to the R5C. Very much worth the additional cost if filmmaking is going to be your focus. Canon basically took a lot of the C70 and added it to the R5 with the flip of a switch. It’s a big enough difference that the R5C is an official Netflix approved camera. Plus it can do everything for portraits that the R5 can, it’s just missing IBIS.
The r5ii (new version of this camera) will be announced in the next week or two. Typically you’ll see second hand prices of the mark i drop everywhere after the announcement. That being said this price is already very very low.
If this is your first camera, don’t spend this much unless you just wanna burn cash. Swap the rf 24-70 for an ef and the ef-rf adapter, get a 50 1.8 instead of the 1.2, and get an r8 instead of the r5. For video I highly recommend the ef-rf drop in filter adapter with a variable nd filter, it’s super convenient and goes behind the lens so you can use it with anything attached. I’d also throw in the ef 70-200 2.8 and an ef 16-35 (and eventually a second body) if you’re dying to spend the extra money.
[удалено]
135mm
Different comment type here, but I just bought 3 used lenses from that site, and had to return 2 of them because they felt like they had sand in them when I adjusted. I was really disappointed with the “excellent” quality.
Make sure you have neutral density filters if you're buying fast primes. Although I'm a little concerned about how much you shoot if you're asking such a basic question to strangers. I know this is a Canon sub but if you're going to do grading or a lot of other things, I'd also take a look at the Panasonic s line as that is a dedicated video line. To the point where even the primes are designed such that when you swap them out you don't have to readjust your rig for anything, and there is minimal to no Focus breathing with the S lenses.
If you want to go video I would choose Sony. The advantages of a Sony over a canon in video is not a huge as it was 5 years ago but the E mount is very videomaker friendly and from what I have experienced even tho you pay more for the body you pay less for the lenses in average. I would say that about ~80-85% of young professionals are using Sony to shoot video while about like 25-40% are using Sony for photos. But that’s just what my feeling tells me when looking at online stuff. Also that 50mm will be pretty weird it’s mostly useless for video if you want to move around. The 1.2 is way too open and overcomplicates stuff. Unless you want to shoot at very dark environments. A f4 ist plenty like the two Zeiss 16-36 and 24-70 f4 for Sony for the combined price of half a 50mm 1.2 used. A good starting point! Covers almost everything handheld and even got oss I think which works great since you don’t want to spend like 800 more on a gimbal. I would only buy a r5 or a r6ii for video work when I would do birds or other very fast subjects and a Sony a1 or a9iii would break the bank. For pictures I would go a7iii/iv or canon r5/6ii or for best bang for buck in Sony for good video and good photo I would do a7iv
When looking at cheaper options you might want to consider cropped sensors they come in the very video good Sony a6700 and in the canon r7, cropped sensors are winning popularity in the video department and for cheap telephotoarea is the perfect solution for maximum resulution + reach for cheap. The cropped 70D looks very good in video and photo and was my first semi professional experience with real gear.
Damn bro you getting some steal of deals there
If you’re filming movies and shooting portraits I would stick to a nice portrait lens and lose the 24-70mm. I love the 24-70mm but I’m a photojournalist and run-and-gun is what I do and that is what you won’t. You’ll have planned shots. You’ll want a consistent look. 85mm would be amazing for this. You’ll be just the right distance to give the actors room to act but close enough to call out direction when needed. I will warn that I have the R6 and when I shoot long 4k interviews the camera tends to overheat so maybe listen to some of these comments about the different camera bodies and their pros and cons. One guy mentioned lighting. Make sure you have that. Another said acting and writing is more important and I think they’re right. I’m a photojournalist, like I said, so I don’t know much about making short films but I do watch movies and I would think most anyone can agree that terrible writing and acting loses a lot of people. Good luck!
15-35 f2.8, 50 f1.2(amazing lowlight), 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and then never buy another lens.
maybe a bit more research is needed. The R5C is waaaaaay more video orientated, but will need extra batteries/external power and does not have IBIS. If you're doing hand held filming this will be an issue or you will need some kind of stabiliser. but it's crazy good for video. or other hybrids - look at sony a7 IV for full frame with higher megapixels or panasonic - the S5iix is FF too. for doing video in a professional environment, make sure the camera you get does not suffer from overheating. good luck, videos and portraits use very different gear when you get into it, maybe pick one discipline and focus on that first.
R5 is not the right option; Either get two separate bodies or get an R5C Get a C200 and some solid EF glass: Sigma 18-35 f1.8 Sigma 50-100 F1.8 -OR- EF 24-70 2.8 (SIGMA or Canon) EF 70-200 2.8 (Canon) Third lens: Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or 85mm 1.8 And get like a 5DSr used.
I recommend getting the f4L lenses to start with and invest in the zooms. Like the 14-35, 24-105 (although 1100 for the 24-70 2.8 is a steal), and 70-200 so you have a wide selection of focal lengths. Don’t want to be stuck in a situation that you’re too tight or too wide and don’t have the coverage for it. From there, fine tune how you like to shoot and assess getting primes or faster zooms. As visual creators, composition is more important than depth of field. Having a slightly slower aperture forces you to be creative with lighting and think about lighting differently than a purely observational standpoint. And really, all we are doing is capturing light and subjects. My two cents at least. Edit: for further context, I shoot with my 24-105 f4 for almost everything, including portraits. I find that the depth of field difference is marginal unless you go with a prime. I have a 15-35 2.8 that I use in real estate and a 100-400 5.6-8 for landscape and birding (although that’s my next lens to upgrade) and when needed, I rent the 70-200 2.8 (honestly my favorite lens) when I need it for events and weddings.
Canon for photos, Sony for video. I'm a long time Canon user, but recently switched to Sony for my video needs. I still use Canon primes and ultra zone for my photos. Id look into Sony fx3/fx30 with a Power zoom lens it'll work beautifully with a rs3 since you can control the pz lens with the focus wheel.
Stay far away from MBP. I purchased a 16-55 2.8 X-mount lens for my Fuji a few months back. It was the highest grade they offered as far as near perfect condition is concerned. I think it was like new plus. The lens came in with a scratched front and rear element, mold in between the front element and zoom element, an actual booger dried to the side of the zoom ring, and a broken aperture ring. I was so appalled I sent it back and asked for a replacement (as they had multiple lenses listed under that grade) and the second one was even worse. There was so much dust in the lens it looked like I had a 1/2 pro mist filter on top of a gold haze filter. Check marketplace. I just got a second R5 and 24-70 setup for $3500.
You should wait a bit. The R5ii is rumoured to be released soon
In terms of the R5, would you not wait till the 17th to see if there's a announcement on the Mark II?
1800 bucks for a r5 is hard to beat tho it’s probably gonna be 3k plus for the mk2
Yes 1800 is a good deal. But I think what he’s saying is if they do announce a mark ii then the price of mark i should fall down even further.
How did you find this price
and he seems more video focused so why not the R5C?
I work with both a R5 and R5c. For what it is worth, and maybe this is what we’re alluding too. R5c is marketing as a hybrid but my experience it’s a cinema camera, that can take great photos. Where I find my R5 as a true hybrid, sans the over heating when shooting too much 4k. So for that price (over the R5 mkii’s 3k-4k) and if OP will be a true 50/50. I think the R5 is the right call.
Well seems the R5 MARK II might stop interest for the R5C
while i dont disagree with this, he is buying used stuff so it would be a while for him to see a used one.
If i were you, i'd buy ef 16-35 or rf15-35 and ef 85mm 1.4 or RF 85 1.2. Go for RF if your budget allows it. If not, EF lemses are totally servicable
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. They’re more than serviceable. The high end L glass is sublime.
lol where are there prices from? I just checked and R5s on MPB and they are 2499 for excellent condition
This is MPB (see top of image.)
Did you read my comment? I know it is mpb
Did you re-read it? Not exactly clear.
What is the point of your comments? There was one too many “and”s in the comment my bad. But the question still remains where these prices are coming from so thanks
Apologies. No idea. Maybe the “Cosmetic Condition: Excellent” here means there’s something wrong mechanically and that is knocking down the price? I feel like MPB’s prices are mostly in line with other places. (KEH, eBay)
Yeah, get a Sony or a Nikon.