Hello! I started with the Canon R10 and 18-150 kit for everyday and RF 100-400 for wildlife (and some 0.4x "macro" for fun). I've been pleased with this setup for the most part, but when light gets darker the slow apertures just lead to some disappointing photos that NR software can't overcome without just ending up looking fake or ai (tried dxo for a bit and then the new lightroom).
I did get a sigma 10-18 for wider stuff, but I hate changing lenses that I rarely use it.
Advice I've read was always upgrade glass first over body so I got the 24-70 f2.8 and 100-500 - and I do love these lenses. I'm not rich enough to get a huge prime anytime soon for my wildlife fun (not to mention I'd much rather hike with that then a huge prime). I really don't take indoor photos.
I'm going to upgrade the R10 to full frame for a bunch of reasons but after thinking about how I use the lenses I'm wondering if a 24-105 f/4 + a macro might be better than the single 24-70 f/2.8
I do like my 112mm ff eq reach of my every day lens, so getting a true 24mm wide to 105mm on full frame seems like a great compromise
Most of the shots I have on the 24-70 are stopped down to get multiple people and/or multiple dogs in focus, or they are landscape photos where I'm likely starting at f/8 and only getting tighter
The 24-70 f/2.8 - 112mm ff eq portraits I do take do look quite nice, but as I understand it the crop factor also applies to the blur too, so what I'm seeing as 2.8 on my crop body will end up looking like what a f/4 looks like on a full frame
given that, and my enjoyment of macro a 100mm f/2.8 should give a superior portrait
So my plan is:
Upgrade R10 to FF body
Sell the Sigma 10-18 and RF 100-400
Buy a 1.4 tc for my 100-500 to make up some of the lost reach
Sell 24-70 f/2.8 and buy a 24-105 f/4 for everyday carry.
Buy a 100 f/2.8 for my macro fun and the solo portraits
Any holes in this plan I'm not thinking of? Besides the body upgrade I should be fairly net neutral on price with lens changes