I did some experimenting yesterday at the Mystic Seaport Museum which I'll explain as we go along.
I wanted to see the difference between 50mm and 70mm as I consider the 20-50mm f/4 lens as a replacement for the 28-70mm f/2.8. Being limited to the 50mm perspective on the long end might not be something I'd be content with for long.
 |
| 50mm |
 |
| 70mm |
This shot from inside a building at 28mm could be done with either the 20-50mm f/4 or 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses. A wider focal length might have been nice to get the whole ship with more of the frame of the window.
 |
| 28mm |
The only difference here is the first photo is f/2.8 and the second is f/4 in attempt to show the difference in maximum blurring of the background with each lens. Both are at 58mm and if I'd thought about it at the time I would have used 50mm. The difference in background bokeh would be even less at 50mm.
 |
| f/2.8 |
 |
| f/4 |
This is a 16mm shot. Most of the photos with the 16mm lens had subjects pushed too far in the distance. This isn't bad but 20mm would work just as well, I think.
 |
| 16mm |
And here is one with the 50mm f/1.8 at f/4, which I needed for less blurring in the moon. This photo could be replicated with the 20-50mm f/4 lens with even an extra stop of image stabilization.
 |
| 50mm, f/4, 1/8 sec., ISO 1600 |
So, I'm still undecided.
[UPDATE: I decided. I've ordered an RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM lens while the $250 instant rebate remains in effect. The 16mm lens is on the way to MPB to help defray the cost. Problems solved.]
