>>4425104>Why not just get the RF 28-70mm F2.8?Ah fuck, when I posted earlier talking about the 24-70 f/2.8L, I meant the 28-70 f/2.8. $2000 AUD. I'll be buying an R6 before I spend that much on a lens. You're right though, it's bascially exactly what I want, and I would sell off two of my primes in return to make up $800 or so anyway. The ken-tier comment of "that lens costs 4x the other one, does it take 4x as good pictures?" comes to mind as well.
>>4425130>R50. Pretty alright in my experience. 7/10 Camera.
>Which sellers return policy should I abuse for this?Why not just, idk, actually rent it. Amazon is the go-to, but sounds like they're about to ban you from retruns.
>lots of ebay returnsI don't think this is an issue at all unless buyers have been flagging you for bogus reasons or items returned out of condition.
>>4425143Consumer RF mount is a joke. The primes are alright, but front focusing is annoying as shit.
>>4425171>Is the thread thing universal?Yes. They are 1/4 inch and practically every camera and tripod/monopod will use that size. Even my shitty bridge camera from 12 years ago used 1/4 inch.
>will the average cheap tripod work with it?Physically fit? Yes. Even chinkshit. Normally if something takes other than 1/4 inch mounts, you need an adapter.
But I'd be a bit worried about a cheap tripod being too shaky. Ymmv.
>>4425174I would fuck off the 16mm unless you regularly use it. The optical quality of it is dog shit.
I personally have no quams with carrying a camera with a bigger lens on it, but that's up to you homie. I chose the RF 24mm f/1.8 over the RF 28mm f/2.8 because of the IS and 1 1/4th stop of light, and I think it's a big advantage over the lens being pancake sized.
Honestly, I will eventually redo my kit in full-frame and when that time comes I am probably selling everything off for an RF 28-70 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/4. No regrets though, as my R50 and lens choices have been my introduction and learning to photography.
