Advice: R8+28-70 2.8 or R50+17-40 1.8
Need some informed advice on how these 2 compare. For reference, I have the R50 and sigma 18-50 2.8 and the rf100-400.
R50 is great and the crop factor is great for wildlife of course, but I’ve had situations where ISO starts to rise in the evening or even in the shade.
Shooting travel/wildlife and running race photography. Usually good light but even in decent light I’m seeing iso ride in the shade and planning to have some events where it’s going to be close to dusk and may need better low light performance.
So torn on going full frame and having growth opportunity or keeping crop factor and getting 1.8 lens to squeeze more light. Setting cost aside for a sec.
Any real world experiences or example shots to compare the IQ and noise levels between 2.8 and 1.8?
And as far as 100-400 goes, will I regret losing the crop factor or will I just get more out of FF?
And tangentially, the battery life on R50 is ridiculously good. 5000 burst shots over 2 hours on a single battery. Can R8 get close to that?