So I finally pulled the trigger on the R6 Mark III pre-order and now Im sitting here staring at my bank account wondering what lens is actually gonna live on this thing most of the time. Im moving up from an ancient 80D so the whole full frame world is kinda new to me and the lens prices are definitely a bit of a shock lol. I have this huge trip to Florence and Tuscany planned for late next month and I really want to just bring one lens if I can help it because my wife hates it when I spend twenty minutes changing gear instead of looking at the view.
Ive narrowed it down to three main contenders but Im totally torn. First is the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L. Everyone calls it the king but its huge and heavy and honestly right at the top of what I can afford—like $2,300 is a lot of money. Is the f/2.8 really necessary for travel or is it just for pros? Then theres the RF 24-105mm f/4L which is way more tempting price-wise and that extra 35mm on the long end seems really useful for details on buildings. But then I worry about the f/4 aperture being too slow when were inside dark churches or walking around at night.
The wild card is the 24-240mm. Its way cheaper and the range is insane but Im worried its gonna feel like putting cheap tires on a Ferrari since the R6 III is supposed to be such a beast. Ive got about a $1,800 budget left for glass before I have to start dipping into my pasta and wine fund for the trip. Should I just suck it up and get the 24-70 f/2.8 and deal with the weight or is the 24-105 f/4 the better move for a general carry-around setup on the new body? Or is there something else Im totally missing here...
> Is the f/2.8 really necessary for travel or is it just for pros? Saw this thread while grabbing lunch earlier and had to chime in. i went through the same exact dilemma when I upgraded from my old Rebel a few years back. I actually bought the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM thinking I needed the absolute best for a big trip to Mexico. Big mistake lol. By day three, my neck was killing me and I ended up leaving the camera in the hotel safe half the time because it was just too much to lug around while sightseeing. I eventually swapped it for the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and honestly havent looked back. For stuff like Tuscany, that extra reach is way more valuable than the f/2.8 aperture in my experience. You mentioned dark churches... truth is the IBIS on that new R6 III is so good you can handhold shots at crazy slow shutter speeds. Plus, the high ISO performance on full frame is miles ahead of what you got on your 80D. If youre really worried about the low light, my trick is to grab the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM as a backup. Its tiny, weighs nothing, and costs like $150-200. I just shove it in a jacket pocket and forget it. Use the 24-105 for 90% of your day, then swap to the nifty fifty when you go out for dinner or into a dim cathedral. Youll save like a grand compared to the 24-70 and your wife wont have to wait for you to lug a massive lens around. That extra cash buys a lot of good Italian wine... just sayin.
> Should I just suck it up and get the 24-70 f/2.8 and deal with the weight or is the 24-105 f/4 the better move for a general carry-around setup on the new body? Thinking about this over my coffee this morning... Honestly, I would suggest being careful about blowing your whole budget on that f/2.8. Its an absolute monster to carry around Tuscany all day and your wife will definitely hate it if youre complaining about your neck the whole time lol. The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is the smarter move imo. For those dark churches, just remember the R6 Mark III has insane sensor tech. You can just bump the ISO or rely on the stabilization. If you really want that low light bokeh, you might want to consider grabbing a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM with the money you save. Its tiny, super cheap, and great for night street stuff. Make sure to check the refurbished deals too. Dont overthink the pro label... your bank account will thank you.
Just saw this thread and honestly... it brings back some memories. Quick question though, are you actually planning on doing any big prints for your walls when you get back, or is this stuff mainly gonna live on social media and digital albums? Reminds me of my buddy Dave who went through the exact same thing for his trip to Rome. He spent months agonizing over every single spec, watching every YouTube review out there. He finally gets to Italy with his dream kit, and on the very first day, he accidentally dropped his main body into a fountain while trying to take a selfie. He didnt have insurance and spent the rest of the three-week trip just wandering around museums while his wife took photos on her phone. He still wont talk to me about photography to this day, total nightmare situation lol. Anyway, curious about the printing thing because that usually changes my whole perspective on what glass is actually worth the money.
