Iceland is gonna be incredible but gear weight is no joke when you're trekking through wind and rain. If you're hiking a lot, you might want to consider going with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I know the f/2.8 allure is real, but the extra reach at the long end is a lifesaver for picking out details in distant landscapes. Plus, that weight difference really adds up over a 10-mile day. Be careful about thinking you absolutely need the speed of the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM for scenery. Since you have the R5, the IBIS is so good that you can usually handhold the f/4 lens in dim light anyway. I would suggest the 24-105 for the versatility. Make sure to grab some extra batteries too, the cold eats them up. You're gonna have a blast!

Re: "Iceland is gonna be incredible but gear weight..."

• I'd actually be careful with the f/4 choice. Iceland is super moody and often dim, so I would suggest the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM instead. Since you have an R5, you can basically just crop the image to get that 105mm reach anyway. Better to have the faster aperture for those low-light waterfall shots tbh.

Honestly, Ive spent years hauling gear through places like the Faroe Islands and Iceland, and the spec sheet doesnt always tell the full story. For an R5 user, you gotta look at the total system performance. The Canon RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM weighs about 700g, while the Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM is closer to 900g. That might not sound like much right now, but after 8 miles on a trail near Skogafoss, your neck is gonna feel every single gram. Heres why the f/4 is actually the smarter move for this specific trip:

• The R5 sensor is a total beast. You can push ISO 3200 or even 6400 with basically zero usable quality loss, so that extra stop of light from the f/2.8 is way less critical than it was ten years ago.
• Iceland is all about scale and compression. Having that 105mm reach lets you pull distant mountains closer or frame a puffin without needing to hike another mile.
• The 5-stop OIS (which jumps to 8 stops with your R5 IBIS) is insane. I have hand-held half-second exposures at f/4 and they come out tack sharp. Save the $1300 difference and grab a killer tripod like the Peak Design Carbon Fiber Travel Tripod and some extra batteries. Youll want the reach more than the bokeh when youre looking at a glacier anyway. Plus, the 24-105 is built like a tank, so the Icelandic mist wont be an issue for the weather sealing.

To add to the point above: you guys are basically debating the classic weight vs light trade-off. I've done the Iceland trek and I'm gonna be the voice of caution here. Carrying the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM on a long hike is basically like carrying a brick around your neck after a few hours. I would suggest sticking with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for the versatility. If you're worried about those dim shots Aaron mentioned, you could use the leftover cash to buy a dedicated low-light lens and still come in way under budget. Comparing the L-series zooms to a zoom-plus-prime combo usually yields better results for specialized trips like this. Make sure to consider:

• The weight difference is real when you're battling Icelandic wind.
• Reach is king for landscapes you can't walk closer to.
• The f4 L-series is still a pro-grade weather-sealed lens which is huge for the mist. Maybe look at the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for your nighttime shots. It's tiny and way faster than the 2.8 zoom anyway. I'd also grab a Peak Design Slide Camera Strap to save your neck because the stock Canon one is kinda trash for long days. Don't forget that the R5 sensor is so good you can push the ISO a bit if the f4 feels too slow during the day... you'll be fine.

Lol I was literally about to post the same thing. Glad someone else brought it up.