i just dropped way too much money on an R5 and now im stressing out over which lens to actually keep on it full time. i read the rf 24-105 f4 is the standard but then some guys on reddit say it sucks in low light and i should just get the 24-70 2.8 but that thing is massive. im leaving for a two week trip to kyoto next month and i really dont want to be swapping lenses in the rain.
- budget: under $2300
- usage: street photography and temples
- must be weather sealed
i just dont know if the extra zoom on the 105 is worth losing the f2.8 aperture? its so confusing and i dont want to regret this...
Building on the earlier suggestion, I am very satisfied with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. After using it for years, the f/4 aperture honestly isnt a problem because the R5 handles high ISO so well. Quick tip: just use the IBIS and drop your shutter speed for those temple shots. It beats lugging the heavy Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM around Kyoto, and that extra 105mm reach is essential.
Unfortunately, f4 glass usually leaves me feeling disappointed once it gets dark in those temple areas. Ive had issues with the 105mm reach not being worth the loss in light. Stick to the pro stuff:
- Buy the Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM
- Its right around your $2300 budget
- Better sealing for the rain The weight is a pain but blurry shots are worse than a heavy bag.
Kyoto was wet. I spent a couple weeks there and honestly the lighter f4 glass from Canon worked out well for those hilly streets. The low light performance on the R5 is so good that the aperture didnt really matter for temple interiors. Having extra reach for garden shots is a decent tradeoff. Go with Canon, you cant go wrong.
