I finally pulled the trigger and upgraded to a Canon EOS R6 last month after shooting on a dusty old Rebel for years and I am honestly obsessed. The jump in low light performance is absolutely insane. Now that I have the body I am stuck with the kit lens which is fine for now but I really want something more versatile since I have a trip to the Pacific Northwest coming up in about six weeks. I am planning on doing a mix of landscape shots out by the coast and some street photography in the city so I need something that can handle a bit of everything without me constantly swapping glass in the rain.
I have been scouring the forums and YouTube for days. I read that the RF 24-105mm f/4 L is the go-to workhorse but then I saw a bunch of people saying the f/2.8 version of some other lenses is basically mandatory for bokeh and low light stuff. Then I looked at the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L and it looks perfect but the price tag is honestly making me sweat a little bit. My budget is around 1500 to 2000 bucks tops because I still need to pick up a decent tripod and some filters before I leave.
Does the f/4 aperture really hold you back that much during the day? I feel like the extra reach on the 105mm would be way more useful for travel than having that extra stop of light, but im worried Ill regret not getting the faster glass once the sun starts going down in the forest. Is there anything else I should be looking at that wont completely break the bank or am I just overthinking the specs and need to stop reading reviews and just buy the 24-105? What are you guys actually keeping on your bodies for an all-day walkaround lens?
Honestly, I disagree that the f/4 is always enough. If you're doing forest shots or evening street stuff, that extra stop matters. Have you checked out the Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z? It is pricey, but if you look for a used copy, you might stay close to your budget. It is a beast for versatility and low light. Just dont skimp on the tripod, maybe look at a Manfrotto BeFree GT XPRO.
Honestly, just grab the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I took that lens to the coast last year and the reach saved me so many times. You really dont need f/2.8 for landscapes. The stabilization is solid enough that low light isnt a huge deal anyway. Save the extra cash for a good Peak Design Travel Tripod so you can actually do some long exposures at night.
TL;DR: The f/4 is fine for most, but dont overlook the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM if you can find it used. It balances sharpness and low light better than the f/4. Honestly, if you are worried about rain, put that extra cash toward a good weather-sealed bag instead of just glass. The 24-105 range is nice, but for PNW forests, the wider aperture really helps when the canopy gets dark.