Is the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 really worth the extra cash over the 24-105mm f/4 for my R5? Im getting super stressed trying to decide before my trip to Iceland in three weeks. Budget is tight since I just bought the body, but I dont want to regret the glass. Which one actually delivers?
Honestly, I was in the exact same spot before my last trip. The Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is absolutely incredible if you need that extra light for sunsets or dark caves in Iceland, but honestly, it is heavy and pricey. If your budget is super tight right now, dont stress too much about missing out.
- The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is way more versatile for travel. You get that extra reach, which is honestly a lifesaver when you cant physically get closer to a glacier or waterfall.
- That constant f/4 is decent enough for daytime landscape shots anyway. If I were you, Id grab the 24-105mm and put the leftover cash toward a solid tripod or extra batteries. You really dont want to be lugging a massive lens around all day anyway.
Late to the party but honestly, skip the expensive f/2.8 if your budget is already stretched thin. I have been using the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for a while now and I am perfectly satisfied with it. For Iceland, the extra reach at 105mm is actually way more useful than the wider aperture when you are shooting landscapes. If you really crave that low light performance for northern lights or dark caves, just throw a Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM in your bag. It is tiny, super cheap, and keeps your kit light while you are hiking. You will save a ton of cash and still get pro-grade results without stressing about the weight of the heavier pro zoom lenses. Works well for me every time.
Honestly, the f/2.8 is way too heavy for hiking. I had issues with mine falling off the tripod because of the weight. Grab a prime instead if you want sharpness.