So I finally bit the bullet and preordered the Canon R5 Mark II, it just arrived yesterday and it is an absolute beast of a camera but now I am in a major bind. I leave for a month-long backpacking trip through Patagonia in exactly three weeks and I spent way more on the body than I initially planned, meaning I only have about $2200 to $2500 left for a single, do-it-all lens. I really cant afford to carry a massive bag of glass while hiking miles everyday, so I need just one lens that can live on the camera for 95% of the trip. I will be doing mostly dramatic mountain landscapes, some wildlife if I get lucky, and environmental portraits of people I meet along the way.
I have done a ton of reading online and everyone seems split between two main options. The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L is obviously legendary but it is heavy, super expensive, and honestly I worry 70mm is going to feel too short for capturing distant peaks. On the other hand, people keep recommending the RF 24-105mm f/4L as the ultimate travel lens because of the extra reach, but I am really stressed about that f/4 aperture. Is it going to ruin my shots when the weather gets moody and dark, or when I want to shoot indoors? I also saw some people talking about the RF 28-70mm f/2 but that thing is a literal brick and way out of my price range anyway.
I am totally paralyzed by indecision here and the clock is ticking. For someone who needs to pack light but still wants to take full advantage of the R5 II's insane 45-megapixel sensor without compromises, what actually is the best all-around lens to get?
Are you expecting heavy rain? I ruined my gear in Patagonia wind before.
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM: safer hiking range
- Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM: better low light weather sealing
Having shot in similar rugged spots, the choice for a single backpacking lens is pretty clear. I highly recommend the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM over the f/2.8 version for a few reasons:
- Weight: Hiking miles daily means every ounce counts, and this lens is way lighter than the f/2.8.
- Reach: The extra 35mm on the long end is huge for compressing distant peaks in Patagonia.
- Low light: Honestly, the R5 II handles high ISO so well that the f/4 aperture isnt a liability anymore, especially with the built-in stabilization. Plus, you save over a thousand bucks to spend on actual travel expenses.
Late to the party, but are you planning to do any night photography? If not, I've been super satisfied with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for hiking. It works well and I have no complaints. To save cash:
- Buy refurbished to save a few hundred bucks
- Grab a Peak Design Capture Clip v3 for easy carrying The R5 II handles high ISO so well anyway.
