Seen the 24-105mm f4L recommended everywhere but Im worried the f4 wont cut it for the dim reception Im shooting in London this October and the 35mm is too limited i think. Ill miss the zoom range probably. Im in a bind.
- Budget: $1100
- Use: weddings and travel
What should I actually buy?
I've spent some time digging into the MTF charts for these systems. For an $1100 budget, you're basically choosing between native convenience and raw aperture data. I'm very satisfied with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for travel since the Nano USM motor is so fast and quiet. Heres how the specs break down for your situation:
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM: Constant f/4 is predictable, and the R6 handles high ISO noise well. No real complaints about the center sharpness.
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: These are available used for under a grand. Youll need the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R, but that extra stop of light is a huge help for dim receptions. I suggest checking the lens comparison tool on The-Digital-Picture for side-by-side crops. Tbh, if you go with the f/4, just grab a Canon Speedlite 430EX III-RT to bounce some light. Its a more practical solution than overextending on glass.
Ngl if f/4 is a dealbreaker for those dim London receptions, you're in a tough spot with an $1100 limit for native RF stuff. The RF 2.8 zooms are way out of reach for that price. Before we go further, are you strictly wanting native glass, or are you okay with the extra weight of an adapted setup? If you go used EF mount, you can actually afford a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and stay under budget. It's technically way better for freezing motion at a wedding than any f/4, even if the R6 has great ISO performance. There is also the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 which is usually even cheaper used and has decent stabilization. Just depends if you want to lug that weight around for travel tho... those EF zooms are chunky compared to RF. Does the extra bulk matter for your travel plans?
