What lens should I actually leave on my R5 for general walkaround shooting? I finally bit the bullet and grabbed the body, but now Im totally paralyzed by the lens selection. I keep seeing people swear by the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, and yeah, obviously that glass is incredible, but its so heavy and expensive that Im worried itll just end up staying in my bag while I leave for trips in the city. Then I saw a bunch of threads recommending the 24-105mm f/4, and while the reach is nice, I really miss that extra light for shooting in the evenings when I go out with friends in Chicago.
Budget-wise I have about 2500 bucks left for this piece, and I really want something that can handle my travel photography and maybe some casual portrait work without me needing to swap glass every five minutes. The f/2.8 is tempting for the bokeh, but is it really worth the extra weight compared to the f/4? I just feel like every review I read is sponsored or trying to push the most expensive option. Anyone actually use these long-term as their main lens...
Saw your post earlier but finally getting a chance to sit down. Honestly, I bought the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM when I first got my body, but I was pretty disappointed with how much it dragged my neck down after just two hours. It really takes the joy out of shooting when you're lugging a brick around. If you want something lighter but still sharp, check these out:
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM - it is super cheap and surprisingly crisp for the price.
- Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II Art - better value than the Canon native version. I regret spending so much on the L glass now that I see how capable the cheaper options are for travel. You save a ton of cash to spend on trips instead. Definitely dont feel pressured to get the most expensive lens just because the internet says so.
Honestly, skip the heavy 24-70mm if you actually plan on walking around all day. In my experience, weight kills the fun of photography faster than anything else. I used the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for a long time, and while the f/4 is decent, you're right about missing that light in the city. Since you have 2500 bucks, look into the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM used if you can find a clean copy, but honestly? Check out the Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z if you want the best of both worlds, though it is a bit of a brick. Tbh, if I were you, Id grab a used copy of the f/2.8 L and save some cash for a fast prime like the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for those dark Chicago nights.
Oh man, I totally feel your pain! When I first picked up my current setup, I was so worried about buying the wrong thing that I barely took the camera out for weeks. I finally just stopped reading those massive tech reviews and went with a lens that felt balanced. Honestly, the best advice I ever got was to check out sites like flickr or even the exif data on some photography blogs to see what kind of look people are actually getting in real-world street shots. It helps way more than charts! Here is how I finally got over my decision paralysis:
- I checked out some local photography meetups and just asked people if I could hold their rigs for ten seconds.
- I thought about my actual routine, like if I walk more than five miles a day, I need something lighter.
- I looked at my old photos to see which focal length I used the most, turns out I was stuck at 35mm anyway. My current setup isnt the most expensive one on the shelf, but because it feels right in my hands, I never leave the house without it. If you spend your whole budget on glass that feels like a brick, you are gonna hate your life during those long city nights. Take your time, maybe rent a couple of options for a weekend before you drop the cash. You wont regret the extra research!