honestly im so fed up with lugging around three different primes and missing shots because im busy swapping glass. i just got the R5 and while the quality is amazing the workflow is killing me and i need something that can just stay on the camera 90% of the time. i have a trip to the Oregon coast next Friday so i need to order something like yesterday.
- budget: under $2300
- weight: not a total brick if possible
- use case: wide landscapes and my crazy kids
- focal range: need wide to at least 70mm or more
is the 24-105 f4 actually good enough or should i just bite the bullet on the 24-70 2.8? my back is literally hurting from my current setup...
I have been very satisfied with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for travel.
- Significant budget savings
- Lighter for hiking It works well and doesnt break the bank.
Re: "I have been very satisfied..." - agree. My Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM was great for travel.
- f/4: light, more reach.
- Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM: heavy but fast.
Building on the earlier suggestion, the 24-105 really is the sweet spot if you value saving your back. I spent a week hiking with the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM and honestly, by day three I was just tired of the bulk. The glass is incredible, don't get me wrong, but the weight adds up fast when you're running after kids. If you go with the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, you're getting a ton of extra reach on the long end which is honestly a lifesaver for candid shots of kids playing. I'd skip the 2.8 unless you're strictly shooting in low light or need that super creamy bokeh. For the Oregon coast, the f/4 is more than fine for landscapes. Just snag a decent circular polarizer and you'll be set.
Facts.
Tbh the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is the smarter choice. f/4 is plenty for landscapes and saves your back. Tip: grab a polarizer with the leftover cash.
