Seriously what is the best all-around lens for the new Canon EOS R5 Mark II because im honestly losing my mind trying to figure this out before my big trip. I just dropped an insane amount of money on this body and now my old EF 24-70 with the adapter feels so clunky and front-heavy and its driving me crazy. The autofocus keeps hunting way more than it should and I feel like im wasting the potential of this 45mp sensor.
Im headed to the Olympic Peninsula next week for some landscape and forest shots and I need one lens that can just stay on the camera because my pack is already too heavy. I was looking at the RF 24-105 f4 L but people keep saying it isnt sharp enough for the Mark II and then the 2.8 version is like five pounds and costs way too much. I have about $1400 left in my budget for this but I could maybe push it if its actually worth it.
I just dont want to get out there in the rain and be fumbling with adapters or realizing my shots are soft. Is the 24-105 really that bad on this body? Or should I just bite the bullet on a prime even though I hate switching lenses in the dirt and mud... i dont know what to do.
You might want to consider Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM since its weather-sealed and the Nano USM is optimized for that 45MP sensor. People just overthink MTF charts tbh.
Late to the thread but honestly, you are overthinking those MTF charts! The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is absolutely the correct choice for your budget and that amazing trip. People obsessed with extreme corner sharpness forget that real-world photography is about being there for the shot. I love it because it handles the PNW rain perfectly and its light enough for long hikes. One quick tip for that 45mp sensor: make sure you have the Digital Lens Optimizer turned on in-camera. It corrects diffraction and lens aberrations instantly, which makes those files look incredible. Regarding costs, you can often find this lens for around $1200, which leaves you extra cash for extra batteries or a fast memory card. Sticking with native glass is definitely worth it for the weight savings alone. Have a blast on the Olympic Peninsula!
I've spent years shooting in PNW conditions and honestly, you might be surprised to find that the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM is actually better balanced than your current EF setup. It weighs about the same as the EF glass alone, but because it sits closer to the sensor without that adapter, it wont feel nearly as front-heavy. For the dark forest floors in the Olympic Peninsula, that extra stop of light at f/2.8 is basically a lifesaver. In my experience, the sharpness concerns with the f/4 are a bit overblown, but the f/2.8 glass is technically superior for resolving detail on a 45mp sensor like the R5 Mark II. If you can push that budget just a bit further, it is a buy once, cry once situation. You get the best autofocus response and the most reliable weather sealing Canon offers. Having one lens that can handle landscape, low-light forest shots, and even some environmental portraits without needing to swap in the rain is worth the investment. It makes the whole kit feel like a professional tool instead of a clunky experiment with adapters... definitely something to consider before you head out next week.
In my experience, the adapter is why you're losing AF speed. Native glass just communicates better with the sensor. I once missed a rare wildlife shot because my adapted lens hunted for a second too long.
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is way sharper than old EF glass.
- Built for rain.
- Try Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM for forest shots. Dont risk that body with a clunky adapter.
