So I finally did it and preordered the R5 Mark II and I am honestly so hyped I can barely sit still! This is my first big jump into the pro-level mirrorless stuff after shooting on an old 90D for way too long. I really want to make sure I get the absolute best glass for this beast of a sensor because it would be a shame to waste all those megapixels on a lens that cant keep up. I’ve been looking for that one holy grail zoom lens that can just stay on my camera for most of my trips so I dont have to carry a massive bag of primes everywhere.
I spent the last three nights falling down a YouTube rabbit hole and I’m still totally stuck between a few options. Everyone seems to love the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L for its sharpness and that wide aperture for low light, but then I see all these travel photographers raving about the 24-105mm f/4L because of the extra reach. I also saw that crazy 24-105mm f/2.8 but it looks like a literal telescope and I’m worried it’ll break my neck if I carry it all day. I’m just confused if the f/2.8 is really that necessary for landscape and street stuff or if the f/4 is good enough for a high-res body like the R5ii. Some people online say the f/4 is a bit soft on the edges when you're shooting at 45mp and that really scares me for the price.
Here is what I am looking for:
- Main use is landscape and travel photography (I have a big trip to Iceland planned for October!)
- Budget is around $2,500 ish but I can push it a bit if its really worth it for the long term
- Needs to be weather sealed because I know I'm gonna be getting sprayed by waterfalls and rain
- I hate switching lenses in the wind so a good versatile range is a must
- Something that wont make my wrists ache after a 6 mile hike
Do you guys think the 24-70 is wide enough for everything or should I go for the extra reach of the 105? Also is the sharpness difference really noticeable on this new sensor or am I just overthinking the tech specs...
Jumping in here to agree that the reach is usually more valuable. A few technical details to consider:
- The Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is much lighter for those 6-mile hikes.
- Since you'll likely shoot landscapes at f/8 or f/11, the f/2.8 aperture isn't always a necessity.
- IBIS on the R5II helps stabilize handheld shots if you do hit lower light. The Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM is sharp, but 70mm often feels limited in open landscapes.
Saw this and wanted to toss in my two cents. I spent way too much time looking at the MTF charts on sites like The Digital Picture before I bought my kit... it can really mess with your head after a while.
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM: This is basically the reliable workhorse. For Iceland, that weather sealing is a must. People complain about the edges at 45mp, but if you are shooting landscapes at f/8 or f/11, it is honestly fine. It is the safe bet for hiking since it wont weigh you down.
- Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM: Technically sharper across the frame, yeah. But 70mm is gonna feel really short when you are trying to frame a distant waterfall. Plus it is heavier and more expensive. I dont think the extra stop of light is worth the weight trade-off for travel.
- Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z: Like you said, it is a literal telescope. Unless you have a sherpa, maybe skip this for a 6-mile hike. It is a beast of a lens but totally overkill for most people. Ngl, I think people overthink the sharpness thing. Most viewers wont see the difference between these two on a screen. If I were you, Id go for the f/4 and maybe grab a nice polarizer for the trip instead. Check out the image comparison tools on DPReview if you wanna see the real-world difference between them side-by-side before you drop the cash.
