I just spent way too much money on the R5 Mark II and now I am staring at my bank account and these lens prices and honestly I just want to scream. I moved up from an old 5D Mark IV and I thought the transition would be way easier than this but the RF glass is just so expensive and the options are driving me crazy. I need exactly one lens that can do it all because I do a lot of hiking out here in the Pacific Northwest and I really cant be swapping lenses constantly when it is drizzling or I am standing on a cliffside with nowhere to put my gear down.

Right now I am totally stuck between the RF 24-70mm f2.8L and the RF 24-105mm f4L. The 24-70 is obviously the gold standard but it is another huge chunk of change and my wife is already giving me the side-eye for buying the camera body in the first place. On the other hand people keep telling me that for the 45 megapixel sensor on the R5 II I really need the best glass to actually see the benefit of the resolution and the f4 might be a waste of a good sensor. But is the f4 really that much worse for landscape stuff? I also looked at that 28-70mm f2 but that thing is basically a brick and I am not a bodybuilder so carrying that on an 8 mile trail sounds like a total nightmare even if the images are pretty.

I have a big trip to Olympic National Park coming up in about three weeks and I need to make a decision like yesterday so I can actually learn the kit. My budget is pretty much capped at 2500 now that the camera is paid for. Does the extra reach of the 105 make up for the slower aperture or am I gonna regret not having that f2.8 for low light stuff under the forest canopy? I keep going back and forth and every review I watch just makes me more confused about whether the f4 is sharp enough for this specific body...