Okay so I'm honestly panicking a bit because my Iceland trip is in three weeks and I still havent picked a main lens for my R5. Im torn between the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-105mm f/4. My logic was that the 24-70 is the pro choice but it's so much more expensive like nearly 2400 bucks and I don't know if I need f/2.8 for landscapes? But then I think what if I'm shooting in a cave or at dusk? The 24-105 is lighter and the extra reach is nice for compression but am I gonna regret the f4? Budget is tight after buying the body so I can only get one. Should I just bite the bullet on the 24-70 or is the f4 enough...
Jumping in cuz I actually had issues with that 24-105 being kinda soft in the corners. Unfortunately it just wasnt as good as I expected for expensive L glass... Quick question tho, are you planning to shoot the aurora or just daytime landscapes? Some budget tips:
- Get a refurbished Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM to save huge money.
- Grab a Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for those dark caves.
- Spend the leftovers on better hiking boots!
Actually, in my experience, the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is the safer, more reliable pick.
- Reach is essential for compression
- Lighter for long hikes
- Spend the savings on a tripod
Honestly, I was pretty disappointed with the weight of the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM for travel. Its just too heavy. Unfortunately, the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM isn't as good as I expected in low light, but for Iceland, you'll be shooting at f/8 or f/11 most of the time anyway. Grab the f/4 and save your cash.
