I've been shooting weddings on my R5 for years mostly using the 85mm and 50mm primes but I'm finally taking a bucket list trip to Glacier National Park in three weeks and realized I'm totally unprepared for landscapes. My widest lens right now is a 35mm and I know that won't be enough for those massive mountain vistas.
I'm torn between a few options and could use some advice from people who have actually hiked with these. My main criteria:
- Budget is strictly under $2300
- Must be sharp enough for 30x40 prints
- Weighs less than a brick because I'll be carrying it all day
I'm looking at the RF 14-35 f4 but I'm worried if I'll regret not having the 15-35 f2.8 for any astro stuff at night. Does the f4 feel like a compromise on the R5 sensor?
Unfortunately, the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM is definitely a compromise if you have any real interest in astro. I tried shooting the Milky Way with an f/4 lens once and the results were just muddy... totally not worth the effort when youre at a world-class spot like Glacier. The ISO noise on the R5 gets messy when youre pushing it that hard to make up for the slow glass. Heres the reality:
- The Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is a literal brick thatll kill your back on those steep Glacier trails.
- Vignetting and distortion at 14mm on the f/4 is honestly pretty bad before the software fixes it.
- You lose corner resolution after the digital corrections are applied, which shows on 30x40 prints. Just get the f/4 for hiking and pack the tiny Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM for the night shots. Its way better than carrying a heavy zoom youll hate by mile three.
I went through this exact thing before a trip to Zion last year. Honestly, for hiking all day, you really want the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. It is way lighter than the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM and fits your budget better. On the R5, the sensor is so good that you can just bump the ISO if you really need to, but for landscapes youll be at f/8 or f/11 most of the time anyway. A couple thoughts from my trip:
- The 14mm vs 15mm difference is actually noticeable for those big vistas.
- You save like half a pound in your pack which matters on long trails.
- Sharpness is excellent, Ive printed large and it looks crisp. If you really want to do astro, maybe just grab a cheap fast prime later like the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM for night shots. The f/4 is just more practical for the hiking part.
Building on the earlier suggestion, Ive been really satisfied with how the f/4 optics handle the Canon EOS R5 sensor. Technically, the high pixel density means you dont lose perceptible detail during digital distortion correction. Your 30x40 prints will look super crisp. Honestly, for landscapes where youre usually stopped down to f/8 anyway, the weight savings are a way bigger benefit than that extra stop of light.
.
100% agree
^ This. Also, I've spent a lot of time analyzing MTF charts and real-world corner performance on the R5 sensor over the years. From a purely technical standpoint, the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM actually offers superior stabilization sync with the R5 body, giving you about 7 stops of coordinated IS. In my experience, that's way more valuable for hiking than the extra stop of glass when you dont want to lug a heavy tripod everywhere. If you're really worried about the Milky Way shots being muddy, dont compromise your daytime comfort. Just do this:
- Stick with the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM as your primary lens. Its plenty sharp for those 30x40 prints.
- Grab a Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM specifically for the night stuff. It weighs basically nothing (165g) and handles astro way better than an f/4 zoom ever could.
- This combo keeps you way under your $2300 budget. Tbh, carrying the heavier 2.8 zoom all day is gonna get old by mile five. Having a dedicated lightweight prime for the astro stuff is a much more efficient way to hit your technical goals...
Just catching up on this thread and tbh, trying to find one lens to do both hiking and astro perfectly is usually a recipe for disappointment. I have owned the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM for a while and while the weight is a lifesaver, I had issues with the heavy corner softness after the digital correction kicks in. It is not as good as expected when you are really pushing for those 30x40 prints. Like someone mentioned, f/4 is basically useless for serious astro at Glacier. If you want a real solution that fits your budget and weight goals:
- Pick up the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM for about $1300 for your daytime landscapes.
- Grab a Laowa 15mm f/2 Zero-D for Canon RF for around $650 for the night shots. It is manual but way better for stars.
- This combo is still way under your $2300 limit. Unfortunately, the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM is just too much of a brick to carry on a long hike like the Highline Trail. Carrying that thing all day is a mistake you dont want to make.
Late to the party but this whole thread is 💯. Glad I found it.
