Puzzled about a multi-purpose lens for my Canon R5 for documentary/travel photos

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
458
321
OK, I unerstand now that over the 24-240, the Canon RF 24-105/4 is sharper and better. Now honestly is it worth to buy it or use the RF 24-70 f2.8 and sacrifice the extra 35mm of the telephoto lens for documentary/travel photography?
Having had the 24-105/4 & having the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 (and other L's)... If I had to choose between the 1x f4 and 2x f2.8's the 2.8's will win (and they have, hence the reason I haven't replaced my f4 yet). However, replacing the 24-105/4 at some point will happen... it's just a matter of timing. Lately I have been able to walkabout with 2+ lenses so it isn't a priority yet. However, if I go back to 'just one lens' in a walkabout situation the 24-105/4 was a safe choice (especially with my next comment).

Here is something to think about... you have the RF100-500 already. Paired with the 24-105 you would have 24-500mm covered w/ just 2 high-quality L lenses (700 if you take your 1.4x tele). That's a massive focal range w/ just 2 lenses...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
Having had the 24-105/4 & having the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 (and other L's)... If I had to choose between the 1x f4 and 2x f2.8's the 2.8's will win (and they have, hence the reason I haven't replaced my f4 yet). However, replacing the 24-105/4 at some point will happen... it's just a matter of timing. Lately I have been able to walkabout with 2+ lenses so it isn't a priority yet. However, if I go back to 'just one lens' in a walkabout situation the 24-105/4 was a safe choice (especially with my next comment).

Here is something to think about... you have the RF100-500 already. Paired with the 24-105 you would have 24-500mm covered w/ just 2 high-quality L lenses (700 if you take your 1.4x tele). That's a massive focal range w/ just 2 lenses...
That is something to think about, but equally, if you pair the 24-70 with the 100-500, would you really miss the 71-99mm range? And if you go with the 24-70, you get the extra stop of aperture over the 24-105 (at the cost of some weight). Pick your poison!
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
OK, I unerstand now that over the 24-240, the Canon RF 24-105/4 is sharper and better. Now honestly is it worth to buy it or use the RF 24-70 f2.8 and sacrifice the extra 35mm of the telephoto lens for documentary/travel photography?
There is no perfect lens so it is always a matter of picking which trade offs you prefer (as others have essentially said above). For your documentary and travel photography, which do you think you would value more, the extra reach of the 24-105 or the extra stop of aperture of the 24-70? Personally I am not about to buy both, but I can understand someone owning both (or the combination of 24-105 f/4L and 28-70 f/2L, as Neuro does). Another option, if you want full frame but small and light are sufficiently important to you to warrant spending the money (it would cost a bit), is to look beyond Canon, eg you could look at something like the Sony A7C. Once you factor in lenses though, the question is how much smaller and lighter would the kit be. There are small and light prime lenses for the Sony system (eg the tiny and very light Samyang 18 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 lenses, among many others), but you would have to decide if you were happy with the IQ. If you want a zoom lens then you may or may not save much weight. The new Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II is about 200g lighter than the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS I think, for whatever that might be worth to you, and you also have relatively light (and comparatively cheap) options such as the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8, 28-75 f/2.8 G2 and 70-180 f/2.8 and the Sigma 16-28 f/2.8, although again you would have to decide if you were happy with the IQ. Anyway, sorry to have gone off on a bit of a tangent.

Edit: For interest I just checked and the weight of the Samyang 18 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 lenses, combined, is about 750g, so about 50g more than an RF 24-105 f/4L IS and 150g less than an RF 24-70 f/2/8L IS. Using the primes for travel would no doubt mean a lot of lens changes, but interesting all the same.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,096
6,503
That is something to think about, but equally, if you pair the 24-70 with the 100-500, would you really miss the 71-99mm range? And if you go with the 24-70, you get the extra stop of aperture over the 24-105 (at the cost of some weight). Pick your poison!
Yes, it really depends on what you're planning to shoot. IMO, current cameras mean the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is not as important. With DSLRs, f/2.8 enabled better AF performance and the high-ISO performance was not as good as it is today. Still, if you're shooting in dim indoor environments a stop can help a lot (which is one reason I have the 28-70/2, but that's not a lens I would travel with).
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
Yes, it really depends on what you're planning to shoot. IMO, current cameras mean the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is not as important. With DSLRs, f/2.8 enabled better AF performance and the high-ISO performance was not as good as it is today. Still, if you're shooting in dim indoor environments a stop can help a lot (which is one reason I have the 28-70/2, but that's not a lens I would travel with).
Yep, agree. For me when I travel, the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is not usually about ISO, but about whether I want the ability to be able to blur a background a bit more, which I may or may not care about depending on where I am going and who I am travelling with. For travel specifically, I would probably prefer 24-105 at the cost of a stop of aperture, but I have a 24-70 f/2.8 anyway for other reasons, so I just use the 24-70 for travel too these days. If I was still doing long hikes (multi-day hikes), and when I get back to doing them, things may be different for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,719
14,895
Having had the 24-105/4 & having the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 (and other L's)... If I had to choose between the 1x f4 and 2x f2.8's the 2.8's will win (and they have, hence the reason I haven't replaced my f4 yet). However, replacing the 24-105/4 at some point will happen... it's just a matter of timing. Lately I have been able to walkabout with 2+ lenses so it isn't a priority yet. However, if I go back to 'just one lens' in a walkabout situation the 24-105/4 was a safe choice (especially with my next comment).

Here is something to think about... you have the RF100-500 already. Paired with the 24-105 you would have 24-500mm covered w/ just 2 high-quality L lenses (700 if you take your 1.4x tele). That's a massive focal range w/ just 2 lenses...
I take the RF 2x to pair with the RF 100-400.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
458
321
I take the RF 2x to pair with the RF 100-400.
He has the RF100-500 + the 1.4x. I was trying to give an opinion to his situation that by adding the 24-105/4L he would have a nice carry around plus have a massive range w/ only a bit of extra room needed.
 

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
139
50
57
italy
Hi all, we made a great discussion.
So let's try to narrow down considering 2 case:

1. case A. I travel to another country, ie. to the Far East (ie Indonesia) and for documentary with my family, I am going to shoot images on a market, some landscape (amazing nature there), some people on the street wearing traditional cloths, and during the trip I will document a funeral.... In this case with my R5 I might bring the RF 24-70 f2,8 and RF 70-200 f2,8 (I will not bring the 15-35 as it might distort too much things on narrow places and with people; it would be great for some landscape but probably the 24-70 is wide enough for that purpose)-

2. Case B. I travel to Svalbard (Norway) and I will do mostly landscape, astrophotography at night (ie. milky way or Northern light) and some street photo. In this case I will bring the RF 15-35 f2,8 (for astro and landscape) and the RF 100-500 for close up, some photos of bears (if any), etc.

Does this sound a good solution?
I still think (but I might be wrong) that with all lenses I have, even a small sacrifice is OK (I might know have in certain situation the proper lens for a specific shoot) but the prime lenses I will bring will overcome this. So I should save probably money and not buy at the end a multi purpose lens like the 24-105 or 24-240 (the first one is NOT much different from my 24-70 which I own already) and the 24-240 probably does sacrifice a bit way too much quality for the lenses I have...
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
977
322
Hi all, we made a great discussion.
So let's try to narrow down considering 2 case:

1. case A. I travel to another country, ie. to the Far East (ie Indonesia) and for documentary with my family, I am going to shoot images on a market, some landscape (amazing nature there), some people on the street wearing traditional cloths, and during the trip I will document a funeral.... In this case with my R5 I might bring the RF 24-70 f2,8 and RF 70-200 f2,8 (I will not bring the 15-35 as it might distort too much things on narrow places and with people; it would be great for some landscape but probably the 24-70 is wide enough for that purpose)-

2. Case B. I travel to Svalbard (Norway) and I will do mostly landscape, astrophotography at night (ie. milky way or Northern light) and some street photo. In this case I will bring the RF 15-35 f2,8 (for astro and landscape) and the RF 100-500 for close up, some photos of bears (if any), etc.

Does this sound a good solution?
I still think (but I might be wrong) that with all lenses I have, even a small sacrifice is OK (I might know have in certain situation the proper lens for a specific shoot) but the prime lenses I will bring will overcome this. So I should save probably money and not buy at the end a multi purpose lens like the 24-105 or 24-240 (the first one is NOT much different from my 24-70 which I own already) and the 24-240 probably does sacrifice a bit way too much quality for the lenses I have...
You arleady have excellent gear and that solution sounds good to me for what you've said you want to shoot on each trip, but it really does come down to how much weight/gear you are happy carrying, how much you prioritise maximising image quality, etc. In the end, only you can say if it is a good solution for you!

I stumbled on this video on YouTube the other night and it made me think of this thread


I have only skim-watched the video, and of course the photographer's answer about what is the best travel lens is correct only for him, but you may find the video vaguely interesting. If you search around though, you'll find various different opinions. I think many of us grapple with the question of what we want our travel kit to be!
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,096
6,503
...it really does come down to how much weight/gear you are happy carrying, how much you prioritise maximising image quality, etc.
I think many of us grapple with the question of what we want our travel kit to be!
Very true! In fact, that's one reason I have multiple bodies and many lenses for each. Depending on what and where I'm going to shoot, I decide which gear is best suited to the task.

For the same reason, I have more camera bags than my wife has purses. Ok, technically she could have just one or two purses (she doesn't ;)), so that's not really meaningful. But what I mean is that I have a lot of camera bags:

Transport-Cases.jpg

When I go on an outing, I want a bag to hold just the gear I need, without wasted space. For travel, my preferred bag is the Lowepro Fastpack PRO BP 250 AW III. It holds my R3 with 3-4 lenses in the camera compartment (3 if one lens is the 100-500, 4 if they're all 'standard sized' black lenses like the 24-105/4 or TS-E 17), along with my 16" MacBook Pro and a good-sized top compartment for personal items. For local outings, I really like the Lowepro Toploader Pro bags – I have three sizes, along with multiple lens cases that can attach to the outside of the Toploader, so I can have a perfectly-sized carry solution for the R3 with one or two lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

snapshot

5d2,5d4,r5
CR Pro
Jul 24, 2020
69
52
For me, RF-24-240 is a travel winner vs RF28-70 + EF100-400. If a hike will be in daylight and takes me more than 1 hour from my car it provides me something easy to carry that grabs picts of all kinds of stuff. On the other hand if i were to be going to Rome, it might be too slow for the indoor artwork. RF28-70 or 70-200 f2.8 might be my choices for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
458
321
it really does come down to how much weight/gear you are happy carrying, how much you prioritise maximising image quality, etc. In the end, only you can say if it is a good solution for you!

Also going to give a +1 on this. The only reason I haven't re-purchased the smaller/lighter lens is I haven't had a true need to. My need/want to bring a lighter lens, hasn't tipped the scales of not bringing the 'fancy' lenses combined with not being able to justify the additional cost (I already have the range w/ better lenses).