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

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
163
55
58
italy
Hello. I have a Canon R5 with several lenses: EF 8-15 fisheye f4 (with RF adapter), RF 15-35 f2,8, RF24-70 f2,8, RF 70-200 f2,8, RF 100-500 and 1,4X extender.
I do astrophotography (Milky Way and Northen Lights) as well and nature, documentary/travel (meaning: street portraits, street scenes, ceremonies during my excursions, building, landscape).
In some travel situations bringing a number of lenses is just not practical (too heavy for my backpack, hassle to switch all the time lenses during an event/scenery, etc...).
So I think that buy also a multi-purpose lens might be a good idea (better than buy another camera body, which cost more money and will make my travel bag too heavy plus will make myself not conformable to walk around...).
So I am wondering what is, based on your experience, the best zoom lens (from wide angle to telephoto) I can get in the market? For best I mean: most bright, great sharpness, robust, possibly weather sealing, possibly light?

Based on my search, I came out with 3 possible options:

a. Sigma 18-300mm 3,5/6,3 DC Marco OS HSM Contemporary
b. Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM
c. Canon RF 24-105 F4L IS USM

In principle, the option a is the best (wider and more telephoto too).... But what about overall image quality? As said, when I travel a bright lens, very precise and quick AF on different conditions, very sharp and possibly not too heavy to bring on a plane and to walk for several hours around a village, a city, a busy market or a forest in Amazzonia or Indonesia what I need.

Your option is very much appreciated.
TIA.
 

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
While I use the 24-105 f4 as my standard lens for anything except extreme wide angle and telephoto, if you are looking for a travel lens, consider the 24-240 Canon RF. The extra 135 mm would be quite important if traveling with just one lens. Read the review and decide for yourself if it is the lens for you. Digital Picture Review. It is available refurbished for just over $700
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

jd7

CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
1,064
418
Hello. I have a Canon R5 with several lenses: EF 8-15 fisheye f4 (with RF adapter), RF 15-35 f2,8, RF24-70 f2,8, RF 70-200 f2,8, RF 100-500 and 1,4X extender.
I do astrophotography (Milky Way and Northen Lights) as well and nature, documentary/travel (meaning: street portraits, street scenes, ceremonies during my excursions, building, landscape).
In some travel situations bringing a number of lenses is just not practical (too heavy for my backpack, hassle to switch all the time lenses during an event/scenery, etc...).
So I think that buy also a multi-purpose lens might be a good idea (better than buy another camera body, which cost more money and will make my travel bag too heavy plus will make myself not conformable to walk around...).
So I am wondering what is, based on your experience, the best zoom lens (from wide angle to telephoto) I can get in the market? For best I mean: most bright, great sharpness, robust, possibly weather sealing, possibly light?


Based on my search, I came out with 3 possible options:

a. Sigma 18-300mm 3,5/6,3 DC Marco OS HSM Contemporary
b. Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM
c. Canon RF 24-105 F4L IS USM

In principle, the option a is the best (wider and more telephoto too).... But what about overall image quality? As said, when I travel a bright lens, very precise and quick AF on different conditions, very sharp and possibly not too heavy to bring on a plane and to walk for several hours around a village, a city, a busy market or a forest in Amazzonia or Indonesia what I need.

Your option is very much appreciated.
TIA.
Based on what you have said you are looking for, I think maybe you already have it: the RF 24-70 f2.8. As others have said, you could also consider the RF 24-105 f/4 or the RF 24-240. Obviously they have more range than your 24-70 and they are a bit (but only a bit) lighter, but the 24-105 is a stop dimmer than your 24-70 and the 24-240 is dimmer again. And the 24-70 is the best optically of the three (although that is not to say you should be unahppy with the optics of the others). In the end you are going to have to decide how important a brighter aperture and optical performance is to you versus lighter weight and longer zoom range. I suppose another option may be the 24-105 or the RF 24-240 plus a small prime for when you want a brighter aperture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
5,665
8,492
Germany
Of those three, I’d suggest the Canon RF 24-105/4. It’s sharp, light and convenient with a very useful focal range.

The Sigma 18-300 is a crop-format lens with mediocre IQ. The Sigma 24-105 is ok, but needs an adapter that adds bulk.
100% agree with that.
You have the RF24-70/2.8.
But if 70 mm are not enough, go for the RF24-105/4 in addition and choose which lens will serve you better in which situation.
I would keep the 24-70 in any case.
 
Upvote 0

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
163
55
58
italy
Hi, the RF 24-105f4 multi purpose lens could be a solution but since I own already the RF 24-70mm f2,8 I do NOT see a much advantage for this new lens (only a little further telephoto capability but not much). Maybe considering the Canon RF 24-240mm might be a better solution?
In terms of weight and image quality do you think that the RF24-240 is as good as the RF 24-105mm for my Canon R5?
 
Upvote 0
I am Canon APS-C 15-85 mm big fan for travel photography, which a 24-135 equivalent in FF. I’m essentially a travel photographer and that range covers 90% of my needs the rest being essentially a 10-22 (16-35 equivalent). The 24 mm is critical to me, a big difference with an 18-135 (28-214 equivalent) . When I will switch to R range the 24-105 is my immediate choice for travel. But must admit puzzled by the 24-240 as I’m not always a quality freak, I rather have a good photo than missing one because of having to change lens. As someone mentioned a 24-240 with a wide opening additional lens could be an option if aperture is an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I have the EF 24-105L (version 1) but I've never really liked using it that much.

FWIW I much prefer a pair of compact primes when I want not to be too weighed down or too conspicuous (front filter of 58mm or smaller fits in a coat pocket, and in use, draws much less attention than 77mm+). For what they are the smaller RF primes are just as excellent as the big ones; just throwing it out there.
 
Upvote 0

puffo25

EOS R5 - Fine art landscape, travel,astro and pano
Jul 18, 2017
163
55
58
italy
Hi all, I am still puzzled. I could buy the 24-240 which makes more sense to me over the 24-105 (as I have already the 24-70 and a little bigger telephoto does not justify this extra cost). However I read from some of you that the 24-105 is better image quality than the 24-240. Than if that is true I could travel with my RF 15-35 and RF 24-70. For specific close up I will have to crop some pictures. And probably I will use for most of my shoots the 24-70. Do you agree?
In this way I will save money and keep quality as high as possible.
 
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
971
1,213
Northeastern US
Of those three, I’d suggest the Canon RF 24-105/4. It’s sharp, light and convenient with a very useful focal range.

The Sigma 18-300 is a crop-format lens with mediocre IQ. The Sigma 24-105 is ok, but needs an adapter that adds bulk.
I second this opinion for the same reasons. It is also not prohibitively expensive at $1300 like the f2.8 constant aperture zooms.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,858
Hi all, I am still puzzled. I could buy the 24-240 which makes more sense to me over the 24-105 (as I have already the 24-70 and a little bigger telephoto does not justify this extra cost). However I read from some of you that the 24-105 is better image quality than the 24-240. Than if that is true I could travel with my RF 15-35 and RF 24-70. For specific close up I will have to crop some pictures. And probably I will use for most of my shoots the 24-70. Do you agree?
In this way I will save money and keep quality as high as possible.
The 24-240 is a non-L superzoom lens. It trades optical quality for convenience and cost. The 24-105/4 is an L-series zoom – better IQ, shorter range, heavier, more expensive.

Only you can decide what you need and what compromises you want to make.

When I traveled to cities in Europe with my 1D X, which I did frequently pre-pandemic, I would take the 11-24/4, 24-70/2.8 and TS-E 17 and 24, and I didn’t miss having a telephoto lens. With my R3, I’ll use the 24-105/4 instead of the 24-70/2.8 (I had the RF 24-105/4 first, and like you I didn’t see the logic in having both that and the 24-70; I bought the 28-70/2 instead).

On a recent trip to Colorado, I took the R3 with the 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 and that was a great kit for that destination.

Only you know what you plan to shoot, so only you know if 70mm will be long enough, or if you need 105mm or 240mm. The 24-240 delivers good images, even if the IQ is not as good as an L lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,353
22,526
The 24-240 is a non-L superzoom lens. It trades optical quality for convenience and cost. The 24-105/4 is an L-series zoom – better IQ, shorter range, heavier, more expensive.

Only you can decide what you need and what compromises you want to make.

When I traveled to cities in Europe with my 1D X, which I did frequently pre-pandemic, I would take the 11-24/4, 24-70/2.8 and TS-E 17 and 24, and I didn’t miss having a telephoto lens. With my R3, I’ll use the 24-105/4 instead of the 24-70/2.8 (I had the RF 24-105/4 first, and like you I didn’t see the logic in having both that and the 24-70; I bought the 28-70/2 instead).

On a recent trip to Colorado, I took the R3 with the 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 and that was a great kit for that destination.

Only you know what you plan to shoot, so only you know if 70mm will be long enough, or if you need 105mm or 240mm. The 24-240 delivers good images, even if the IQ is not as good as an L lens.
I'm pleased you like the 100-500. For travelling light, the RF 100-400 is a good substitute. I threw one in on my recent trip to Rome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,858
I'm pleased you like the 100-500. For travelling light, the RF 100-400 is a good substitute. I threw one in on my recent trip to Rome.
So you didn’t find the loss of 1/3-stop of light rendered the lens unusable? :ROFLMAO:

I considered one, but the extra weight of the 100-500 doesn’t bother me (yet), and though the 100-400 is a bit smaller, the difference is not great enough that it would allow an extra lens in the same bag (or a smaller bag).
 
Upvote 0