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



## puffo25 (May 16, 2022)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

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.


----------



## PCM-madison (May 16, 2022)

The RF 24-105 F4 is a very nice lens that I have used for travel with great results. Also consider the RF 24-240mm which comes very close in quality if you don't need F4.


----------



## unfocused (May 16, 2022)

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


----------



## jd7 (May 16, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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...).
> ...


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.


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 17, 2022)

My vote is the RF 24-105/4. I had this lens and sold it to help fund the 2.8 trinity. There are a lot of times I wish I still had it as it could replace 2 of the 2.8's in walk-about situations where I only want to carry 1 lens.


----------



## Frodo (May 25, 2022)

The OP seems to want to go wider than 24mm, more than longer than 105mm. My travel set is RF 24-105L plus RF 16mm., sometimes with the RF 50/1.8.


----------



## Maximilian (May 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 4, 2022)

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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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?


The 24-240 is not as good as the 24-105/4L for image quality. It is not too far off the 24-105 non-L in terms of image quality.


----------



## PhilC (Jun 4, 2022)

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.


----------



## PCM-madison (Jun 4, 2022)

I've been happy with the 24-240mm as my travel lens (on an RP). Here are examples across the focal length range, chuckwalla (240mm), Morgan Falls (129mm), Titus Canyon (24mm).


----------



## PeteH (Jun 4, 2022)

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.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 5, 2022)

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.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 5, 2022)

I have a 24-240 that I bought to use with my R5. Its fine for casual use, but not in the same league as the 24-105L. A 10X zoom has to sacrifice image quality, there are too many optical parameters to control. Even a 4X zoom like the 24-105 loses some quality as compared to 3X.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## puffo25 (Jun 5, 2022)

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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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? 

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).


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jun 6, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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...


----------



## jd7 (Jun 6, 2022)

Bdbtoys said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2022)

jd7 said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2022)

Bdbtoys said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2022)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Jun 8, 2022)

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 (Jun 9, 2022)

puffo25 said:


> 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)-
> ...


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!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2022)

jd7 said:


> ...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:




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.


----------



## snapshot (Jun 9, 2022)

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.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jun 9, 2022)

jd7 said:


> 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).


----------



## john1970 (Dec 25, 2022)

Of the choices I would pick the Canon 24-105 mm f4 L lens. I own both the 24-105 mm L f4 and the 24-70 mm f2.8. I use the 24-70 mm indoors for sports and would use the 24-105 mm for outdoors. The two lenses do have different uses. The 24-105 mm is smaller and weighs less which can also be a factor when traveling.


----------

