I'm going to the Ross Sea in February and I'm trying to decide what lenses to take for my R5 which I'll be using on the trip. I'd like to keep it to two lenses; my RF100-500mm for wildlife and either my RF 24-105 F/4 or RF 15-35 F2/8 for landscape, etc. I'm contemplating taking all three however I'm thinking of minimising weight and I'm not sure I would use both the 24-105 and the 15-35. Any thoughts and advice on this issue would be much appreciated!
I can honestly say that if this was me doing this trip, I would be packing all three lenses. Even if you only used two of them on the trip. I would hate to miss that one special image because I didn't pack in that one lens. Gary
yeah out of the lenses there the 100-500mm is a no brainer, that goes for sure, the 25-105mm to cover any wider stuff, as for the landscapes yes the 15-35mm would be great there too but is you need to dump a lens for weight the 24-105mm can be used for landscape and where you have a tripod you should be able to cover the wider stuff shooting a couple of times to get a pano / stitch together in post. been watching 'wild alaska' and 'duade paton' on youtube with the 200-800mm rf lens, sure its a ƒ6.3 to ƒ9.0 but it seems to be a decent longer reach lens you been tempted by that one yet?
Thanks for your comments GDN and Caladina They support what I’m thinking. If i can manage it, I will take all three lenses. Otherwise I will reluctantly leave the 15-35 behind.
Forgot to say i’m also taking a 1.3 ext, so definitely have the wildlife covered! Not taking a tripod and haven ‘t checked out the 200-800 yet. Duade is a great bird photographer btw
I would still find room to squeeze this lens in. Just in case there is a once in a lifetime photo. Gary
this is one of the reasons i love my M50, with its efm lenses and small body i can take an extra couple of lenses over the ef-s / ef system and still make use of the 100-400mm and 150-600mm when i'm doing wildlife
I would also side with the cutting the RF 15-35 F2/8 if you had to leave a lens out, the 24-105 covers half that range anyway. While I love having as much on the wide end for landscape, I cant imagine you will shoot much at 2.8 unless you get really close to some wildlife. Also given the vast expanse of the scenery I would venture to wonder if you may be shooting imagery at longer mm than you may have initially thought for your wider shots.
Thanks Johnsey, your opinion confirms mine! However, i have managed to squeeze the 15-35 in…even if i don’t get to use it!
