I’m looking for some advice on a lens to rent for vacation. I will be taking the 70-200 2.8 and the R6Mii. I’m looking for something to shoot landscapes like whitewater rivers and waterfalls with. I’m looking at the following lenses below. Anyone have any advice or suggestions? I really liked the Sigma 14-24 but not being able to use a screw on ND filter made that one come off my list.
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4
If there's no or minimal cost difference between the wide angle options, I'd say just stick with the RF mount option 14-35. If buying, I'd change my recommendation to the 16-35. These can be found at crazy low prices and it's an exceptional lens.
The 24-105 is a great lens too. It really comes down to do you prefer wider compositions or more standard. Really the 35-70mm range - how often do you shoot here? If most of your work is 40mm and below and 70mm and beyond, then you can just crop the 14-35 slightly.
You can get away with a 24-XX zoom, IMO, if in some cases you are willing to shoot panos. Otherwise 24mm is often not quite wide enough. If I am traveling by motorcycle, I often just pack the camera with the RF 24-70/2.8 mounted and if I need wider, I just shoot panos.
Edit: if you are renting, budget concerns are not as large, you could add the RF 15-35/2.8 to the list.
Ovacheerdad wrote:
I’m looking for some advice on a lens to rent for vacation. I will be taking the 70-200 2.8 and the R6Mii. I’m looking for something to shoot landscapes like whitewater rivers and waterfalls with. I’m looking at the following lenses below. Anyone have any advice or suggestions? I really liked the Sigma 14-24 but not being able to use a screw on ND filter made that one come off my list.
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4
Everyone’s preferences are different, but my choice would be — and has been — to combine the 24-105 with your 70-200mm lens. Unless your preferences run to extremely wide angle lenses, 24mm is usually wide enough, and the 24=105mm focal length range overs a lot of ground. (I once used only that kind of lens, in the older EF version, for a lengthy backcountry hiking trip in the Southern Sierra Nevada, and it used to be my core travel lens back in the day.)
With those other options I would miss the 35mm-70mm range, which is right in the center of a core, useful focal length range. (Some backpackers will carry a 16-35mm or similar plus a 70-200mm and fill the gap with a small 50mm prime.)
I generally carry both an RF-24-105F4L, and an EF 16-35-F4L, but though the 16-35 is about the sharpest Canon lens I've ever owned, slightly surpassing the 24-105 in that regard, if I were constricted to carrying only one, it would be the 24-105 due to its versatility in focal lengths.
Having 14-16mm wide capability can yield great results in some particular situations, but for many if not most Landscape shots a bit narrower perspective will win the day.
Sy Sez wrote:
I generally carry both an RF-24-105F4L, and an EF 16-35-F4L, but though the 16-35 is about the sharpest Canon lens I've ever owned, slightly surpassing the 24-105 in that regard, if I were constricted to carrying only one, it would be the 24-105 due to its versatility in focal lengths.
Having 14-16mm wide capability can yield great results in some particular situations, but for many if not most Landscape shots a bit narrower perspective will win the day.
I second your point about the EF 16-35mm f/4. I always carry it with me when I bring the full landscape kit, and while it is far from my most-used lens, when I do use it the performance is excellent.
On full frame, I wouldn't be without the 24-105 f4 L. I've been carrying one as my general purpose travel lens since the original. I also now have the 14-35 and find it a versatile "landscape" lens and will carry it when weight is not an issue. Generally I have used a small wide prime like a 20 or now the 16 f2.8. With the R5's 45 MP I can easily crop it to cover the 16-24 range and its f2.8 means I can press it into night sky service if the opportunity presents. With the R5 I'm also usually carrying the 100-500, hence my weight timidity on the wide end. I think, cost notwithstanding, the RF 14-35 is better than the EF 16-35 since the RF lens focuses closer and one avoids messing with adapters. Both have good IQ in my use.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
On full frame, I wouldn't be without the 24-105 f4 L. I've been carrying one as my general purpose travel lens since the original. I also now have the 14-35 and find it a versatile "landscape" lens and will carry it when weight is not an issue. Generally I have used a small wide prime like a 20 or now the 16 f2.8. With the R5's 45 MP I can easily crop it to cover the 16-24 range and its f2.8 means I can press it into night sky service if the opportunity presents. With the R5 I'm also usually carrying the 100-500, hence my weight timidity on the wide end. I think, cost notwithstanding, the RF 14-35 is better than the EF 16-35 since the RF lens focuses closer and one avoids messing with adapters. Both have good IQ in my use....Show more →
Your mention of the 24-105mm and 100-400mm lenses together reminds me that a friend (who is represented by TAAG) has done a lot of backcountry photography in the Sierra Nevada using only the old EF24-105 and EF100-400mm lenses. together they cover a lot of ground.
Yes, I've found that, even when traveling on non-wildlife trips, if I need more than 100mm I'll need more than 200mm. Perhaps just me. I own the 70-200 f4 and its a good lens but I often want more reach.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Your mention of the 24-105mm and 100-400mm lenses together reminds me that a friend (who is represented by TAAG) has done a lot of backcountry photography in the Sierra Nevada using only the old EF24-105 and EF100-400mm lenses. together they cover a lot of ground.
The EF 24-105 was not good corner to corner. I had 2 copies, maybe both were bad, certainly both were early, but I preferred used 24-70/2.8 or 24-70/4 back in the day.
The RF 24-105/4 and 100-500 make a good combo especially with the excellent focus bracketing you can pan, stack, and stitch to create huge images that were nearly impossible to be timely with the old EF system.
I have an adpater on the 16-35/4. No need to remove it. I would not buy any old EF lenses nowadays unless there is no RF equivalent, like the 65 MP-E or any modern TS-E.
EB-1 wrote:
The EF 24-105 was not good corner to corner. I had 2 copies, maybe both were bad, certainly both were early, but I preferred used 24-70/2.8 or 24-70/4 back in the day.
The RF 24-105/4 and 100-500 make a good combo especially with the excellent focus bracketing you can pan, stack, and stitch to create huge images that were nearly impossible to be timely with the old EF system.
I have an adpater on the 16-35/4. No need to remove it. I would not buy any old EF lenses nowadays unless there is no RF equivalent, like the 65 MP-E or any modern TS-E.
I had the EF 24-105 f/4L, and its performance overall was fine — certainly far from "bad." Of course, that was a different lens that what is available as RF today. (I also had/have the 24-70mm f/2.8L, which is better, but doesn't have the plus of the larger focal length range.)
With few exceptions, I agree that today it makes the most sense to go with contemporary RF lenses. (I'll make exceptions for those who still like their older cameras that use EF lenses and for folks who are cost-constrained and are looking at an older camera and lenses for that reason. My 5DsR with EF lenses still does a great job.)
I never had issues with my original 24-105 but I was generally at f8 when shooting at 24mm. My first trip with the R5 and RF 24-105 was to Morocco where I shot a night scene of the harbor in Tangiers from the roof of our hotel. I was impressed that I got point light stars at 24mm f4 across the FOV. Chris Frost always tests this and few lenses do this wide open. Am I right in thinking this says good things about the RF 24-105 f4?
But then there is this from another thread: Hawker man wrote:
The 24-240 Is almost always on my R5. It’s great for travel, where I match it with the RF 14-35 L for super wide angle shots (cathedral ceilings, etc) and for its weatherproofing, as the 24-240 unfortunately lacks that. Some time ago I compared its image quality to the RF 24-105 f4 L and the difference was minimal - I sold the 24-105.
I'd go with the 14-35. It is nice and small and goes to 14mm. Between that and your 70-200 that leaves you with a gap from 35-70 which I can usually fill by cropping from 35 or a pano from 70.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I never had issues with my original 24-105 but I was generally at f8 when shooting at 24mm…
I agree that when and how we used the old 24-105 probably made a difference.
BTW, the lens was so useful to me that I wore an article about iit back in 2012, in which I shared some examples of situations in which it was a great choice.
I had recently quite a good feeling from combining the diagonal fisheye (old Canon 15/2.8 FE in my case) with EF 24-70 on fullframe. The fisheye is a bit tricky, but sometimes it can save you the time and effort of making panoramas because 24mm isn't wide enough for one shot, and if the nature view is curvy enough, you can basically hide all the FE deformations in the irregularities of the nature. And you get huge portion of the view into the picture (15mm FE is still wider than 10-11-12mm rectilinear lenses). This is Hunafjordur in Iceland, with the Hvitserkur rock, on 15FE, not unfished in any way:
Ovacheerdad wrote:
I’m looking for something to shoot landscapes like whitewater rivers and waterfalls with.
A 70–200mm zoom is often the best lens for this, purely because of access. But, assuming what you have in mind is shooting up close and wide, exactly how wide a lens you’ll need depends on your shooting style, the particular waterfall or stretch of river and even the time of year and weather (which will determine the water flow).
I’m looking at the following lenses below. ...
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS
Canon RF 14-35mm f/4
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4
Of these, I’ve only used the EF 16–35mm f/4 IS. I bought it for my DSLR, and continue to use it on my mirrorless body. It’s an excellent lens, albeit a bit bulky once the EF–RF adapter is fitted. But what might be a problem for you is that it’s not weather sealed unless a filter is fitted. (It’s actually an extending zoom, with the rear barrel shrouding the front moving one; the fixed barrel has the filter thread on it so when you screw on a clear filter the sealing is completed.) This means if you need another filter like a polariser or ND you either temporarily lose weather sealing when you change filters, or you stack filters. I’ve carefully tested that my polarising filter and protection filter don’t vignette when stacked, but that might be hard for you to verify ahead of time with rental equipment. And then it’s often fiddly to get the stacked filter off.
I wouldn’t fuss about the extra range from 14mm to 16mm for this kind of thing. I personally find 24mm a very useful focal length – it’s covered by all three of the lenses you mention, but the ultrawide zooms may have better quality there because of being in the middle of the focal range. On the other hand, having all of 24mm to 105mm in one lens may mean you can avoid lens changes between your 14/16–35mm and 70–200mm lenses in the waterfall spray.
Ovacheerdad wrote:
I’m looking for something to shoot landscapes like whitewater rivers and waterfalls with.
And…melcat replied:
A 70–200mm zoom is often the best lens for this...
I didn’t say much about this earlier, for various reasons, but a lot of landscape photographers regard the 70-200mm lenses as their most useful tools.
I know that there’s a long-standing assumption that wide to ultra-wide lenses are landscape lenses — probably due to the popularity of the “near-far” type of photograph* — but for isolating smaller elements of the landscape, working with more distant subjects, and so on… the telephoto is often very useful.
I’ve photographed a lot of waterfalls, and almost always with longer lenses.
I think, cost notwithstanding, the RF 14-35 is better than the EF 16-35 since the RF lens focuses closer and one avoids messing with adapters. Both have good IQ in my use.