Lens to carry hiking

I usually take my 24-70/2.8 hiking on my R5 II. However I finally think it is too heavy. What would be a decent RF lens to get for hiking. The L are just too heavy for 5-10 mile hike. I understand IQ would not be as good but I am OK with that.

gavin said:

I usually take my 24-70/2.8 hiking on my R5 II. However I finally think it is too heavy. What would be a decent RF lens to get for hiking. The L are just too heavy for 5-10 mile hike. I understand IQ would not be as good but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

You already own the perfect hiking camera. In my books hiking photography is travel photography except in the wilderness. You now have figured out that weight is important in travel photography.

I highly recommend the camera you already own - Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III.

gavin said:

I usually take my 24-70/2.8 hiking on my R5 II. However I finally think it is too heavy. What would be a decent RF lens to get for hiking. The L are just too heavy for 5-10 mile hike. I understand IQ would not be as good but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

EF 24-70 f2.8 950g + adapter 110g = 1060g

Here are most of the zoom options covering similar focal length range:-

RF 24-250 f4-6.3 IS = 750g

RF 24-105 f4 L IS = 700g

RF 28-70 f2.8 IS = 495g

RF 24-105 f4-7.1 IS = 395g

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 = 290g (17mp APS-C crop)

RF 24-50 f4.5-6.3 IS = 270g

The weight saving ranges from fairly subtle to pretty huge. Likewise with the size. Generally, you make more compromises as you get smaller and lighter, not surprisingly. Also quite a big price range. Depends on what you are prepared to compromise on.

The RF 24-105 f4 L is a great all-rounder with very good IQ, versatile range, IS and fairly fast aperture, but may not offer you the weight saving you are after. Still quite a lot smaller than your 24-70+adapter though. The most expensive option.

The RF 28-70 f2.8 would offer a pretty big size and weight reduction with only a compromise on range at the wide end. IQ should be better than your 24-70. Still quite pricey.

If you really wanted to prioritise size and weight reduction, the RF 24-50 is a viable option for landscape type work IMO, as it has good sharpness across the frame throughout its range, and the slow aperture should not be much of a compromise for this kind of work, especially with combined IBIS and IS. Yes it stops at 50mm, but 17mp APS-C crop mode should still give you good results with an effective focal length of 80mm.

The Sigma is worth considering IMO as it's again very small and light, good IQ and maintains the fast aperture if that is important to you. Of course you will be limited to 17mp APS-C, no IS, but the IBIS will mitigate to a large extent.

The 24-105 f4-7.1 is another valid option with a different set of compromises - good range and IS but slow aperture. IQ is not great at the wide end but pretty good elsewhere.

An APS-C kit may suit you better for hiking.

R50 with RFs 10-18mm and/or 18-150mm

jj

Thanks. I was looking for just a lighter than 24-70/2.8 lens for now

Thanks. Very helpful. All much smaller than the 200-800 I just bought ;-) It was much cheaper in Hong Kong.

Sorry, I had to laugh. I once hiked similar distances, with a several hundred foot elevation change, with a 4x5, 6x6 and 35mm film cameras. Not to mention my huge tripod. At least 30 pounds.

Now it's probably half that weight since I am down to one or two digital cameras.

For the small weight loss you are looking for I would not be bothered giving up f2.8 capability and quality. If you must, I would sell your current lens and buy a slower "L" lens which is lighter. This I have done myself, for a lens that I use handheld for day long events.

I don't know how you know the OP has an EF lens. Nor which version it is. The RF 28-70 STM appears to be very close in the centre, but definitely poorer in the corners to the EF II.

A good list of alternatives.

John Crowe said:

I don't know how you know the OP has an EF lens. Nor which version it is. The RF 28-70 STM appears to be very close in the centre, but definitely poorer in the corners to the EF II.

Click to expand...

It's in the OP's equipment list. I felt it safe to assume that was the 24-70 they were referring to.

John Crowe said:

A good list of alternatives.

Click to expand...

gavin said:

I understand IQ would not be as good but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

The Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 is almost a pancake lens.........just crop to taste

I have the old 24-70/2,8L with the RF adapter.

Wow. I am not that hard core to lug 30 lb around.

gavin said:

I usually take my 24-70/2.8 hiking on my R5 II. However I finally think it is too heavy. What would be a decent RF lens to get for hiking. The L are just too heavy for 5-10 mile hike. I understand IQ would n ot be as good but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

My L glass is all still the EF versions that I bought long ago. I still like the lenses too well to care about replacing them. But I absolutely love the cheap light versatile RF glass. And most of it comes with a 0.5-1 macro function, which I use a lot. There is always something small and interesting on a hike, even when the big vistas and wildlife don't present themselves.

I still carry too much stuff, in most people's opinion, because I like to be ready for as many situations as possible.

My current hiking bag has a Sony RX 10 iv and an RP with the little 2" 16mm f2.8, the RF 35 f2 macro, and the RF 85 f2 macro. It all goes into a fairly small shoulder bag or a photo vest. That's right, I can put it all into the vest and have both hands free, when I want to.

The cheaper RF zooms look equally interesting. I elected to combine the Sony, with its 24-600 eq zoom and lighter weight rather than the RF zoom lenses that would cover that range. It's a good camera in daylight. I hate being out at night without FF and f2 or better, and I don't shoot really long shots at night.

Building on John's reply, instead of looking for a substantially lighter lens that still ticks all the boxes maybe a better idea would be to get a high-end backpack that really suits your build and your gear.

Back when I was in my late 40s / early 50s I regularly did long hillwalks (Munros in Scotland) with a fair chunk of my camera gear, plus map, water, snacks, torch, storm shelter etc. Though I did eventually get a lighter tripod, the thing that really made things so much easier was getting a good backpack. If the weight is supported really well on your shoulders and back and you have quick access to your gear, you honestly won't notice the weight of one heavy-ish lens, but you will appreciate the shots it helps you get.

HI, I have the cotton carrier which works well. I have also used my backpack but then I have to take my camera out to use and put away.

gavin said:

I usually take my 24-70/2.8 hiking on my R5 II. However I finally think it is too heavy. What would be a decent RF lens to get for hiking. The L are just too heavy for 5-10 mile hike. I understand IQ would not be as good but I am OK with that.

Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to find a lighter lens in the lineup. We don't know what you like to shoot when hiking.

Thanks. I think I will get the lighter 28-70