Pairing down gear for wildlife/travel weight savings

I’m debating on downsizing some of my gear for travel, hiking and other adventures. I mainly shoot wildlife and nature. My main desire is to keep the kit on my back on any given adventure under 5 lbs. I’m also finding that I gravitate more towards normal to telephoto focal lengths and rarely shoot wider than 24mm. Even when I find myself in 24mm situations, I find that I often want to shoot closer to 35-50mm.

I would tailor specific kit for the adventure (e.g. if it’s a wildlife excursion, I’d bring longer telephoto; if it’s more of a travel excursion, I’d bring shorter telephoto). At all times, I’d pack the “nifty fifty” RF 50mm or a light EDC prime lens (leaning towards the primes to keep the weight down). For the rare wider shots I do find myself wanting, I figure I can stitch a few Med-long telephoto shots together. I’m also hoping to have weather-sealed gear for the bigger lenses as these would be more exposed to the elements. Lastly, I figure for wide shots (where I don’t want to stitch) or snapshots, I’ll use my iPhone 14 PRO in RAW mode, (I mainly shoot RAW), which gets pretty decent reviews (using its main 48 mp camera).

This is what I’m thinking for subject specific setups:

Travel Setup: R5, RF 50mm, RF 70-200 f4. Total weight on back = 3.35 lbs.

Wildlife Specific: R5, RF 50mm, RF 100-500, RF 1.4 Ext. Total weight on back = 5.34 lbs…(would be under 5 lbs if I don’t pack the RF 1.4 Ext.)

Thus, I’m considering selling my RF 14-35mm and RF 100-400 (simply due to not being weather-sealed).

I’m also considering selling my RF 24-105 and possibly getting the RF 70-200 f4 (or just packing my RF 2.8 version). I may also sell the RF 2x extender as well (paired with the RF 100-500, the lens becomes pretty slow for wildlife and I’m just not reaching for it as often as the 1.4x).

All this to say: Has anyone sold off the RF 24-105 f4 and/or the RF 14-35 f4 and regretted it? Likewise, has anyone regretted selling the RF 100-400 and/or RF 2x Ext?
Lastly, as mentioned, I may pick up the 70-200 f4 (if I don’t need/want the weight of the RF 70-200 f2.8) or RF 35mm (if I would need wider than 50mm for some street/EDC lens). I understand the RF 70-200 f4 (and f2.8 version) to be great lenses. However, has anyone had experience with the RF 35mm for an EDC/street lens?

thanks for the input/insights

Wow a few questions, I may have a few answers

Yes I did have a RF 24-105L, it was part of the R6 kit on release.  For some reason I did not care for it and sold it.  A few years later I was very sorry I did   I now have and love the little RF 24-105 stm and think its awesome   I don't think I will ever sell my RF 100-400 or the RF 1.4x.  The rf 70-200 f4 L is another lens I will NEVER let go of.  It's one those cold dead hands thing   I do like the RF 35 but don't use it as much as I would like, the RF 24-105 covers 35 rather well.

I got that need for speed thing out of my system long ago  when I had the Sigma pair of 1.8 zooms and fast primes.

I want to add I really like my RF 24-240, yea sounds crazy but its a great one lens solution for out and abouts.

davel33 wrote:

Wow a few questions, I may have a few answers

Yes I did have a RF 24-105L, it was part of the R6 kit on release. For some reason I did not care for it and sold it. A few years later I was very sorry I did

any insights as to why you were sorry? Did you miss having that range or…?

I now have and love the little RF 24-105 stm and think its awesome

Why not get the f4 version again? Did you want lighter weight?

I don't think I will ever sell my RF 100-400 or the RF 1.4x. The rf 70-200 f4 L is another lens I will NEVER let go of. It's one those cold dead hands thing I do like the RF 35 but don't use it as much as I would like, the RF 24-105 covers 35 rather well.

I got that need for speed thing out of my system long ago when I had the Sigma pair of 1.8 zooms and fast primes.

I want to add I really like my RF 24-240, yea sounds crazy but it’s a great one lens solution for out and abouts.

Thank you

Ember88 wrote:

davel33 wrote:

Wow a few questions, I may have a few answers

Yes I did have a RF 24-105L, it was part of the R6 kit on release. For some reason I did not care for it and sold it. A few years later I was very sorry I did

any insights as to why you were sorry? Did you miss having that range or…?

I now have and love the little RF 24-105 stm and think its awesome

Why not get the f4 version again? Did you want lighter weight?

I don't think I will ever sell my RF 100-400 or the RF 1.4x. The rf 70-200 f4 L is another lens I will NEVER let go of. It's one those cold dead hands thing I do like the RF 35 but don't use it as much as I would like, the RF 24-105 covers 35 rather well.

I got that need for speed thing out of my system long ago when I had the Sigma pair of 1.8 zooms and fast primes.

I want to add I really like my RF 24-240, yea sounds crazy but it’s a great one lens solution for out and abouts.

Thank you

Yes on both + I was working then, retired now huge difference in income. Plus I am happy with what I have.  I also put my RF 14-35 f4 in the same class as the RF 70-200 f4 but it is  a bit weak at 35.

Ember88 wrote:

I’m debating on downsizing some of my gear for travel, hiking and other adventures. I mainly shoot wildlife and nature. My main desire is to keep the kit on my back on any given adventure under 5 lbs. I’m also finding that I gravitate more towards normal to telephoto focal lengths and rarely shoot wider than 24mm. Even when I find myself in 24mm situations, I find that I often want to shoot closer to 35-50mm.

I would tailor specific kit for the adventure (e.g. if it’s a wildlife excursion, I’d bring longer telephoto; if it’s more of a travel excursion, I’d bring shorter telephoto). At all times, I’d pack the “nifty fifty” RF 50mm or a light EDC prime lens (leaning towards the primes to keep the weight down). For the rare wider shots I do find myself wanting, I figure I can stitch a few Med-long telephoto shots together. I’m also hoping to have weather-sealed gear for the bigger lenses as these would be more exposed to the elements. Lastly, I figure for wide shots (where I don’t want to stitch) or snapshots, I’ll use my iPhone 14 PRO in RAW mode, (I mainly shoot RAW), which gets pretty decent reviews (using its main 48 mp camera).

This is what I’m thinking for subject specific setups:

Travel Setup: R5, RF 50mm, RF 70-200 f4. Total weight on back = 3.35 lbs.

Wildlife Specific: R5, RF 50mm, RF 100-500, RF 1.4 Ext. Total weight on back = 5.34 lbs…(would be under 5 lbs if I don’t pack the RF 1.4 Ext.)

Thus, I’m considering selling my RF 14-35mm and RF 100-400 (simply due to not being weather-sealed).

I’m also considering selling my RF 24-105 and possibly getting the RF 70-200 f4 (or just packing my RF 2.8 version). I may also sell the RF 2x extender as well (paired with the RF 100-500, the lens becomes pretty slow for wildlife and I’m just not reaching for it as often as the 1.4x).

All this to say: Has anyone sold off the RF 24-105 f4 and/or the RF 14-35 f4 and regretted it? Likewise, has anyone regretted selling the RF 100-400 and/or RF 2x Ext?
Lastly, as mentioned, I may pick up the 70-200 f4 (if I don’t need/want the weight of the RF 70-200 f2.8) or RF 35mm (if I would need wider than 50mm for some street/EDC lens). I understand the RF 70-200 f4 (and f2.8 version) to be great lenses. However, has anyone had experience with the RF 35mm for an EDC/street lens?

thanks for the input/insights

For your travel setup, I’d say the 50mm is too close to 70mm, especially given the cropping ability of the R5, so I’d suggest replacing the 50/1.8 with the 35/1.8.  It’s a nice lens for walking around, and for wider views you can do a 2 or 3 shot stitch.

The 70-200/4 is a great lens, good choice.  For travel with the R5 you can always use the 1.6x crop mode for 320mm equivalent.

For your wildlife setup, I’d still suggest having a wide-ish lens for environmental shots.  Again the 35/1.8 would work well as it has a near-macro capability.

I would never go without a wideangle. For me a typical wildlifecombo would be the rf14-35 + rf100-500  or similar

Ember88 wrote:

I’m also considering selling my RF 24-105 and possibly getting the RF 70-200 f4 (or just packing my RF 2.8 version). I may also sell the RF 2x extender as well (paired with the RF 100-500, the lens becomes pretty slow for wildlife and I’m just not reaching for it as often as the 1.4x).

All this to say: Has anyone sold off the RF 24-105 f4 and/or the RF 14-35 f4 and regretted it? Likewise, has anyone regretted selling the RF 100-400 and/or RF 2x Ext?
Lastly, as mentioned, I may pick up the 70-200 f4 (if I don’t need/want the weight of the RF 70-200 f2.8) or RF 35mm (if I would need wider than 50mm for some street/EDC lens). I understand the RF 70-200 f4 (and f2.8 version) to be great lenses. However, has anyone had experience with the RF 35mm for an EDC/street lens?

thanks for the input/insights

I've sold my 24-105 f/4 for an exchange to 14-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 and I'm much more than happy. I'm mostly doing travel photography and this combo suits me very. In future I will probably get 24-70, but I'm not missing that range at all.

Br, Pawel

Some of your options are still pretty large, would you consider one of those Sigma/Tamron 1×0-400, or 150-600 long tele's in an EF mount with adapter?

It'll get you some additional range and maybe ~1 stop gain at the long end ( at the expense of dual IS).

It's not an all Canon solution, but it might get you closer (in terms of FL) to things you want to shoot.

Of, you could shoot in crop mode.

I still take m43 gear when I need to save space and need the extra range at longer FLs.  In the end, everything is a compromise in one way or another...

I sorted this by always taking my older son to carry my gear! He’s huge and has finally developed some liking for photography. Highly recommended

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

I would never go without a wideangle. For me a typical wildlifecombo would be the rf14-35 + rf100-500 or similar

Thank you. Just curious, but wouldn’t 14-35 be much too wide for wildlife?

Not interested in the context, the environment?

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

Not interested in the context, the environment?

Of course. May I ask, What subjects are you photographing at wider than 24mm? Would you be willing to share any examples?

I only ask because I’m wondering if I should hold onto the 14-35 to try out environmental shots wider than 24mm.

24mm will be ok in most of the cases but you listed the RF50 as your widest wildlife lens... But if you take a 24-105 for me this would be too much overlapp with a 100-500 when you look at the cropping potential of the r5. The same size 14-35 gives you more flexibilty. As stated above my two lens "light" combos are 15-35+70-200 or 15-35+100-500 or 35+100-500 or 35+100 or 16 +100. It really depends on the environment (last summer in island I always had the rf100-500 on my r7 and the 15-35 on my r5. That was just perfect from vast wide langscapes to small birds. On a trip to a town with only small chances for wildlife I take often 15-35+70-200 and only the r5)