I totally agree with Shane about the ergonomics and balance, it really makes a huge difference when you are out all day. This whole conversation actually reminds me of a trip I took to the Andes a few years back. I was so paranoid about my gear getting knocked around or caught in a sudden downpour that I spent half the time double-checking my bag straps instead of actually looking at the scenery. One afternoon, I was so distracted making sure my weather sealing was holding up in the heavy mist that I didn't see a huge gap in the stone path and just completely wiped out. My bag went flying and I was just frozen for a good minute, absolutely terrified to open it and see the damage. I spent the next three hours sitting in a small cafe just staring at my bag, too nervous to even take the lens cap off and check the glass. It turned into this whole ordeal where I basically stopped shooting for the rest of the day because I was so rattled by the close call. Traveling with expensive glass is always such a nerve-wracking experience, honestly...

Wait really?? Thats actually super helpful. I always thought it was the other way around.

tbh i was pretty disappointed with the high-end professional glass i took on my last big trip. it costs way too much and honestly felt like a total burden to carry around after walking for miles. i had issues with the weight being a literal pain in the neck and it just wasnt as good as expected considering the steep price. not sure but i think you might actually be happier with the cheaper consumer lenses because:

• they weigh almost nothing compared to the heavy pro versions
• you save a lot of cash for the actual travel stuff like food and tours
• they are way less flashy so you dont feel like a walking target for thieves iirc there are some lightweight zooms that arent in the luxury line that do a solid job for street stuff. i think i heard someone mention that the basic kit lenses are surprisingly sharp if the lighting is good... might be the move if you want to stay light and keep the budget under control.

TL;DR: Your camera body's ergonomics and your low-light needs are the biggest factors in finding the 'best' lens. Adding my two cents as someone who has lugged gear across several continents—it's realy about the balance. Tbh, before I can give a solid recommendation, I’ve gotta ask a couple of things to narrow it down. First, which body are you actually shooting on? Mounting a heavy professional zoom on a compact R8 or an APS-C body feels way different than on a stabilized R5 or R6, and that weight distribution is huge for all-day fatigue. Also, are you prioritizing a massive 'super-zoom' range so you never have to swap, or is low-light performance for evening street scenes more important? Basically, are you okay with a slower variable aperture if it keeps things light, or is a constant aperture a dealbreaker? Knowing your body and low-light needs will definitely help find the sweet spot for your kit. Anyway, let us know the setup!

Hey there! That's a classic travel photography dilemma, for sure. I totally get the struggle of wanting to pack light but still have the versatility to grab every shot. For RF mount and travel, my absolute go-to has become the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens.

Now, I know you mentioned it, and honestly, at first, I was a little hesitant too. It's not the *smallest* lens out there, but it's surprisingly manageable for its capabilities. What really won me over is its incredible range for everyday travel. That 24mm end is wide enough for most landscapes and cityscapes without getting too distorted, and the 105mm reach is fantastic for pulling in details, isolating subjects, or even getting a decent portrait without being right in someone's face on the street. Plus, the f/4 aperture is pretty good, especially with image stabilization. It handles decent low light and gives you a nice bit of background blur when you need it.

I've found that the constant f/4 aperture is a huge convenience. No fiddling with changing apertures and worrying about light loss significantly as you zoom. For me, the ability to cover so many scenarios without swapping lenses is a massive weight off my mind when I'm on the move. Sure, it's not the cheapest option, and if you're *only* shooting landscapes, a wider prime might be tempting, or if you *only* need telephoto, something else would be better. But for a true all-rounder that balances portability, image quality, and versatility for a wide range of travel scenarios, I honestly think it's hard to beat.

I've had it for a couple of years now, and it's been on multiple trips. It's held up well and consistently delivers great results. Definitely worth considering if you want one lens to do most of the heavy lifting!

Oh, that's a fantastic question and a dilemma I've wrestled with myself many times before trips! @User above mentioned "Hey there! That's a classic travel photography dilemma, for sure...." and honestly, they hit the nail on the head. I went through this exact thing last year before a multi-week European adventure. My go-to ended up being the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens. While it's not the *smallest* option, its versatility is absolutely unmatched for travel. It covers everything from sweeping landscapes at 24mm to getting a bit closer on street details at 105mm. The f/4 aperture is usually plenty for daylight and good enough for some interior shots or early/late light. Plus, the L-series build quality is superb and it held up through all sorts of weather. I love that I can leave it on the camera almost all day and not miss a beat, which really cuts down on lens-swapping fatigue when you're on the move. It's a bit of a heavier investment, but for me, the sheer utility on the road made it totally worth it.

Hmm, I've had a different experience with the RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM for travel, and I'd actually suggest a different approach focusing on a slightly more compact and potentially budget-friendlier option. While the 24-105 is a solid workhorse, I found it a bit on the heavier side for extended walking days. After trying a few things over the years, I’ve found that for travel, especially when portability is key, sometimes a prime lens or a more specialized, lighter zoom can really win out. For example, I’ve been really impressed with the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for street and detail shots; it’s super light and that f/1.8 aperture is fantastic for low light and bokeh. If you absolutely need a zoom, and are open to considering third-party options or older EF lenses with an adapter, you might find something lighter that still covers your needs. Just something to consider before committing, as I’ve learned the hard way that lugging heavy gear on long trips can really dampen the experience! Hope this helps!

Hey there! Oh man, that's the eternal travel photography question, isn't it? Wanting to cover all the bases without feeling like you're carrying a studio on your back. I totally get the pull towards a versatile zoom like the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM – it's a solid choice and covers a lot of ground, literally. I used to swear by it for trips.

However, for serious walking and wanting to keep things super light, I've actually found myself gravitating towards a different setup lately. My go-to for travel, especially when I know I'll be doing a ton of walking, is actually a prime lens and a slightly wider zoom, or sometimes just a single, really compact prime. For example, I often pair my Canon EOS R6 Mark II with the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM. It's incredibly small, light, and that f/1.8 aperture is fantastic for low light and creating nice background blur for street portraits or details. It forces you to be more intentional with your shots, which can actually lead to better images.

If you're really set on a zoom, and portability is paramount, I'd honestly look at something like the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM. It's not as fast as the f/4 L lens, but it's significantly lighter and more compact, and honestly, for daylight travel photography, the f/7.1 at the long end is usually perfectly fine. Plus, it’s usually quite a bit more affordable. You can find it for around $400-$500 new, which is a steal for a versatile RF zoom.

Ultimately, it really depends on your shooting style and what you prioritize most. If you need that constant f/4 for low light or specific depth-of-field control, the L lens is a champion. But if weight and size are the absolute top priorities, a smaller zoom or even a fast prime might be your best bet. It's a bit of a trade-off, but that's part of the fun of building your travel kit! Good luck with your trip!

Building on what was said about "Hey there! That's a classic travel photography dilemma, for sure....", I totally get where you're coming from with the whole travel lens struggle! It's such a balancing act between wanting to capture everything and not wanting to lug around a ton of gear.

For your situation, I would suggest looking at the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM if you can stretch the budget a bit. Honestly, for travel, it's become my workhorse. It covers a really useful range, from decent wide shots for landscapes to getting in a bit closer for street scenes. Plus, it's an L-series lens, so the image quality is fantastic, and it's built tough, which is a huge plus when you're on the go. It's not the absolute lightest, sure, but for the versatility you get, I think it's worth the trade-off.

If portability and budget are *really* the absolute top priorities, and you don't mind potentially missing a few very specific shots, you could also consider a prime lens like the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM for those times you want something super compact and great in low light. It's way cheaper (around $200!), but obviously much less versatile. You'd really have to be disciplined about your framing then.

But yeah, for that all-rounder vibe, that 24-105mm f/4 is hard to beat for travel. Hope this helps narrow it down a bit!

Hey there! For travel, especially with a lot of walking, lens reliability and weight are super important. You don't want a lens failing on you or weighing you down.

I would suggest looking at the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens. While it's a popular choice for good reason, I've actually had some issues with lens creep on that model during extensive travel, which can be a real pain when you're trying to capture a shot quickly. Unfortunately, it's not as good as I'd hoped for rugged travel.

Instead, I'd honestly lean towards something a bit more compact and robust if portability is your absolute top priority. Consider the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM if you can manage the weight and size, or even a prime lens like the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM for street and detail shots, and then maybe a separate wider option if you really need it. Always check reviews specifically mentioning durability for travel!

Hey there! Oh man, that's a tough one, and I totally get the struggle of wanting to pack light. Before I dive into my thoughts, I'm curious about one thing: what kind of budget are you working with for this lens? Knowing that will really help narrow down the best bang-for-your-buck options for your travels. Are you looking for something under $500, or are you open to investing a bit more for top-tier performance?

Story time: I went through this exact dilemma last year before a month-long trip through Southeast Asia. I was agonizing over the perfect travel lens for my RF mount camera, wanting something that could handle everything from bustling markets to serene landscapes without breaking my back.

I ended up taking two lenses, which I swore I wouldn't do! I had the Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM as my main workhorse, and then a smaller, lighter prime for when I wanted something more discreet or better in low light. While the 24-105mm is an absolutely stellar lens – the image quality is fantastic, the stabilization is a lifesaver, and the range is super useful – it's still a bit of a chunk. I found myself wishing for something a little more compact for those days where I was just wandering around for hours.

I remember one day in Vietnam, I was walking for what felt like miles through narrow streets, and that 24-105mm felt like a brick in my bag. I missed a few candid street shots because I was too lazy to pull it out and swap lenses, or I just felt too conspicuous with a larger lens. The upside was when I finally reached a viewpoint overlooking a valley, that zoom range was perfect for capturing both the sweeping vista and some of the finer details in the foreground. So, it's a total trade-off!

For me, it really comes down to prioritizing weight and size versus that ultimate versatility. The 24-105mm is a solid contender for sure, but for future trips, I'm definitely considering a smaller zoom or even just a couple of carefully chosen primes if I'm going to be doing a *lot* of walking. Hope that little story helps you weigh your options!

Story time: I went through this exact dilemma last year before a month-long trip through Southeast Asia. I was agonizing over the perfect travel lens for my RF mount camera, wanting something that could handle everything from bustling markets to sweeping landscapes without being a pain to carry. I ended up taking my Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and, honestly, it was a mixed bag. It's a fantastic lens optically, really sharp and the IS is superb, which is crucial when you're shooting handheld in unpredictable lighting. But man, it's not exactly light or small, and after a few days of lugging it around in the heat, I definitely felt its weight. I found myself wishing for something a bit more compact, especially for those times I just wanted to slip the camera into a small bag for a quick walk. While it delivered amazing image quality, the portability aspect was definitely a compromise I felt on the road. So, while I can't say it's *the* best for everyone, it's my personal experience with that versatile workhorse.