Are you shooting the Milky Way every night or just standard landscapes? honestly i was pretty disappointed with the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM because raw files are a mess at 14mm.

• distortion is huge and needs heavy software fixing
• corners arent as good as expected after stretching
• f/4 is unfortunately too slow for stars if you have the budget, just get the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM.

> Im heading to the Tetons next month and my logic was the 2.8 might help with astro but is the extra weight worth it? Oh man you are gonna have the best time!! I went to the Rockies last year and was so worried about my gear getting damaged or being too heavy for the trails. I ended up getting the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS USM and honestly it was a total lifesaver! I saved so much money compared to the 2.8 version and used the extra cash for a really sturdy tripod which is way safer for long exposures anyway. The weight difference is huge when you are hiking all day... my back was so thankful!! For astro, just grab a cheap prime like the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM for those night shots. Its super light and way cheaper than the big zoom! Saving money while staying safe on the trails is basically my whole vibe. Love the 14-35mm, its fantastic!

Adding my two cents... you might want to consider the physical toll of carrying heavy gear all day. I'd suggest sticking with any wide Canon glass since the autofocus is way more reliable on the R5. Be careful with those heavy f/2.8 zooms tho... they feel okay in the shop but after five miles? Not so much. Maybe just dont go heavy and bring a separate fast prime for the stars... thatll save your back.