p.1 #1 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
My normal load out for travel (urban locations) is:
- 16-35mm GM II
- 24-70mm GM II
- one f1.4/1.8 prime
Sometimes I take my Tamron 70-180 and choose 2 lenses to take out with me but it depends on the trip.
I've been using a high-resolution body for a while now and I'm considering changing my setup to:
Reasons I'm considering it:
- I often find my 16-35mm and 24-70mm compete for my attention unless I'm after the absolute widest end of the 16-35.
- I would take my telephoto with me more regularly. When I do use this I get some interesting shots but it stays in my hotel too much when it's competing on lens space.
- The zoom throw on my 16-35 is much smaller meaning it feels more compact than my 24-70.
- Sometimes I can feel my 24-70 feels a little 'boring' whereas other times I love the convenience.
Alternatively, I could try and drop my 16-35mm for travel and stick with the 24-70.
Does anyone have any opinion on the 16-35mm vs 24-70mm debate?
p.1 #2 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
It depends how mutch you use UWA compared to 50-70mm zone. I suggest make statistic of your pictures.
-If you often use 50+ mm range and ultra wide rarely I'd go with 24-70 with small prime like Voigtlander 15 4.5III.
-If you use rather ultrawide then 16-35 with 50 1.4GM. You may consider 16-35PZ in this case if you want go lighter.
-If 20mm wide enough 20-70 with 35 1.4GM
-If you prefer both UWA end and telephoto then 16-35 with Tamron 70-180, or as smaller telephoto option as Sigma 85 1.4 or Sigma 65 f2, both has good cropping ability due high sharpness.
p.1 #3 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
The 3-lens setup with zooms on the ends and a prime in the middle makes a lot of sense to me. Usually, I feel I can replace a normal zoom with a single prime, especially something towards the wider end and not give up much in the way of flexibility, while gaining a smaller size and/or faster aperture. Skewing focal lengths wider when you have a high-res body also makes sense.
Lately, my travel setup has often been the Tamron 17-28, Voigtlander 40/1.2 or 35GM, and Tamron 70-180. Very compact setup for covering such a good range at f2.8 or faster.
p.1 #4 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
Lukacs wrote:
It depends how mutch you use UWA compared to 50-70mm zone. I suggest make statistic of your pictures.
-If you often use 50+ mm range and ultra wide rarely I'd go with 24-70 with small prime like Voigtlander 15 4.5III.
-If you use rather ultrawide then 16-35 with 50 1.4GM. You may consider 16-35PZ in this case if you want go lighter.
-If 20mm wide enough 20-70 with 35 1.4GM
-If you prefer both UWA end and telephoto then 16-35 with Tamron 70-180, or as smaller telephoto option as Sigma 85 1.4 or Sigma 65 f2, both has good cropping ability due high sharpness.
Good advice on stats, I’ll check where I generally use my 24-70. I don’t use UWA a lot but when I do it makes a difference. 20mm I find more regular than 16mm.
Few comments below:
- You mentioned the 50mm GM 1.4. Do you see that as a notable upgrade to my Zeiss
- do you see an 85mm lens with crop as a viable alternative to the Tamron 70-180 then? Or sigma 65mm as you say?
p.1 #5 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
grahamgibson wrote:
The 3-lens setup with zooms on the ends and a prime in the middle makes a lot of sense to me. Usually, I feel I can replace a normal zoom with a single prime, especially something towards the wider end and not give up much in the way of flexibility, while gaining a smaller size and/or faster aperture. Skewing focal lengths wider when you have a high-res body also makes sense.
Lately, my travel setup has often been the Tamron 17-28, Voigtlander 40/1.2 or 35GM, and Tamron 70-180. Very compact setup for covering such a good range at f2.8 or faster....Show more →
Good advice. I own the 35mm GM and Zeiss 55mm. I could have taken the GM with crop mode but it’s not much smaller or lighter than the 16-35 GM II. Probably says something about how light that zoom is.
With your kit, what’s your anchor lens, is it the prime in the middle? Ie the one that stays on the camera the most.
p.1 #7 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
I would try a trip with the 55 instead of 24-70. Much lighter, fun to use lens, faster, sharp as a razor. Can be a fun walkabout lens as well. Would free up some weight and bulk for the Tamron zoom.
I just switched to something close to this using Sony 16-35 PZ, 50/2 VC and Sony 70-200 II F4 macro. I definitely butt up against the low end of a 24-70 and the 16-35 is small and light vs my 14-24 Sigma and the gap is smaller. My Sigma 24-70 is a great lens but also large. I also take the 1.4x TC with me so 16mm to 280mm in a small, light, high quality kit.
p.1 #9 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
For urban locations I've found wide angles have created the most interesting images for me, so I'd lean towards the 16-35 and crop from there. But, that all depends on where you're going and what you like to shoot.
Long story short is I think you have a good plan, as you'll have telephoto if you want it, a fast prime if it's dark, and a wide angle which I'm guessing will get the majority of the use and limit the need for lens changes.
p.1 #10 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
If it was me, I'd pick the 24-70 and the tele zoom and to fix your wide angle get a prime like the Sony 20 or 14 or even the Voightlander 15.
I think if you review your images, most would be shot in the range of 24-70...at least they would for me. The ultra wides are really special case images.
p.1 #11 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
gocolts wrote:
For urban locations I've found wide angles have created the most interesting images for me, so I'd lean towards the 16-35 and crop from there. But, that all depends on where you're going and what you like to shoot.
Long story short is I think you have a good plan, as you'll have telephoto if you want it, a fast prime if it's dark, and a wide angle which I'm guessing will get the majority of the use and limit the need for lens changes.
Yes, I think the 16-35mm will be the main lens on the camera followed by the telephoto. I can’t decide if to pair an 85mm or the 70-180.
The 35mm ends up being the least used but when I use it for people photos I love it
p.1 #12 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
I just took the 20-70/4 on a trip to Cartagena, Colombia on an a7RV. It stayed on there the entire time. I have yet to inspect the files, but it covered my needs nicely.
A fast prime of choice would be suitable for low-light stuff because nighttime portraits at f/4 isn't optimal IMO.
p.1 #13 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
chez wrote:
If it was me, I'd pick the 24-70 and the tele zoom and to fix your wide angle get a prime like the Sony 20 or 14 or even the Voightlander 15.
I think if you review your images, most would be shot in the range of 24-70...at least they would for me. The ultra wides are really special case images.
Would you pick the tele zoom over an 85mm prime as well? I imagine with the 24-70 you would.
p.1 #14 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
patotts wrote:
I just took the 20-70/4 on a trip to Cartagena, Colombia on an a7RV. It stayed on there the entire time. I have yet to inspect the files, but it covered my needs nicely.
A fast prime of choice would be suitable for low-light stuff because nighttime portraits at f/4 isn't optimal IMO.
The 20-70 didn’t exist when I picked up the 24-70 otherwise I may have considered it. It keep cropping other from other photographers on the forum with praise. 20mm to 24mm is quite a difference.
p.1 #15 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
I have the 24-70 GMii on my A7CR and it stays on there almost always for a walkaround. I put a prime on it on occasion, but mainly the 24-70 does everything I need for an every day lens. Personally, unless you need the $$ to reinvest in something else, keep them all.
p.1 #16 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
darrenhaken wrote:
Good advice. I own the 35mm GM and Zeiss 55mm. I could have taken the GM with crop mode but it’s not much smaller or lighter than the 16-35 GM II. Probably says something about how light that zoom is.
With your kit, what’s your anchor lens, is it the prime in the middle? Ie the one that stays on the camera the most.
Yeah, I anchor around the prime in the middle, which I use most of the time. On some occasions, I'll leave the zooms back at the hotel.
With my current kit, I have my "A" and "B" lenses for UWA, normal, tele. I originally had the CV40 and 55ZA for normal use, but sold the latter once I got the 35GM (in crop mode, very similar output to the 55ZA). For UWA, I also have the CV15 and tele I have the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN. Great lenses also that offer something a bit different from the Tamron zooms.
p.1 #17 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
darrenhaken wrote:
Would you pick the tele zoom over an 85mm prime as well? I imagine with the 24-70 you would.
I actually travel with 3 or 4 primes…but in your scenario, I’d take the 85 prime over the tele zoom as I see little need for telephoto focal lengths when I travel…but my interests are cultural and people.
p.1 #18 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
Ghostinz wrote:
I have the 24-70 GMii on my A7CR and it stays on there almost always for a walkaround. I put a prime on it on occasion, but mainly the 24-70 does everything I need for an every day lens. Personally, unless you need the $$ to reinvest in something else, keep them all.
Oh yeah I’m keeping them all. The post was more about what to take as a kit with me. I use my 24-70 in other settings quite a lot. Perfect for days out with my family and some local events.
p.1 #19 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
grahamgibson wrote:
Yeah, I anchor around the prime in the middle, which I use most of the time. On some occasions, I'll leave the zooms back at the hotel.
With my current kit, I have my "A" and "B" lenses for UWA, normal, tele. I originally had the CV40 and 55ZA for normal use, but sold the latter once I got the 35GM (in crop mode, very similar output to the 55ZA). For UWA, I also have the CV15 and tele I have the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN. Great lenses also that offer something a bit different from the Tamron zooms.
I might take my 35mm GM over the Zeiss. The nice thing about the Zeiss is how small it is.
I’ve got the Sony 85mm 1.8 but I hear that the sigma is superb.
p.1 #20 · 16-35mm vs 24-70mm on high resolution body for travel
This is always a case of how much image quality (IQ) you are willing to sacrifice for gains in convenience or weight reduction.
I have never owned the 24-70GM II but I did own the 24-70 GM and I was never that impressed with it. It wasn't worth the weight and size for the IQ it delivered. I suspect I would feel the same way about the 24-70 GM II. I initially went with 16-35GM and the 24-105 as a 2 lens cover most things or the Contax 35-70 if IQ was more important than convenience. I would also bring one of 100-400, 200-600 or 70-200 GMII if there were long lens opportunities expected. More recently I have settled on the 16-35 GM II and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Gen 2 as about the best balance of IQ weight and convenience.
Of what you are contemplating the 16-35 GM II with a 50mm GM or a CV 50mm APO would be a super high IQ combo and no overlap, and that might be interesting.
