p.1 #1 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
Trying to build my ideal travel and landscape lens set up. For a long time I was mainly using my a7rv and 24-70 gm ii as my go to combo. It worked great most of the time but wasn’t always wide enough or long enough. I then added the 70-200 2.8 gm ii for the long end.
Recently just added an a7cr as a second body along with a 16-35 f4 pz. I’ve been carrying both the a7cr + 16-35 pz and the a7rv + 70-200 gm ii with a shimoda bag. I figured I could crop in from 35 to fill in the gap between the 16-35 and 70-200. 16mm has been nice a couple of times but is just too wide pretty often. 35 has also felt a bit limiting even with cropping. Now I’m considering the 20-70 f4 + an ultra wide prime instead of the 16-35 as I definitely enjoy the 35-70mm focal length. I have very limited experience with ultrawide so I’m wondering how much of a difference 16 vs 20 is in day to day use. From my limited time with the 16-35, 16mm has been helpful a couple times but it’s more niche than I was expecting. Because of that I’m wondering if 20mm and some pano stitching or a wide prime could suffice when I need to go wider?
Oct 18, 2024 at 09:19 AM
foto16 Offline • • [X]
p.1 #2 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
You might want to just add a 50-55mm f1.8-2 prime lens to fill the gap between 16-35 and 70-200, which can do low light/indoors too.
Or, since you only use 16 occasionally, the 20-70 gets my vote.
p.1 #3 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
I never got along with the 16-35 PZ, but I love the 20-70/4 - great walk around lens. Given that you can flip the a7CR into APS-C mode, I don't really think you need to carry something as big and heavy as the 70-200/2.8 GM II. If you need it, switch or add it a 70-200/4 G Mk II.
If you really need something wider than 20mm, shoot a couple of vertical shots and stitch them together in post.
Lastly, as another poster pointed out - I'd add a prime, either f/1.4 or f/1.8 for available light shots, personally I'm a 50mm shooter, but that would be a 35mm or 85mm depending on your needs.
p.1 #4 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
For some reason people always like to imagine they can crop to fill that 35-70 gap. But honestly those are some of the most useful focal lengths that may see heaviest use. The 20-70 will reduce lens/body changes, and pairs well with 70-200 and ultra wide prime.
p.1 #5 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
Do you shoot night sky/asto? If yes a fast ultrawide prime would make sense to replace the 16-35.
70-200 + 20-70 + fast UWA makes a nice landscape kit. Especially if you do not shoot that much ultra wide.
Other option is the new 24-50 F2.8 to fill the gap between the 16-35 and 70-200 that you already own. 24-50 can be used as main walkaround lens, and you use the 16-35 if you need wider.
p.1 #6 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
I think adding the 20-70/4 is a great idea. I've thought about it as a two lens combo with my 70-200. I have shot as wide as 14mm with Nikon. These days I don't see myself needing wider than 20~24mm.
p.1 #7 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
16mm gives me something I don’t get from 20mm. I don’t need 16 often, but when I do it is so nice to have that perspective. Another option to consider is pairing the 16-35 with the Tamron 50-300, which is optically solid (based on reviews, and reputation of the previous version) and that saves a lot of weight over the 70-200/2.8GMII. You will only be missing 36-49 which shouldn’t be a problem.
But if you can live without 16mm, the 20-70mm is a solid recommendation also.
ILCE-7RM5FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G lens16mmf/16.01/100s320 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #9 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
I find my trips can vary in location/interests so what works one trip may not on another. My primary travel lenses are the 18-135 in aps-c and 28-200 in ff,with a wide prime in aps-c and 17-28 in ff, with a single body. So I have the full range 17mm-200mm range covered but different lenses.
So, could pano stitching or a wide prime suffice? Maybe.
It really would seem to depend on the locations and subjects. I've stitched interiors and landscapes. Moving things could be a problem. In a cathedral, there are often folks all around the floor area. Landscapes maybe moving rivers, or cityscapes with wandering people and moving cars, etc.
For me, with one body and two lenses, swapping lenses is a problem at times. If I were to consider with one or two bodies, 16-35 or 20-70 to go with the 28-200, that's different from going with a 70-200. I'd think I'd rather risk maybe trying to stitch, etc., for 17-20mm over not having coverage for the 35-70mm range.
p.1 #10 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
The problem that we have is that we are presented with so many good options, so knowing what your goals are is pretty central to what lenses you should pick. I no longer shoot for money, nor shoot sports/birds/wild animals, so my needs are few. I mainly wanted a small camera for traveling light, as a color camera when I’m mainly shooting B&W, or when traveling in less than safe environments. I shoot almost 100% primes, so the 20-70mm is perfect for the few times that I want a one and done lens. Advances in noise reduction, improved IBIS and the advent of AI Bokeh are, on occasion, useful when using an f/4.0 lens.
p.1 #12 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
Have the 16-35gmii, 20-70 and 70-200gmii. On recent trip to GSMNP, 20-70 was most used lens (50%) 70-200 with and without tc's (45%) and 16-35 on 5%. If the trip was mostly rivers and streams, the 16-35 would have been most used. I shot mostly with the 20-70 on an a7r5 for focus stacking and the 70-200 on a7r4 for tighter compositions or for pano stitching. The 20-70 is really a great lens and gets too much ill-press for IQ. I think many of the people criticizing the IQ of the lens or its software correction haven't used the lens. I'd say I don't even do the lens correction about 50% of the time just to get a little wider and when distortion doesn't matter.
On a side note, I did bring the 300GM with me on the trip, and it was almost impossible to make the 300 flare even pointing it directly at the rising or setting sun. I hadn't thought of that prior to the trip, and the 300gm will tag along for future sunrise/sunset outings when the focal length is appropriate.
p.1 #14 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
I've been considering adding a 14gm to my 20-70 since with cropping it should handle 14-20 quite well at roughly half the weight of the sigma 14-24. If I had a 24-x zoom though I'd probably want something to minimize the gap like 16-25/35.
graytrekker wrote:
What about pairing the 16-25 f2.8 with the 20-70, so one can also handle the astro instead of needing an additional fast prime?
p.1 #15 · Travel/Landscape kit. 16-35 vs 20-70 for main body along with a 70-200 on another body
How about cropping on the telephoto end instead? I like the Batis 135, but ditch the Zeiss hood for a smaller screw-on version. This would pair well with a 20-70 F4 on the other body.
