p.1 #3 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
Maybe not for landscapes, but for architecture 15-24 is useful. Some of those temples are great and you will want a wide lens. My idea of traveling light would also include the RF 70-200/4. I'm sure some folks will suggest the 24-240 for general travel.
p.1 #4 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
I cannot speak to the specific locations you’ll visit, but I can speak to gear for travel and to my own perspective on the 24mm focal length.
I own the EF 16-35mm f/4, primarily for landscape photography. It is a really fine lens. But for me it is not so much a must-have lens, but rather more of a “nice to have in case I need it” lens. Most of the time 24mm on full frame is wide enough for the way I photograph, and I probably only use the 16-35mm lens for the 16-34mm range less than 5% of the time. So, speaking for myself, if I were trying to minimize gear that is a lens I’d consider leaving behind.
I totally get the idea of minimizing travel photography gear. I do that, using a non-Canon APS-C camera and a small set of prime lenses, that cover roughly the range of your 24-70mm zoom. (My set gives me angle of view equivalence of about 20mm to about 75mm.) So just a 24-70mm zoom alone could be all you need, depending on subjects and preferences.
I wonder iff you actually need the somewhat-larger-aperture 35mm prime? Modern cameras and lenses with IS can do quite well at f/2.8, and f/1 8, while larger, isn’t a whole lot larger. Generally, for travel, I try to avoid lenses that duplicate functionality. On the other hand, the 35m lens does give you a small, less obtrusive option when you may want that.
p.1 #5 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
Remember that if you really want to go wider than 24mm, and all you have is a 24mm... shoot a pano. With care, it can even be done hand-held. I've done plenty of it.
p.1 #9 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
robfilms wrote:
my question (finally!): do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes or will 24mm suffice?
Short answer: yes, inasmuch as any travel photography is actually a "need", and forgo the backup. That is, you'll "need" the 16-35 / 4L IS more than you'll "need" your backup (based on my personal experience of "What are the odds of my my gear being lost, stolen, or breaking on this trip?" as opposed to "What are the odds that I want wider than 24mm on this trip?"). Others' experiences, of course, may be different.
p.1 #10 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
takowasa wrote:
Short answer: yes, inasmuch as any travel photography is actually a "need", and forgo the backup. That is, you'll "need" the 16-35 / 4L IS more than you'll "need" your backup (based on my personal experience of "What are the odds of my my gear being lost, stolen, or breaking on this trip?" as opposed to "What are the odds that I want wider than 24mm on this trip?"). Others' experiences, of course, may be different.
I take the same approach to backup cameras when I travel. I don’t bring one.
I have good all-risks insurance coverage, so if something seriously bad happened I could, in many cases, just buy a replacement and continue. Or I could choose to rely on my iPhone.
Something _could_ happen to our cameras when we travel, but if we start carrying duplicates of everything we use when traveling, our loads quickly expand beyond all reason.
p.1 #11 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I take the same approach to backup cameras when I travel. I don’t bring one.
I have good all-risks insurance coverage, so if something seriously bad happened I could, in many cases, just buy a replacement and continue. Or I could choose to rely on my iPhone.
Something _could_ happen to our cameras when we travel, but if we start carrying duplicates of everything we use when traveling, our loads quickly expand beyond all reason.
Helpful.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Though I have not yet been to SE Asia, if my camera body went down, aside from HK and Hanoi/HCM City, I will most likely be "up country" and unable to replace the camera body.
Bringing an older much more affordable DSLR body that shares some/most of the lenses and uses the same batteries seems like a simple solution.
p.1 #12 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
If I was taking the trip, I’d take my 16-35/2.8 or 35/1.4 plenty of cards with one of my 5DIV. A 35mm will give you nice environmental portraits and landscapes but I’d probably regret selling my G15 a few years ago.
p.1 #15 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
I take the same approach to backup cameras when I travel. I don’t bring one.
I have good all-risks insurance coverage, so if something seriously bad happened I could, in many cases, just buy a replacement and continue. Or I could choose to rely on my iPhone.
Something _could_ happen to our cameras when we travel, but if we start carrying duplicates of everything we use when traveling, our loads quickly expand beyond all reason.
Insurance only covers a portion of the gear, but not the loss of opportunity which can easily be many times the cost of the gear.
I carry duplicates or similar lenses and cameras for the most used items. So for landscpes I sure would have an extra 24-70 or 24-105, and something to cover around 70-200. For wildlife it's not practical to travel with a pair of 600/4s or a 500/4 and a 600/4, but a cheaply lens option like a 200-600 or 180-600 can be a backup. I don't leave the country without 3-4 bodies. Even 30 years ago I traveled with used film cameras, two for use and one backup.
p.1 #16 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
The only Asian located city I have ever visited was Katmandu - buildings might not be tall in old town, but streets are narrow, crowded, and a bit dark sometimes. I used the 16mm equivalent quite often. A P&S, phone with good quality, or a compact M43 are good backups for quick low key jolts and backup
p.1 #17 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
You mentioned Cambodia. The landscape there consists of mainly absolutely flat rice fields. But the reason to go there is usually the temples and history, and for that, a very wide lens is useful. I spent a week there and loved having a 10-20.
p.1 #18 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
Curious question, is there a reason for taking the 40mm pancake lens? That seems quite redundant when you already have a 35, and a lens that does 40mm F2.8. The EF lens will do everything that pancake will do and more.
Do you need wider than 24mm on full frame? Definitely not. For the 1 shot out of 1,000 you might actually do it, just take the pano on your phone. If it's really amazing and you're going to dedicate the time to photograph it, just take the photos with the 35mm instead.
It really depends upon how you photograph, but for me I wouldn't be going out with only 70mm in my lineup. One of the neat things about having a mirrorless is you have access to all kinds of options. I would consider tossing in something like a 55 - 250mm APS-C lens so you at least have something longer. You can always take multiple photos to make up for a wide lens, but you can't replicate a telephoto unless you have a ton of resolution available to crop with.
Completely personal opinion, but my kit would look like this:
EOS R
6D
EF-S 55 - 250 IS STM
EF 24 - 70
RF 35
EF/RF adapter
That 1/2 pound extra for the EF-S lens provides a complete FOV you don't have, and covers around 90 - 400mm equivalent of full frame.
p.1 #19 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
Insurance only covers a portion of the gear, but not the loss of opportunity which can easily be many times the cost of the gear.
I carry duplicates or similar lenses and cameras for the most used items. So for landscpes I sure would have an extra 24-70 or 24-105, and something to cover around 70-200. For wildlife it's not practical to travel with a pair of 600/4s or a 500/4 and a 600/4, but a cheaply lens option like a 200-600 or 180-600 can be a backup. I don't leave the country without 3-4 bodies. Even 30 years ago I traveled with used film cameras, two for use and one backup.
In my case, insurance would fully cover all of the gear I carry. My plan when doing urban travel would be to simply find and buy the same camera or a suitable equivalent… if I felt I couldn’t get along with something else (iPhone, some cheap substitute camera, etc.)
However you post does suggest that I need to be clearer that I was talking about my approach to more urban travel — e.g. in the EU and the UK, for example. I have done no Asia travel to the places the OP mentions, so I don’t know how available replacements might be where he is going.
When I travel to more remote places to do things like landscape photography I do carry a second system with me. On pack-train supported wilderness trips I carry enough gear that I could continue to shoot if something bad happened. (On self-supported backpack trips I’m more likely to chance it since the alternative is to carry too many tons of extra gear on my back!)
Of course, on those travels the photography is virtually the entire reason for going, so I’m more willing to burden myself with extra gear.
Nov 28, 2025 at 06:34 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #20 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
robfilms wrote:
i am (hopefully) heading to SE Asia for a 5-6 week trip. (HK, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, maybe Thailand.)
i am 71yr, fairly fit. my bride of 40+yrs is a breath younger and also fairly fit.
unlike most of our previous long trips, we will have various guides with us for this excursion.
though the itinerary is not set (we are open to suggestions), we will probably go to most of the places everyone else goes to!
i want to pack light.
we will be doing carry-on only, no checked bags (unless forced to).
so there is one personal bag for under the seat in front and one bag for the overhead bins.
in the personal bag will also be my camera bag.
i am thinking of not bringing my best gear.
i am thinking one camera body (plus backup) and only two lenses.
i was thinking of the Canon EOS R + 35/1.8RF + 24-70/2.8EF + EF/RF adapter.
(my 2nd body would be a Canon 6D + 40mm/2.8 pancake.)
my question (finally!): do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes or will 24mm suffice?
(i am posing this same question on the Nikon thread subbing the Nikon Z6 for the EOR R and the Nikon 610 for the 6D along with similar lenses.)
thank you to those who care to share their thoughts and experiences.
If I was going there, ideally i'd take something under 24mm.
I don't take a backup here but I have no idea if you could buy one in Vietnam, and if they are readily available. 16-35, 40mm or 50/1.8, & 70-200/4 might be a really good choice.
