fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1      
2
       3       end
   

do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?
  
 
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


bman212121 wrote:
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 that's the perspective then some may wonder why take a real camera at all, I mean, the phones are 48MP after all.

FWIW, at least in Cambodia, 50% of my shots were with the 10-20, so decidedly more than 1 out of 1,000. But as you said, it's all about personal preference so why even debate it.




  Canon EOS R5m2    RF10-20mm F4 L IS STM lens    10mm    f/8.0    1/160s    500 ISO    -2.3 EV  
Nov 28, 2025 at 08:15 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


stanj wrote:
If that's the perspective then some may wonder why take a real camera at all, I mean, the phones are 48MP after all.

FWIW, at least in Cambodia, 50% of my shots were with the 10-20, so decidedly more than 1 out of 1,000. But as you said, it's all about personal preference so why even debate it.

I agree it comes down to personal preferences. I find 24mm way too limiting at the wide end and almost always bring my 16-35…especially if I’m going to be shooting landscapes.


Nov 28, 2025 at 08:36 PM
bman212121
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


stanj wrote:
If that's the perspective then some may wonder why take a real camera at all, I mean, the phones are 48MP after all.

FWIW, at least in Cambodia, 50% of my shots were with the 10-20, so decidedly more than 1 out of 1,000. But as you said, it's all about personal preference so why even debate it.


Well clearly you're here to debate it. :P

I can tell you I wouldn't have taken that photo you posted. The reason why I wouldn't have taken that photo is because it highlights one of the downsides of UWA in that the rocks/stones in front take up more of the image than they should. I do love the architecture around the sides and probably would have used a narrower FOV and picked something specific to focus on. Does that mean I'm right? Not at all. It simply means that different people will take different shots. I still can appreciate that you and a lot of others will love that photo.

For the OP I can't answer how they like to photograph. Given they are thinking of bringing 3 different lenses around the 35mm area it would seem like like a natural perspective in what they shoot. So it's up to them to decide what they like. So instead of saying "for the 1 shot I could say if you only take 1 in 1,000" I could have said "If you only take 1 shot", because others might take 999 out of 1,000 all on UWA. My perspective is that UWA is not a priority for me, and I can find plenty to photograph without it.
Nov 28, 2025 at 09:06 PM
stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


bman212121 wrote:
Well clearly you're here to debate it. :P

Guilty as charged. I was just trying to address the OP's original question about "do you need wider than 24."
Nov 28, 2025 at 09:10 PM
bman212121
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


stanj wrote:
Guilty as charged. I was just trying to address the OP's original question about "do you need wider than 24."


I think you make a great case for why you would want to take a wider lens with you! It's super helpful for the OP to read your post and my post and then go, "that bman guy is full of garbage and I take 25% of my photos wider than 24mm". If that's what they get out of it, then it may help them decide they should bring it. If they read our posts and go, "I think you're right bman I'd probably just pull out my phone even if I had the lens with me" then that might sway them to not bring it. It really comes down to personal preference of how someone shoots, but having great opinions of both sides might help them figure out how they feel about it. I really do appreciate you showcasing an argument for needing one because it helps highlight what uses it can bring to the table.
Nov 29, 2025 at 12:27 AM
IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I think the 16-35 is well-nigh mandatory for the Southeast Asia, and it's the 24-70 that could be benched (of course, so long as you have a Tele lens, even a modest one like the Tamron 70-300VC).

BUT then again I'm the man who thinks 24mm (or 16mm on APS-C, for that matter) is not really wide at all. :-)

On my recent trip to Vietnam, I had the 16-35mm f/4 (which is my overall most used lens by a wide margin), the Tamron 45mm and the Canon 100-400mm (first version). This is my regular setup anyway (except maybe minus the 45 for some outings).

YMMV of course. :-)
Nov 29, 2025 at 01:03 AM
Z250SA
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I went on a hike in the last untouched forests nearby with the 24-240 on the R5 as the obvious main, with the RF16 on the R8 in the pocket for a wide or two if needed. Guess which one came home with 90% of the images. Yes! The R5 with the RF16.

I would put the 24-70/2.8EF on the 6D and the RF16 on an R8, or an R (never found any love for my R, likely my fault).
Nov 29, 2025 at 03:50 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I think the 16-35 is well-nigh mandatory for the Southeast Asia, and it's the 24-70 that could be benched (of course, so long as you have a Tele lens, even a modest one like the Tamron 70-300VC).

BUT then again I'm the man who thinks 24mm (or 16mm on APS-C, for that matter) is not really wide at all. :-)

On my recent trip to Vietnam, I had the 16-35mm f/4 (which is my overall most used lens by a wide margin), the Tamron 45mm and the Canon 100-400mm (first version). This is my regular setup anyway (except maybe minus the 45...Show more →

Your post is a good reminder that there is no right answer to these “which lens should I take” questions, since a lot of it comes down to the photographer’s personal “way of seeing” and preferences.

I am fine traveling without such wide focal lengths, but clearly others of you see them as your most important lenses. Neither of us is wrong — we just approach subjects differently!

In a way, I think that the best advice could be (at least in part) to suggest the sorts of things that one is likely to photograph and then ask the photographer to consider what has worked for them with such subjects in other situations.
Nov 29, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Flowernut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I always travel with a second body. Some places easy to replace others impossilbe. I've very rarely needed it but when I do I do. Having seen a guy on a trip to antartica dump his camera into the ocean on day 3 with no backup well........end of his trip.

My preference is zoom lenses over fixed focal length. Only fixed focal lenght I have anymore is supertelephoto, macro, and astro lenses like the sigma 14mm f1.8 art lens although things like the 14-24 sigma and the 15-30 Tamron are replacing it. I've lost (damaged) lenses on trips as well. The guy in antartica, both the body and lens were ruined. The 24-105 f4L is my most used lens and if weight is not an issue I have both the RF and EF (backup) with me. Having something like the 24-240 or even a 14-35 gives you some backup because of the overlap and extends your focal length range as well. The backup is in luggage and not carried daily depending on the trip. I've not enough experience with the 24-240 to recommend but it sounds good. Have carried the 28-300 at times on same theory particularly africa.

If someting happens, backup is only as far away as my luggage. If you are planning to carry two setups in the field, Then I'd still have a 24-104 or 24-70 as a 3rd lens backup in my luggage.
Nov 29, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Rivermist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


The rationale for taking more than one body in a climate like most of SE Asia is also to minimize lens changes. There is high humidity (if it is not actually raining) and a lot more dust in cities and on the road if it is not raining. You also will experience crowds, especially close to tourist locations, making lens changes awkward. Finally, the risk of dropping something is at its highest when you are juggling lenses.
All this to the point of having 2 bodies other than for redundancy.
For that region, I would suggest the RF 10-20 on one body and either the 24-105L or the 24-240 on the other. Eventually add one compact higher luminosity lens for indoors and nighttime street photography (a treat in most of that region) like the RF 35mm f:1.8. My first trip in 1980 I carried 2 F-1 bodies with FD lenses 17mm, 24mm, TS 35mm, 85mm 1.2, 100mm and 200mm (the 85 saw the least use). (Ultra-) wide angle lenses are useful because you very often have little room to back up into. In lush vegetation, same problem. I lived in Asia one year and travelled extensively to the region 1995 through 2015. You are correct in not wanting to have a big bag of equipment but at the same time my $0.02 would be don't shortchange yourself either, it is a particularly photogenic part of the world rich in culture, stunning landscapes, characterful cities, you name it.


Nov 29, 2025 at 01:21 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

gavin_emmons
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


robfilms wrote:
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?



You have already gotten a lot of useful advice, depending on your photographic goals and priorities for your trip.

Here is my two cents' worth - feel free to disregard!

Having traveled and lived in Thailand and Cambodia in the past, I agree with others that an UWA option can be really nice, particularly if you are interested in photographing temples, ruins, and other architecture. Some of the structures are massive and/or have really interesting lines and shapes that lend themselves to UWA.

It's also true - as others have mentioned - that the humidity and/or dusty conditions, and urban areas with crowds of people, lend themselves to cameras with dedicated zoom lenses for flexibility and to limit lens changes as much as possible.

So for what you have mentioned in regard to gear - I would likely pick the two camera bodies, the 24-70mm, and the 16-35mm lenses.

From my gear, I would probably bring a R5 camera body plus something similar, a 24-240mm lens, and a 15-30mm lens to keep things lightweight and flexible. They aren't the fastest lenses, but generally have been quite adequate given the IS capabilities of the systems combined with steady handheld technique.
Nov 29, 2025 at 02:11 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


Flowernut wrote:
I always travel with a second body. Some places easy to replace others impossilbe. I've very rarely needed it but when I do I do. Having seen a guy on a trip to antartica dump his camera into the ocean on day 3 with no backup well........end of his trip.

I think that shows the contextuality (is that a word?) of the backup system question. While I don’t carry a backup system (beyond my smart phone) for most American and EU/UK travel, I most certainly would do so if I were going to Antarctica or other isolated place.


Nov 29, 2025 at 03:40 PM
aryaah
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I have traveled to Hong Kong and all the countries you mentioned. The great majority of areas of interest, whether it be architecture, temples, landscape, people, city life, or natural wonders will be very well addressed with a 24-70mm/2.8 lens.
Angkor Wat, and the surrounding area, is a highly advised region to visit.
Vietnam is a truly beautiful country throughout its extent, with truly some of the best food I have eaten anywhere in the world. Hoi An and Ha Long Bay are amazing with great scenery. The night scenes in Hoi An are wonderful photo opportunities.
Luang Prabang in Laos was an area we enjoyed visiting with many interesting sites.
My wife and I spent our time in Northern Thailand and it was well worth exploring.
We were fortunate to have guides for our travels through Southeast Asia and it greatly facilitated seeing the areas of interest.
A recent model of iPhone with the Canon R and 24-70 mm lens will be perfect for the vast majority of photo opportunities.
You will have a great trip. Keep it simple from a photo perspective and you will not regret the decision.
Nov 29, 2025 at 05:16 PM
MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I recently fell in love with fisheye for the reeeeeeeeeeeeally wide. I travelled to the North, to Iceland, with friends.

I knew I'd be really wheezing behind decade or more younger and more fit guys, who also won't be weighed down by kilograms of the Canon gear because they shoot smartphones, so after getting the idea, getting the vintage EF 15/2.8 FE and a bit of a "training" in Austria, I gradually reduced my gear down to R6/2. 15FE, EF 24-70/2.8 L II and 70-300 DO IS. Plus the 320EX flash because it was small and it had a video light.

In the end, bar a few places where I would not dare to whip out the FE, because close to the waterfall there was a constant cloud of water spray, I was so glad I took the FE instead of 16-35/4 which was also one of the alternatives.

The 15FE is ye olde lens (although mine is one of the last batches from 2011) with with no WR sealing, so it may be limited in humid areas, but there is 8-15L.

Yes, the 16-35 is a well corrected zoom, and unless you have some nasty verticals that would be heavily distorted, you can shoot almost any angle, in the end, that thing is not wide enough. There is just one mm of FL at the end difference, but I'd never believe how much of the wide angle the rectilinear correction can take. In fact, after I returned, I thought perhaps I should shell out money for EF 11-24, but that thing is for all its cost still not as wide enough as the 15FE.

Yes, if you don't want weird and pronounced deformations, you need to shoot pretty much level, but many landscapes are naturally "curved" so the fisheye effect will be basically lost there, for a viewing angle that is unprecedented unless you stitch a panorama.

This is Hunafjordur with the rock called Hvitserkur, shot with the FE. The 16-35 could take perhaps 2/3 of the width.
Nov 30, 2025 at 08:14 PM
Rivermist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


MintMar wrote:
I recently fell in love with fisheye for the reeeeeeeeeeeeally wide. I travelled to the North, to Iceland, with friends.

I knew I'd be really wheezing behind decade or more younger and more fit guys, who also won't be weighed down by kilograms of the Canon gear because they shoot smartphones, so after getting the idea, getting the vintage EF 15/2.8 FE and a bit of a "training" in Austria, I gradually reduced my gear down to R6/2. 15FE, EF 24-70/2.8 L II and 70-300 DO IS. Plus the 320EX flash because it was small and it had a video light.

In...Show more →

At long last one other person posting about the EF 70-300 DO IS, a lens I cherished against all the negative vibes most folks voiced about it. Sure, the charts are not L class, but for travel photography not greatly oriented towards telephoto pictures, it is an excellent compromise of weight, volume and capabilities. Despite many stellar accomplishments in the new RF range of lenses, there is still nothing equal to it either. See some pictures from 2011, with an 5D and a 40D: https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/Peru/Machu-Picchu-Color. Corrections were made with Aperture.
Nov 30, 2025 at 10:01 PM
IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Your post is a good reminder that there is no right answer to these “which lens should I take” questions, since a lot of it comes down to the photographer’s personal “way of seeing” and preferences.

I am fine traveling without such wide focal lengths, but clearly others of you see them as your most important lenses. Neither of us is wrong — we just approach subjects differently!

In a way, I think that the best advice could be (at least in part) to suggest the sorts of things that one is likely to photograph and then ask the photographer to consider...Show more →

Yeah. I can freely admit being hooked on wide-angle. When I travelled to Singapore / Malaysia, then Thailand, years ago, I made sure I had not only a 16-35mm, but also a 14mm lens on hand (note that I was using the 1D Mark IV camera, with its slight crop factor, back then). Now, 16mm on FF seems about right most of the time for big Buddhist temples, especially those of the cavern type, and skyscrapers in the modern cities. However, since I was travelling with my wife, I was also borrowing her Tokina 10-17mm fisheye at times, since my own Laowa 10mm (rectilinear) has not been repaired yet.

One thing worth pointing out is that for zoom lenses, the widest point is also invariably the focal length with the maximum amount of barrel distortion. So a 16-35mm lens at 24mm will have less distortion than a 24-70mm at the same FL, and a 12-24mm lens will have less barreling at 16mm than a 16-35mm.


Dec 01, 2025 at 05:36 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Yeah. I can freely admit being hooked on wide-angle. When I travelled to Singapore / Malaysia, then Thailand, years ago, I made sure I had not only a 16-35mm, but also a 14mm lens on hand (note that I was using the 1D Mark IV camera, with its slight crop factor, back then). Now, 16mm on FF seems about right most of the time for big Buddhist temples, especially those of the cavern type, and skyscrapers in the modern cities. However, since I was travelling with my wife, I was also borrowing her Tokina 10-17mm fisheye at times, since my...Show more →

;-)

I’ve spent years trying to explain to people why my 100-400 is one of favorite landscape photograph lenses!




Dec 01, 2025 at 10:02 AM
IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ve spent years trying to explain to people why my 100-400 is one of favorite landscape photograph lenses!



Sure, I love mine for that purpose as well, but it depends on the subject matter. Cityscapes and temples (and both are well represented in the SEA) mostly seem to lend themselves to wideangle usage after all.
Dec 01, 2025 at 10:06 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.2 #19 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


I'd definitely like to have an uwa on an epic SE Asia trip. Hopefully replying to this thread gets me taking my uwa more, took it to the lake last night

If the op is carrying the v1 24-70/2.8, I'm showing over 2 lbs, I'd hate to have that much in a mid range zoom. Thankfully I've avoided 2.8 zooms, being more budget limited, something like the 24-70/4 is lighter, has IS for 2-3+ stops more on static subjects (probably the most used on these FL's,) might be good

I used to take 11-16 (only a little lighter than 16-35,) 17-35, and 55-250. EF-s 10-18 supposed to be excellent, that and 18-55 + 55-250 on a Rebel gives 16-400mm equivalent, and weighs less than 24-70/2.8 on R
Dec 01, 2025 at 12:22 PM
MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · do i REALLY need to take the 16-35/4 for landscapes?


Rivermist wrote:
At long last one other person posting about the EF 70-300 DO IS, a lens I cherished against all the negative vibes most folks voiced about it. Sure, the charts are not L class, but for travel photography not greatly oriented towards telephoto pictures, it is an excellent compromise of weight, volume and capabilities. Despite many stellar accomplishments in the new RF range of lenses, there is still nothing equal to it either. See some pictures from 2011, with an 5D and a 40D: https://www.lamanchatx.com/Travel-Photography/Peru/Machu-Picchu-Color. Corrections were made with Aperture.


Yeah the DO version while not light, is really small for its FL. Originally I planned to take my Sigma 100-400 Contemporary, but in the end I opted for maximum reduction of volume of the gear. So I took my "large pocketable tele" instead.

I do have a tiny pocketable tele, the plastic 80-200, but that lens pays way too much price in the IQ department for size and weight. It's not like I am in Iceland every other week, so I took a bit more serious glass. Next time maybe I'll take 70-300L which I got after I returned. Provided I'll be able to bring larger volume gear


Dec 01, 2025 at 01:53 PM
1      
2
       3       end
FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register