OK... ok... Scott, you have convinced me, I'm gonna give it a go.
I'm planning a trip to Italy, to lake Garda this September, I'm going to need a lens I will take along with my newly purchased 17-28mm.
My daughter is going on a trip to Japan in August, I will ask her to buy me 24-120/4 in Tokyo (they have prices around 30% lower than in UK). I'll take 17-28mm and 24-120mm to Garda and see if I can use that lens on my Zf and it won't be too heavy for me.
Longer trips (US and Japan) are planned now next year, so I will have plenty of time to try it out in Italy this year.
I amble through Nikon land now and then. But a Sony user. Incidentally, I live not too far from Los Angeles. So, wondering if 105mm or 120mm is "long enough?" For me, for most of my "not urban" travel, my 28-200 is my favorite lens. Now there are lots of different ways to cover from say 16mm to 200mm. Could one stop at 105mm or 120mm on the long end? Maybe. I wouldn't. I might think about 2-3 lenses with a lighter mid-range as the main carry but a wider lens, maybe a prime and a longer lens available, too.
I'd agree on the idea of asking on the Trip Location forum for suggestions.
If you're considering the 24-105, any consideration for the new Tamron 35-100mm 2.8? Its coming in at 565g, ever so slightly lighter than 24-200, but not 24-105 light. But, 2.8.. and yes, difference in price for sure.
photographylife recently published their lab test results on patreon.
The 24-105mm performs worse than the 24-200mm, but it's not unusably bad. Relatively poor corners at 24mm (and huge vignetting) and overall a bit lower sharpness at 70-105mm.
You get about the performance of a good lens set to f/16 (a bit better in the center at wider apertures). Imo that's good enough to not ruin an image, but it will also not blow you away when pixel-peeping
PixiPhotography wrote:
If you're considering the 24-105, any consideration for the new Tamron 35-100mm 2.8? Its coming in at 565g, ever so slightly lighter than 24-200, but not 24-105 light. But, 2.8.. and yes, difference in price for sure.
It depends on how it performs. If it has been designed for portraiture, it might sacrifice border sharpness ans therefore it's not suitable for landscapes. If it shows even rendition from f/4 onwards well it could be worth considering as a travel lens and complement to UWA zooms (14-30, 17-28, etc.).
phinix wrote:
Dont think there will be some wildlife, but who knows what comes out from the bushes in those huge Parks
For US plan is to go to: Seattle (Microsoft), Roslyn (Northern Exposure location), then San Francisco (town and then Alcatraz), Yosemite and Sequoia Parks, LA (Holywood), Las Vegas and Grand Canyon. I may need to go to our travel sub-forum and ask US locals to give me suggestions on locations, maybe thee is something else I should go to and dont have a clue about some beautiful places. This is going to be our first trip to US, might be last, so going to plan 3 weeks there and cover best places on west coast.
If I was going on safari, I would take 24-200mm definitely, but for those locations above, I have a feeling that 24-105mm would be enough. If I needed longer, then 24-200mm would be my choice, simply based on a price and portability. I'm not a pro photographer, just a family "dad" with a camera I know that all pros here, purists will push 24-120/4 or other lens....Show more →
"Japan - pack / crowd
US - spacious / open" was offered in another post. Quite concise and pretty accurate as a generalization. Especially for the west coast US. I would include British Columbia in this, considering the possibility of visiting Victoria and/or Vancouver areas while traveling around Seattle. Not that there are no crowds. We have crowds, But the "west" is new in European terms. There was a lot of "out" as opposed to "up" in urban growth. I almost never use my 17-28, that's partly from my interests, of course. For example, I used it some in Seattle for some downtown shots, interiors and the aviation museums but my last couple of trips to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, I don't recall using it at all. I use my 28-200 a lot. Part of that is convenience, one 28-200 is less to carry and swap around compared to a 24-70 and 70-200.
I don't think I'd disagree on those spots as high point destinations. One needs to be aware of the distances/times involved in western US travel. About 800 miles Seattle to San Francisco, 500 miles Los Angeles to the south rim of the Grand Canyon. I like breaking up really long drives. But there's almost always plenty to see en route, too. Seasonal considerations. There are seasonal and temporary winter closures in some high mountain areas. On the other hand, summer temperatures in the southwest "desert" areas can be miserable, bordering on the dangerous.
Well, there have been a lot of good comments here. I own the 40mm/f2, 24-120 S and 24-200 discussed. On a recent trip to Death Valley I took the 40mm and the 24-200. No, it is not quite -- quite -- as sharp as the 24-120 S lens. But, it's fine. This is 2026, not 1996. I used a tripod when needed and the smaller aperture really was not an issue (and both are f4 at the wide "end.") So, I agree with the commenter who suggested 24-200 and 40mm. You might want the latter when you want to go out "light" -- as in Las Vegas.
I'll offer that on a recent trip to the Badlands in SD, I took the 24-120 and 100-400. The reason I changed from 24-200 to 24-120 was there was too much "overlap" and that allowed me to take advantage of the *slightly* sharper 24-120. But, I again took the 40mm as that was more appropriate (smaller, lighter and less conspicuous) when "in town."
