I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way. I was going to add a nice minty Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 (or even a Viltrox EVO 85) but that got me thinking if it worth spending (a lot) more money and get the Sony 70-200/4 Mark II Macro? OK, it won't have the bokeh of the 85mm prime, but I would add some versatility in terms of reach, getting compression shots of the vistas in Paris, and other places I visit.
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light. I don't really do sports, wildlife, landscape, or product photography.
Anyone already solved for this problem?
Mar 06, 2026 at 05:51 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
patotts wrote:
I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way. I was going to add a nice minty Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 (or even a Viltrox EVO 85) but that got me thinking if it worth spending (a lot) more money and get the Sony 70-200/4 Mark II Macro? OK, it won't have the bokeh of the 85mm prime, but I would add some versatility in terms of reach, getting compression shots of the vistas in Paris, and other places I visit.
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light. I don't really do sports, wildlife, landscape, or product photography.
My travel kit after lots of consideration and trial and error comes down to a 3 lens kit. I start with an ultrawide to wide zoom, then I add a normalish prime, and then I add either a short telephoto prime or a telephoto zoom depending on how much reach I will need on the trip and how much weight I am willing to carry. I find I like the short telephoto prime for portraits better than the telephoto zoom and the prime is lighter which is great for travel. It does limit the reach that the kit is capable of attaining and although cropping can regain some of that reach if I know I would shoot a fair amount at longer focal length then I take the telephoto zoom and put up with the extra weight. So in my case whether I take a lens like an 85mm or a zoom like the 70-200 f/4 depends on what I anticipate shooting on that particular trip and I am glad I have both options.
I have both the Batis 85 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4 Macro II. I do a lot of travel and shoot lots of portraits, so my answer for the shooting types you listed is the Batis 85. Just love the results the Batis series produces. I actually have 4 Batis primes from 25mm to 135mm, yes they are older and a bit large in size, but the uniformity of the design, IQ results and same 67mm filter thread make it easy to switch among them and they will be a last Sony lenses that I would every sell.
The only advantages the zoom has is its zoom range and Macro ability, but you did not mention Macro in your photo shooting types. Much more important to me is the 2-1/3 added stops the Batis 85mm brings, and with it’s OIS, how does in focus interior or evening shots at a 1/25th of a second sound? No way my 70-200 II with it’s size/weight, even with its OSS, is going to be usable at below 1/100ss.
The photo below was taken in Hua Hin Thailand with my Batis 85 at 6AM in the morning at ISO 100, F4 and at 1/320ss. I don’t have confidence that the 70-200 II and it’s OSS at ISO 100 would have been sharp.
I would replace the 24-50 and the 70-200 with the Tamron 28-200 and take the 35/85's for any shallow DOF or low light stuff. The Tamron is really small, covers a great range and IQ is great. Lens changes are dramatically reduced with the Tammy when carrying just one body, and your overall EDC weight is much smaller. I paid $400 for a mint copy of the 28-200 here and it's literally the best $400 I've ever spent on photography.
I usually travel with a 16-35 and a fast prime, so "only" 28mm on the wide end and the variable aperture isn't an issue for me. I also prefer to carry two bodies (right now a7v/a7rv) instead of bulkier lenses for more versatility and to reduce lens changes even more haha. If you want wider there's always the newer 25-200 or the Sigma 20-200 which is a ridiculous range in one lens. The a7v is so good in low light and the IBIS is really improved over older versions - that plus the Tammy have changed the way I look at a travel kit.
I have decision paralysis and at this particular choice, I often opted to punt. I have a Sigma 85/1.4 and the 70-200G2 and I often ended up with both on a trip, just probably not on the same outing during the trip(one usually packed in a packing cube in the main luggage and one in the camera bag). 85 is my favorite focal length and I really can't imagine not taking it on a trip, but there are shots I think I want the compression from a longer tele. So if I know I have some shot in mind(or locations where a 70-200 would make sense) at the destination I am going to I'd find ways of bringing it. Good thing too the 70-200G2 is a pretty easy lens to bring.
patotts wrote:
I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way. I was going to add a nice minty Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 (or even a Viltrox EVO 85) but that got me thinking if it worth spending (a lot) more money and get the Sony 70-200/4 Mark II Macro? OK, it won't have the bokeh of the 85mm prime, but I would add some versatility in terms of reach, getting compression shots of the vistas in Paris, and other places I visit.
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light. I don't really do sports, wildlife, landscape, or product photography.
My travel kit is the Batis 25, 40 and 85…these 3 cover the majority of my shooting. There are times I could have used something a bit wider like 20mm, but I make do without. I never felt I needed anything longer than 85.
When you travel, did you shoot much longer than 85 or did you feel you missed some shots.
Back when I had the 70-200/2.8 GM II, I liked it because it is an exceptionally performing lens, but I never took out much during travel because of size and weight. I was wonder if the smaller and lighter 70-200/4 would change that equation, but I'm guessing.
I do know I wouldn't hesitate to put a Batis 85/1.8 in the bag.
Also thinking about the Sony 35/1.8. It is certainly a "good enough" lens and will do the job, but I would rather have the upcoming Sigma 35/1.4 ART II or a Sony 50/1.4 GM in the bag. Another option is to go with the 24-50/2.8 as a walk around kit, then have a Voigtlander 40/1.2 and Batis 85/1.8 in the bag for portrait/compression and low-light/character.
We are very spoiled on Sony with lots of options, but also makes it harder...
patotts wrote:
...Another option is to go with the 24-50/2.8 as a walk around kit, then have a Voigtlander 40/1.2 and Batis 85/1.8 in the bag for portrait/compression and low-light/character.
We are very spoiled on Sony with lots of options, but also makes it harder...
When I went to Thailand for 2 months on my last trip, my kit was the Tamron 20-40 f2.8, 50 f1.4 GM and Batis 85 f1.8. Great kit and very convenient as all are 67mm filter size. Was carried in a Wotancraft Pilot 7L bag.
patotts wrote:
I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way. I was going to add a nice minty Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 (or even a Viltrox EVO 85) but that got me thinking if it worth spending (a lot) more money and get the Sony 70-200/4 Mark II Macro? OK, it won't have the bokeh of the 85mm prime, but I would add some versatility in terms of reach, getting compression shots of the vistas in Paris, and other places I visit.
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light. I don't really do sports, wildlife, landscape, or product photography.
There's seemingly an infinite number of possibilities out there. Or at least enough that it can get a bit crazy narrowing things down. I happen to like zooms. Which can have a lot of choices just like picking through a handful of primes with maybe less lens swapping?
Paris? Oversimplifying perhaps. Do you want/need f1.4 more than reach for that gargoyle up there on the side of Notre Dame?
I find that in urban/old cities, etc., that I go for enough details, longer shots that I would choose/will take, later this year, something in the xx-200 range and that f1.x subject isolation, narrow depth of field isn't a big part of my current usual shot patterns. Also, I do think that my "city" trip selection could vary from a "great outdoors landscapey trip selection. For "cities," I might select around the 20-70/4, non-cities, I might select around the 28-200/2.8-5.6.
I often pack 2-3 lenses on a trip; and find that the fun of that is switching it up different trips especially if you've been somewhere before. Usually the 24-50, 35/40 prime and something long. That last one can vary quite a bit; 85, 135 or 70-200. Whatever I have really. Although I will say that a 70-200 makes it very photography focused since you will then want to get the most out of that lens since it's a larger lens that takes up a lot of bag space
I've traveled with an 85mm prime, both f1.4 and f1.8 options, and generally find it is not flexible enough for me to be worth it compared to a zoom. I will not use an 85mm enough and/or feel constrained by it. The Tamron 70-180/2.8 is an option in the middle for you to consider and used G1 copies available for very good prices. I've traveled with this one also, and it is a good choice.
Currently for me, I'm going with the voices that have suggested superzoom--Tamron 28-200 or 25-200. I want to minimize lens changes and these zooms don't seem to give up much to be able to have such a wide focal range. It's all down to personal preference though and my trips aren't all about photography so this is the compromise I've chosen.
Given your uses for it I will go with the Sony 70-200/4 rather than a prime lens. The Batis 85 (I have it) is a fantastic lens but the zoom is more versatile for travel.
In my case, lately I've been combining travel with street fashion and swimsuit on the beach. And I'm happy and ecstatic about my all in one lens albeit a tad heavy----Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art. For my needs it can do everything with the A7V.
patotts wrote:
I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way.
[skip]
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light.
[skip]
Anyone already solved for this problem?
TBH you don't have a problem. My habits are similar to yours, in fact I would probably describe them exactly the same way, and yet a single 35mm lens does 90% of it beautifly. And you have the 24-50mm zoom on top of that!
Your problem is GAS, and the best way to cure it is to acquire absolutley everything. I am not joking. You'll quickly sell it here taking a small loss, but you'll solve your problem.
P.S. I am currently going through the "28mm phase" again. For almost a month I've been shooting exclusively with the 28mm, a small f/2.8 pancake that weights just 170g! Loving the portability, and I am yet to discover a subject I couldn't get the 28mm to work with. What am I shooting? "family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light."
P.P.S. But if you insist, my advice is to have just two primes. 28+50 or 35+85. Personally I'd go with the 28+50 and your zoom already offers that.
SpecFoto wrote:
The photo below was taken in Hua Hin Thailand with my Batis 85 at 6AM in the morning at ISO 100, F4 and at 1/320ss. I don’t have confidence that the 70-200 II and it’s OSS at ISO 100 would have been sharp.
I love my 70-200GII for bug and small critter hunting. For landscape, it's usable up to about 180, where the resolution takes a nose dive, but it's not perfect for the job even at the shorter settings. I avoid using it for people unless it's on the camera and I want a quick snap.
For non-wildlife travel, I think the 85's a better choice. I owned the Batis when it was initially released and it's a great lens for its type. The OSS is handy and, while it has some CA and coma problems wide open, it's no worse that what you get with any other lens of its type. It's kind of a chunk, though. These days, I'd look very closely at the Sigma i 90/2.8. It's significantly smaller and lighter, I prefer the build with the aperture ring, and it focuses significantly closer (close enough for some decent flower shots, anyway). Just a suggestion. I hope it helps.
Hmm while I did say I prefer 85mm as a focal length I don't actually see many issue with the 70-200GII as a lens at least paired with the A7IV. More often than not I'm actually pretty pleased with how shots turned out with it.
I've always thought I could do 90% of the street and travel photography I do with 35mm and and 85mm F/2 (or so) lenses. I do have the 70-200mm F4 V2 which is fine in the field and prefer a smaller kit for general city and street shooting.
I'm headed to Japan in a few weeks with the Sony A7CII and Sony 40mm F2.5 and the Viltrox 85mm F2. I wish Sony had a small fast 35mm the size of the 24, 40 and 50mm.
patotts wrote:
I'm putting together a small Sony city/travel kit on a budget. I got Sony a7V, the Sony 35/1.8 (not loving that lens, but it will have to do for the price) and also Sony 24-50/2.8 on the way. I was going to add a nice minty Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 (or even a Viltrox EVO 85) but that got me thinking if it worth spending (a lot) more money and get the Sony 70-200/4 Mark II Macro? OK, it won't have the bokeh of the 85mm prime, but I would add some versatility in terms of reach, getting compression shots of the vistas in Paris, and other places I visit.
I mostly photograph family & friends, portrait, travel and cityscapes, a bit of street, all available light. I don't really do sports, wildlife, landscape, or product photography.
Funny, I was actually just thiking about this in the last day or 2. I'd take 70-200 over 85 all day long, really dont get people only using ~90mm as their longest
200/4 should get rid of a bg better than 85/1.8.
Cant comment on budget aspect, though, these 70-200/4's are very expensive lately. Used to be more ~$150 used on film.
SpecFoto wrote:
The photo below was taken in Hua Hin Thailand with my Batis 85 at 6AM in the morning at ISO 100, F4 and at 1/320ss. I don’t have confidence that the 70-200 II and it’s OSS at ISO 100 would have been sharp.
The shutter speed was 1/320. So of course with the 70-200 (or any other lens, because you use cameras with IBIS) the photo would have been just as sharp.
