Travel Lens for Sony
p.3 #1Travel Lens for Sony
Jack Flesher wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMVI asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going...Show more →
Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
bwcolor wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going...Show more →
Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
Jul 13, 2026 at 06:58 PM
p.3 #2Travel Lens for Sony
bwcolor wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMVI asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them
.Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
Speaking for myself, my travel kit is usually the 20-70 zoom and 2 primes, a 50 and a 14. The zoom is my normal, daytime doitall lens. The 14 is my uw, get it all in lens, tight exteriors and interiors. The 50 is my night and street lens.
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them
.Speaking for myself, my travel kit is usually the 20-70 zoom and 2 primes, a 50 and a 14. The zoom is my normal, daytime doitall lens. The 14 is my uw, get it all in lens, tight exteriors and interiors. The 50 is my night and street lens.
Jul 13, 2026 at 07:18 PM
p.3 #3Travel Lens for Sony
bwcolor wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMVI asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them.Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
I travel with 3 primes, 25, 40, 85. I could never gel going out with a zoom.
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them
.I travel with 3 primes, 25, 40, 85. I could never gel going out with a zoom.
Jul 13, 2026 at 07:30 PM
p.3 #4Travel Lens for Sony
bwcolor wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMVI asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them.Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
For me I always take an ultra wide angle that will get me what I hope is an interesting take on architecture, landscapes, and cityscapes. I take a fast normalish (35-58 mm) prime that lets me shoot in low light and get shallow depth of field for what I hope are some creative shots, and a short tele or telezoom that let's me focus on unique things that capture my attention when I travel. I think Jack captured what I try to do nicely.
Here are a few picts that I hope accomplished what Jack described and since my heirs will probably trash them I might as well share them here now.
Edited on Jul 13, 2026 at 08:06 PM · View previous versions
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them
.For me I always take an ultra wide angle that will get me what I hope is an interesting take on architecture, landscapes, and cityscapes. I take a fast normalish (35-58 mm) prime that lets me shoot in low light and get shallow depth of field for what I hope are some creative shots, and a short tele or telezoom that let's me focus on unique things that capture my attention when I travel. I think Jack captured what I try to do nicely.
Here are a few picts that I hope accomplished what Jack described and since my heirs will probably trash them I might as well share them here now
. X-T5 SIGMA 10-18mm F2.8 DC DN | Contemporary 023 lens 10mm f/4.0 1/150s 125 ISO -0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM2 ZEISS Batis 2.8/18 lens 18mm f/5.6 1/640s 100 ISO +0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM5 Voigtlander NOKTON 21mm F1.4 Aspherical lens 21mm f/4.0 1/2000s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5 Voigtlander NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical lens 40mm f/5.6 1/800s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM2 Voigtlander NOKTON 40mm F1.2 Aspherical lens 40mm f/1.2 1/400s 100 ISO +0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM2 ZEISS Loxia 2.4/85 lens 85mm f/2.4 1/500s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7M2 100mm F2 lens 100mm f/4.5 1/320s 100 ISO +1.3 EV
X-T5 VOIGTLANDER NOKTON 50mm F1.2 lens 50mm f/1.2 1/450s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
Edited on Jul 13, 2026 at 08:06 PM · View previous versions
Jul 13, 2026 at 07:38 PM
p.3 #5Travel Lens for Sony
Wow, great approach and I appreciate the explanations and especially the images. I have always been in the never zoom, so I’ll also be taking a 24mm GM and Sigma 17mm f/4.0. The wide angle shots above are inspiring. The rendering of the 85mm Loxia is stunning. Maybe my favorite Loxia lens.
Jul 13, 2026 at 08:05 PM
p.3 #6Travel Lens for Sony
I had the 20-70 a great lens for it focal range but mine had strange focus issues in the 35-50mm range (even stopped down to f8 or more) and after correction by Sony was still not perfect so I sold it for the 24-50 which I find optically better and being f2.8 a more all-round lens for day and low light. I sometime carry it with the CV 25/4.5 and FE 85/1.8 toggle me compact kit
Jul 14, 2026 at 12:51 AM
p.3 #7Travel Lens for Sony
Jack Flesher wrote:
When I shot Nikon Z, the 24-120 was my goto; and it’s unfortunate Sony doesn’t have one. In my case I wanted 20 more than anything over 105 for travel, so today I use and enjoy the 20-70/4 on my Sony. Oddly, I haven’t missed over 70 for travel, but have for events with the grandkids. I was looking at the Tamron 35-150 for that duty as it seems about perfect — but I’d probably never travel with it due to its weight. Which has lead me to the Sony 70-200/4. Small enough and light enough for travel, and...Show more →
In a couple months I will be traveling to China to shoot some landscape. I will bring two bodies: A7RVI and A1II (or A7RV if I can buy one cheaper enough by then). Lens wise, I am thinking the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and Sony 70-200 F4 G II. That way I will never need to change lenses. Or, Sony 20-70, 70-200 F4 G II, and Viltrox 14 (or Voigtlander 15) if I want to go really wide. I will probably pick option one. The gap between 35mm and 70mm can be covered by cropping if needed. I may bring the Voigtlander 28mm APO for some night streets stuff, I haven't had an occasion to use it since I bought it few months back.
Edited on Jul 14, 2026 at 03:47 AM · View previous versions
When I shot Nikon Z, the 24-120 was my goto; and it’s unfortunate Sony doesn’t have one. In my case I wanted 20 more than anything over 105 for travel, so today I use and enjoy the 20-70/4 on my Sony. Oddly, I haven’t missed over 70 for travel, but have for events with the grandkids. I was looking at the Tamron 35-150 for that duty as it seems about perfect — but I’d probably never travel with it due to its weight. Which has lead me to the Sony 70-200/4. Small enough and light enough for travel, and...Show more →
In a couple months I will be traveling to China to shoot some landscape. I will bring two bodies: A7RVI and A1II (or A7RV if I can buy one cheaper enough by then). Lens wise, I am thinking the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and Sony 70-200 F4 G II. That way I will never need to change lenses. Or, Sony 20-70, 70-200 F4 G II, and Viltrox 14 (or Voigtlander 15) if I want to go really wide. I will probably pick option one. The gap between 35mm and 70mm can be covered by cropping if needed. I may bring the Voigtlander 28mm APO for some night streets stuff, I haven't had an occasion to use it since I bought it few months back.
Edited on Jul 14, 2026 at 03:47 AM · View previous versions
Jul 14, 2026 at 03:23 AM
p.3 #8Travel Lens for Sony
Not a lot to add other than another vote for the 35-150
Had the 24-120 and 70-200 on Nikon and would either add a 14-30 or swap the 70-200 for a 100-400 depending on the situation
Have paired the 35-150 with a 16-35pz as my travel kit on Sony and found it perfectly usable, dont miss the shorter end as much as I thought i would and value the extra reach more
Had the 24-120 and 70-200 on Nikon and would either add a 14-30 or swap the 70-200 for a 100-400 depending on the situation
Have paired the 35-150 with a 16-35pz as my travel kit on Sony and found it perfectly usable, dont miss the shorter end as much as I thought i would and value the extra reach more
Jul 14, 2026 at 03:38 AM
p.3 #9Travel Lens for Sony
Douglas L wrote:
In a couple months I will be traveling to China to shoot some landscape. I will bring two bodies: A7RVI and A1II (or A7RV if I can buy one cheaper enough by then). Lens wise, I am thinking the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and Sony 70-200 F4 G II. That way I will never need to change lenses. Or, Sony 20-70, 70-200 F4 G II, and Viltrox 14 (or Voigtlander 15) if I want to go really wide. I will probably pick option one. The gap between 35mm and 70mm can be covered by cropping if needed. I may...Show more →
I think both are excellent options. More important is how you as the photographer regularly sees; and sometimes less is more... I know for myself, it would be the 20-70 because I use the 40-60 range a lot; in fact I regularly use the entire 35-70 range when traveling. The 14 then covers the occasions when 20 isn’t wide enough. If I owned the 16-35, I might then bite the weight bullet and carry the Tamron 35-150. IDK, because I haven’t owned or used either, but I’d probably buy and try before a big trip to confirm. But then for me, I’d probably also test a 24-105 for weight and versatility, and then decide if the overlap it and the 16-35 gave me would be a convenience. I will no doubt buy the Tamron 35-150 anyway, even if I decide not to travel with it, as it’s such a useful all-around range for my style of shooting.
Jack Flesher wrote
When I shot Nikon Z, the 24-120 was my goto; and it’s unfortunate Sony doesn’t have one. In my case I wanted 20 more than anything over 105 for travel, so today I use and enjoy the 20-70/4 on my Sony. Oddly, I haven’t missed over 70 for travel, but have for events with the grandkids. I was looking at the Tamron 35-150 for that duty as it seems about perfect — but I’d probably never travel with it due to its weight. Which has lead me to the Sony 70-200/4. Small enough and light enough for travel, and doubles as a true macro lens.I think both are excellent options. More important is how you as the photographer regularly sees; and sometimes less is more... I know for myself, it would be the 20-70 because I use the 40-60 range a lot; in fact I regularly use the entire 35-70 range when traveling. The 14 then covers the occasions when 20 isn’t wide enough. If I owned the 16-35, I might then bite the weight bullet and carry the Tamron 35-150. IDK, because I haven’t owned or used either, but I’d probably buy and try before a big trip to confirm. But then for me, I’d probably also test a 24-105 for weight and versatility, and then decide if the overlap it and the 16-35 gave me would be a convenience. I will no doubt buy the Tamron 35-150 anyway, even if I decide not to travel with it, as it’s such a useful all-around range for my style of shooting.
Jul 14, 2026 at 06:45 AM
p.3 #10Travel Lens for Sony
bwcolor wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMVI asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them.Ah, so how do these lenses suggested help with this? How are lenses suggested related to your approach. I see people traveling with many zooms covering everything and any possible subject. Others, myself included, travel with one, or two prime lenses and a camera. I purchased the A7R6 and the 50-150mm f/2.0 GM to change my view/approach to environment that I’ve seen before, using 21mmm & 35mm lenses.
This is why I like a (longer) travel zoom:
1) speed, and I don't mean lens speed. I like a wide range zoom because I can quickly frame an image without fiddling grabbing a second body, changing a lens, etc. I am walking around with the lens cap off and the camera out of the bag
2) reach. I want to hit something at 200mm and possibly punch in with APS-C mode. In city walk arounds, 85-90mm doesn't cut it for me
3) you may only be there once. Why miss a shot?
That said, I consider myself a prime shooter first and my travel kit always includes the 14GM and 35GM or i35. I make my peace when heading out with the 35GM that I will *always* miss shots. Do I like composing with a prime better? Yes. Do I feel happier and more creative when walking around with just one prime? Definitely! But it is usually day 2 or 3 of being in a location before the primes come out for me. If you haven't experienced shooting with a travel zoom, don't knock it. I bought mine as an impulse purchase when picking up the 70-200GMii and 14GM and now my 28-200 is my most used lens.
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
bwcolor wrote
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them
.This is why I like a (longer) travel zoom:
1) speed, and I don't mean lens speed. I like a wide range zoom because I can quickly frame an image without fiddling grabbing a second body, changing a lens, etc. I am walking around with the lens cap off and the camera out of the bag
2) reach. I want to hit something at 200mm and possibly punch in with APS-C mode. In city walk arounds, 85-90mm doesn't cut it for me
3) you may only be there once. Why miss a shot?
That said, I consider myself a prime shooter first and my travel kit always includes the 14GM and 35GM or i35. I make my peace when heading out with the 35GM that I will *always* miss shots. Do I like composing with a prime better? Yes. Do I feel happier and more creative when walking around with just one prime? Definitely! But it is usually day 2 or 3 of being in a location before the primes come out for me. If you haven't experienced shooting with a travel zoom, don't knock it. I bought mine as an impulse purchase when picking up the 70-200GMii and 14GM and now my 28-200 is my most used lens.
Jul 14, 2026 at 06:59 AM
|
p.3 #11Travel Lens for Sony
Douglas L wrote:
In a couple months I will be traveling to China to shoot some landscape. I will bring two bodies: A7RVI and A1II (or A7RV if I can buy one cheaper enough by then). Lens wise, I am thinking the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and Sony 70-200 F4 G II. That way I will never need to change lenses. Or, Sony 20-70, 70-200 F4 G II, and Viltrox 14 (or Voigtlander 15) if I want to go really wide. I will probably pick option one. The gap between 35mm and 70mm can be covered by cropping if needed. I may...Show more →
Douglas, why is not changing lens important to you? It is fine if it is, but for me when I travel being able to change lens is one of the things I value as it adds so much flexibility and often keeps the size of the kit lower. If it were me and I went to China to shoot landscapes, I would take a travel tripod and a good light ballhead (I have a Gitzo 0 series traveler and RRS BH-30 ballhead just for such trips) and take just one camera, but I am willing to risk the camera breaking down and not everyone would so I see the desire for a backup.
I did go to China about 9 years ago for six weeks and mainly stayed in cities, but China is a big country with many wonderful images to capture. Do you know where you plan to go and some of the basic photography you want to capture there?
For me travel photography is always a balance of what to bring and what to leave home. You can bring too much and struggle throughout the trip lugging everything. You can bring too little and really regret not having something with you. I have had both feelings and often on the same trip, and actually feeling both but only mildly is when I think I have gotten the balance of what to bring and what to leave home the best.
I do travel photography to some extent about a half dozen times a year, so have landed on some choices. Critical is whether photography is the major reason for the trip. If I am traveling to see that part of the world or for another purpose (for example to see someone who lives there), then I take a very different kit that is less extensive than if I am going primarily for photography. Most of my travel photography is when photography is not the primary purpose and for such travel, I take one camera, and the camera and the lenses need to weigh less than 5 lbs (i.e., 2,200g) and I take 3 lenses. I typically wouldn't take a tripod and if I did I would off set it weight keeping the camera, lenses, and tripod with ballhead less than 6.5 lbs (i.e., 3,000g).
If photography is the primary reason for the travel, however, I lug a lot more stuff. As I have gotten older, however, I still need to limit what I carry. On such a trip I would limit gear to 10 lbs if I am flying, and 20 lbs if I am driving. Whether I take a backup camera would depend on how easy it would be to get a replacement camera where I am going. I would take a tripod in most instances, but what I take for such trips that for me only occur once every couple of years is very driven by what I am planning to photograph. The kit will be a lot more variable because I try to sacrifice as little as possible but I can't bring everything so choices still need to be made.
For me, for either type of kit, I will try to cover a range of focal lengths and have at least one lens with a fast aperture. What that means for me concretely is I always can shoot at focal lengths between 21-120mm (with some cropping) and I always have at least one lens that is at least f/2. Of course at times I will expand the focal lengths to include wider or longer depending on what I anticipate shooting but that range and aperture are always available.
So, that is my take. I don't know if it will be helpful to you or others, but I have thought about travel photography a lot and I do it in my own way a lot and I have never shared my thinking, so I thought I would do so here in hopes of helping you and others as you work through your own preferences.
Jack Flesher wrote
When I shot Nikon Z, the 24-120 was my goto; and it’s unfortunate Sony doesn’t have one. In my case I wanted 20 more than anything over 105 for travel, so today I use and enjoy the 20-70/4 on my Sony. Oddly, I haven’t missed over 70 for travel, but have for events with the grandkids. I was looking at the Tamron 35-150 for that duty as it seems about perfect — but I’d probably never travel with it due to its weight. Which has lead me to the Sony 70-200/4. Small enough and light enough for travel, and doubles as a true macro lens.Douglas, why is not changing lens important to you? It is fine if it is, but for me when I travel being able to change lens is one of the things I value as it adds so much flexibility and often keeps the size of the kit lower. If it were me and I went to China to shoot landscapes, I would take a travel tripod and a good light ballhead (I have a Gitzo 0 series traveler and RRS BH-30 ballhead just for such trips) and take just one camera, but I am willing to risk the camera breaking down and not everyone would so I see the desire for a backup.
I did go to China about 9 years ago for six weeks and mainly stayed in cities, but China is a big country with many wonderful images to capture. Do you know where you plan to go and some of the basic photography you want to capture there?
For me travel photography is always a balance of what to bring and what to leave home. You can bring too much and struggle throughout the trip lugging everything. You can bring too little and really regret not having something with you. I have had both feelings and often on the same trip, and actually feeling both but only mildly is when I think I have gotten the balance of what to bring and what to leave home the best.
I do travel photography to some extent about a half dozen times a year, so have landed on some choices. Critical is whether photography is the major reason for the trip. If I am traveling to see that part of the world or for another purpose (for example to see someone who lives there), then I take a very different kit that is less extensive than if I am going primarily for photography. Most of my travel photography is when photography is not the primary purpose and for such travel, I take one camera, and the camera and the lenses need to weigh less than 5 lbs (i.e., 2,200g) and I take 3 lenses. I typically wouldn't take a tripod and if I did I would off set it weight keeping the camera, lenses, and tripod with ballhead less than 6.5 lbs (i.e., 3,000g).
If photography is the primary reason for the travel, however, I lug a lot more stuff. As I have gotten older, however, I still need to limit what I carry. On such a trip I would limit gear to 10 lbs if I am flying, and 20 lbs if I am driving. Whether I take a backup camera would depend on how easy it would be to get a replacement camera where I am going. I would take a tripod in most instances, but what I take for such trips that for me only occur once every couple of years is very driven by what I am planning to photograph. The kit will be a lot more variable because I try to sacrifice as little as possible but I can't bring everything so choices still need to be made.
For me, for either type of kit, I will try to cover a range of focal lengths and have at least one lens with a fast aperture. What that means for me concretely is I always can shoot at focal lengths between 21-120mm (with some cropping) and I always have at least one lens that is at least f/2. Of course at times I will expand the focal lengths to include wider or longer depending on what I anticipate shooting but that range and aperture are always available.
So, that is my take. I don't know if it will be helpful to you or others, but I have thought about travel photography a lot and I do it in my own way a lot and I have never shared my thinking, so I thought I would do so here in hopes of helping you and others as you work through your own preferences.
Jul 14, 2026 at 08:07 AM
p.3 #12Travel Lens for Sony
Steve Spencer wrote:
In a couple months I will be traveling to China to shoot some landscape. I will bring two bodies: A7RVI and A1II (or A7RV if I can buy one cheaper enough by then). Lens wise, I am thinking the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and Sony 70-200 F4 G II. That way I will never need to change lenses. Or, Sony 20-70, 70-200 F4 G II, and Viltrox 14 (or Voigtlander 15) if I want to go really wide. I will probably pick option one. The gap between 35mm and 70mm can be covered by cropping if needed. I may bring the Voigtlander 28mm APO for some night streets stuff, I haven't had an occasion to use it since I bought it few months back.Douglas, why is not changing lens important to you? It is fine if it is, but for me when I travel being able to change lens is one of the things I value as it adds so much flexibility and often keeps the size of the kit lower. If it were me and I went to China to shoot landscapes, I would take a travel tripod and a good light ballhead (I have a Gitzo 0 series traveler and RRS BH-30 ballhead just for such trips) and take just one camera, but I am willing to risk the camera...Show more →
Hi Steve, thank you for your inputs!
Don't mean to hijack the thread. For this trip, we are going to (1) Guilin/Yangshuo area and (2) Zhangjiajie National Park, both in south China and both are landscape photographers' paradise. I have been to both, more than once. But this time we are going with our daughter and her husband.
With regard of taking more than one camera, I have been taking at least two cameras for travel in the last 10 years. I just hate the hassle of swapping lenses. Since the Sony bodies are relatively light and compact, the weight and size of an extra camera far outweigh the inconvenience of changing lenses in the middle of a shoot, for me anyway. If I go out at night to walk around on local streets, I may just bring one camera with the 28mm APO. For this trip, I will also bring my infrared Canon R5 with two small and light lenses. So my camera bag can be pretty heavy, but I am not doing much hiking so it's manageable. These two places are truly among the most breathtaking landscapes in the world.
A few years ago when I went to Zhangjiajie NP, I didn't want to bring the Sony 70-200 G II so I took the Zeiss Batis 135, a marvel of lens, so light and sharp.
Douglas L wrote
Jack Flesher wrote
When I shot Nikon Z, the 24-120 was my goto; and it’s unfortunate Sony doesn’t have one. In my case I wanted 20 more than anything over 105 for travel, so today I use and enjoy the 20-70/4 on my Sony. Oddly, I haven’t missed over 70 for travel, but have for events with the grandkids. I was looking at the Tamron 35-150 for that duty as it seems about perfect — but I’d probably never travel with it due to its weight. Which has lead me to the Sony 70-200/4. Small enough and light enough for travel, and doubles as a true macro lens.Hi Steve, thank you for your inputs!
Don't mean to hijack the thread. For this trip, we are going to (1) Guilin/Yangshuo area and (2) Zhangjiajie National Park, both in south China and both are landscape photographers' paradise. I have been to both, more than once. But this time we are going with our daughter and her husband.
With regard of taking more than one camera, I have been taking at least two cameras for travel in the last 10 years. I just hate the hassle of swapping lenses. Since the Sony bodies are relatively light and compact, the weight and size of an extra camera far outweigh the inconvenience of changing lenses in the middle of a shoot, for me anyway. If I go out at night to walk around on local streets, I may just bring one camera with the 28mm APO. For this trip, I will also bring my infrared Canon R5 with two small and light lenses. So my camera bag can be pretty heavy, but I am not doing much hiking so it's manageable. These two places are truly among the most breathtaking landscapes in the world.
A few years ago when I went to Zhangjiajie NP, I didn't want to bring the Sony 70-200 G II so I took the Zeiss Batis 135, a marvel of lens, so light and sharp.
Jul 14, 2026 at 09:22 AM
p.3 #13Travel Lens for Sony
bwcolor wrote:
I asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.
The question "What lens for travel" or 'What body?" is incomplete. We can answer guessing universal or individual context or play 20 Questions. That broader context is important. I try, at least sometimes, maybe unsuccessfully, to add some location or other context, to my "recommendations." I wonder a bit if maybe that's tiresome (he's mentioned Switzerland and Rhine River cruise in every gear post for the last two years).
I have a couple of constraints. (Somewhat universal?) One is I can't afford all the goodies I might want. Another is I can't afford to go to all the places I might want. Travel "time" either "when" or "how long I can "travel"" is limited. I can't carry everything. That might be physical around the destination or just getting to and from the location. Travel by myself will be different than travel with others (at least for me.) Travel by air differs from travel by car
I tend to zooms, probably for both "convenience," budget and habit. I'm not against primes. I don't have many, not in the habit of using just one or two and usually expect/want coverage for more and different things.
Getting past all that?
Location: (A) I live in Southern California, driving distance, within reason, sort of, to a wide variety of locations. Usually I'll be shooting "outdoors" in natural areas. This tends to push me to longer focal lengths. (B) Some trips, urban centered, say "old cities," congested streets, large buildings - exteriors and interiors where one may not be able to back up far enough and that pushes, not exclusively, to "wider." That said, I like those "details," that steeple top, a statue as "portrait,' across the roofs from a high point.
Style "A" 28-200 works quite well as an "only" but more likely foundation choice. "Style "B" the 20-70. Going back, not too long for some of us, prehistoric for the younger ones? The f2.8 "professional, "Holy Trinity" zooms and/or the very best primes ruled the high end and consumers followed along, less expensive primes or variable aperture zooms. 3X zoom range was kind of the accepted quality boundary
The 28-200 or 18-135 sorts in aps-c allowed one to go from 3 to 2. A bit later, the 20-70 allowed a different 3 to 2. More recently, the 20-200 became a potential "One lens!"
I'd think San Francisco or New York or Washington, DC will be similar in contest to Paris, London, Rome, etc. Ground travel between various cities, through countryside, mountains and/or nature, birds and animals, will be similar, too.
I asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.
The question "What lens for travel" or 'What body?" is incomplete. We can answer guessing universal or individual context or play 20 Questions. That broader context is important. I try, at least sometimes, maybe unsuccessfully, to add some location or other context, to my "recommendations." I wonder a bit if maybe that's tiresome (he's mentioned Switzerland and Rhine River cruise in every gear post for the last two years).
I have a couple of constraints. (Somewhat universal?) One is I can't afford all the goodies I might want. Another is I can't afford to go to all the places I might want. Travel "time" either "when" or "how long I can "travel"" is limited. I can't carry everything. That might be physical around the destination or just getting to and from the location. Travel by myself will be different than travel with others (at least for me.) Travel by air differs from travel by car
I tend to zooms, probably for both "convenience," budget and habit. I'm not against primes. I don't have many, not in the habit of using just one or two and usually expect/want coverage for more and different things.
Getting past all that?
Location: (A) I live in Southern California, driving distance, within reason, sort of, to a wide variety of locations. Usually I'll be shooting "outdoors" in natural areas. This tends to push me to longer focal lengths. (B) Some trips, urban centered, say "old cities," congested streets, large buildings - exteriors and interiors where one may not be able to back up far enough and that pushes, not exclusively, to "wider." That said, I like those "details," that steeple top, a statue as "portrait,' across the roofs from a high point.
Style "A" 28-200 works quite well as an "only" but more likely foundation choice. "Style "B" the 20-70. Going back, not too long for some of us, prehistoric for the younger ones? The f2.8 "professional, "Holy Trinity" zooms and/or the very best primes ruled the high end and consumers followed along, less expensive primes or variable aperture zooms. 3X zoom range was kind of the accepted quality boundary
The 28-200 or 18-135 sorts in aps-c allowed one to go from 3 to 2. A bit later, the 20-70 allowed a different 3 to 2. More recently, the 20-200 became a potential "One lens!"
I'd think San Francisco or New York or Washington, DC will be similar in contest to Paris, London, Rome, etc. Ground travel between various cities, through countryside, mountains and/or nature, birds and animals, will be similar, too.
Jul 14, 2026 at 10:35 AM
p.3 #14Travel Lens for Sony
I know have posted this info previously, but I have done really extensive brick wall, tripod, cable release testing with a7r5 and the following lenses AT THE SAME TIME to determine resolution:
14-24 sigma
16-35 gmii
28-75 tamron g2
28-200 tamron g2
28-60 sony plastic lens
24-105 f4
70-200 gmii with and without converters
50-400 tamron
It took quite a while to do all the testing and I tested the following focal lengths based on the lens' ability:
14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, 105, 135, 150, 200, 280, 300, 350 and 400.
I shot at wide open to f/11 on all lenses.
There were no surprises wide open. the 14-24, 16-35, 28-75 g2 and 70-200gmii were clear winners. At f8 everything changed. I had to go deep in the corners to find differences in the lenses. I found it shocking that, at f8, the tamron 50-400 looked better than the naked 70-200gmii all the way to the corners.
So, much of the decision making process comes down to your usage case, your expectations and the the amount of gear you want to take. If I was doing a landscape trip and knew I would be on a tripod stuck at f8, I'd take the 16-35, the 50-400 and throw the plastic junk lens (my name for it) 28-60 in the bag with the a7r5 and have a light bag. I wouldn't hesitate using this combo at all.
If I really had no idea what I would encounter and I was shooting from a car, I'd go with the 16-35, tamron 28-75g2 and the 70-200gmii and both tcs and a fast wide prime just in case. These 3 lenses focus significantly faster than the 24-105 and 50-400, so I would leave those 2 at home for that reason alone.
If I was taking a trip and wasn't taking a tripod and wanted lightweight quality to 105, it would be 16-35 and 24-105. The 16-35gmii performs well with in body stabilization and the 24-105 has oss built in.
The 14-24 is an odd lens out. I can't give it up because it is so sharp throughout its range, but rear filters only. I may purchase a tracker and make that lens my one and done landscape astro lens.
The 28-200 is an odd lens out too but it becomes my one-lens snapshot or "candids" (an old photography term) lens. This is the lens I use for non-critical work, family etc. It is very surprisingly sharp in the center even wide open, all the way to 200, but it is also the quickest to fall off in the corners. The 28-200 never took first position in any of my testing, but only ended up in last position beyond 150mm, compared to the 70-200gmii and 50-400. Not really a fair competition given the range of the 28-200. It also had the most fringing although easily correctable. At f8 would I really notice it if not shooting a brick wall, probably not. Based on the used sales prices for the 28-200, I will not sell mine and would certainly be in the market for one if I didn't have one. It's the best bargain of the bunch IMO.
I really should unload some of these lenses as I have so many that can cover the same range, but, they have their different strengths. The choice of what to keep would become more obvious If Sony quit crippling 3rd party lenses, which is precisely why they probably will continue to throttle 3rd party.
It's very hard to make a suggestion of what lens to make with all the variables.
14-24 sigma
16-35 gmii
28-75 tamron g2
28-200 tamron g2
28-60 sony plastic lens
24-105 f4
70-200 gmii with and without converters
50-400 tamron
It took quite a while to do all the testing and I tested the following focal lengths based on the lens' ability:
14, 16, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, 105, 135, 150, 200, 280, 300, 350 and 400.
I shot at wide open to f/11 on all lenses.
There were no surprises wide open. the 14-24, 16-35, 28-75 g2 and 70-200gmii were clear winners. At f8 everything changed. I had to go deep in the corners to find differences in the lenses. I found it shocking that, at f8, the tamron 50-400 looked better than the naked 70-200gmii all the way to the corners.
So, much of the decision making process comes down to your usage case, your expectations and the the amount of gear you want to take. If I was doing a landscape trip and knew I would be on a tripod stuck at f8, I'd take the 16-35, the 50-400 and throw the plastic junk lens (my name for it) 28-60 in the bag with the a7r5 and have a light bag. I wouldn't hesitate using this combo at all.
If I really had no idea what I would encounter and I was shooting from a car, I'd go with the 16-35, tamron 28-75g2 and the 70-200gmii and both tcs and a fast wide prime just in case. These 3 lenses focus significantly faster than the 24-105 and 50-400, so I would leave those 2 at home for that reason alone.
If I was taking a trip and wasn't taking a tripod and wanted lightweight quality to 105, it would be 16-35 and 24-105. The 16-35gmii performs well with in body stabilization and the 24-105 has oss built in.
The 14-24 is an odd lens out. I can't give it up because it is so sharp throughout its range, but rear filters only. I may purchase a tracker and make that lens my one and done landscape astro lens.
The 28-200 is an odd lens out too but it becomes my one-lens snapshot or "candids" (an old photography term) lens. This is the lens I use for non-critical work, family etc. It is very surprisingly sharp in the center even wide open, all the way to 200, but it is also the quickest to fall off in the corners. The 28-200 never took first position in any of my testing, but only ended up in last position beyond 150mm, compared to the 70-200gmii and 50-400. Not really a fair competition given the range of the 28-200. It also had the most fringing although easily correctable. At f8 would I really notice it if not shooting a brick wall, probably not. Based on the used sales prices for the 28-200, I will not sell mine and would certainly be in the market for one if I didn't have one. It's the best bargain of the bunch IMO.
I really should unload some of these lenses as I have so many that can cover the same range, but, they have their different strengths. The choice of what to keep would become more obvious If Sony quit crippling 3rd party lenses, which is precisely why they probably will continue to throttle 3rd party.
It's very hard to make a suggestion of what lens to make with all the variables.
Jul 14, 2026 at 11:27 AM
p.3 #15Travel Lens for Sony
sorry, typo 28-200 is not g2 of course. I don't have the 25-200 as I see no point.
Jul 14, 2026 at 01:51 PM
p.3 #16Travel Lens for Sony
Tamron 35-150, Viltrox 14, and Sigma 24/3.5. The 35-150 is fantastic and so versatile that it will be on the camera 85% of the time. The weight is worth it for the quality and convenience. Just carry it in a sling bag for quick access.
Jul 14, 2026 at 09:30 PM
p.3 #17Travel Lens for Sony
Sony has no equiv to the excellent Nikon 24-120/4.
With high MP camera, and you seem to be shooting mostly outside, I'd go with the 20-70/4 and crop when needed. I wouldn't want to start at 28mm, so that rules out some zoom alternatives. Buying a $4,500 67mp top-of-the-line camera and then putting a $500 super-zoom on it seems less than ideal.
If you can live with the inconvenience of carrying/swapping with another lens, I'd add the 70-200/4 v2, and perhaps a fast prime of your choice.
Personally, I went the other way. I only take the 24-50/2.8, and perhaps a Batis 85/1.8. That's it. Keep it as small and light as possible.
Ideally, Sony will update the 24-105/4 soon enough, perhaps even make it a 120.
Now to the irony part: Sony users which they have something like the Nikkor Z 24-120/4. Nikon shooters which they had something like the 24-50/2.8 :-)
With high MP camera, and you seem to be shooting mostly outside, I'd go with the 20-70/4 and crop when needed. I wouldn't want to start at 28mm, so that rules out some zoom alternatives. Buying a $4,500 67mp top-of-the-line camera and then putting a $500 super-zoom on it seems less than ideal.
If you can live with the inconvenience of carrying/swapping with another lens, I'd add the 70-200/4 v2, and perhaps a fast prime of your choice.
Personally, I went the other way. I only take the 24-50/2.8, and perhaps a Batis 85/1.8. That's it. Keep it as small and light as possible.
Ideally, Sony will update the 24-105/4 soon enough, perhaps even make it a 120.
Now to the irony part: Sony users which they have something like the Nikkor Z 24-120/4. Nikon shooters which they had something like the 24-50/2.8 :-)
Jul 15, 2026 at 03:56 AM
p.3 #18Travel Lens for Sony
patotts wrote:
Sony has no equiv to the excellent Nikon 24-120/4.
With high MP camera, and you seem to be shooting mostly outside, I'd go with the 20-70/4 and crop when needed. I wouldn't want to start at 28mm, so that rules out some zoom alternatives. Buying a $4,500 67mp top-of-the-line camera and then putting a $500 super-zoom on it seems less than ideal.
If you can live with the inconvenience of carrying/swapping with another lens, I'd add the 70-200/4 v2, and perhaps a fast prime of your choice.
Personally, I went the other way. I only take the 24-50/2.8, and perhaps a...Show more →
Both companies have lenses that would be nice for travel that the others do not (and Canon has its lenses too, but is missing some of what Nikon and Sony have).
On Sony you have the 14-24 f/4 G, 16-25 f/2.8 G, 20-70 f/4 G (a very interesting option without a Nikon counterpart), 24-50 f/2.8 G, the 24-105 f/4 IS G, the 70-200 f/4 G II (another interesting lens without a Nikon counterpart) for zooms and the 40 f/2.5 G, 50 f/2.5 G, and 85 f/1.8 for primes.
On Nikon you have the 14-30 f/4S (a great lens for travel and a better range, IMO, that what is available for Sony), 24-70 f/4S (another really interesting option for Nikon without a Sony or Canon counterpart), 24-120 f/4S for zooms and 40 f/2, 50 f/1.8S, and 85 f/1.8S for primes.
On Canon you have the 14-35 f/4L IS, 16-28 f/2.8 IS, 20-50 f/4L IS (a nice and light lens with an interesting range), 24-105 f/4L IS, 28-70 f/2.8 IS, and 70-200 f/4L IS and 35 f/1.8 IS, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f/2 IS for primes.
You can get to a great travel kit with any of the systems, but how you get there is going to be a bit different and each system has at least one cool lens that isn't available for at least one of the other systems and every system is missing a lens or two that is available on the other systems.
Sony has no equiv to the excellent Nikon 24-120/4.
With high MP camera, and you seem to be shooting mostly outside, I'd go with the 20-70/4 and crop when needed. I wouldn't want to start at 28mm, so that rules out some zoom alternatives. Buying a $4,500 67mp top-of-the-line camera and then putting a $500 super-zoom on it seems less than ideal.
If you can live with the inconvenience of carrying/swapping with another lens, I'd add the 70-200/4 v2, and perhaps a fast prime of your choice.
Personally, I went the other way. I only take the 24-50/2.8, and perhaps a...Show more →
Both companies have lenses that would be nice for travel that the others do not (and Canon has its lenses too, but is missing some of what Nikon and Sony have).
On Sony you have the 14-24 f/4 G, 16-25 f/2.8 G, 20-70 f/4 G (a very interesting option without a Nikon counterpart), 24-50 f/2.8 G, the 24-105 f/4 IS G, the 70-200 f/4 G II (another interesting lens without a Nikon counterpart) for zooms and the 40 f/2.5 G, 50 f/2.5 G, and 85 f/1.8 for primes.
On Nikon you have the 14-30 f/4S (a great lens for travel and a better range, IMO, that what is available for Sony), 24-70 f/4S (another really interesting option for Nikon without a Sony or Canon counterpart), 24-120 f/4S for zooms and 40 f/2, 50 f/1.8S, and 85 f/1.8S for primes.
On Canon you have the 14-35 f/4L IS, 16-28 f/2.8 IS, 20-50 f/4L IS (a nice and light lens with an interesting range), 24-105 f/4L IS, 28-70 f/2.8 IS, and 70-200 f/4L IS and 35 f/1.8 IS, 50 f/1.8, and 85 f/2 IS for primes.
You can get to a great travel kit with any of the systems, but how you get there is going to be a bit different and each system has at least one cool lens that isn't available for at least one of the other systems and every system is missing a lens or two that is available on the other systems.
Jul 15, 2026 at 05:22 AM
p.3 #19Travel Lens for Sony
cxpics wrote:
I agree that when the only choice was the 28-200, the 20-70 was clearly the better option. I owned it for a while and mostly enjoyed its output. Granted it’s somewhat smaller than the 2x-200s but, if you need the 70-200 range, you’re getting all that that for about an extra 75g of weight plus no required lens changes and IQ matching the 20-70. Packing an extra 700g or so for the 50-300 or 70-200g2 lenses feels extreme, plus required lens changes. Upgrading from the 20-70 + 50-300 to the 25-200 for me was mostly a side-grade in IQ, removed...Show more →
I've probably asked you this before in another thread but how do you pack on the bike? I've started riding with my son's mountain bike team and thinking through this. I have the mind shift rotation that I ski and hike with on occasion but not sure I'd do that on a bike. but maybe.
I agree that when the only choice was the 28-200, the 20-70 was clearly the better option. I owned it for a while and mostly enjoyed its output. Granted it’s somewhat smaller than the 2x-200s but, if you need the 70-200 range, you’re getting all that that for about an extra 75g of weight plus no required lens changes and IQ matching the 20-70. Packing an extra 700g or so for the 50-300 or 70-200g2 lenses feels extreme, plus required lens changes. Upgrading from the 20-70 + 50-300 to the 25-200 for me was mostly a side-grade in IQ, removed...Show more →
I've probably asked you this before in another thread but how do you pack on the bike? I've started riding with my son's mountain bike team and thinking through this. I have the mind shift rotation that I ski and hike with on occasion but not sure I'd do that on a bike. but maybe.
Jul 15, 2026 at 11:01 AM
p.3 #20Travel Lens for Sony
Thanks for all the replies. I acquired A7r6 today so I am officially back in Sony camp and I am leaning towards ordering Sony 20-70 f4. Since I already have Tamron 70-180 2.8 G2, it will make a nice kit to begin with. Eventually, I would like to replace the Tamron with Sony 70-200 F4 G2.
Jul 25, 2026 at 01:16 AM