Travel lens options please, is there a good short to medium reach lens, or a couple of options?

[spudhead]

Ok I currently have only a couple of short lenses for travel use both are older now and one being the zeiss 24-70 f4 which is ok but is old and there are possibly better options. And the other lens I have is the Sony 70-200 f4 again older and probably more useable than the zeiss focal length wise. Is there a one fits all lens short to medium reach or a couple of lens you recommend, size and weight do matter, so fire away with your choice please and thanks in advance

 

[spudhead]

$4,000 later...

I wonder if the 24-70 g2 is any better than the Zeiss 24-70 g2 a-mount I have, which appears to work well on the lea-5?

 

[spudhead]

I pack three primes and choose which 2 I’m going out with on the day’s agenda.

14mm F1.8 GM

35mm F1.4 GM

85mm F1.8 G

I can use clear image zoom on the 85 to get up to 170mm focal length if I ever want to.

Architecture, landscape Street.

I have always been a prime lens user, but the fact is the type of shots I take on trips is varied so the short to mid range zooms are more useful, but agreed primes are always high quality in my opinion

 

[MeowZzz]

I like a lens to be unobtrusive in crowded places. I also like large apertures for the stuff I see at night. So, for the large part, it has been 1.8s for their size/brightness balance. Oh yeah, and lightness in the hand is important too --- but the problem in answering this, is that travel means so many things to different people --- even whatever it is for me now will change from trip to trip.

So I usually need a crystal ball when deciding, but then right before I go, I usually just decide to be happy using whatever lens is in my mitts. SO much of my time is doing these bleeding papers and reports and looking at this screen, that getting out is nirvana - no phone (yup, for real), no computer, bliss. Sorry, don't mean to harp on.

Sorry, I am no help am I?

 

[Gaz]

I have always been a prime lens user, but the fact is the type of shots I take on trips is varied so the short to mid range zooms are more useful, but agreed primes are always high quality in my opinion

I have a 24-240mm zoom that I purchased with the camera. It was very useful while I got a feel for the camera, traveling around the Czech Republic. I suppose I then bought primes because I like having the aperture when/if I need it. Sony offers beautiful primes.

 

[Brownie]

I dislike primes. I only use them when I must, and then only for speed in low light. If someone would make a 24-135-ish f/1.8-2 lens, I'd buy it and sell all my primes no matter how big and heavy it was. Changing lenses when you're in a hurry is a pain in the ass. Every time I go for a walk with a prime, I see something I want to shoot but it's out of reach. Hats off to those who use them and love them, but they're not convenient for travel unless you adopt Miao's philosophy and just love what's on the camera.

To me, travel is one lens, two, if necessary, from as wide to as narrow as you can get. If I was going on vacation today it'd be the 24-105 and 100-400. No, it's not a compact kit, but I'd rather deal with size and weight than being unable to shoot the way I want.

Oh, and I may toss in the diminutive but amazing Samyang 24/1.8 just in case.

 

[spudhead]

I dislike primes. I only use them when I must, and then only for speed in low light. If someone would make a 24-135-ish f/1.8-2 lens, I'd buy it and sell all my primes no matter how big and heavy it was. Changing lenses when you're in a hurry is a pain in the ass. Every time I go for a walk with a prime, I see something I want to shoot but it's out of reach. Hats off to those who use them and love them, but they're not convenient for travel unless you adopt Miao's philosophy and just love what's on the camera.

To me, travel is one lens, two, if necessary, from as wide to as narrow as you can get. If I was going on vacation today it'd be the 24-105 and 100-400. No, it's not a compact kit, but I'd rather deal with size and weight than being unable to shoot the way I want.

Oh, and I may toss in the diminutive but amazing Samyang 24/1.8 just in case.

Tim you are so right when I talk about primes it is of course for the animal and bird shots I take, I have big primes, and that is why I want a nice short to medium lens for travel, as you know street shots are in your face and a bit of reach is nice to choose the frame and crop as you want, but also a nice choice could well be your Tamron option, the reviews looks good and f numbers are good

 

[Brownie]

Tim you are so right when I talk about primes it is of course for the animal and bird shots I take, I have big primes, and that is why I want a nice short to medium lens for travel, as you know street shots are in your face and a bit of reach is nice to choose the frame and crop as you want, but also a nice choice could well be your Tamron option, the reviews looks good and f numbers are good

You can do a lot of street shots from a half block away with a 200!

And to the Tamron's credit, Hoodless is right. It is small and light, it trombones two sections from the main barrel, so collapses pretty small, considering. For the short period I had it on my camera it was pleasant to hold.

The camera indicated f/4 at about 70mm, so a little behind the 24-105. Seems like it was f/4.4 or so at 100mm.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I have a 24-240mm zoom that I purchased with the camera. It was very useful while I got a feel for the camera, traveling around the Czech Republic. I suppose I then bought primes because I like having the aperture when/if I need it. Sony offers beautiful primes.

Everyone is different hey! I started with zooms, then I went to primes, then I realised I like zooms so much more! I think the only reason I like my little 40mm prime is because it gives you what you see already, although I'd much rather just use the 24-70mm instead of it these days. Apart from a macro lens I don't think I'll ever buy another prime again.

Sony do make lovely primes though. A real blessing for prime users.

 

[Clix Pix]

The majority of my lenses are primes, but there are some situations in which a zoom is really the better option. If going on a casual stroll around the lake I usually take either the 100-400 or the 70-200mm, so that I'm ready to capture just about any situation either on land or in the water or the air. When planning to go out and shoot flowers or foliage around the neighborhood, I usually reach for a prime (most frequently a macro lens but sometimes a lens which isn't a macro but is reasonably close-focusing nonetheless. That said, I have been known to use my zooms for shooting flowers, too!

 

[Brownie]

The 28-200 is heading back tomorrow. I declined an exchange, will just wait for it to go on sale and get a new one, it's not uber critical I get one right now.

 

[iamdlewis]

If I was going on vacation today it'd be the 24-105 and 100-400.

Well it isn't today or tomorrow but it is 2 days from now and that is the combination I am taking. It also fits in my sling bag nicely.

 

[DHart]

I really prefer small and light-weight.

Right now, A7c with Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 and Sigma 90mm f/2.8 covers things really well for me. I tend to go wide, far more frequently than long.

And wow, I'm really loving the A7c. (A7iv is my back-up.)

The 20-70 f/4 is an appealing prospect, however.

 

[GT12]

Early days but just bought the Sony 16-35mm f/4 G series. Angled towards video but rates well for stills. Only 353g so I’m willing to trade a stop of light for a massive weight saving vs the f/2.8. Then a Sony 50mm f/1.8 for low light and only 186g. Not a set up for wildlife but lightweight handy combo for travel. A7C and the 50mm just handheld is 720g which has it benefits when you don’t want to carry too much.