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

 

[AlphaWorld]

i bought the 20-70 f/4 G not long ago, and I am quite happy with it.

 

[alexpler]

I think the 20-70 f4 might be a great option for travel. It's on my radar as I think it has the better balance of quality, focal length and light weight. But it's not cheap so I'm waiting for a discount as of now.

 

[Matthias]

Rumors are there will be a new (more compact and with macro capability) version of the 70-200 f/4 announced next Wednesday. If you are looking to update your lenses I would go for the 20-70 f/4 and this new version of the 70-200. Alternative is for example the 24-105 f/4 which also gets good reviews even though it is already a bit older.

There is also the Tamron 35-150 f/2-f/2.8 (samyang also has this lens a bit cheaper but quality seems to depend on the copy) which a lot of people seem to love and could be as a single lens option.

I always bring the 18-105 f/4, but that's an APSC lens..

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Understand in lens selection , cost will always feature but I have found the sony 24-70. F2.8 ii to be a fantastic
lens for travel.

It's heavier than the f4 but lightest in its 2.8 weight class whilst offering low light benefit, bokeh optimisation, and a close
Focus distance of 20cm over the f4 at 40cm....I find this alone to be very beneficial for on the fly close up photography
when the need arises.

Coupled with the 70-200mm f4 would be OK but I use the 70-200mm f2.8 ll with a Tc x1.4 in my pocket.

Which yields similar benefits as the 24-70mm f2.8 but with the addition of its lightest in class weight at 1000g,
much lighter than Canon and others , and the small weight addition of the Tc x1.4 allows for a shoot range of 70-
420mm with in camera Apsc implemented.

A very versatile lens pairing in my view which is light enough for travel but affords many other benefits for those
Unexpected shots we all come across as travelling photographers.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I do love my 24-70mm GMII the most as a walk around these days. It's one of those things that you just have to use in order to understand how good it is. When I had the Sigma 24-70mm Art I was always reaching for the Tamron 28-200mm instead in general, but since I got used to the GMII, my poor Tamron doesn't even get looked at for general purpose any more! It's a pity because it's a great lens!

I also feel like I would be very fond of that 20-70mm f4 as well, and although the Tamron 35-150mm would be a beauty I just could never get my head around the size of it. Hence the reason that I originally bought the Tamron 28-200mm, I bought it as a great performing compact 70-200mm for landscape stuff, it fits that bill extremely well and will continue to do so for some time yet I think!

 

[liggy]

i bought the 20-70 f/4 G not long ago, and I am quite happy with it.

+1

Perfect lens for the job. My former casual travel kit was always a minimum of two lenses. Tamron 17-28 and 28-200.
Now it is the 20-70. Selling the 17-28 as a result. Great lens but the 20-70 eliminates the need for a wider than 28 option.
In crop mode at 70mm - on a high res body the reach is ok but not amazing.

My concern was the F4 but that has not been an issue. Topaz handles noise and it’s not as if bokeh at 2.8 on the faster 24 28−70ish lenses is mind blowing so the F4 is an acceptable trade off.

I personally want something wider than 24 In most cases so the 24-70 options are out for me.

Good close focus too. Love the aperture ring and light compact design.

 

[spudhead]

Ok guys I should have added I have the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 g2 a-mount which works ok on the lea5 but stupidly did not take this lens on the last cruise, and have since seen the 24 -70 f4 Zeiss is less than perfect

 

[iamdlewis]

The 24-105G F4 is a nice travel lens.

 

[spudhead]

I do love my 24-70mm GMII the most as a walk around these days. It's one of those things that you just have to use in order to understand how good it is. When I had the Sigma 24-70mm Art I was always reaching for the Tamron 28-200mm instead in general, but since I got used to the GMII, my poor Tamron doesn't even get looked at for general purpose any more! It's a pity because it's a great lens!

I also feel like I would be very fond of that 20-70mm f4 as well, and although the Tamron 35-150mm would be a beauty I just could never get my head around the size of it. Hence the reason that I originally bought the Tamron 28-200mm, I bought it as a great performing compact 70-200mm for landscape stuff, it fits that bill extremely well and will continue to do so for some time yet I think!

Clint I have just added I have the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 g2 in a-mount which plays nice with the lea-5 , just did not take it on the last trip, stupid of me

 

[spudhead]

The 24-105G F4 is a nice travel lens.

Yes I have been told that before Thanks David

 

[spudhead]

Thanks for all replies please keep your thoughts coming

 

[Roland]

I used a 24-70mm for travel for many years and also carried around a 70-200. Since I bought the A7Riv, I have not used the 70-200 anymore, since there is enough resolution to crop if necessary. My answer is, it depends also on your camera.

 

[spudhead]

I used a 24-70mm for travel for many years and also carried around a 70-200. Since I bought the A7Riv, I have not used the 70-200 anymore, since there is enough resolution to crop if necessary. My answer is, it depends also on your camera.

A9 and a7 3

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Clint I have just added I have the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 g2 in a-mount which plays nice with the lea-5 , just did not take it on the last trip, stupid of me

How big is that animal?

I disagree there. You are not stupid Gary, just very silly...

 

[spudhead]

How big is that animal?

I disagree there. You are not stupid Gary, just very silly...

Its a beast of a lens, I have found myself more interested in street and landscape the more I travel, and the Ziess 24-70 has issues the more you push it

 

[spudhead]

Tim interesting I was hoping someone would recommend a short to medium reach zoom, I do not know anything about this lens, what are the f numbers on this lens and are reviews like?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

It's 2.8 at the short end, 5.6 at the long. So, you gain a stop at one end and lose one at the other over the 24-105. Of course, you're almost doubling the reach. I don't know exactly where it registers, but I'd be willing to bet it's around f/4 at 100mm, so the same as the 24-105 at mid-point. It also has a decent close focus distance, I think 1:3.

There are plenty of reviews out there, all good. Here's one from F-Stoppers.

Redefining the All-In-One Lens: Fstoppers Reviews the Tamron 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD

Does this new glass from Tamron live up to the expectations? If you’re someone who has been using Tamron for a while now, you would have expected them to eventually release an all-in-one lens for the Sony mirrorless system that they’ve been almost exclusively focused on for the past couple of...

fstoppers.com

I wouldn't even consider the 24-105mm Sony with that Tamron around. It's lighter and sharper. It does everything better plus has another 100mm reach. Not sure of how good the aberration control is on the Sony but the Tamron is pretty average between 28 and 60 or so, then quite decent above that. That is the only thing I can criticise the Tamron on, but I didn't originally buy it for that range. Also the closest focus distance at 28mm is pretty impressive.

 

[spudhead]

It's 2.8 at the short end, 5.6 at the long. So, you gain a stop at one end and lose one at the other over the 24-105. Of course, you're almost doubling the reach. I don't know exactly where it registers, but I'd be willing to bet it's around f/4 at 100mm, so the same as the 24-105 at mid-point. It also has a decent close focus distance, I think 1:3.

There are plenty of reviews out there, all good. Here's one from F-Stoppers.

Redefining the All-In-One Lens: Fstoppers Reviews the Tamron 28-200mm F/2.8-5.6 Di III RXD

Does this new glass from Tamron live up to the expectations? If you’re someone who has been using Tamron for a while now, you would have expected them to eventually release an all-in-one lens for the Sony mirrorless system that they’ve been almost exclusively focused on for the past couple of...

fstoppers.com

Thanks for the info Tim food for thought, it reads well, its would be a leap of faith for me a Tamron lens I have never bought or used one before

 

[Clix Pix]

The 24-70mm GM II and the 70-200mm GM II make a terrific pair for travel. The 70-200mm in particular is a lot lighter weight and more comfortable to use and carry than its predecessor. I have used that lens on both my A7C and my A7R V and it is quite nice when it comes to handling and image quality.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

And don't forget Sony owns 14% of Tamron.

That was actually 14.364% last time I checked at 2am this morning...

 

[Clix Pix]

$4,000 later...

True...... But both of these lenses are ones for which I'd been waiting a long time since neither of the GM I versions sounded all that great and when I was first starting out with Sony I was beginning from scratch, having traded in all my Nikon gear. In the beginning there were a lot of lenses I wanted, but obviously couldn't get them all at once and it was a process over time..... By the time Sony released each of these GM II versions I was ready to first get one, and then later the other.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I just mounted the lens to try it out. Someone sold MPB a POS and they missed it. It mounts very hard, and at one point while it was trying to focus, I was getting what appeared to be a foggy, mirrored image in the viewfinder. This lens took a very hard knock at some point. Definitely going back.

That's sh*t Timmy!

 

[Gaz]

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.

 

[spudhead]

That's sh*t Timmy!

That is a pain Tim

 

[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.

 

[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