Landscapers: 24-70 or 70-200 after 16-35?

TheEyesHaveIt · Oct 13, 2015

Hello all,

Yes I know the 24-70 and the 70-200 are very different ranges, but here is my question - for landscapes which of these is a good companion to the 16-35? I'm currently driving through Big Sur with a 16-35 and the 55 and I've often found a need for more reach. I've shot a number of photos at 35 in fact. The 55 can help but sometimes it's too long and other times too short. That would indicate a 24-70 would be handy, but I've seen many landscape photographers use a 70-200 as well (especially helpful when you can't reach certain spots or are shooting from the roadside).

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks!

JimKasson · Oct 13, 2015

TheEyesHaveIt said:
Hello all,

Yes I know the 24-70 and the 70-200 are very different ranges, but here is my question - for landscapes which of these is a good companion to the 16-35? I'm currently driving through Big Sur with a 16-35 and the 55 and I've often found a need for more reach. I've shot a number of photos at 35 in fact. The 55 can help but sometimes it's too long and other times too short. That would indicate a 24-70 would be handy, but I've seen many landscape photographers use a 70-200 as well (especially helpful when you can't reach certain spots or are shooting from the roadside).

This is a personal decision, but one thing you should keep in mind for landscapes is that you can use a longer lens and stitch.

Jim

peterh337 · Oct 13, 2015

Currently there don't seem to be mid-range zooms which are any good for the full frame Sonys.

I have abandoned buying a A7R-II largely due to this.

7 Feathers · Oct 13, 2015

TheEyesHaveIt said:
Hello all,

Yes I know the 24-70 and the 70-200 are very different ranges, but here is my question - for landscapes which of these is a good companion to the 16-35? I'm currently driving through Big Sur with a 16-35 and the 55 and I've often found a need for more reach. I've shot a number of photos at 35 in fact. The 55 can help but sometimes it's too long and other times too short. That would indicate a 24-70 would be handy, but I've seen many landscape photographers use a 70-200 as well (especially helpful when you can't reach certain spots or are shooting from the roadside).

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks!

With the 24-70 I never miss a shot due to its versatility. This is mainly why I use it. Which is what you are experiencing now. It's right behind the 16-35 at DXO. The reason I mention this is because it is not well regarded. I must have a very good copy. The 24-70 lives in my camera. The 70-200 does not have enough reach for the wildlife shots that I would shoot. I never need 70mm+ for the landscape type of shooting I do. Perhaps some will laugh at this, but I love not having to deal with dust on my sensor. One man's opinion. Good luck.

fenceSitter · Oct 13, 2015

Hello Jim,

Can you recommend any specific stitching software?

The (free) stitching software that I tried almost always failed at putting the pieces together without obvious "jumps".

Thanks

texascbx · Oct 13, 2015

I have the 16-35 I use the most on my A7RII. And the 70-200 f/4 G. If you have the 55 prime, you should be able to get by with just the 70-200 f/4 G which is an excellent lens.

kevinma · Oct 13, 2015

If you only want one lens after the 16-35, I'd go with the 70-200. If you're worried about the 24-70 from all you've read, you could get the 55 instead - but I have the 24-70 and have had no issues with it.

Chrisd999 · Oct 13, 2015

fenceSitter said:
Hello Jim,

Can you recommend any specific stitching software?

The (free) stitching software that I tried almost always failed at putting the pieces together without obvious "jumps".

Thanks

Lightroom CC does a decent job of stitching panoramas.
--

chrisd666

Explore chrisd666’s 1,200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

500px

500px.com

JimKasson · Oct 13, 2015

fenceSitter said:
Hello Jim,

Can you recommend any specific stitching software?

The (free) stitching software that I tried almost always failed at putting the pieces together without obvious "jumps".

Autopano Giga is my stitcher of choice.

Jim

fenceSitter · Oct 13, 2015

JimKasson said:
Autopano Giga is my stitcher of choice.

Thanks Jim for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

P.S., I find your pictures impressive.

Snikt228 · Oct 13, 2015

TheEyesHaveIt said:
Hello all,

Yes I know the 24-70 and the 70-200 are very different ranges, but here is my question - for landscapes which of these is a good companion to the 16-35? I'm currently driving through Big Sur with a 16-35 and the 55 and I've often found a need for more reach. I've shot a number of photos at 35 in fact. The 55 can help but sometimes it's too long and other times too short. That would indicate a 24-70 would be handy, but I've seen many landscape photographers use a 70-200 as well (especially helpful when you can't reach certain spots or are shooting from the roadside).

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks!

I have both and I've actually been using my 24-70 a little more lately, used it almost exclusively on a leaf peeping trip recently. A lot of my shots ranged from 35mm-70mm where that lens is really good.

If you're in the 24-28mm range I'd probably flip the 16-35 back on for critical shots, but for anything other than critical landscape even 24-28mm on the 24-70 is fine.

pixee · Oct 13, 2015

TheEyesHaveIt said:
Hello all,

Yes I know the 24-70 and the 70-200 are very different ranges, but here is my question - for landscapes which of these is a good companion to the 16-35? I'm currently driving through Big Sur with a 16-35 and the 55 and I've often found a need for more reach. I've shot a number of photos at 35 in fact. The 55 can help but sometimes it's too long and other times too short. That would indicate a 24-70 would be handy, but I've seen many landscape photographers use a 70-200 as well (especially helpful when you can't reach certain spots or are shooting from the roadside).

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Forget Sony/Zeiss FE 24-70! I sold it and kept FE 16-35 and FE 70-200 and FE 55. Maybe you find better midrange zoom from Canon 24-70 f2.8 II or Nikon 24-70 f2.8 G. I have used them and know that they are good. Sony Fe 28mm f2 prime is one good option. It is fast and very sharp.

Snikt228 · Oct 13, 2015

The people that are saying the 24-70 is horrible and unsharp I really have to wonder if they've even used it, or it's just based off the online rumors/reviews?

What's unsharp about these images?

7 Feathers · Oct 13, 2015

Another sample shot with 75% of it's original value cropped off. The first is emeil size, the cropped one is not. Straight Jpeg.

7 Feathers · Oct 13, 2015

peterh337 said:
Currently there don't seem to be mid-range zooms which are any good for the full frame Sonys.

I have abandoned buying a A7R-II largely due to this.

Follow the money... There is more profit to be made by offering a variety of expensive lenses in a given range rather than one that does it all almost equally well. Perhaps I am wrong...

Tristimulus · Oct 13, 2015

Have the 24-70 and have taken thousands of images with it (have been into photography since the 70s and used everything from low grade to high grade lenses) and have no complaints. The 24-70 is not the most beatuiful thing on the planet when pixel peeping but I find it great for real life photography. Excellent contrast and resolution over most of the field and a bit weak corners. Others seeing my images have never commented lack of quality.

The 70-200 is actually a bit soft at full aperture and the corners are weaker than the center. But the images taken with this lens look great with color and contrast and beatuiful bokeh. Not much to complain about unless pixel peeping.

Also have the 28-70 kit lens but that one is very soft all over compared to the 24-70 (but a decent lens for the money). Never use the kit lens.

Would probably get the 70-200 now and the 24-70 later if having the 16-35 only.

Have the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200 trio and most of the time I use the 24-70. That happens to be my range and I am a zoom person. Love the lens and find the results more than good enough for ordinary photography.

Also have some fixed focal lenght Zeiss ZE lenses and a Metabones adapter but prefer the zoom lenses for everything but pixel peeping. Versatile and handy and more than enough quality for real life photography. Use fixed lenses only when image quality is critical and then stopped down and put on a heavy tripod - no hand held critical shots here.

But in this forum test results and pixel peeping rule and real life experience is looked upon as dubious so be a wise man and think independently before getting a new lens. Real life photography or pixel peeping - what use will the new lens see...

TheEyesHaveIt · Oct 13, 2015

Thanks all. So sounds like most wouldn't hesitate to recommend a 24-70 first (and seems like a good general purpose lens). Guess it would be good to start with that range and see if I need the 70-200 later since it seems to be a little more specialist?

JimKasson · Oct 13, 2015

TheEyesHaveIt said:
Thanks all. So sounds like most wouldn't hesitate to recommend a 24-70 first (and seems like a good general purpose lens). Guess it would be good to start with that range and see if I need the 70-200 later since it seems to be a little more specialist?

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but I think a component of the decision would be how big you print. If C-sized or smaller, then maybe the 24-70 is the lens for you, even without stitching. Not everybody needs Zony 55 sharpness for a successful photograph.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com

TheEyesHaveIt · Oct 13, 2015

JimKasson said:
TheEyesHaveIt said:

Thanks all. So sounds like most wouldn't hesitate to recommend a 24-70 first (and seems like a good general purpose lens). Guess it would be good to start with that range and see if I need the 70-200 later since it seems to be a little more specialist?

Click to expand...

Nobody's mentioned it yet, but I think a component of the decision would be how big you print. If C-sized or smaller, then maybe the 24-70 is the lens for you, even without stitching. Not everybody needs Zony 55 sharpness for a successful photograph.

Jim

EpyonXero · Oct 13, 2015

I would go with the 70-200. I always travel with my 17-40 and usually the 50 Art but there have been times where I wished I had a 70-200 with me for landscapes. Particularly in Iceland where things are so wide open that you need zoom to isolate your subject against the landscape.

Landscapers: 24-70 or 70-200 after 16-35?

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Active member

7 Feathers

Guest

Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

7 Feathers

Guest

7 Feathers

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts