Already have a 16-35: 24-105 or 70-200 for landscapes?

Kabalyero · Apr 25, 2017

As the title suggests. If you already have a 16-35mm lens with a full frame body and you can only buy one more lens to shoot landscape and travel, would it be a 24-105 f4 or 70-200 f4?

I am asking this question for lens acquisition planning. I shoot a 6D (and 100D as backup) and use my 14mm 2.8 exclusively for astro, 16-35 4.0 for landscape and walkaround (most used lens), 50 1.4 for indoor portraits (used also as walkaround and landscape to a certain extent), 135 2.0 for outdoor portraits and telephoto use (my money lens for portraits).

ZedDoctor · Apr 25, 2017

Kabalyero said:
As the title suggests. If you already have a 16-35mm lens with a full frame body and you can only buy one more lens to shoot landscape and travel, would it be a 24-105 f4 or 70-200 f4?

I am asking this question for lens acquisition planning. I shoot a 6D (and 100D as backup) and use my 14mm 2.8 exclusively for astro, 16-35 4.0 for landscape and walkaround (most used lens), 50 1.4 for indoor portraits (used also as walkaround and landscape to a certain extent), 135 2.0 for outdoor portraits and telephoto use (my money lens for portraits).

dave_bass5 · Apr 26, 2017

Kabalyero said:
As the title suggests. If you already have a 16-35mm lens with a full frame body and you can only buy one more lens to shoot landscape and travel, would it be a 24-105 f4 or 70-200 f4?

I am asking this question for lens acquisition planning. I shoot a 6D (and 100D as backup) and use my 14mm 2.8 exclusively for astro, 16-35 4.0 for landscape and walkaround (most used lens), 50 1.4 for indoor portraits (used also as walkaround and landscape to a certain extent), 135 2.0 for outdoor portraits and telephoto use (my money lens for portraits).

Blokfluitist · Apr 26, 2017

dave_bass5 said:
Kabalyero said:

As the title suggests. If you already have a 16-35mm lens with a full frame body and you can only buy one more lens to shoot landscape and travel, would it be a 24-105 f4 or 70-200 f4?

I am asking this question for lens acquisition planning. I shoot a 6D (and 100D as backup) and use my 14mm 2.8 exclusively for astro, 16-35 4.0 for landscape and walkaround (most used lens), 50 1.4 for indoor portraits (used also as walkaround and landscape to a certain extent), 135 2.0 for outdoor portraits and telephoto use (my money lens for portraits).

--
https://www.instagram.com/jaysonaquinophotography/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/40883309@N04/
https://500px.com/jaysonaquino

Click to expand...

Have you considered the 70-300L? It packs down a bit smaller than the 70-200, and of course has a longer reach. It is one stop slower of course but i dont think for landscape thats an issue.

I loved my 70-200 f/4 Is until i tried a 70-300L. I sold the 70-200 within days of getting my 70-300L and dont miss it at all. It lives on my 5D a lot of the time, even for just walking around town.

--
Dave.
Gallery @
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davebass5/
Videos @ http://www.vimeo.com/user464364/videos

I second the above - although it's obviously referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 and the OP was talking about the f/4.

I loved the 70-200 f/4 and it was very often paired with my 16-35 f/2.8. I never missed the mm in between 35 and 70, but I did miss not having a bit more reach and I replaced the 70-200 for a 70-300L which is on my camera most of the time. It's a fantastic lens, very versatile.

Rose

--
https://500px.com/roseatkinson/galleries

dave_bass5 · Apr 26, 2017

Actually i did state mine was the f/4 as well.

hotdog321 · Apr 26, 2017

When I travel, I carry a 16-35 and a 70-200. You might also add a 2X extender to the mix to give you a super telephoto.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

MitchAlsup · Apr 26, 2017

Sooner or later everyone accretes a 70-200in one form or another.

Kabalyero · Apr 26, 2017

Plenty of great inputs here. So far its pretty unanimous - get the telephoto zoom lens (70-200 or 70-300).

Just an additional question - obviously the 70-300 will have more reach than a 70-200 but in terms of image quality, does the 70-200 f4 defeat the 70-300? I'm not really that concerned about the slower aperture as it is for landscape (as one poster said), but I'm just curious if there is an image quality tradeoff with the longer reach and if it is significant enough.

I'll also look into the 70-200 2.8 versions although to be honest, I am a bit concerned about the workout I need to do with the weight during long landscape hikes.

Thanks a lot everyone!

dave_bass5 · Apr 26, 2017

To my eyes there is absolutely no trade off in IQ between the 70-200 f/4 and 70-300L. I had the old non L 70-300 for a year or so and that was not a great lens at the long end, so i was very weary of the 70-300L. Its turned out to be my most used lens.

the IS is very good so Ive not really missed f/4. Ive shot down to about 1/10 hand held without issues on my 5D, not quite so slow on my 80D though.

Its definitely a lens worth considering IMO.

BlueRay2 · May 4, 2017

Blokfluitist said:
dave_bass5 said:

Kabalyero said:

As the title suggests. If you already have a 16-35mm lens with a full frame body and you can only buy one more lens to shoot landscape and travel, would it be a 24-105 f4 or 70-200 f4?

I am asking this question for lens acquisition planning. I shoot a 6D (and 100D as backup) and use my 14mm 2.8 exclusively for astro, 16-35 4.0 for landscape and walkaround (most used lens), 50 1.4 for indoor portraits (used also as walkaround and landscape to a certain extent), 135 2.0 for outdoor portraits and telephoto use (my money lens for portraits).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

diness · May 4, 2017

Kabalyero said:
Plenty of great inputs here. So far its pretty unanimous - get the telephoto zoom lens (70-200 or 70-300).

Just an additional question - obviously the 70-300 will have more reach than a 70-200 but in terms of image quality, does the 70-200 f4 defeat the 70-300? I'm not really that concerned about the slower aperture as it is for landscape (as one poster said), but I'm just curious if there is an image quality tradeoff with the longer reach and if it is significant enough.

if you don't care about the aperture, the 70-300L is a wonderful lens and does give you that extra reach. I would go with that

Kabalyero said:
I'll also look into the 70-200 2.8 versions although to be honest, I am a bit concerned about the workout I need to do with the weight during long landscape hikes.

dont bother with the f2.8 if it's primarily for landscapes and hiking. The other two are great lenses and I just recently got an f2.8 and while I love it and it's wonderful, it is certainly quite heavy and I would not want to hike with it. It's double the weight of the f4, but honestly it feels like more! Haha

noggin2k1 · May 4, 2017

70-200.

Next to the 16-35, the 24-105 is very underwhelming.

J A C S · May 5, 2017

If you get the telephoto, you would be missing the 35-70 range. In the old times, people used such a zoom most of the time...

There is no rule saying that you should not use 70mm+ for landscapes but missing the 35-70 range is too much, IMO.

Blokfluitist · May 5, 2017

J A C S said:
If you get the telephoto, you would be missing the 35-70 range. In the old times, people used such a zoom most of the time...

There is no rule saying that you should not use 70mm+ for landscapes but missing the 35-70 range is too much, IMO.

In 2015 I toured Canada and US for five weeks with my 16-35 and 70-200. I spent weeks trying to decide what to take as I only had space for two lenses and I didn't regret my decision one bit. On the contrary, I think I came home with more creative shots. Yes, 'in the old times' people used the 35-70 range a lot - so what ? It's become boring and is more interesting to try different focal ranges. I regularly use both my 70-300 and 100-400 for landscapes.

Rose

--
https://500px.com/roseatkinson/galleries

Macabron · May 5, 2017

For your use I think the 70-200 would be better, if you are planning, or just to be ready for event photography, the f2.8 is great. Moving down is easier than moving up. You can always find someone willing to trade an f4 + cash, for the f2.8.

J A C S · May 5, 2017

Blokfluitist said:
J A C S said:

If you get the telephoto, you would be missing the 35-70 range. In the old times, people used such a zoom most of the time...

There is no rule saying that you should not use 70mm+ for landscapes but missing the 35-70 range is too much, IMO.

Click to expand...

In 2015 I toured Canada and US for five weeks with my 16-35 and 70-200. I spent weeks trying to decide what to take as I only had space for two lenses and I didn't regret my decision one bit. On the contrary, I think I came home with more creative shots. Yes, 'in the old times' people used the 35-70 range a lot - so what ? It's become boring and is more interesting to try different focal ranges. I regularly use both my 70-300 and 100-400 for landscapes.

I am in Europe now with my 16-35 and 50L.

Speaking about the boring missing range about 50mm, let me recall the following Henri Cartier-Bresson's statement (who really liked 50mm):

The 35 is splendid when needed, but extremely difficult to use if you want precision in composition. There are too many elements, and something is always in the wrong place. It is a beautiful lens at times when needed by what you see. But very often it is used by people who want to shout. Because you have a distortion, you have somebody in the foreground and it gives an effect. But I don’t like effects. There is something aggressive, and I don’t like that. Because when you shout, it is usually because you are short of arguments.

MingTzu · May 5, 2017

Get the 70-200 f4 IS The 2.8 is great and currently own it, but heavy and bulky for travel. I used to bring it with me, paired with the 16-35 IS like you. Once I purchased the f4 IS, the f2.8 stays at home for event photography.

The 100-400 II is another superb lens of you need the reach and the light is good. Otherwise, the 70-200 f4 IS is a great travel tele lens.

ed rader · May 5, 2017

70-200 is a portrait lens on FF.

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/

Spotted Cow · May 5, 2017

ed rader said:
70-200 is a portrait lens on FF.

ed rader · May 6, 2017

yeah, that's why I recommended the 70-300L over the 70-200

Already have a 16-35: 24-105 or 70-200 for landscapes?

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts