StefanMunich
Active member
Does 24mm and a 135mm together make sense as a two lense prime travel kit? Or is that a stupid idea and taking maybe a 70-180 Tamron zoom is a wiser decision?
The 135GM is a bit heavy.
The 135GM is a bit heavy.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Travel kit: 24mm + 135mm or another?
- Thread starter StefanMunich
- Start date
Rol Lei Nut
Veteran Member
I sometimes use 25 + 85mm as a two lens kit.
That said, 135mm is quite a bit longer than 85. I personally don't like lenses around 50mm, so the "hole" between 35 & 85mm doesn't bother me too much. I think I'd find 24-135mm too long though (and even when matched with a 35mm). As I see it, 85mm is an extended "normal", 135mm is a real tele (but sometimes not tele enough).
Prime Kits I like to use:
25 + 85
35 + 85
21 + 35 + 85
18 + 25+ 85
Sometimes adding a 180 or 200mm.
Or zooms:
21-35 + 85
21-35 + 70-300 or similar.
The 24 + 70-180 solution you mention sounds workable to me as a 2 lens kit.
CreationLover
Well-known member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 78
If its for travel get the 24-105 it covers it all and is fantastic!
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
35 + 50 + 70-180 IMO. With a standard zoom
BrentSchumer
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,795
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 4,393
That depends on what you shoot. I find zooms preferable for travel, as you can't always pick your distance from subjects.
If I had to pick two lenses I would go with one of the following:
If I had to pick two lenses I would go with one of the following:
- Tamron 28-200mm + 17-28mm
- Tamron 28-200mm + Zeiss 55mm
- Sigma 24-70mm + Tamron 70-180mm
I did 24 /85 a month ago for a family trip, and extremely pleased with the results. 135 would have been impossible indoors.
i knew in advance that it was going to be a very family oriented trip where scenic destinations were unlikely. But I did get some scenic shots with both lenses.
as much as I love 135, I could never travel with it, too specialized and too big.
i knew in advance that it was going to be a very family oriented trip where scenic destinations were unlikely. But I did get some scenic shots with both lenses.
as much as I love 135, I could never travel with it, too specialized and too big.
I hope you did not get an answer. Just saying asking what makes sense is impossible to answer. We are not you and don’t shoot the way you do.
what you don’t like is perfect for me and what I like may be for you.
you have to decide you carry the gear and use it. Plus kinda know how to use it. Maybe what you have is fine and you need to look for more inspiration to expand on what you have.
it’s all personal choice
superpig000
Well-known member
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 147
I think this primarily depends on what type of photography you plan on doing on your trip.
If you can imagine a scale between documentary and art photography, then a zoom lens would be more towards the documentary end of the scale while a more niche lens like the 135mm might be more towards the art photography side of the scale.
For me, there are many ideal lens combinations and approaches to fulfil travel. You could bring zooms only - more convenient, more coverage, presumably less light/slower f stop, and heavier to bring out - zoom lens would be ideal to 'document' the trip (note that documentary photo doesn't have to be boring - blowing out DOF isn't the only way that a shot can be 'artsy' or interesting). Primes in general offer more light, less coverage. Combining zooms and primes will give you the advantages of both but then there may be too many pieces to carry/too heavy and you may end up using less of the gear you brought.
To me the 24mm and 135mm do make sense. 24mm will cover most of your photography. Landscapes are covered, as are travel 'street' photography, and a wider focal length is also great at documentary. The 135mm will complement it with strong portrait, landscape, and telephoto capabilities. There is a big difference between the two focal lengths - perhaps a weakness of 'missing out' a shot that would appreciate a more normal focal length - or perhaps a strength because you will have 2 very different views to look from.
At the end of the day it is a hard choice because there will be plenty of questions about whether bringing a normal focal length or a zoom which would provide more flexibility or some other combination would be 'better'.
I will leave you with three articles that may aid your decision. The first is by Ming Thein and talks about '(fear of) missing the shot'. The second was recently featured on DPReview. You might have read it but I was impressed at the breadth of subjects and how well this photographer worked with a single focal point - 20mm (there are many more examples of using just one focal length.) The last article is a review for a zoom. 'Workhorse', 'versatality', 'speed' are all terms you'd generally like to hear about a travel lens.
blog.mingthein.com
www.35mmc.com
blog.roycruz.com
If you can imagine a scale between documentary and art photography, then a zoom lens would be more towards the documentary end of the scale while a more niche lens like the 135mm might be more towards the art photography side of the scale.
For me, there are many ideal lens combinations and approaches to fulfil travel. You could bring zooms only - more convenient, more coverage, presumably less light/slower f stop, and heavier to bring out - zoom lens would be ideal to 'document' the trip (note that documentary photo doesn't have to be boring - blowing out DOF isn't the only way that a shot can be 'artsy' or interesting). Primes in general offer more light, less coverage. Combining zooms and primes will give you the advantages of both but then there may be too many pieces to carry/too heavy and you may end up using less of the gear you brought.
To me the 24mm and 135mm do make sense. 24mm will cover most of your photography. Landscapes are covered, as are travel 'street' photography, and a wider focal length is also great at documentary. The 135mm will complement it with strong portrait, landscape, and telephoto capabilities. There is a big difference between the two focal lengths - perhaps a weakness of 'missing out' a shot that would appreciate a more normal focal length - or perhaps a strength because you will have 2 very different views to look from.
At the end of the day it is a hard choice because there will be plenty of questions about whether bringing a normal focal length or a zoom which would provide more flexibility or some other combination would be 'better'.
I will leave you with three articles that may aid your decision. The first is by Ming Thein and talks about '(fear of) missing the shot'. The second was recently featured on DPReview. You might have read it but I was impressed at the breadth of subjects and how well this photographer worked with a single focal point - 20mm (there are many more examples of using just one focal length.) The last article is a review for a zoom. 'Workhorse', 'versatality', 'speed' are all terms you'd generally like to hear about a travel lens.
Unpreparedness vs opportunity
Seen, and shot on the way to a meeting. Or, more accurately: the fear of unpreparedness. (The actual chances of me going into a photographic job without sufficient planning, prethought creative opt…
blog.mingthein.com
Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 - Taming The Ultra-Wide - By Fernando Martins
The Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 is a truly remarkable lens, capable of rendering beautiful images with a tridimensional feel and very good contrast.
www.35mmc.com
A Versatile Workhorse – Fujinon XF 16-55mm f/2.8 Review
blog.roycruz.com
AlephNull
Veteran Member
The 135mm is a bit heavy, but it is a superb lens.
The gap from the 24mm to 135mm is quite wide, though.
When I grab a second lens to go with the 135 GM, it's usually a 50mm.
cyberpi1
Leading Member
1. Rational choice: 28-200mm tamron + prime (for low light)
2. UWA choice: 17-28mm tamron or UWA prime + 28-200mm
3. Landscape choice: 17-28mm + 70-180mm tamron
Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
That's my choice too. When travelling to new cities I wander streets and shoot everything from people to almost macro detail to buildings and interiors. I want versatility and I want to get shots fast. I dont want to miss moments while I swap lenses. For me the 24-105 on A7R3 is close to perfect although smaller and lighter would be nice.
It depends on how and where you travel, Outback Australia travelling in a 4wd and my travel choices are different.
The Lamentable Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 1,530
I'd throw a third (fourth?) vote in for the 24-105. Nearly a perfect travel lens (although I almost always have a 1.8 prime available just in case), and the A7RIV gets you to nearly 160mm at 26MP.
As for the OP's original question, I suppose it depends on what you plan to shoot. I'm sure there are scenarios where a 24 and 135 combo would work fine, but wow, that's quite a gap. For general travel purposes, it seems like either an 85 instead of the 135, or more likely adding a third prime (50mm?), might be a better call. But at that point, the zoom really starts to make more sense.
Last edited:
Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
I no longer bother with a lens for low light "just in case" when I'm travelling. The high iso capabilities of Sony FF plus PP with Topaz Denoise work fine for me with an F4 lens. If I have the weight freedom I might include my Sony 35mm2.8 but this is really because it is so small and light and sometimes it is better to have this on the camera than the 24-105. The one other lens I might add for travel when I'm travelling by plane to mainly city locations, is a small and light wa. The Voigtlander 15mm would be perfect for me and eventually I'll get one. It all depends on how much you use wa. I use it a lot for close ups of things with lots of dof. For me, a walkaraound lens starting at 28mm would drive me nuts, I'd be swapping for something a bit wider all the time. 24 is essential for me on a general walk around lens but the option of the occasional wider appeals as long as it is small and light.
I would swap the 24 for a 35, it's a bit more general purpose IMHO (in any case you can easily shoot wider by stitching frames together in post).
I would take the 135mm GM, which I have, over the Tamron zoom for the better image quality. I don't think 70-180mm as a range overcomes the unique shots you can get with the 135mm.
On the wide end, I like The Sony 20mm but the 24mm certainly makes a lot of sense too. My two lens kit is probably The Sony 20mm and 135mm right now or the Sigma 14-24mm (if I want some more versatility at the expense of weight) and Sony 135mm f1.8.
Jon Farstrider
Well-known member
Like others have said, it depends on what you'd like to shoot; personally when i travel my photography is 20% with friends / family and the rest are landscape photos, potentially all landscape photos if I'm traveling alone. That said, Tamron 17-28 + 28-200 covers most of these needs, and kick in a 35 or 85 depending on if friends or family is involved. The biggest factors for me are weight, size, and zoom coverage and less about bokeh or sharpness. Oh, and if you've got a second camera like a point and shoot, I'd also throw that in. For me it's an X100F for those candid moments with people.
DoctorKajita
Leading Member
I haven't read all the comments, but to anyone saying "don't do it," I say, don't listen to them and try it out.
I totally get it, we want to cover all the possible scenarios when we travel, but often times an atypical kit will get you something unique.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum