16-35 F/4 vs 70-200 F/4

[Jinjiro]

Thx, good tip! Renting for a day is definitely something to consider.

 

[Jinjiro]

Thx for your insight, I've been looking at the sights and places we're going and, you're right, I probably have more use for the 16-35. For the days I would need a long lens I could always rent it as San Carlos Studios mentioned.

 

[Jinjiro]

yes but who will carry my photo bag and refreshments during this trip?! Weight/space saving is for her benefit :-D

Nah kidding of course. I wish I had a sherpa...

 

[Cineast]

I had to make a similar decision last year before I went on a road trip vacation to North-East of the United States. First I only wanted to take a wide zoom (17 - 35 2.8) and a telezoom (tamron 70-300) as I thought I could cover the few mm between with my feet. I didn´t want to bring the 24-70 2.8 because of its size and weight. Finally I bought a used 24-85 vr g and took this one with the other two zooms. That was a good decision, because most of the photos were taken with the wide and the standard zoom, I used the telezoom mostly for squirel-shots (least used lens of the three). From then on I used the 24-85 g vr very often because it´s such a good compromise in size/weight and image quality (and is pretty cheap when you buy a used one). Very useful lens.

So I´d recommend: Take all three lenses (these lenses are not an the heavy side and you go by car) or add a standart zoom (24-85 or 24-120) and leave the 50 at home.

 

[Billstek]

You won't like my advice, but I'll give it anyway-- the 28-300. I have a good copy and use it a great deal on my d810. Otherwise, I'd go with the 16-35. You probably won't see a great amount of wildlife. If so, the 50 is quite sharp and the d810 will forgive a lot of cropping.

Have a great trip!

 

[Jinjiro]

Thx for chiming in, any advice out of (personal) experience is valuable to me.

The 28-300 definitely covers the range and size/weight limitations. One of the reasons I bought a 18-200 on my old D70 years back for a trip to Indonesia. It did cover the range although it wasnt as good on the outer limits of the range (both ways).

And, currently, moneywise it's a bit much for me to buy it before going on this trip.

 

[Jinjiro]

wow, that sounds like a great opportunity! I'd probably take everything with me as well if it's about shooting only.

Curious, what kind/type of filters did you take on the trip?

I mean, you'd encounter many different light conditions. My current pack contains:

- Colorgrad ND 0.6 (half for bright skies etc)
- ND 0.6 (portraits during bright daytime)
- Circ.polarizer

Any suggestions on what else to take with me?

 

[rashid7]

I have those same lenses along w/ D750. And I just got back from shooting much of CA. I would buy the 24-85G for versatility and size. Leave behind the 16-35!

 

[thelenspainter]

I have those same lenses along w/ D750. And I just got back from shooting much of CA. I would buy the 24-85G for versatility and size. Leave behind the 16-35!

+1 on this. If you want to have the best success shooting CA with just one lens, a mid zoom will give you by far the best results. 24-85 or even 24-120 if you have enough time left to buy one grey (don't pay retail for this lens).

 

[just Tony]

Lots of nice scenery on the way and there is my challenge, I love both the landscape as well as the detail. Take Yosemite for instance, the wide-angle would be awesome for this but capturing some wildlife from a distance is awesome too.

Taking into account the places we're going, which one would you take with you on this trip?

Yosemite is not especially rich in wildlife photo opportunities at 200mm. What I would do with the 70-200 is to selectively record landscape details, and to get good rock wall context for the tiny specks that are the climbers. On the other hand the wide angle zoom would be on my camera about 90% of the time.

 

[shooter45]

Seems a strange 'which is better' question but bear with me..

I'm travelling from Europe to California for a roadtrip vacation (with my girl so focus is more on vacation than shooting). I'm taking my D810 and 50mm F/1.8 but I need some help/insights on bringing either the 16-35 F/4 or the 70-200 F/4. Try to keep it as light as possible.

Our three-week-trip starts in L.A. driving along the coast up to Monterey/San Francisco, then south-east to Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, Vegas and back to L.A.

Lots of nice scenery on the way and there is my challenge, I love both the landscape as well as the detail. Take Yosemite for instance, the wide-angle would be awesome for this but capturing some wildlife from a distance is awesome too.

Taking into account the places we're going, which one would you take with you on this trip?

I do have the D750 and 3 lenses : 70-200 f/4, 50 mm f/1.8 G and 16-35 f/4. I do understand that you would like to keep it as light as possible, but if I was the one to travel, I will bring all of them. The 50 f/1.8 G does not weight that much so I won't even considered this lens to add significant weight so you are down to 2 lenses and that is exactly what you want to travel with. No brainer.

For Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, you will need the 70-200 f/4 and also the 16-35 f/4 but mostly, the zoom lens. In San Francisco, Vegas and LA, definitely you will love to have your 16-35 f/4 and the 50 f/1.8 for very low light street scenes or art shots. I cannot imagine myself going those places, without any of the mentioned lenses.

 

[jcgamble]

I'd go 70-200 f4. I would use the 50 with multi shot panoramas if I needed wider than 50. I use my Voigtlander 58 f1.4 for that regularly. Works great for expanding the angle without distortion.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Hmm. I'd take both.

I don't consider the 70-200 to be a wildlife lens. Far too short, but better than nothing. Great for taking pictures of people though. I have the 70-200 F2.8, but rarely use it in favor of the 80-400g.

I have the 16-35, but I also rarely use that. I usually use a 24-70 with the 80-400 when traveling, and while I have the 16-35 with me too, 24mm is usually wide enough. (I"m not much of a wide angle shooter, but you may be).

When I first got a wide lens (12-24DX, on D300), I took it to Hawaii to try out. Got lots of landscapes that reduced distant mountains to bumps on the horizon. You need subjects that are close, with a close background, to make best use of it. It's also got plenty of distortion, both perspective and other at the wide end, so shots of redwoods may come out bowed or wavy.

The 'travel trinity' is the 16-35, 24-120 and 70-200 f4 lenses. So-named because they are way smaller than the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8 lenses. I think it's easy to carry both 16-35 and 70-200 at the same time - why not just bring them both? There will be scenes that scream for one or the other, and how much would it cost you to come back and retake the scene with the lens you didn't bring?