Traveling and citiscapes: 16-35mm zoom + 50mm prime OR 24-70mm? (fullframe)

[Janmc]

For a trip where you would be photographing various cityscapes/landscapes/people, if you had to choose, would you choose to take a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom (to do everything) on a full frame, OR would you grab a 16-35mm variable (for more wide angle creativity) and a 50mm prime? The downside of the second option is having to change lenses on the go, but you get more of the wide (albeit less of the long, but do you really need it?)

what are you opinions?

 

[cwcaesar]

Personally, I would go with the fewer lenses for travelling. Plus, I don't shoot that wide. For me, 24mm has been more than wide enough, so that is the route I would take.

Do you think you would be better served with 16-50mm or with 24-70mm?

 

[Janmc]

Is there a 16-50mm I can use on a full frame body? (I have a D600 too) - i'm not aware if so, but would be interested to know!

 

[bratkinson]

Given the 3 lenses you have, I'd opt for the 24-70, only because it's both wide enough and reasonably long enough to be an 'all around' lens for traveling. That is, of course, if you can carry the 'brick' for extended periods of time.

I recently did a 6 hour 'walk around' in Chicago with my two lenses of choice...the 16-35 f2.8L and 24-105 f4L. The 24-105 spent the most time on the camera, and the 16-35 in a Lowepro lens case attached to my belt. I wore the case for the 16-35 as it could hold either lens without a problem. I only changed lenses twice, since I was familiar with Chicago and basically used the 24-105 on the 'outbound' leg and 16-35 'inbound'. I had a 60D last fall when I did the trip, but may repeat it since I've upgraded to a 5D3.

 

[cwcaesar]

Is there a 16-50mm I can use on a full frame body? (I have a D600 too) - i'm not aware if so, but would be interested to know!

No, there is no 16-50 that I am aware of. I was referring to the range options available with the 16-35 and the 50 together.

 

[tirediron]

Of those, I would have to recommend the 24-70. The 16-35 suffers from fairly noticable pin-cushion distortion on the wide end, and at 35mm on a FF, it's not nearly long enough for a lot of shots. If you do run in to a situation where you want wide, you can [almost] always shoot pano.

 

[bc_steve]

If you had the option to go down to 16mm you would probably find it useful, on my recent trip I had my 11-16mm on a DX (equivalent to 16-24 on FX) and I used it a lot more at the 11mm end than the 16. The 50mm is a pretty small lens so it wouldn't add a lot of space and take up a lot of weight.

The big advantage of only taking one lens though is you are less likely to get dust inside your camera because you won't be taking it off.