Travel cityscapes - 70-200mm F4 or just a 85mm?

<p>Your views on this?</p>

<p>Historically I have been a lightweight traveller, no checked baggage, just a daypack for my stuff 2 sets of clothes, travel sized toiletries etc. A shoulder camera bag - Lowepro Photo Runner where I had one dSLR (now full frame) and a 18-35mm and a 85mm. Much of the time I still enjoy slide film. I hav a Gitzo Traveler tripod for low light stuff. </p>

<p>1. Would the 85mm be sufficient or would a 70-200mm provide much more versatility? <br>

2. Is a 35mm prime useful to take or would you just use the 18-35mm as a walkaround?</p>

<p>If I go with that zoom I would need a larger shoulder bag or use my backpack. Some of the shots I want to take is a pedestrian over bridge and plant a tripod and do a vertical shot. </p>

<p>For me I would ( and do) take the 70-200F4 every time. On the average trip it gets used for c 30% of my shots. The only exception I'd make is if you really feel you'd need a backpack. Shoulder bags are so much more convenient in cities with the ability to work and change lenses, filters etc without putting a bag down.<br>

BTW with a full frame you might miss the lack of coverage between 35 and 70mm . I find it preferable to overlap coverage (so a 24-105 and a 70-200) to reduce lens changing. </p>

<p>Life and for many, photography, is a series of trade-offs and compromises. I get the impression that you enjoy and are accustomed to traveling light. That would favor not bringing the 70-200 f4. Your trip appears to be to a metropolitan area, i.e, - that would also favor not bringing the 70-200 lens and favors bring the 18-35mm. Bringing the 70-200mm might give you some advantage for taking portraits (sniping). However with an 85mm lens which is considered to be a portrait lens, you most likely would get better portraits by just walking up closer to your subjects. I recently returned from 6 days in Cambodia, I brought a 28-70mm f2.8, a 80-200mm, and a 50mm f1.8 lens. I never took out the 50 mm and I estimate that 98% of my shots, including many portraits were with the 28-70mm lens. A wider lens like the 18-35 would have been more useful than the 80-200 lens. I would take the 18-35 and the 85 lens for urban shooting.</p><div></div>

<p>85/90mm on FF would feel like a too short long end for me, as much as I like that focal length (usually the first I am asking about, when I get a new system), from my 55 & 135mms for the TLR or just 28-80mm experience I know: I'won't always get close enough & end cropping. There are always details catching my attention and shouting for something longer. I never had a 180mm or such for FF, but wandered London with 135 on one and 18-50 on the other crop body with fast 24 & 50mms in the backpack<br>

Not sure about 35mms - if they come together with a 21mm to switch to, I like them. My old SLR primes in that range aren't great so I love the 12-24 I got., but yes it is bulky for a walkaround lens<br>

I don't want to push 70-200s here. I had zooms in that range but the bulk IQ ratio of my Tamron f3.5 gives alternatives quite some appeal. - Especially with your slide fim Nikon the VR might be worh grabbing the zoom.<br>

For my tourism to come I decided to compromize. I'll cover the basics (AKA "happysnapping") with Fujis + kit zooms (16 to 250mm for APS C, probably enough IQ for a 4K slide show) and might get the Leica out when I feel special urges. I haven't figured out which lenses I might have to leave at home but wanted to pack all (15 - 135mm)<br>

Anyhow: everybody ticks differently. I guess just like some folks seem content shooting just their standard lenses others are entirely content with 35 & 85mm? - There is always a point where more gets too much. I have some inexpensive 300 400 1000mms that I barely ever use and happily leave at home. 135mm & 2x TC is the longest I might pack.</p>

<p>I typed too slow. I believe the claim "a zoom sees most use at its ends" is true. so the 35-70 gap Ray is planning seems fine to me, if I was able to bring a 2nd body. -With David's 24 - 105 I'd curse the bulk of the 70-200 and dream of a lighter prime instead, but yes less lens changes are of course desirable with DSLRs.</p>

<p>It's hard to say for somebody else what would and would not work. Much depends on your style, on where you are (not every city/landscape poses the same needs) and so on.<br>

For most trips where I am not sure what I'll run into, I liked 16-85VR on APS-C and now 24-120VR on FX. It has just about enough wide angle (yes, sometimes not wide enough) and enough reach for details (but sometimes not long enough). With an added fast prime for the low light/small DoF stuff (35 or 50mm). If I know I have more time for photography, and a longer lens will be useful, the 180mm f/2.8 hits a sweet balance for me - but that is reasoning from having 105 or 120mm at the longer end already. With just a 18-35, I'd probably consider the 85 f/1.8G and 180 f/2.8 (which would cost around the same and give a choice between complete lightweight and limited reach, or reach), or the 70-200 f/4 VR indeed. And I'd miss a 50mm, but that's different too for all of us.</p>

 

<p>Jochen. My three L zoom kit plus a 5Dii body, filters, bits and shoulder bag weigh in at just over 6kg. I'm not in the first flush of youth but I can still carry that around all day with the aid of an Op/Tech strap. Frankly when we're on a trip and I pick my wife's handbag up it sometimes seems she's carrying almost as much as me. </p>

<p>Clearly (obviously) a 70-200mm is more versatile than just an 85mm...however for an urban situation I would probably favor the 85mm as it would be better once the light gets low and 24/28-85 seems optimum for city shooting and portability. I hate doubling up on focal lengths and so I would try not to take a 35mm prime. A lot would depend on how fast your 18-35mm is. If it's the Sigma f1.8 one, there's no point taking the 35 prime.</p>

<p>To repeat the good advice that others have mentioned, it really depends on the photographer. I personally would find far more use for a wide to medium zoom in a city environment. Ideally, a wide to moderate zoom in the 20 - 135 range ( I know that zoom does not exist - I mean selecting a lens somewhere in that range). 18-35 would be too short at the long end for me. My 24-120 (I shoot Nikon) is my typical one lens in the city solution. </p>

<p>by the way - while I agree that a backpack may be more convenient and more comfortable than a shoulder bag for a full say walking around, do not fail to consider that wearing a backpack in a city is an invitation to be robbed. I live in NY and I would NEVER put my backpack (or shoulder bag) on the ground when shooting unless I had my foot through a strap. Put a bag on the ground and take some time looking up through the lens to frame a shot and there is a fair chance your bag will not be there when you look down. If you have been to Barcelona recently, you will notice that most folks (photographers and ordinary citizens) have taken to wearing their backpacks "backwards" on their chests due to the plague of pickpockets.</p>

 

<p>I am debating pretty much the same points - whether to replace the 70-200/2.8 with the f/4 version for travel (hauling the f/2.8 around is no fun at all). Or go with the following 4-lens setup: 16-35/4 for the wide stuff, 35/1.4 for shallow DOF, 85/1.8 and 150/2.8 for portraits, and details. Versatility of the latter two seems to be at par with the f/4 zoom - faster and closer on the one hand vs VR and zoom convenience on the other. If I need to restrict myself, then likely the 35 and 150 would be the ones to stay home. </p>

<p>I recently added the 24-85 VR to my bag - not sure yet if it would come along when traveling though. On some trips, however, it might be the only one I'd bring - maybe together with the 150.</p>

<p>If I want to go lighter and smaller, I likely bring 21/1.8, 40/1.4, 90/2 and 180/3.4 manual focus lenses with the Sony A7. Or just a 28/2.8 and 105/2.5 - depends on where I am going.</p>

The zoom will clearly give you more options when you can't "zoom with your feet" to get the right framing, or moving

changes the perspective in a way you don't like.

<p>For cityscapes I'd go for the shorter end every time, probably because I like architectural subjects. But the 85 migth be ok for detail work and some candid person scapes.</p>

<p>I don't know what the right answer is for your questions, except I wouldn't take the 70-200. 18-35 and the 85 should be great, or even the 35 and 85. I'm sort of old school so sometimes when I travel I'll take a camera and a lens, usually a 35. Let me ask you this, it seems you've traveled several times before with gear, what do you feel you're missing? It doesn't take much in the way of gear, to get great pics.</p>