Question re: Suggested lenses to take Europe Trip

Dear Sony forum visitors,

I am Peter and I am brand new into sony. I recently switched from Canon and bought an A7III.

I have a nice roadtrip kind of trip in Europe coming up in 2 weeks and I am busy shopping native Sony lenses and choosing what to take with me. My plan is to buy Zeiss 16-35 F4 and add one native sony prime to the trip; but then thinking about adding my standard zoom too.

I've had one Europe trip before in 2016 and my gear I took was: Canon 6D; 24-105F4L; 17-40L and the nifty fifty. Suprisingly when I analyzed the photos 80% were focal length 17-60 and whilst most where F4 or above; quality matters definitely the best and most special photos were shot with the nifty fifty at F~ 2.

So I realized UWA zoom is the number 1 bread and butter lens. Plus had in mind to take one of Sony's light primes 55 1.8 zeiss or sony 85 1.8 and be done with it.

But others have told me and it makes sense to be safe and take my 24-70 Canon 2.8 II; very sharp on my sony and amazing Bokeh.

To have me covered from the 16-35's weak performance in the tele end. To be honest being weak on one end bothers me; because it's very common that one uses a lens on it's extreme zoom one end or the other.

Any suggestions?

Here is my gear to help you help me with thanks! : A7III; Canon lenses: 17-40L (poor sharpness want to upgrade to native lens); 24-70 F2.8 II; 35 1.4 II; Sigma 85 art (process of selling once I like the Sony 85); Tamron 70-200 2.8

Sony lenses: only one bought so far Sony 85 1.8 on it's way; but got great deals on the Zeiss 55 1.8 and I am hunting for a reasonably priced 16-35 F4 lens.

Thanks Heaps,

Peter

Regards

Peter

My interest is mainly landscape. I took a road trip to Ireland last year, taking about 9000 photographs, using a Sony A9 and A7Rii and native lenses. Reviewing my portfolio in Lightroom, approximately 70% were taken with a Sony 24-70/2.8 lens, and about 20% with a 100-400/4.5-5.6 lens, Of the balance, less than 5% were taken with a 16-35/4, and the rest with a variety of prime lenses.

The Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 is actually a very good lens at all ranges, sharp, little tendency to flare, and a robust build quality. I use it less than others because I think longer lenses add a sense of drama to the topography. I use wide angle lenses to exaggerate perspective for things of interest in the foreground, but they flatten mountains into molehills.

There are always exceptions, so you have to take each scene as you see it, and select the appropriate lens (or lenses). Alternately, select a lens and see what you can do with it for a particular scene.

I agonize for weeks about what equipment to carry on a trip of this sort. About the only lens I'm unlikely to use is a macro, so that stays home. A good 35 mm or 50 mm prime makes a good walk-about lens - small, light and unobtrusive in town. If you're serious about landscapes, no zoom will touch the pop and clarity of a good prime. The 16-35 will probably stay home on the next trip, in favor of a set of primes (18 to 135), the 24-70 and the 100-400.

Thanks for that

I realize the 70-200 is such a practical lens here at home; what stops me is the 1.5 Kg weight. Once Canon releases their designed RF 70-200 2.8 which will be a light 700-800 grams I think for me that lens will becomes realistic on a Europe trip if I ever go back to Canon who knows. But thanks for highlighting the 50 practicality which I appreciated last trip and happy to repeat it; and yeh the 24-70 F2.8 may impress me because last time I shot with the 24-105 F4 and didn't find something much better/special than my UWA 17-40L and given many cathedrals/churches/small streets in Europe wide angle very useful unexpectedly where so I remember not being bothered to take the UWA out of the camera much. So In other words, I reckon one reason I used my UWA >60% of the time as opposed to you using it much less may have to do with the accompanying standard zoom lens being not so special (but practical offcourse) last trip whereas I know my 24-70 F2.8 produces wonderful bokeh and sharpness at 2.8.

If listing the countries we plan to visit helps in this discussion our tentative plan would be visiting munich; venice/milan; austria probably hallstat only; and switzerland probably interlaken. So I reckon big chunk will be nature I hope and the other half will be cities.

Since you decided to switch from Canon to a Sony A7iii, you would be ill-advised to buy a Canon 70-200. While Canon lenses retain most of their functionality on the Sony, they don't have it all. I have the Sony f/4 version, and highly recommend it. At 840 grams, it is surprisingly light and compact. Although it is a stop slower than the f/2.8 version, it is nearly as sharp, half the price and about half the weight. I need the extra reach of the 100-400 for video, but it doesn't make much sense to leave it at home for travel,

I've heard very good things about the Sony 24-105/4, so it would probably be a good choice for travel. For many (including me), the 24-70/2.8 is the "money" lens - my first choice for weddings and events. In most respects it is as good as the best prime lenses in its range, but large, heavy and expensive. My current preference is to carry a few high quality primes for landscapes and architecture, rather than a consumer-level zoom lens. Primes are smaller, have faster apertures, and generally better color, linearity and flare resistance. I will still carry the 24-70/2.8 for convenience, and a long zoom for better reach than my current prime lenses. I can fit 3 or 4 prime lenses in a fanny pack, which is easy to carry and usually acceptable (as opposed to large backpacks and rollers) in museums and historic buildings.

Most churches I've visited in Europe either ban or charge a fee for photography. Cell phone users seem to get by without notice, but "professional" looking cameras get the queer eye. A wide zoom (e.g., 17-40) would be a good choice for interiors. In-body stabilization in the Sony A7iii is very effective, down to ridiculously slow shutter speeds, but is most compatible with native lenses (otherwise you have to enter the focal length you're using).

Peter, the Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G is an excellent lens. Combine that with the FE 24-105mm G OSS and you've got 99% covered. The high-ISO performance of the a7III is so good that you don't really need a fast prime. I dumped all my Canon lenses, even though they would "work" on my a9 and a7RIII bodies, it seems like some Sony functionality was missing, such as Tracking or eye-AF, etc.

You don't need f/2.8 unless you're a huge bokeh fan. For travel, I'm anti-bokeh. You've got an excellent bokeh lens in the 85/f1.8, so I'd stop right there. For a 70-200mm, go with f/4. Once again, the high-ISO performance of the a7III makes most lenses larger than f/4 superfluous, IME. My travel kit is my a7RIII, FE 24-105mm G OSS and FE 12-24mm f/4 G. I upgrade to the roller bag if I think there'll be wildlife and birds, then throw in both the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS and the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, along with the FE 1.4 and 2.9x teleconverters. If I were to take only one lens, it'd be the FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS. (With IBIS and OSS, I routinely handhold at 1/15-sec.

Oh, I haven't had any trouble with my Sony rig in churches in Italy, UK, Spain, Med, etc. I've seen "no tripod" rules, but I shoot 99.9% handheld.

Thanks to everyone and to dcstep!

I will take the advise onboard. I have to alter and tailor make the advise to what I have and the time restrictions as my trip is in a week and I usually only buy online. Low on funds anyway so I can't buy new gear now.

Since I posted I now have these sony lenses all in transit: Sony 85 1.8; Zeiss 55 1.8 and sony 16-35 F4.

You are aware of my canon lenses posted in the question above from them I will likely bring the 24-70 F2.8 II or 35 1.4 II.

So far I am considering this:

Option 1: Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 24-70 F2.8 II; Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8 (Super 35 mode to 135 is about as much as I want for reach this trip)

Option 2: Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 35 1.4 II (By far my most Magical lens and indoor portraits it's a killer); 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 (but I haven't received any sony lens to test yet)

Option 3: Sony 16-35 F4; 55 1.8 and 85 1.8.

With 35 II OR 24-70 F2.8 I feel safest in that one of the highest quality standard lens is with me; just the 24-70 is clinical with nice bokeh and convenient/practical and 35 1.4 II is magical/stunning its shallow DOF with Sony eye focus works great too.

So to me option 1 or 2 seems most complete and there isn't much weight different in between them maybe 150 grams; if anyone wants to kindly discuss their experience would be keen to hear. If not I will flip a coin and be decisive for once :)

Happy shooting everyone! Thanks for having me here

Dear photographers;

I thought as courtesy to the readers but especially to the 2 members who kindly gave their advise I would put an update on how it went.

Thanks to Ed-Ingold and dcstep.

I ended up on a roadtrip visiting 7 countries starting from Austria; Germany; Switzerland; Italy; Slovenia and Hungary.

I think countries may be relevant for someone going through the same dilemma as it's different setting for shooting etc...

I took my Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 24-70 F2.8; Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8.

essentially:

- I used primes far more than I thought because I saw the results were just outstanding

- 85 1.8 clearly provided the best results and given its 350 grams of less no brainer; if won't take it at least take Zeiss 55 1.8 or equivalent light prime

- 16-35 UWA very useful and as you can see lots of use there

- On the field the 24-70 Canon 2.8 (which is clearly superior to the Sony one as per DXO and all the sites) seemed to produce better results than the UWA; but when I opened on the laptop; both produced nice photos but nothing magical whereas the Primes with wide apertures were magical.

In hindsight I would probs take UWA and 85 1.8 next time.

More profoundly; I overestimate and put too much time and questions about lenses and cameras; the experience of the trip was far more important, and photos would have worked out regardless if I wasn't OCD myself about quality probs would have saved myself a lot of time, money and had more peace. But I like the results so it's worth it.

The Canon forum on this site where I came from likely was more subscribed with many senior photographers who I recognized for the many years I have been there and I realized I asked the same question 3 years ago there. I found advise about same topic from Canon forum was very useful even to my sony related gear. So probably other system's the general gist will be the same.

I attached graph of what settings were used for my trip. General subjects were: Buildings; environmental portrait; Candid Portraits of my relatives children; landscape photos.

Regards

Peter, thanks for the wonderful, detailed followup.

The charts are particularly telling. Your propensity to shoot at f/2.0 made it crystal clear to me that exceptional primes are required for the IQ you seek, in general If I made a similar chart of my usage, probably 90% or more would be at f/8 to f/11. Even when I shoot my primes, I tend to use f/8 as a default.

Have you got an archive somewhere that you could share?

If bulk and weight are no problem, then traveling with three overlapping zoom lenses, half a dozen prime lenses and two or three bodies is an easy decision. Traveling light, with the bare minimum of gear takes a lot of planning, bordering on OCD. You have to take into account where you're visiting, what kind of photography you like to do, and how it affects those traveling with you. From your report, it sounds like your decisions worked.

Being OCD much of the time, I see a couple of trends. With zoom lenses, you tend to use the widest setting. Most of your photos were in daylight, or relatively low room light. You really liked your two prime lenses. You used f/5.6 most of the time outdoors and wide open inside or at night.

Histograms are used to show trends and modes (peaks), and yours are on the granular side. I suggest broader groupings for focal length, like very wide, wide, normal, etc. The division values should be non-equivocal, that is, to the half mm, when lenses are registered to the nearest mm. I would stick to whole stops, or even broader grouping. Likewise with other parameters.

DXO rankings are not well defined. Their test methods are suspect, and overall scoring uses a proprietary formula. At best, DXO ratings are useful for a quick comparison across a broad range of lenses. Resolution, for example, is measured in-camera, as lines/image height, which depends mainly on the camera itself. I would not be afraid to use a Canon 24-70/2.8 on a Sony, but I wouldn't buy one for that purpose either. The Canon and Sony versions are very close per LensRentals testing, but the Sony is better integrated with the camera.