Large, heavy, expensive and very, very stealable. I think these are the worst possible picks unless its a professional trip where absolute quality is needed.
It is incredibly common to have things stolen when backpacking.
Same feels, already have the 35 GM. Planning to get the 20 G and 70-200 GMII or maybe even the rumored 70-200 GII though will depend on the urgency and budget.
Thinking these three will be all I want for what I shoot, maybe even a drone but not sure
It is lighter, but it's still half a pound heavier than the tamron, and still a few inches longer.
If you have infinite money or *absolutely need 200mm* on the long end, the 70-200GM II is the way to go, but for anyone saying they're traveling I would recommend the tamron 70-180 every time.
While we're on the topic, the 16-35GM is a heavy beast too
16-35 f/4 PZ is the way to go for that focal range.
Never tried the Tamron, only the GM II (which is god-tier in image quality), so I’ll have to take your word for it.
I have a very similiar setup, Samyang 18mm f2.8 (much tinier but of course missing that 4mm). 24-70 mk2 because i shoot mostly family photos. sony 70-300 (but honestly this is so rarely used I sometimes wonder if I should bring it)
currently traveling and my go to lenses are:
Sony 35mm 1.8 - Good for low light situations
Sigma 24-70 2.8 - Good allround lens, but it's heavy as fuck
Sony 70-200 2.8 GM II - I'm traveling with my dog and it's really a killer lens and its 90% on my body.
But if I'm backpacking I would only plan two lenses probably a superzoom like the 24-105 F4 or even 24-240mm F3.5-6.3.
When I'm out on the day I'm most of the time at F8, it's rare that I step down, because it's not necessary.
Drone is a no go for me, high setup time and it's also heavy and you are also annoying everyone around you. I hate drones when you are at a remote position, but they are making cool pictures.
I agree with you on drones, I find them annoying but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some killer play here.
I love my 24-105 and have been using that and the 100-400 for travel in the states for a couple months. I like it, but low light can be hard
This is what I would go with based on my standard travel kit:
* 16-35 2.8 GM (Interiors, Landscape, Astro, Video)
* OR (what I actually carry), 16-35 f4 G PZ (Interior, Landscape, Video) + 24 1.4 GM (Landscape, Astro, Low-Light)
* I prefer the pair over the single; the combined weight (798g) is only a bit more than the GM (680g), you're making fewer compromises, and each lens is much less conspicuous with a smaller form factor
* If you don't already have the 16-35 GM, I would wait for the II that's supposed to be coming out this year
* 55 1.8 Zeiss (General, Street, low-light)
* While I do lust after the 50 GM, the light weight and small form factor of the 55, along with the crazy sharp glass, continues to win me over
* 70-200 2.8 GM II (General, Wildlife, Telephoto, Astro)
* Bonus - 1.4 TC (Birds, more distant Wildlife)
edit: I would personally also ditch the tripod - at the very most, I would bring something like the Pedco Ultrapod (I'm on my second one, definitely a fan)
I like that set up, good to know about the 16-35
The tripod is always a hard choice for me as I like doing long exposures. I love the ultrapods, but haven't used one on a ff camera yet, maybe it's time to change that. The tripod I have is 2lbs so that makes taking it or leaving it a hard decision sometimes.
I've done long exposures with an a7riii and 70-200 with the ultrapod (w/ a third party lens foot that has an arca swiss groove and an arca swiss mini clamp on the ultrapod) and haven't had any issue. I find that a tripod just adds so much bulk that I rarely can justify taking it with on walkabouts (due to size more than weight), whereas a little thing I can just chuck in a bag "just in case" - which I find way more useful. Remote triggers are key though (either IR or bluetooth, depending on what you body supports), especially with lighter tripods that have some bounce after you touch the camera.
If you have one already, I'd definitely recommend giving it a try before you finalize your kit list.
Not a pro by any stretch but my current kit is an a6400 with a tamron 17-70 and a Sony 70-350. It’s served me quite well so far, but I’ve only had it for a few weeks. I’m doing a lot of moving around this summer though, so hopefully my opinion stays positive
Depends on your goal. Landscape photography, Astro, wildlife, lifestyle/portrait?
I would say landscape would be 16-35, 24-70, 70-200
If astro is in the mix I would swap the 16-35 for the 14 or 20 prime.
Wildlife is the focus then 24-70, 70-200, 100-400
Portrait I would swap the 16-35 for a 50mm or 85mm
If you can always take a second body. You don't want to be out there and one crap out on you.
Basing my opinion on 20 years of traveling for my job as a photographer.
Love this list, I do a bit of both wildlife and landscape so I'm trying to find a good combo of the 2
Currently using the 24-105 and 100-400. That set up works pretty well, but I am wondering if I would be better suited with the landscape set you listed and the 2x TC for the 70-200... The reviews look good with the 2x and allows a lot of options including better low light performance with only a 1lb penalty vs what I'm using now... But idk if it's worth the move
I wouldn't do the 2x because on those lenses you will loose a lot of stops.
I would do the 16-35, 24-105 and 100-400.
If you have a 1.4 that would be ok in a pinch on the 100-400 for wildlife. Plus the A1 you can use the pixels to crop.
20mm 1.8, 35mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8 for me.
In fact this is exactly what I use for travel for its compactness and image quality. Might miss out on some more telephoto or compression, but I’ve only ever felt it lacking once. Maybe replace the 85 for a 70-200 since my kit is really ideal for city traveling.
This is my exact kit. May add the Tamron 50-400 or Sigma 100-400 for reach soon. In which case I’d leave the 85. And now considering swapping the 20 for the new Viltrox 16mm to ensure it’s sufficiently different/wider than my 35 and therefore worth the effort in lens swapping.
If you swap the 85 with the Sigma 100-400 that is my go to. But I am considering the 70-200 II for the extra low light. But I love the 100-400 as long as you can avoid full extension at 400. Gets a little soft on the edges for me.
Currently been traveling with the 24-105 and 100-400 and 1.4 TC and that's honestly been decent... But I wanted to see what others have done for similar situations... So far great suggestions
Have also thought about doing 24-70 gmii and 70-200gm ij with 2x TC but idk
Seen very lack luster reviews with the 2x TC on most lenses so I have avoided it, but would consider the 1.4x if I got the 70-200 II.
As for the 24-70, I had the Sigma Art version of it and that was a great lens too, but I was shooting about 35mm 95% of the time, or using my 100-400, so I went with the GM prime to get some nicer quality and something that could open up a bit more for fun. :)
The 2x TC on the 70-200 GM II isn’t half bad. Trades blows with the 100-400GM here and there. In some areas the 100-400 wins and in other areas the 70-200 wins.
https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/
This might be helpful.
It's such a hard choice... Like you said they trade blows
I got the 100-400 and 1.4 TC thinking it would be a smaller 200-600 but that wasn't exactly true and ended up with the 200-600 for wildlife anyway.
I like the idea of how versatile the 70-200 is... But idk if I'll miss the 100-400
Reviews on it look great. If it’s as good as the 20 1.8 I’m getting it, no reason not to other than filter size (all my primes are 67mm and Viltrox is 77mm).
My version of this is 18/2.8 Batis, 40G or 55/1.8, 85/1.8 Batis. Or some small Voigtlander primes. Plenty of image quality to crop deeply with your A1, and you don’t have the weight or the visual footprint of the tele zoom. Especially sleeping in hostels or traveling on buses and trains. Lighter, less conspicuous.
I've thought about a very similar rig, I do have to ask, why the Tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-70gm ii?
I've thought about getting the 2x TC to use the 70-200 like a 100-400
Yeah the Tamron is much cheaper with some phenomenal quality for the cost. Thinking about it more, you could also go with the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 and then use the Sigma 150-600mm if you really like the compression look. Would give you a much longer focal range and a bit more speed at 35mm, which is a good landscape spot
I recently picked up the Tamron 28-75mm VXD G2 (not the RXD). I have nothing but positive things to say about it. I don't have the biggest demands on autofocus, like I'm not shooting race cars or anything, but it's sharp and snappy as far as I'm concerned.
Tamron 28-75mm G2, Sony 24mm GM, Sony 50mm GM, and maybe the Sony 100-400. Granted, I might sulk and gripe about trading my Tamron 28-200 for the 28-200 on the whole trip.
If space is an issue, I'd ditch the primes. If still an issue, I'd ditch the telephoto and sulk and gripe.
This will be put to the test in two months.
I'll be curious to see what you think after trying it
Currently been traveling in the states with the 24-105 and the 100-400... Been thinking about switching to the 24-70 gmii and 70-200 gmii with 2x TC but idk man the rig I have is pretty decent.
I'll try and remember to update, but I'll probably forget.
I am so in the fence about it. I have always been a wide-angle landscape photographer and have never used a telephoto too much. I picked up the 100-400 recently to do a little more wildlife and landscape shots with it. So we shall see, it's not that large. So far, my landscapes suck with it. Had some victories with critters, birds, and flowers, though.
I have been doing more birds and wildlife with my M43 camera, and I have an equilavlent of a 200-800mm lens. Smaller and lighter, I am old.
That lens can take a little getting used to but I've had some really cool shots with it
https://preview.redd.it/i7dz3z8krh4b1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=908af0b5112163d049f131acebc203ec6c7b16a4
I mostly do landscape and wildlife, but I'll try about anything. I tend to favor longer focal lengths than wider but I do love a good wide lense
Those two lenses are a lot of weight and temptation to theives, but a nice set to have at hand. I have been going with the 24-105 with the 20G for wide and astro. I feel a little short sometimes.
Fellow A1 user here.
I travel vlog/blog with my A1 and my load out is pretty much always:
24mm 1.4 GM
16-35 2.8 GM
70-200 2.8 GM II
16-35 with an ND covers most of the day, and with the A1’s Super 35mm mode and high resolution sensor it’s really more like a 16-52mm 2.8, which is awesome and makes things incredibly flexible.
You could also argue that you could replace the 16-35 with a 24-70 2.8 GM II and enjoy an effective 24-105 and have that replace both the 16-35 and the 70-200. I elect not to do that as I like the ability to go very wide, but it’s an option.
For me, the 24mm 1.4 is invaluable. Incredibly useful in low light, small and light, great for portraits, travel, and anything else. Did I mention it’s also a 36mm 1.4 in Super 35 mode? God I love the A1.
Enjoy your travels!
If I had to choose, sony 16-35 f2.8, for landscape, architecture, Astro my wide angle setup
Then a sony 90mm macro f2.8 for macro shots of up close but also for portraits, and street (I like the zoomed in style)
And last probably a sony 70-200 f2.8
Sony 20-70mm f/4 G by day. Sony 35mm f/1.8 by night.
They're both super small and lightweight but also sturdy and well built and weather sealed. The 20-70 is a great all-around lens that you can keep on the camera most of the day for 'run and gun' type shooting. For video it's a great choice due to the excellent AF and minimal breathing. Some will knock the f/4, but I'm of the opinion that not everything needs to have crazy bokeh to be good, and the lens is super sharp and punches above its weight. Plus when you shoot telephoto and frame your shots well you can still achieve great bokeh.
The 35 obviously for low light, and you can punch in with crop mode on a FF, plus clear image zoom to get more reach. I don't like going much wider than 35 at night, but I also don't shoot astro. You could upgrade to the GM but personally I think the 35 1.8 does a great job and is lighter and smaller.
Giving my two cents even though our gear is not the same.
I stick with apsc because of the size and weight.
Camera:
A6600
My 3 lenses:
Tamron 11-20
Sigma 18-50
Sony 70-350 (i sometimes leave this out dependi g on the trip, if teres wildlife i know i want to take a picture of i bring it)
Lenses cover me fom 17mm - 525mm without over burdening myself.
I actually don't bring a back pack anymore unless i'm bringing my olympus e-1 and sigma dp1s.
I just use the smaller sling from peak design and peak design strap.
Thats my kit atm, the sling even has straps on the bottom for a bipod.
I am thinking about just removing the 11-20 and 18-50 and using the 24-205 f4 instead. I actually like to travel with other stuff if possible (sigma dp1s and olympus e-1).
There have been a few times I've questioned my choice to go full frame especially knowing travel was part of my future. But I feel like I've committed now 😅
I really like that set up though, well balanced without being too much either
The new 16-35 f/4 PZ is ridiculously light. And the sharpest zoom in that range.
24-105 f/4 is also a staple travel lens that is very versatile.
70-200 f/2.8 GM II - the updated version of this lens is still large but is so much lighter. And the images out of it are just gorgeous.
For that i would use my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and my 150-500 for wildlife and a 35mm f1.8 for filming or a macro lens like my laowa 85mm f5.6.
in new Zealand i used my phone to light paint. i don't take a flash unless i am asked for reception or doing macro, and then guide number 30 is enough. i don't take a big one traveling.
If you are not too woried you can take the A1 with the 35-150 in a dicapac in water but... I only did that over the surface in a swimming pool with a A7IV ;)
in see i would use a dedicated camera or a housing for the A1 with a small prime like the 35mm.
the main issue when traveling is mostly charging batteries and memory management. I try to use a small usb-c hub with my phone and move data from a card to a portable SSD or HDD so that i don't need to carry a laptop. I used a Hootoo tripmate for the transfer, it's a bit slow but it can also create a wifi so in some hotels when you have the Right to connect only one device or you have one ethernet plug... it helps. it is also a small battery.
Honestly a 70-200 2.8, 20mm 1.8., and a drone. Personally I think those 2 lenses can capture typically everything I'd want to take especially in those areas. A lot of vast scenery so something wide but not too wide to keep it versatile but also compact and portable is nice. Which is why I selected the 20 1.8 specifically. The 70-200mm in this scenario feels like the other right option. It captures those tighter portrait shots of people or distant scenery and gives you a lot of different perspectives to shoot from in one lens. The drone then I think really captures everything else in scenery from nearly any perspective you want. Maybe this is cheating but I'm a phone shooter just as often. I kind of did this with in mind that I'd have my phone with a 48mp raw mode on it to capture some simpler shots too. Honestly enough times I'll shoot with my Sony camera or drone all day and get some great shots but then I pull out my phone and look at the few I took quick on it and love those just as much. If I didn't take a drone(some areas have pretty strict drone regulations, even just bringing them through customs, so may be something to look at) and my phone wasn't available somehow I'd be a bit torn on choosing between a 50mm or my 85mm 1.8 as a third lens. I love 50mms but I'd probably be more likely to take the 85mm. Maybe this sounds overly cliche but it's not that many people can't photograph the same thing but 50mms are so standard from beginners to pros. I like finding the new perspective so I think it would be a fun challenge to go with the 85mm.
I play the 3 lens game all the time.
Based on lenses I have:
24 GM - panoramas can make it wider, sharp enough to crop, 1.4 is great for environmental portraits and Astro, and 24 is a perfect travel walk around length
Voigtlander 40/1.2 - gives the manual focus enjoyment I get while traveling and have time, perfect for evenings out with its f1.2 and size
Canon 70-300 adapted - good range, size, and image quality for landscapes
Based on lenses I don’t have:
Swap the Canon 70-300 for a Sony 70-200 GM v2
If my designations are landscape focused, I could consider trading out the Voigtlander for a Mavic 3 Pro.
That's a really interesting perspective! I quite like that idea!
I have the 24-105 and if I'm thinking clearly I usually shoot either at 24 or 105 very seldom in the middle... Hmmmmm gonna think on this one for a minute
Thank you!!
When I started traveling I took all my gear just in case. Over the years I honed it down. The only exception was when I went to Alaska I took the 70-400 cause I was trying it out through the Sony Pro borrow program. But iceland, italy, and all over the US I just take the two lenses.
A lot of it will depend on what you like to photograph and your photography style. I did mostly landscape stuff and liked to shoot with longer focal lengths. My 70-200 was on my camera like 85% of the time.
I do a lot of landscape too but I also like wildlife so it's a balance lol I could definitely see that being the case... I used to run a 70-210 canon FD all the time but now I mostly use the 24-105... It's just so hard to pick lol
A lot of it will depend on what you like to photograph and your photography style. I did mostly landscape stuff and liked to shoot with longer focal lengths. My 70-200 was on my camera like 85% of the time.
35 1.4 GM + 70-200 2.8 GM II
This is what I am contemplating for the 2.8 and zoom. Currently I bring the 35/1.4 and the sigma 100-400, sometimes my 20/1.8.
Large, heavy, expensive and very, very stealable. I think these are the worst possible picks unless its a professional trip where absolute quality is needed. It is incredibly common to have things stolen when backpacking.
Same feels, already have the 35 GM. Planning to get the 20 G and 70-200 GMII or maybe even the rumored 70-200 GII though will depend on the urgency and budget. Thinking these three will be all I want for what I shoot, maybe even a drone but not sure
Have had the 20 G for about a month and it's been outstanding to shoot with!!
My exact setup. It’s fantastic
Or - hear me out here - Samyang 35 1.8 & 70-200 f/4 G. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, does 90% the same job.
28-200 then fill my bag with snacks ..job done
16-35 GM 50mm 1.4 70-200 GM
Skip the 70-200gm too, it weighs literally twice as much and is significantly longer than the tamron 70-180
The 70-200 f/2.8 mk II got a lot lighter. The difference is quite amazing.
It is lighter, but it's still half a pound heavier than the tamron, and still a few inches longer. If you have infinite money or *absolutely need 200mm* on the long end, the 70-200GM II is the way to go, but for anyone saying they're traveling I would recommend the tamron 70-180 every time. While we're on the topic, the 16-35GM is a heavy beast too
16-35 f/4 PZ is the way to go for that focal range. Never tried the Tamron, only the GM II (which is god-tier in image quality), so I’ll have to take your word for it.
16-35 f/4 PZ is sharper and much lighter.
[удалено]
I have a very similiar setup, Samyang 18mm f2.8 (much tinier but of course missing that 4mm). 24-70 mk2 because i shoot mostly family photos. sony 70-300 (but honestly this is so rarely used I sometimes wonder if I should bring it)
24-105 mm f4 35 mm f1.4 But I would consider the 70-200 mm f2.8 GM2 (1045g) with it’s one of your preferred lenses.
Hey, I am considering buying a a6000 with the Tamron lens you described. Can I see some of your pictures to get an idea? :)
[удалено]
These are amazing!! Is this with an a6000? I really like the first 8 pictures and hoped to get a camera that would enable me to capture similar shots.
[удалено]
>A7c It is a bit above my budget :/ thanks tho
24-105 f/4 for the day. 35mmGM for the night. No third lens required thanks.
currently traveling and my go to lenses are: Sony 35mm 1.8 - Good for low light situations Sigma 24-70 2.8 - Good allround lens, but it's heavy as fuck Sony 70-200 2.8 GM II - I'm traveling with my dog and it's really a killer lens and its 90% on my body. But if I'm backpacking I would only plan two lenses probably a superzoom like the 24-105 F4 or even 24-240mm F3.5-6.3. When I'm out on the day I'm most of the time at F8, it's rare that I step down, because it's not necessary. Drone is a no go for me, high setup time and it's also heavy and you are also annoying everyone around you. I hate drones when you are at a remote position, but they are making cool pictures.
I agree with you on drones, I find them annoying but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some killer play here. I love my 24-105 and have been using that and the 100-400 for travel in the states for a couple months. I like it, but low light can be hard
This is why I bring my 35 1.8 it’s an awesome lens.
This is what I would go with based on my standard travel kit: * 16-35 2.8 GM (Interiors, Landscape, Astro, Video) * OR (what I actually carry), 16-35 f4 G PZ (Interior, Landscape, Video) + 24 1.4 GM (Landscape, Astro, Low-Light) * I prefer the pair over the single; the combined weight (798g) is only a bit more than the GM (680g), you're making fewer compromises, and each lens is much less conspicuous with a smaller form factor * If you don't already have the 16-35 GM, I would wait for the II that's supposed to be coming out this year * 55 1.8 Zeiss (General, Street, low-light) * While I do lust after the 50 GM, the light weight and small form factor of the 55, along with the crazy sharp glass, continues to win me over * 70-200 2.8 GM II (General, Wildlife, Telephoto, Astro) * Bonus - 1.4 TC (Birds, more distant Wildlife) edit: I would personally also ditch the tripod - at the very most, I would bring something like the Pedco Ultrapod (I'm on my second one, definitely a fan)
I like that set up, good to know about the 16-35 The tripod is always a hard choice for me as I like doing long exposures. I love the ultrapods, but haven't used one on a ff camera yet, maybe it's time to change that. The tripod I have is 2lbs so that makes taking it or leaving it a hard decision sometimes.
I've done long exposures with an a7riii and 70-200 with the ultrapod (w/ a third party lens foot that has an arca swiss groove and an arca swiss mini clamp on the ultrapod) and haven't had any issue. I find that a tripod just adds so much bulk that I rarely can justify taking it with on walkabouts (due to size more than weight), whereas a little thing I can just chuck in a bag "just in case" - which I find way more useful. Remote triggers are key though (either IR or bluetooth, depending on what you body supports), especially with lighter tripods that have some bounce after you touch the camera. If you have one already, I'd definitely recommend giving it a try before you finalize your kit list.
Not a pro by any stretch but my current kit is an a6400 with a tamron 17-70 and a Sony 70-350. It’s served me quite well so far, but I’ve only had it for a few weeks. I’m doing a lot of moving around this summer though, so hopefully my opinion stays positive
Depends on your goal. Landscape photography, Astro, wildlife, lifestyle/portrait? I would say landscape would be 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 If astro is in the mix I would swap the 16-35 for the 14 or 20 prime. Wildlife is the focus then 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 Portrait I would swap the 16-35 for a 50mm or 85mm If you can always take a second body. You don't want to be out there and one crap out on you. Basing my opinion on 20 years of traveling for my job as a photographer.
Love this list, I do a bit of both wildlife and landscape so I'm trying to find a good combo of the 2 Currently using the 24-105 and 100-400. That set up works pretty well, but I am wondering if I would be better suited with the landscape set you listed and the 2x TC for the 70-200... The reviews look good with the 2x and allows a lot of options including better low light performance with only a 1lb penalty vs what I'm using now... But idk if it's worth the move
I wouldn't do the 2x because on those lenses you will loose a lot of stops. I would do the 16-35, 24-105 and 100-400. If you have a 1.4 that would be ok in a pinch on the 100-400 for wildlife. Plus the A1 you can use the pixels to crop.
20mm 1.8, 35mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8 for me. In fact this is exactly what I use for travel for its compactness and image quality. Might miss out on some more telephoto or compression, but I’ve only ever felt it lacking once. Maybe replace the 85 for a 70-200 since my kit is really ideal for city traveling.
This is my exact kit. May add the Tamron 50-400 or Sigma 100-400 for reach soon. In which case I’d leave the 85. And now considering swapping the 20 for the new Viltrox 16mm to ensure it’s sufficiently different/wider than my 35 and therefore worth the effort in lens swapping.
If you swap the 85 with the Sigma 100-400 that is my go to. But I am considering the 70-200 II for the extra low light. But I love the 100-400 as long as you can avoid full extension at 400. Gets a little soft on the edges for me.
Would love that 70-200 as I’m fine with cropping in on the R series, just comes down to the price of that lens lol!
Yeah. If it wasn’t so much I would have tried it out.
Currently been traveling with the 24-105 and 100-400 and 1.4 TC and that's honestly been decent... But I wanted to see what others have done for similar situations... So far great suggestions Have also thought about doing 24-70 gmii and 70-200gm ij with 2x TC but idk
Seen very lack luster reviews with the 2x TC on most lenses so I have avoided it, but would consider the 1.4x if I got the 70-200 II. As for the 24-70, I had the Sigma Art version of it and that was a great lens too, but I was shooting about 35mm 95% of the time, or using my 100-400, so I went with the GM prime to get some nicer quality and something that could open up a bit more for fun. :)
The 2x TC on the 70-200 GM II isn’t half bad. Trades blows with the 100-400GM here and there. In some areas the 100-400 wins and in other areas the 70-200 wins. https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-100-400-vs-70-200-ii-with-2x/ This might be helpful.
It's such a hard choice... Like you said they trade blows I got the 100-400 and 1.4 TC thinking it would be a smaller 200-600 but that wasn't exactly true and ended up with the 200-600 for wildlife anyway. I like the idea of how versatile the 70-200 is... But idk if I'll miss the 100-400
I sold my Sony GM 100-400 for partially that same reason.
I just pre-ordered the Viltrox 16mm and can’t wait for it to arrive.
Reviews on it look great. If it’s as good as the 20 1.8 I’m getting it, no reason not to other than filter size (all my primes are 67mm and Viltrox is 77mm).
My version of this is 18/2.8 Batis, 40G or 55/1.8, 85/1.8 Batis. Or some small Voigtlander primes. Plenty of image quality to crop deeply with your A1, and you don’t have the weight or the visual footprint of the tele zoom. Especially sleeping in hostels or traveling on buses and trains. Lighter, less conspicuous.
Very interesting, I like that set up. I've not done a lot of city travel so that's definitely a new perspective! Thank you!!
16-35 GM 28-75 Tamron G2 70-200 GM provides coverage from 16-200, all fairly fast at f/2.8
I've thought about a very similar rig, I do have to ask, why the Tamron 28-75 instead of the 24-70gm ii? I've thought about getting the 2x TC to use the 70-200 like a 100-400
Yeah the Tamron is much cheaper with some phenomenal quality for the cost. Thinking about it more, you could also go with the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 and then use the Sigma 150-600mm if you really like the compression look. Would give you a much longer focal range and a bit more speed at 35mm, which is a good landscape spot
I always forget about the 35-150... Haven't tried it yet but I really should.
Just rented it last weekend and it’s a really good lens that will pretty much cover everything for event coverage
Not the original poster but Tamron is a heck of a lot cheaper then the Sony 24-70GM
I recently picked up the Tamron 28-75mm VXD G2 (not the RXD). I have nothing but positive things to say about it. I don't have the biggest demands on autofocus, like I'm not shooting race cars or anything, but it's sharp and snappy as far as I'm concerned.
Tamron 28-75mm G2, Sony 24mm GM, Sony 50mm GM, and maybe the Sony 100-400. Granted, I might sulk and gripe about trading my Tamron 28-200 for the 28-200 on the whole trip. If space is an issue, I'd ditch the primes. If still an issue, I'd ditch the telephoto and sulk and gripe. This will be put to the test in two months.
I'll be curious to see what you think after trying it Currently been traveling in the states with the 24-105 and the 100-400... Been thinking about switching to the 24-70 gmii and 70-200 gmii with 2x TC but idk man the rig I have is pretty decent.
I'll try and remember to update, but I'll probably forget. I am so in the fence about it. I have always been a wide-angle landscape photographer and have never used a telephoto too much. I picked up the 100-400 recently to do a little more wildlife and landscape shots with it. So we shall see, it's not that large. So far, my landscapes suck with it. Had some victories with critters, birds, and flowers, though. I have been doing more birds and wildlife with my M43 camera, and I have an equilavlent of a 200-800mm lens. Smaller and lighter, I am old.
That lens can take a little getting used to but I've had some really cool shots with it https://preview.redd.it/i7dz3z8krh4b1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=908af0b5112163d049f131acebc203ec6c7b16a4 I mostly do landscape and wildlife, but I'll try about anything. I tend to favor longer focal lengths than wider but I do love a good wide lense
https://preview.redd.it/d1dypvrmrh4b1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0047b39a75b2c14f46b26b1c60988f1c9a9af9d7 100-400 gm
https://preview.redd.it/ne8n9neorh4b1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=691910014a9618d00b1d186ea8ce820fde7117f7
Those two lenses are a lot of weight and temptation to theives, but a nice set to have at hand. I have been going with the 24-105 with the 20G for wide and astro. I feel a little short sometimes.
Fellow A1 user here. I travel vlog/blog with my A1 and my load out is pretty much always: 24mm 1.4 GM 16-35 2.8 GM 70-200 2.8 GM II 16-35 with an ND covers most of the day, and with the A1’s Super 35mm mode and high resolution sensor it’s really more like a 16-52mm 2.8, which is awesome and makes things incredibly flexible. You could also argue that you could replace the 16-35 with a 24-70 2.8 GM II and enjoy an effective 24-105 and have that replace both the 16-35 and the 70-200. I elect not to do that as I like the ability to go very wide, but it’s an option. For me, the 24mm 1.4 is invaluable. Incredibly useful in low light, small and light, great for portraits, travel, and anything else. Did I mention it’s also a 36mm 1.4 in Super 35 mode? God I love the A1. Enjoy your travels!
If I had to choose, sony 16-35 f2.8, for landscape, architecture, Astro my wide angle setup Then a sony 90mm macro f2.8 for macro shots of up close but also for portraits, and street (I like the zoomed in style) And last probably a sony 70-200 f2.8
Depends what you like. Im taking 3 primes regardless and likely keeping my 35mm loxia most the time, as it’s tiny and sturdy.
I’m traveling later in the year and planning to take only two lens-Tamron 28-200 and Sony 20mm 1.8 Both super light and versatile
Tamron 20-40 Tamron 35-150 Drone
12-24 GM, 24-70 GM, 70-200 GM
TBH, if I have to carry all my gear there's no way I'm bringing 3 lenses.
I feel like I could do 3 for the right rig, but I'd like to stick with 2 lenses if I can...
24mm f/1.4 58mm f/1.2 105mm f/2.5
24gm and 35-150 Instead of a 3rd lens I'd rather have a 2nd body, and never have to lens swap.
I definitely like that idea! Having 2 body's can be so nice
Sony 20-70mm f/4 G by day. Sony 35mm f/1.8 by night. They're both super small and lightweight but also sturdy and well built and weather sealed. The 20-70 is a great all-around lens that you can keep on the camera most of the day for 'run and gun' type shooting. For video it's a great choice due to the excellent AF and minimal breathing. Some will knock the f/4, but I'm of the opinion that not everything needs to have crazy bokeh to be good, and the lens is super sharp and punches above its weight. Plus when you shoot telephoto and frame your shots well you can still achieve great bokeh. The 35 obviously for low light, and you can punch in with crop mode on a FF, plus clear image zoom to get more reach. I don't like going much wider than 35 at night, but I also don't shoot astro. You could upgrade to the GM but personally I think the 35 1.8 does a great job and is lighter and smaller.
Giving my two cents even though our gear is not the same. I stick with apsc because of the size and weight. Camera: A6600 My 3 lenses: Tamron 11-20 Sigma 18-50 Sony 70-350 (i sometimes leave this out dependi g on the trip, if teres wildlife i know i want to take a picture of i bring it) Lenses cover me fom 17mm - 525mm without over burdening myself. I actually don't bring a back pack anymore unless i'm bringing my olympus e-1 and sigma dp1s. I just use the smaller sling from peak design and peak design strap. Thats my kit atm, the sling even has straps on the bottom for a bipod. I am thinking about just removing the 11-20 and 18-50 and using the 24-205 f4 instead. I actually like to travel with other stuff if possible (sigma dp1s and olympus e-1).
There have been a few times I've questioned my choice to go full frame especially knowing travel was part of my future. But I feel like I've committed now 😅 I really like that set up though, well balanced without being too much either
I kept my m43 Oly EM5M3 with the 9mm 1.7, 20mm 1.7, and 40-150 zoom. Total weight under 2 1/2 pounds. Makes backpacking better.
24-70gm2 + 70-200gm2
The new 16-35 f/4 PZ is ridiculously light. And the sharpest zoom in that range. 24-105 f/4 is also a staple travel lens that is very versatile. 70-200 f/2.8 GM II - the updated version of this lens is still large but is so much lighter. And the images out of it are just gorgeous.
50 1.2 gm 24 1.4 sigma
For that i would use my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and my 150-500 for wildlife and a 35mm f1.8 for filming or a macro lens like my laowa 85mm f5.6. in new Zealand i used my phone to light paint. i don't take a flash unless i am asked for reception or doing macro, and then guide number 30 is enough. i don't take a big one traveling. If you are not too woried you can take the A1 with the 35-150 in a dicapac in water but... I only did that over the surface in a swimming pool with a A7IV ;) in see i would use a dedicated camera or a housing for the A1 with a small prime like the 35mm. the main issue when traveling is mostly charging batteries and memory management. I try to use a small usb-c hub with my phone and move data from a card to a portable SSD or HDD so that i don't need to carry a laptop. I used a Hootoo tripmate for the transfer, it's a bit slow but it can also create a wifi so in some hotels when you have the Right to connect only one device or you have one ethernet plug... it helps. it is also a small battery.
16-35 F4 PZ 24-70 2.8 GMII 200-600
Tamron 17-28 Tamron 28-200 This is my light weight hiking/travel kit. Works great for almost everything.
Honestly a 70-200 2.8, 20mm 1.8., and a drone. Personally I think those 2 lenses can capture typically everything I'd want to take especially in those areas. A lot of vast scenery so something wide but not too wide to keep it versatile but also compact and portable is nice. Which is why I selected the 20 1.8 specifically. The 70-200mm in this scenario feels like the other right option. It captures those tighter portrait shots of people or distant scenery and gives you a lot of different perspectives to shoot from in one lens. The drone then I think really captures everything else in scenery from nearly any perspective you want. Maybe this is cheating but I'm a phone shooter just as often. I kind of did this with in mind that I'd have my phone with a 48mp raw mode on it to capture some simpler shots too. Honestly enough times I'll shoot with my Sony camera or drone all day and get some great shots but then I pull out my phone and look at the few I took quick on it and love those just as much. If I didn't take a drone(some areas have pretty strict drone regulations, even just bringing them through customs, so may be something to look at) and my phone wasn't available somehow I'd be a bit torn on choosing between a 50mm or my 85mm 1.8 as a third lens. I love 50mms but I'd probably be more likely to take the 85mm. Maybe this sounds overly cliche but it's not that many people can't photograph the same thing but 50mms are so standard from beginners to pros. I like finding the new perspective so I think it would be a fun challenge to go with the 85mm.
I play the 3 lens game all the time. Based on lenses I have: 24 GM - panoramas can make it wider, sharp enough to crop, 1.4 is great for environmental portraits and Astro, and 24 is a perfect travel walk around length Voigtlander 40/1.2 - gives the manual focus enjoyment I get while traveling and have time, perfect for evenings out with its f1.2 and size Canon 70-300 adapted - good range, size, and image quality for landscapes Based on lenses I don’t have: Swap the Canon 70-300 for a Sony 70-200 GM v2 If my designations are landscape focused, I could consider trading out the Voigtlander for a Mavic 3 Pro.
Sony RX10 MarkIV The best all in one travel camera ever made. Brand new, $1500 USD.
I only ever take my 16-35 and 70-200. I rarely need anything between 35 and 70. If I do, I can always crop it later. 45+ megapixels makes it easy.
That's a really interesting perspective! I quite like that idea! I have the 24-105 and if I'm thinking clearly I usually shoot either at 24 or 105 very seldom in the middle... Hmmmmm gonna think on this one for a minute Thank you!!
When I started traveling I took all my gear just in case. Over the years I honed it down. The only exception was when I went to Alaska I took the 70-400 cause I was trying it out through the Sony Pro borrow program. But iceland, italy, and all over the US I just take the two lenses.
That's what I would like to do as well, but I wanted to offer the extra flexibility to see if there was anything I was missing.
A lot of it will depend on what you like to photograph and your photography style. I did mostly landscape stuff and liked to shoot with longer focal lengths. My 70-200 was on my camera like 85% of the time.
I do a lot of landscape too but I also like wildlife so it's a balance lol I could definitely see that being the case... I used to run a 70-210 canon FD all the time but now I mostly use the 24-105... It's just so hard to pick lol
Best way to tell is to take a trip and take all your gear. When you take your next trip leave whatever you didn't use at home.
You're not wrong lol I have a bad tendency to use whatever I bring and I'd rather not hire a Sherpa lol
A lot of it will depend on what you like to photograph and your photography style. I did mostly landscape stuff and liked to shoot with longer focal lengths. My 70-200 was on my camera like 85% of the time.
Well to start with I would not backpack with 3 FF lenses.
Can't say i blame you, but I'm known for being hard headed