Photography

24 readers

4 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@viewfinder.pro

What's more useful 16-35mm or 24-70mm (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by TheSound0fSilence@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I won an eBay listing for a 24-70mm f2.8 GM. However, the seller's photos showed a 16mm-35mm f2.8 GM.

I didn't think I'd win as my highest bid was $1k.

Turns out, I won and he then clarified his mistake and wants to know if I'd like the unopen (New) 16-35mm f2.8 GM.

I probably need the entire range but what would be the #1 focal length you'd use for traveling?

Also, is $1k for that lens worth passing on or is it a good deal?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] somnuz@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

It mostly just boils down to what’s more useful for you as a photographer and user/owner?

I have used some Sony equipment in the past, but not to the extent of being deeply familiar with all their lenses quirks and technical tables.

From range perspective, both solid choices to play with. Especially if your main focus will be, let’s assume, landscapes and architecture.

What I know for sure is, whatever the weight is — consider it, as much as possible. Traveling with too much gear can get pretty annoying really quickly. All the people I know, that really travel a lot — mostly choose by weight, often going for a favorite prime/pancake lens and a small zoom, but more often than not, sticking to just the first option. Sometimes even going for a much smaller camera, for convenience.

Great idea is to go with your setup for a full or half day, wherever in your local area to just feel it and field test it.