Travel: 16-35 OR 24-70 with 70-200?

I've recently done some longer-term travel with only my 16-35 and 70-200... and couldn't help but feel like there were times where I wanted something longer than 35 but 70 was too long. Looking at my photos, I don't have *that* many photos between 16-23mm, but can also tell that a lot of the shots I just wanted as wide as possible - so obviously 24mm shuts down those opportunities a little but...

How does the 24-70 (f4 IS) compare to 16-35? Of course, 24-105 is an option and I actually already have that lens but not really happy with the image quality from it.

Wonder if I should just add a 50mm prime (ugh, 3rd lens!) or consider swapping my primary kit away from the ultra wide?

I have the 16-35 F4IS and 24-70F4 IS. I used to own the 24-105 and I too never really loved it. I find the 24-70F4 to be a bit better but not by a wide margin, I mainly like it because it's a really small standard zoom and the macro feature is actually a lot of fun and useful.

The 16-35 is just outstanding in every way.

My Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS is my kit for travel to Europe. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
IS throughout in a smaller, lighter, well somewhat, compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS anyway.
Consistant colors and sharpness throughout that allows me to come home in good shape.
If I was to be forced to bring only two lenses, 16-35 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.

I used to be a 24-105 snob until multiple conversations with top Canon Pros surprised me how many used it. I took it out of the box and started travelling with it and my 70-200 and a TC and haven't stopped.

I'd vote to add a 50mm to your travel kit, to go along with the 16-35mm and 70-200mm

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is extremely cheap, and will take up almost no space in your bag.

Dustman wrote in post #18611728
I'd vote to add a 50mm to your travel kit, to go along with the 16-35mm and 70-200mm

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is extremely cheap, and will take up almost no space in your bag.

I've had it in the past and though I haven't used it in ages,can't help but be sure I'd be disappointed with it's quality on my 5d, especially paired with two fantastic L lenses...

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #18611769
I've had it in the past and though I haven't used it in ages,can't help but be sure I'd be disappointed with it's quality on my 5d, especially paired with two fantastic L lenses...

While it does have less than stellar construction (That's why they can be had for about $100), the optics are surprisingly good. I shoot it wide open at f/1.8 on my 5D Mark IV all the time, and I am very happy with the results.

You seemed not wanting to carry a third lens when you travel, but you can literally keep the 50mm STM in a cargo pants or jacket pocket, and barley notice it is with you. But than for those few times you need something between 35mm and 70mm, it is there waiting for you.

Making lens choices when traveling is always a little bit of a headache.

When I tried the 50mm STM on my 5dsR I was positively impressed by the output given its cheap price. If the OP feels the need to fill the gap between 35mm and 70mm without adding to much weight / bulkiness then the 50mm STM is a great choice.
So I definitely would suggest to go with the trio 16-35 f/4 IS + 50 STM + 70-200. I would however add a 24-105 or 24-70 f/4 lens to have more flexibility when UWA is not required.

My travel of choice has always been a 16-35 and 50. Never really liked taking the 70-200s with me. Always not wide enough or too short. For long I could see adding a 100-400 into the mix.