16-35 2.8 iii or 24-70 2.8 ii for travel

Which would you prefer for travel photography? exploring landscapes and abandoned buildings. Thanks for any help and happy new year.

Are you shooting full frame or cropped?

John from PA wrote in post #18781604
Are you shooting full frame or cropped?

full frame. Sry. Thanks John

I'm not into landscapes, but do take images of abandoned objects and centuries old oaks. With abandonments I often switch to panorama on iPhone and only after switching to 16-35 it was wide enough for trees.
If i do one frame ladscapes it is 35 or 50. It really depends what is in the frame.
75 end is handy for portraits, IMO. 16mm is for something like grand bend, IMO.
And 16mm is awesome for street full of people photography.

both. I would not be without either.

Neither

24-105 and a 70-200F4 is what I prefer travel with

Using a 24-70 now i find I am really missing 70-105 MM a lot

umphotography wrote in post #18781687
Neither

24-105 and a 70-200F4 is what I prefer travel with

Using a 24-70 now i find I am really missing 70-105 MM a lot

Ump,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm assuming the newest 24-105 ii f4, I'm surprised you recommend f4 instead of 2.8. I know that 2.8 helps alot with low light situations. Thanks everybody.

James Crockett wrote in post #18781722
Ump,

Thanks for the feedback. I'm assuming the newest 24-105 ii f4, I'm surprised you recommend f4 instead of 2.8. I know that 2.8 helps alot with low light situations. Thanks everybody.

5D4 is a really clean sensor. So F/4 glass is really not a big deal for me for travel pics. I also take a tripod with me and ND's in case I get to shoot water or milky ways shots. Depends on where I go.

I Love the 24-105 so the EOS R is high on my list right now. Just waiting to see where canon is going. Was not happy with the 24-10511 release. Felt my version 1 was as good optically.

I feel like we are all at a wait and see point now with Canon right now. So Im waiting to see what they are going to do. The 24-105 R is an amazing lens and its what I was hoping the least release of the 24-105 would have been. I was so disappointed with the release and I was vocal about it. Worst update ever for Canon in my opinion

umphotography wrote in post #18781740
5D4 is a really clean sensor. So F/4 glass is really not a big deal for me for travel pics. I also take a tripod with me and ND's in case I get to shoot water or milky ways shots. Depends on where I go.

I Love the 24-105 so the EOS R is high on my list right now. Just waiting to see where canon is going. Was not happy with the 24-10511 release. Felt my version 1 was as good optically.

I feel like we are all at a wait and see point now with Canon right now. So Im waiting to see what they are going to do. The 24-105 R is an amazing lens and its what I was hoping the least release of the 24-105 would have been. I was so disappointed with the release and I was vocal about it. Worst update ever for Canon in my opinion

the 24-105R is a lens I would consider if distortion at 24mm has been corrected at least to the level of 24-70L II. I haven't seen anything about that in any of the reviews, which are otherwise great.

What camera body do you use?
Some people love wider angle shots and some more narrow views. Me I like longer lenses as really wide angle tends to “flatten” the view. My response to the question would be the 24-105L if using a 6D or newer 5 series as it is light weight and a nice range and the higher ISO capabilities make up for the one stop loss. I primarily use a 70-300 or 100-400 for landscapes as I want detail at distance. I absolutely love my 24-70L for so many uses.
Based upon the 2 inside pictures you have posted if that is your primary type photography the 16-35 would be awesome.

At first I was in the 'get an expansive wide area into the shot' camp. But I rapidly learned that unless you have someone or something that you wish to be prominent in foreground of the shot AND you wish to capture a lot of the surrounding 'environment' (the adjacent locale) into the frame, superwide usage mostly recedes the detail of the distant background into detailess expansiveness that results in a 'blah' shot!

Some months ago I deliberately shot this side-by-side to show 24mm FL vs. a superwide FL on FF (I mounted a third party WA lens meant for use on a crop camera which is why the vignetting of the shot on the right.) The left gray arrow points to a house on a ridge line which is about 1 mile from my home. It gets lost in the superwide shot. The red arrow points to a branch which disappears in the superwide shot...ya gotta magify it for you eye to see it.

Petie53 wrote in post #18782247
What camera body do you use?
Some people love wider angle shots and some more narrow views. Me I like longer lenses as really wide angle tends to “flatten” the view. My response to the question would be the 24-105L if using a 6D or newer 5 series as it is light weight and a nice range and the higher ISO capabilities make up for the one stop loss. I primarily use a 70-300 or 100-400 for landscapes as I want detail at distance. I absolutely love my 24-70L for so many uses.
Based upon the 2 inside pictures you have posted if that is your primary type photography the 16-35 would be awesome.

I'm using the 5dsr. Thanks everybody for the help.