The day I realized I wanted to focus on travel and landscape photography was the happy day I was freed from the draw of fast lenses, and their associated cost. I have a couple primes, mostly as walkabout lenses when I'm not doing anything serious, but being able to bring ALL my gear in one backpack is golden.
Yes the so called 'holy trinity' of landscape lenses are the 16-35, 24-70 and a 70-200 which I am fortunate to own, all are f4, no need for f2.8 and they are just as sharp in my opinion. For woodland I mainly use my 70-200 and will just carry this with me and a few filters etc, I do have a 100-400 but it is as you say for specific terrains and landscapes. Carrying less has a number of advantages. Obviously there's the weight factor carrying less is better but the other advantage is there is more room for some sandwiches and a flask of tea in the camera bag! ;) Great vlog as always Adam keep em coming!
Thanks for this informative vid. I am a (very) amateur landscape photography enthusiast and I often think I'm losing out with not taking longer and faster lenses and I simply cant afford them. Watching this has assured me that I dont need them for what I want to shoot.
I have most of these and agree wholeheartedly with what you say. I thought of buying a 24-70 but, reviewing the metadata from my 24-120 shots, almost 35% of them were taken in the 90-120 range. When I bought it, I thought the 200-500 would cover my tele needs. However, it is a beast to haul around and the 200 end is to too long for many uses. I blew myself to the 70-200 f2.8 which I use surprisingly often. The 2.8 end is great for portraits and indoor tele work. On last month’s cross country drive that’s the lens I kept buckled in the back seat for opportunistic shots. Finally, I would add my great 20mm f1.8 prime. I love it for nighttime use and for low light panos plus it’s light, small and uses the same 77mm filters as my 24-120 and 70-200.
It has always surprised me when people tell me that it was stupid of me to buy a f4 vs f2.8. When I ask them what they shoot and they say landscape. I then ask them what aperture they usually use and they say f8 or f11, I ask them why they need f2.8. Then the important answer-the f2.8 is better according to the “reviews”. But they can never show me where it is better. I realize it is just the desire to have something that can say is better than someone else.
Yeah, f4 is plenty for landscape and there are some nice "3rd party" Astro lens FAAAARRR cheaper than Nikon or Canon has to offer. But fast Prime's sure are nice and can produce art in the right hands.
Cristian Baluta Actually that isn’t true. It isn’t the glass size that determines either the optics of the glass or the quality of the lens. Whole lot of other things go into lens optics. Bigger glass can aid in gather more light but isn’t even the sole factor here.
@@cristibaluta Nope. It doesn't work this way. Most quality lenses, either 2.8s/4.0s/5.6s will render probably the same at f/11 when shooting landscape. A sport lens WILL render better at the first two stops because that's where the workflow is but for landscapes there's no need to carry all that.
I agree about f/4 zooms, particularly at the wide end. However, I do enjoy shallow DoF at longer focal lengths, particularly with foliage and flowers, and often pair an f/4 wide angle zoom with an 85/1.8 prime, which is long enough most of the time and gives me the option of shallow DoF without the bulk and weight of an f/2.8 tele-zoom.
When I first started shooting, if you wanted a decent lens you had to buy a fixed focal length. Now, you can get a nice zoom lens in any focal length you want. I love fixed focal length lenses, but I shoot with zoom lenses. I do outdoor photography almost exclusively these days and zoom lenses are just more convenient. And there are certain environments where you wouldn't want to change lenses. I shot all day the other day when it snowed in the Smoky Mountains and the only lens I used was a Sony 24-105mm zoom. I also downsized from the 70-200mm 2.8 to the 70-200mm f4 which is a very nice lens and weighs a lot less than the 2.8. Heavy lenses just don't go in my bag anymore.
Really good information here. I (attempt to) do all sorts of photography so I need faster glass than you do. I don't ever hike as far as you do either. I think one mile (1.61km LOL) is about my limit. I have the bulbous 14-24 2.8 and rarely use it except for live music photography. I can get nearly the entire stage in one shot from the "pit" with that one and it's wide 2.8 aperture is nearly a must in that situation. The other two 2.8 zooms are also needed for live music. I use some 1.8 primes for portraits and have a really heavy 500 f/4 for wildlife but the 200-500 is better in many situations. The key is carrying the right gear for the location and subject you are shooting I think. I shoot soccer with my 70-200 2.8 at 2.8 so the f/4 wouldn't work for me. I can't see buying both versions. I'm using the Z series mirrorless Nikons now and they would work great with all your glass and the FTZ adaptor. I have yet to purchase any Z mount glass but I do have my eye on the 14-30 f/4 they are about to release. If I'm doing landscape in "wanna be quiet light mode", I carry my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, they have the same filter size. Thanks for running such an inspirational channel. I have to say that I enjoy the funny Adam Gibbs as seen over on Gavin's channel but I also really enjoy the slightly more serious Adam Gibbs that you present here. So my input is don't alter your format even if you might be tempted to. Cheers
Agree of all you said. I only own 2 lenses now for Landscape photography a nikon 20mm 1.8 prime and a 70-200 2.8 tamron G2 and found it enough for my type of shooting. I love all your honesty on this video..cheers
Always good to see a "what's in my bag" video. In my instance over the past few years and as a hobbyist landscape shooter I have gone from full frame gear with 2.8 lenses & heavy gitzo tripods to now shooting 4/3rds. Age n ailments (dble hernia, stuff joints etc) meant packing a lighter load and I did it gradually..losing the 2.8 glass for f4 variants and eventually wanting to carry light altogether I got a small camera. I do miss ff a little but its not essential - getting out and enjoying the landscape. I am guessing you have a few of these vids stashed up waiting for release whilst you are in the UK? :) Been told this morning that parts of Scotland have snow - 8th May !! Atb
I have the 24-120 f4 and the 24-85 f3.5-4.5, both which are considered "kit lenses' and they are without a doubt my most used two lenses for landscape with results that more than satisfy me. I have never heard a single comment from anyone about any of my images being not sharp enough. Those other expensive, heavy, faster lenses are great for portrait work as you stated and I also have those for just that purpose but took a few of them on a hiking trip once and that was the last time.
80% of what I shoot is wildlife, so I elected to grab the 150-600mm G2 Tamron. For landscape and astro I pack a 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor. If I feel like doing macro or portraits I use my 105mm Nikkor Micro. With these lenses, my accessories and my D850 my pack is stuffed and weighs in at around 28lbs. But then if I'm planning on staying at a single location for a wildlife shoot I usually bring my Benro 48CXL and gimbal head which weighs around 8lbs. I'd love to pack lighter, but every time I leave gear at home I find myself needing it.
Adam I could not agree with your lens choice more. With todays high megapixel cameras you can always crop to get a picture within a picture and not loose any perceived resolution. I would also hope that on all your landscape trips you also take along your drone even though it adds to your pack. Drones add a dimension to landscape photography that really does something that the DSLR or Mirrorless cannot match.
All very sensible stuff Adam..enjoy Scotland and say hi to Tom for me (I was in Torridon in Scotland with him (and Simon Baxter) in horrible weather in March) . just be aware he'll probably try and drag you up some rather steep hills so one camera, one lens, one filter may be the way forward on that day !!
Excellent advice. I went the other direction, all fast glass and at times I've regretted it - but there have been times (very few) when I've found the versatility of them useful.
This is why I shoot m4/3. I want a small pack in the field. Now the lack of megapixels is a problem if you still try to shoot like you have a high MP full frame camera. You just can’t rely as much on cropping in in post. Making large prints is not a problem in m4/3 land. Neither is lack of MP when you now have great high MP shooting modes in the latest Olympus cameras.
Adam, some great points made here as usual. GAS (not the Gavin version) is a problem we all run into at one time or another and as we age the weight becomes more critical it seems. I looked long and hard at the 24-120 but ended up going with the 28-300 as I do find myself highlighting more objects for "artsy" prints and the 300 gives me some extra reach and I don't need to bring along the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4 converter to get similar reach. Critics abound for both of these but I can honestly say its a lot easier carrying this and the 16-35 than going with a trio or more of the heavy lenses and as you said, if one takes the time it is hard to see any degredation in print quality. Jim
Very honest, Adam. Many people are just obsessed with getting the best/sharpest or sometimes even just the most expensive (because they can) lens. In the end ist's always about the purpose... Well explained from you!
The truth is any and all lenses are relevant in landscape photography and I love some of the images I have captured with my 400mm 2.8 VR just as much as the images taken with my 24-70mm 2.8 o the 16-35mm lens.
I just happened across your video....Perfect timing for me! I’m driving myself a little batty trying to figure out which lens to take for my upcoming Iceland trip. I shoot w a Canon 6D & 17-35, 24-70, 28-135. I worry that if leave out the 24-70 because of weight, I’ll miss out on sharpness. And truth be told, I print mainly b&w small square images. Due to aging that has brought on hip & back issues; I’ve had to give up my Lowepro Mini Trekker & I’ve repurposed a floating frame backpack w padded insert. After watching your video, I think I’m going w my 17-35 and 28-135. I was going to rent a 70-200 lens....but haven’t use this length since I gave mine away to a family member. I don’t shoot people or wildlife. Landscapes, abstracts etc. thanks for your video!
Nikon should make a signature version of the 24-120 for Mr. Gibbs.....I just love when pro’s like yourself use such a “kit” lens to create world class images.....beats consumerism any time if you ask me!
I understand your choice of going with lighter lenses completely. It's also why I switched from Nikon to Fuji X for my backpacking kit (lighter). And if I really want to go light, I bring primes for wider and mid range focal lengths, and only use my 55-140 f2.8 (76-213mm full frame equivalent) as my zoom. Though since I picked up the 8-16mm f2.8 (12-24 full frame equivalent) I am loving that lens for wide work, even with it's weight. But for mid range I just use my 35mm f2.0 prime (50mm full frame equivalent), and still I rarely use that focal length. I honestly don't use mid ranges that much in my landscape work up here in Alaska. It's either wide, or tele 95% of the time. And of course I also need to calculate the weight of my drone that I bring along as well. But your explanation of planning out the lenses you need for each trip is so accurate, as you don't ever want to carry so much that it impedes your access to the locations you wish to shoot.
I don't know if it's already been mentioned but the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5g is also a great lightweight wide angle option. Obviously not quite as wide as the 16-35 but sharper corner to corner, lighter and less expensive. I also own the 14-24 but almost never use it.
Totally agree David. I have been using that lens for a couple of years and it is quite sharp, and not that expensive ( relative to other lenses of equal sharpness).
@@slowlyrusting4044 Yep, it's great for what it is. It feels cheap in your hand but the image quality will surprise anyone that is willing to give it a try.
Great, simple, honest video. Thanks Adam. For what it's worth, the 24-120 is my go-to lens as well, and for the same reasons as you offer. The 14-24 is a superb lens, but clunky and heavy. Thanks for saying it's ok to stick with the 16-35 for hiking!!! G
I bought the 16-35 myself on account of what Adam had to say about it. I haven't bought the intermediary zoom yet but I did get the new 70-200 2.8 FL lens which I really like. The 24-120 seems to make a lot of sense.
For landscape photography, I am moving from having a 16-35mm and a 28-300mm which I used with my D750. Now I have a Z7 and am getting a 14-30mm and a 70-200mm. I think the void in the range from 30 to 70mm is not an issue for landscape work. I do have a F1.8 20mm prime lens which I only use for night photography. I may miss the 200 to 300mm range, but I’ll just have to use cropping with the extra pixels provided by the Z7. BTW ... at 76 years of age weight is EVERYTHING!
I have a couple of "hand me downs", a 17-35 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 Sigma, so I couldn't go wrong on the prices. But I am looking to supplement with a middle range lens other than my 50mm f1.8. I was thinking of saving up for a 24-70 but now after seeing your video, I might just go with a 24-120. You're right, only time I stop down to f2.8 is at night and my 17-35 does just fine there. Thanks! Great video as always. :)
Great common sense video on lens selection. I have found that as I get older, common sense is prevailing. Having over time, acquired a knowledge of what works for you in the field is worth it's weight in gold. The new RF 85mm 1.2 is a prime example, an incredible lens I am sure, and maybe one day it will find its way into my stable, but at what expense? Highly unlikely most would make use of the f/1.2 aperture on a landscape shoot. I have a tendency to prefer the Canon "L" series for their weather-proofing, and I have bought the 2.8's to dual purpose them, but at a substantial weight gain, I'm am starting to think that maybe I invest in their little brothers with the f/4 aperature or maybe more likely, get the RF trinity in f/4 instead, afterall, the EF-RF adapter is awesome, so I still have f/2.8 when I need them. And yes, the LEE SW150 is a big step up in price, was so relieved to see that the 100 system works on a 105 front element!$$!
Wise words from someone who's put the leg work in and learnt by experience. I need to wise up and swap from f2.8 to f4 because the weight is just ridiculous. I have had enough of hiking with my old schools radiator in my backpack - You know the white ones which Canon make into lenses 😉
For landscape photography one doesn't really need autofocus. So one can use manual lenses, there are even some vintage zooms out there which are really compact & light and have great, characterful image quality! Autofocus? Only needed for moving subjects. Large aperture? Only needed for blurry background or low light. This way one can solve many weight/size problems and additionally save quite some bucks.
Great review of your gear Adam. I also have the 24 120 f4 and the 16 35 f4 on my D750. I'm considering getting the Z7 with the 24 70 f4 kit lens but I'm still undecided if I should part with the 24 120 f4 as I really like this lens. I travel quite a lot and the weight thing is important as carry-on is restricted on some airlines to 7Kg.
Very nice Adam, I appreciate your insight as a working (and hiking) professional. The 24-120 apparently (see Thom Hogan) suffers from significant sample variance - poor copies have given it a bad name but if you have a good one, it's great. Also, have you looked into the AF-P 70-300 FX? It's even smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f/4 and it's excellent.
Thanks Adam, I'm always interested in learning about the why people choose one lens over another, especially those whose work I admire. Thanks for sharing, have fun on Saltspring!
I have a couple of 2.8 lenses because I never know when I am going to need them. Due to lighting in community arenas I shoot my grandson’s hockey games wide open at 2.8. But if I just shot landscapes using a tripod mostly, well f4 would be the right choice. I figure you buy a lens for its greatest need. Mine is f2.8 at present.
Great perspective, Adam. Though I primarily shoot wildlife, I am complementing it with more landscape work and yours is an inspiration. My first Nikon lens was that 24-120 f4 and I still favour it as my walk around lens. I feel I’ve taken some very decent shots with it and no one has ever said such pics look like they were taken with a “kit lens”. After shooting with a tripod mounted 600 f4 slung over my shoulder and walking around with it, everything feels light. 😎
I’m 4’11 and I take my Nikon 14-24, 24-70 and a heavy tripod out hiking. I LOVE the 14-24. The quality is insanely beautiful. But it is an absolute brick. Moving forward I’ll be looking into lighter everything and using this vid as a resource.
I have a similar approach. F4 zoom lenses and a few fast primes. Usually I take only 2 lenses with me. In some situations I even prefer to travel only with primes. I would even argue, that you could take only three primes with you (a fast wide angle, a fast standard and a fast short tele) and cover everything with that.
Hi Adam, found you through watching Gavins channel... Thank goodness you have less fart jokes ;) Congrats on your award, keep showing us those wonderful pictures, grump-a-saurus rex :)
Interestingly I've come to the same conclusion about lenses as you. Sharpness (image quality) isn't the be all end all criteria of lenses, the usability e.g. how willing you are taking the the lens to the places you want to go is a top priority and also having the energy to actually do the photography after the hike. Two lenses are the ideal amount to hike with I think, in order to have the variance and ability in capturing the scenes that you want to capture. But taking fewer lenses on a trip is something that comes with experience, you kind of have to know what you want from a trip, else you wont know what to expect and how to choose properly.
Excellent video. Question if I may...why not take an "all-purpose" lens like the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 VC... especially for travel and hiking? Its also on the heavy side but not as heavy as the 14-24mm f/2.8 etc. Thank you very much for your time and effort.
I carry Canon 16-35 f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6 for my 6D. Personally I like having the longer reach for occasional bird shots and buttery bokeh when shooting flowers at 300mm with good BG separation.
Thanks Adam for your thoughts on lens choices. For a long while I was considering buying the Nikon 14-24 /f2,8 (or the equally fantastic Tamron 15-30 mm) but in the end I went for the 16-35 /f4 for the same reason you’re mentioning in the video. In fact, my final decision was influenced by some of your previous videos in which I noticed that particular lens-choice of yours in many of your shots. To be honest, I have always been more of a long-lens shooter for my nature & landscape work, but I always carry a wide angle lens with me on my trips. And the 16-35 mm have proven to be a great lens for the right moments I encounter out there. An extra bonus is that it takes the same 77 mm filter thread as my trusted Nikon 70-200 /f2,8 too! Also, since I often like to explore compositions and framing as freely as possible I truly love the fact that it has a great stabilization too. I can only agree on your thoughts on the Nikon 200-500 /f5,6 Adam. I initially bought that lens for bird and wildlife photography, which I enjoy doing on occasion, but very soon “discovered” what a great landscape & nature photography lens it is too! Since it is plenty sharp wide open at f5,6 it is very useful for separating details from the background with a nice blur. And with the excellent stabilization I regularly manage to shoot with shutter-speeds as low as 1/20 of a second without motion blur! For these reasons I quite often carry it with me right in to our dens woods around here because it has given me so many fine results in situations that normally a different lens would have been the more natural choice. It is rather heavy but it has managed to produce many great panoramic frame-series (hand held) in dim lighting for me any way. Adam, I’m looking forward seeing the results from yours and Gavin’s trip to Salt Spring Island soon on the Tube! Salt Spring was my home for a few years in the late 90’s and I just loved the natural scenery of that island! Greetings from Sweden & Happy shooting Adam! /Thomas
I changed camera systems recently and opted for Fuji 10-24 and 55-200 for my landscape ..... I do have the 18-55 as well. All three lenses are plenty sharp especially when shooting at f8-11, but when hiking I will just stick to the wide and tele ... keeps weight down and avoids too many lens changes
Sage advice. These days I have the 24-70 f/2.8 mounted most of the time because with 5 young grandkids around, it is the best lens for me. The 16-35 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 are usually my road trip go-to lenses. Nikon reps are probably cursing you right now for your honesty but new shooters would do well to heed your advice!
I agree with you completely about the sharpness of lenses. I'm not a fanatic about sharpness... But then I love effects lenses such as Lensbabies and oddball lenses such as a $29 Lomography lens that I have to use an adapter for my Nikon camera. I also post online, and should I make a print, no one is going to look at it closeup evaluating sharpness. IMO, most non-photographers don't even think about that. I don't do portraiture.
Thanks so much Adam... Being practical, knowing in advance which lenses will suit your purposes on any given hike. I couldn't agree more, it is all about the weight when backpacking as I have learned this lesson only too well! I guess it's been a couple years now since I purchased the then discontinued 5DM3 body by Canon. Through B&H I was able to get the 5DM3 with the 24-105 mm f/3.5 L lens as a kit pkg. I don't really consider this lens a kit lens even though I bought it as such. I enjoy this lens so much, it hasn't left the camera yet! I carry (2) lenses with me when backpacking now, the EF-24-105 & the EF-70-200 f/2.8 L. The 70-200 L is an absolute beast in terms of weight, ( heavy ) nevertheless, I rarely leave home without it! ( I often wish I had the f/4 version by the end of the day, lol. ) My all time favorite long prime is the EF-400mm f/5.6 L which I use mostly for birds & wildlife in general, however when I was selling prints through my WGF Studio53 site, I sold a red sunrise done with the 400 prime that simply was awesome to behold! Thanks again Adam, nothing not to like here... Bill on the Hill... :~)
Thank you so much for this video I just camera and I have been using the two kit lenses that it comes with and I was wondering how to decide what type of lens I should get when I am ready to upgrade and you just explained this in your video. Thanks again really appreciate the information.
I’m so glad you have been so honest about the 24-120 lens - I couldn’t agree more. I have this lens as well as the 24-70 f2.8, and it is heavy and for the purpose of hiking and taking landscape/nature photos, it’s perfect!
I switched to Fuji two years ago in order to save weight. Normally I use 10-24, 16-55 and 55-200 (all x1,5 for full frame equivalent). Now I am looking for an „all in one“ like the 18-135. The tests weren’t that good I stopped thinking about it. But now I consider it again...
I agree on the Nikon 14-24, hardly every use it and thinking about dumping it as well. On the wide end I use the Nikon 18-35 G lens - light, cheap and sharper than the 16-35 by most accounts. My workhorse is the Sigma Art 24-105 F4 - I tested it back to back with the 24-120 and found it superior. Those are the 2 I use most often but occasionally I bring the Sigma 100-400 for those times I want to isolate the subject. Not sure if I will bring it to the San Josef Bay workshop or not, but I'm tempted. What do you think? Cheers Adam!
Well sad sad sad for me. I can't afford any of these at this time. I just bought the Nikon D5600 with kit lens, so sorry that all you professional photographers gleeming with all the is expensive gear and full frame camera think ink that you are the greatest because of it. I do admire the work you do and that you get to travel the world to get great shots that I can only dream of doing.
Hey, Shena, we all have to start somewhere. When I started as a photographer I didn't have any money for gear or lenses. I had to scrape and save for gear and the gear that I did purchase was usually used. What you see in my videos is an accumulation of equipment over two decades, not two weeks. If you really want something regardless of how impossible it seems at the time with work and persistence you can achieve anything.
Well said, and very sensible. For hiking and travel, I usually make do with my Nikon 7100 (crop-sensor) with the Nikon 18-140 kit lens. I sometimes do a two-frame panorama to widen the view, but any unsharpness usually is due to operator error (mine) rather than the quality of the lens. Thanks, Adam.
Great getting your thoughts on why you use what lenses you do. A agree with your thoughts! I'm tired of an overly heavy backback and especially as I get older now. Thanks Adam!
I'm sure you're appreciating the new 14-30 f4. In one of your recent vids you mentioned liking the 24-120 f4. Caught my attention as it is a rather ignored lens by "purists", but I've shot more photos (by far) using this lens than any other for the past 8 years. Been especially good for architectural as I like real and immediate flexibility in composing on location. In January I was able to photograph at Spaceport America in New Mexico. Because I had limited time and there were restrictions I shot everything using this lens. scottweaverphoto.com/spaceport-america I'm enthusiastic about the new 24-200 variable aperture when Nikon finally catches up to demand.
I would like to replace my 14-24 with the 16-35 since my camera bag weighs 25 lbs but I invested so much in the filters and holder that I'd feel like I wasted money to get rid of it. the 28-300 on the other hand can get thrown off a cliff.
For landscape photography, the gear is really easy to acquire. Any lens you shoot will be fine at f8, so... you’ll probably need : a wide lens ( the Tamron G2 15-30 f 2.8 easily outpaces and is priced way less than the Nikon 14-24), and a 70-200 equivalent... get one at f4 to save weight and money... again, the Tamron F2.8 is amazing. Nikon needs to address the fact that their lenses have gotten outperformed by cheaper and really well built third parties, such as Tamron. I have 2 or 3 Sigma lenses ( the Art series), and they seriously live in a storage box, because they are inconsistent and render quite poor details.
Bonsoir Adam you mentioned you may consider selling the 14-24mm Nikkor. I do own it and agree with you that it is outstanding but I have been struggling to find the perfect filter kit for it. I am contemplating on getting the wine country camera filter kit (polarizer, 6stop and 2stop graduated filters included) but I was wondering if you would sell the filter kit separately. If yes how much? If not could you send me the affiliate link for each elements included in your kit. If I decide to go with the wine country filter kit. Shall I replace the 6stopper with the 10 stopper? Or is the 6 stopper better to use over the 10? Thank you for your feedback!
Have the 24-120 as well, considering to buy 28-300 and test them side by side so I can leave my 70-300 at home and carry only one lens for trips where I don´t plan to shoot seriously. For most of my photo trips, I use tamron 15-30 and 24-120 for that additional reach, but I find myself using 15-30 98% of time.
How many of us fill our bags with all our lenses 'Just in case' and never use half of them, I'v got that T-shirt!! Limiting your lenses also means being more creative, something else i'm working on. Your Fav lens gets wonderful results to me, the China vlogs would have been a lot longer if you were always changing lenses. Love your work.
I wished I knew more about lenses when starting out. If I did I certainly wouldn’t have bought the 14-24 requiring literally thousands of dollars extra to completely swap filter systems (from 100mm to 150mm) to fit. I could have quite easily just bought a separate ultra wide fast lens to shoot my Astro with on top of the 16-36 and still saved a fortune. However, subtracting primes (which are the better choices for sharpness) my third party Tamron 24-70 pretty much now lives on my d850. I find that I’m pretty much either shooting at 24, 35 or 50mm mostly nowadays.
I’m a gear hog too but I’m working on it. Couple questions. On the San Josef class what trails are you planning on? The Mt Patrick trail looks steep. What is your ideal pack weight on day hikes?
Thanks for the lens advice Adam. Very timely for me! I'm planning a trip to the Rockies and have had my finger poised on the 'purchase' button for that 16-35 for days now. But I was wondering about the F4 limitation. I have also wondered if I would actually use it as opposed to doing a two shot pano with a 24-70. Is the view much different?
Great that you share your thoughts on lenses. I too have the 24-120/f4 lens. It is my go-to lens, but I also have a 50/1.8 and a 90/2.8 macro primes. They match perfectly with my D750 and I can all the sharpness I want by simply tweaking the sharpness in post! Don't waste hard-earned money on expensive glass.
Great video as always. When is it time to pull the trigger and go mirrorless? Lighter gear and less of it, I think. Crucial for those of us that find it necessary to hike mile after mile over mountains and deserts just to find that perfect shot. LOL
Really interesting to hear your take on lenses Adam, I too have the 24-120mm and it’s my go to lens most of the time. I decided to go with the 20mm prime for uwa as it is light and doubles up for night shots as and when. I opted for the Tamron 100-400mm for telephoto work and it’s pretty good. The new 70-300mm AF-P Fx is a really nice lens and it’s in my wife’s bag, if I’m walking any distance, I tend to take that as it is really light and image quality is vg even on my D850. Atb from a rather wet Scottish Highlands (at least it will top up the lochs, rivers and waterfalls - it has been very dry for weeks.
On my 6D for landscape and city scape I use 8-15mm fisheye, 16-35 f/4, & 24-105 f/4. I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 but that is normally paired with a 7Dii for sports.
For hiking I use Canon 11-22mm (220gr) and 18-150mm (300gr). Both 55mm filters. Don't know how much worse they are comparing with L lenses, but more than enought for a hobbist photographer, I love them.
I find the 24-120 a great lens. Stopped down to f8 it's easily sharp enough for what I'm doing these days. The only thing I find not so great about it is the focus ring. It's not in the best position, it's very thin and it has just enough play that it can be quite difficult to get critical focus. I also have the 24-70 (bought from a colleague for doing weddings a year or two ago) and that is a pleasure to focus with. Stopped down, I haven't noticed any real difference in quality between them, apart from CA from the 24-120.
This video is 3 years old now so no one follow the comments.. However after watching this video and discussing the topic with another photographer, we agreed the reason why people get the 2.8 version is probably the versatility. You can take it to anywhere if you can bare the weight and it perform in low and good light condition plus you can photographer people one day and landscape the other. Saying that, for the dedicated landscape photographer the fast glass is an inconvenience. Price is unnecessary and weight is another problem. I personally have both versions , fast and F4 for the entire range because I used to do weddings in the pass. However now as a landscape photographer I need it all to be light and easy to carry and the 2.8 set is really heavy. I haven't photographed a human being in years so my 2.8 series is collecting dust and the only use I have is as a background in my office when I am youtubing from there.
If weight is a problem I’d get a mirrorless camera with smaller lenses... for example I carry an Olympus with 3 lenses which cover an equivalent of 16-200 2.8... this kit weighs less than 1.5kg...
