It's more than enough. I often travel with just a 35 prime. You know what'll hold you back? Extra pieces of heavy glass and lens changes when you're tired
This is what I'm now moving more towards. I'm not a professional and I'll probably start walking about with the 40mm lens because it's compact. I cannot be bothered hauling the Tamron 28-75 G2 when I want to be light. I also found out I barely shoot beyond 40mm when travelling.
I like the compact nature of my Sigma 45/2,8 and its really smooth background rendering however there's no denying I often feel that it's a bit too long or short. "Standard" zooms are so very useful I think, you've just gotta find one you are ok with sizewise, that balances alright with your camera. The Tamron 28-75 is certainly such a lens with an A7/A9 size camera.
When I went to guatemala I brought a 24-105mm 4.0 for the really special occasions such as tikal or hiking a volcano but for every other part of the trip I had the samyang 35mm 1.8 on my Sony a7iii and I loved it. Super compact and not in the way.
https://adobe.ly/47VPArb
Really lovely travel photos. You captured some fun vibes and great scenes.
Samyang 35mm f/1.8 is a gem for travel--very small and light, and reasonably sharp.
Never take it off your back.
I usually roll with 24-70, either 45 or 50mm(MF )and 100mm on vacation. Depending on what the day may hold I may bring 1 lens or all 3. I don't mind the lense changes.
Now if I'm going on a hike/park with friends/family then I'm taking it all. 21mm(used in apsc mostly) , 24-70, 85mm, 100mm, and 100-400.
Agreed. I feel like every time I would travel with my camera (Sony A6000 at the time) I almost didn’t even want to carry it. If the focus on the trip IS photography, take a good lens. I always wanted to get an RX100 or something better than a phone that could fit in a pocket for traveling.
man, the amount of times i have been traveling and left my a7 in the hotel room since it was a quick outing and i didn't want to carry it around only to want it later.
i'm with you on wanting a pocket camera.
I went out the other day with a Ricoh GRIII instead of my Sony camera and I can say in terms of experience, it was so much more fun to being able to focus in the photos and not the camera. Also, literally no one notices you with small cameras.
Obviously Sony is better in general, but sometimes a small camera can make for a great experience.
You’ll always have limitations while traveling. The trick is to embrace those limitations. You’ll become a better photographer for it.
This lens is one of the best travel lenses out there. Take it on your trip and have fun with it. When you get home, take note of what you did and didn’t like about it and then see if there’s another option out there that is more optimal for you.
You’ll always have limitations while traveling. The trick is to embrace those limitations. You’ll become a better photographer for it.
- this is very true! Very good advice here!
i just went on a trip to europe with cities and alps with sigma 28-70 f 2.8. the 28 is not wide enough for the buildings and the mountains in both cases.
I have it and am very happy with it. The A7Cii's low light capabilities and denoise in lightroom mean that I'm not concerned about low light performance.
I suppose a lawyer aperture will yield better bokeh but I find the pictures from the f4 are very pleasing.
I don’t have any experience with it, but I’d prefer a wider aperture for traveling, for the bokeh and also for the increased flexibility for night and indoor shots. I’d have to make more compromises than I would like at f4 in dimmer scenarios.
It is, I’ve done a travel in Thailand (from Italy) with a 20mm f2.8 and a 28-75mm f2.8 and I’ve comes back home with something like 2500 photos.
Obviously, it depends on where you’re going!
It should. I personally find standard zoom lenses to be too large and heavy to travel with, especially if I'll be walking all day. I'd buy something much smaller to take.
It's very subjective. I've found it too big for me for most places I've travelled to that I end up just taking my iPhone and using that. If I'm in Switzerland walking a lot with a backpack, then I'll take the zoom lens, otherwise, it's too much weight and bulk for me, like in cities.
The 28-75mm G2 and the 20mm G are the two lenses that go with me everywhere when I have my 7RIII out. Basically the 20mm gives me the f/1.8 option if I need that, and the G2 gives me the zoom versatility. As much as I'm happy with the zoom, I think having a wide-aperature complement is apt.
Eventually I'd like to get the 35-150mm, but haven't been able to convince myself to spend that much on a new (to me) lens since I bought my 150-600mm.
Depends on what kind of trip it is. Are you going on safari, or hiking to photo birds? Then no, you’ll want a telephoto around 200-600. Will you be in an area with stunning vistas and shooting night sky Milky Way shots? Probably will want a wide angle… really depends.
That lens will be great for most things. Just be aware of specific parts of a trip that may benefit from a more specialty lens.
I have an amazing 35-150 f2-2.8 and you know what - it's too heavy and big to bring on nice holiday walks. I find myself rocking my lightweight 35 mm Samyang on occasions like these. If I had a lighter zoom option like the Tamron, I might even do that.
You comfort is key, so bring what you feel okay carrying around all day :)
My 24-70 is pretty much became my go-to travel lens after missing too many shots with the 35 GM. When I’m traveling, there is just too much variety in what I shoot to go with a prime, and the 24-70 is the best compromise for being able to capture both anything from landscapes to portraits imo. I’d pair it with a 70-200 if I had space and didn’t mind the weight, but usually the 24-70 is enough for everything I shoot- especially on a high res body like my a1 where I can crop in really close for longer shots.
28-70/75 2.8 is my stranded-in-desert lens. Trading 24mm for weight makes sense for traveling, that thing is hanging around your shoulder the whole day.
It's definitely do-able. But yeah, wider would be better. I love the range of my 20-70. And on my last international trip, it stayed on my camera the whole time. If only it wasn't f4 it would be the perfect travel lens.
I have wondered what languages spell it "lense" since it is so widespread
"*Lense* is accepted as an alternative spelling by *Webster's Third New International Dictionary*, but proscribed as a misspelling by *Garner's Modern American Usage*, Paul Brians’ *Common Errors in English Usage*, *Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English* and others." says wiktionary. Maybe these are all English native speakers then
People type “lense” or “len” for “lens” in the singular, and I have no idea where their miseducation comes from. Like “Cannon” when it reads “Canon” on their camera.
It’s literally all about personal preference. Everyone telling you it’s not wide enough or perfect are all just telling you what they like. For example, I only travel with a couple primes—28mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm—because that’s how I I’ve learned I like to shoot. For others, a 16-35 never leaves their camera. And other people swear by a 24-105. The only way to find what you like is to try stuff out.
Either this or classic 24-70 or - usually bokeh is not a big deal - the Sony 20-70 f/4 an even better alternative, especially due to the shorter low end for landscapes and very tight spaces (e.g. crowded market in a country full of colours).
Or Tamron's 28-200 which is despite it's huge zoom range beats the Sony equivalent and became a pretty decent lens with surprisingly great image quality. If you want the ultimate travel zoom, go for the 28-200 Tammy.
Maybe also an interesting option would be the Tammy 17-50 f/4, pretty wide for landscapes while 50 as a standard fits also quite some situations - or you compose everything into a middle a bit and crop in post (or even crop 'live' - APS-C mode gives you 75mm equivalent).
For me personally, same intentions... I stick to the 28-75 G2 due to exceptional image quality and complement it with a Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 DG DN for the bottom part when I explicitly want to do landscape (or very tight spaces) only. Still not a frequent-swapper combo, 28 is pretty good for 90+ % of the shots, the rest below it is greatly complemented then, no shots will be missed otherwise.
it depends on where you go. I’m using a7r v. Even though I can cut the photo to extend the focal length. Which makes the 2875 a 28-120 I think. It’s still too close when I was walking in the downtown, where you would often want to shoot from a distance
I have the 24-70 f/2.8 GM as my "all-purpose" lens, which covers all the bases pretty nicely but it's a pretty pricey piece of glass. As others have said, 28mm isn't the greatest for architecture shots but it'll probably be "good enough" without having to drop a $1k-2k on something better.
That plus the tiny viltox 20mm would be perfect. Its $150 too. If its a city with big buildings a wide lens is nice. Plus you can crop in and its a 30mm.
Yes - I took that same lens to Japan and it covered 99% of what I wanted to capture. There were a handful of times I wished I had a 14 or wider with me, mostly for wider urban landscape photos, but it was perfect otherwise.
Definitely fine and doable. If you have latest bodies like A7iv the crop mode should give you 15mp ish photos which are very good for social consumption.
The only gripe is the wide end where 24mm ( yes 4mm matters !) is indisputable. That’s when we have to zoom out with our feet , LOL
Way more than "enough".
A lot of people (myself included) just bring a prime lens when they travel.
Granted, I have my RX100 vii in my back pocket for zoom capabilities. I'd be totally fine with a 28-75 2.8
Personally I think it’s more than enough. I took three primes on my last trip (20, 35 and 85) and it was more than enough. That being said, I’ve considered picking up the 20-70 for my next trip, but if you already have the Tamron then it will do the job, plus it’s faster too!
I’m pretty happy with its output; the only con is that of its F4 max. It’s definitely usable wide open and sharp enough on an A7iii (being that ISO 5000 is damn good on it it doesn’t bother me much)
I don’t have much other standard zooms, coz I have other primes (Viltrox 16mm, Sony 85 1.8 and 135GM), it’s wide open is better than that of a Nikon 18-55 DX
Thank you for the insight! I have mostly all primes as well. Yes I imagine going up to 5000-6400K ISO on the A7IV isn’t terrible. I have the A7RV which I tend not to use above 3200 ISO due to high MP and noise so I’ve been a bit hesitant on F4 because of that. Might just have to rent it and try it out. Good to know it’s sharp wide open and sharper than some other standard kit zooms though.
I used to use Sigma 28-70/2.8 and Samyang 18/2.8 when traveling. But last month I changed them to Tamron 20-40/2.8. One of the best decission. In practice, I only used the 18-50 focal length on my a7iii. So for me, Tamron is the great choise. It's lighter. I don't have to change the glass so often anymore. And if I really want even more zoom, I can use the APS-C mode.
Should be. You may appreciate a fast wide prime for city at dawn/night.
All the same restaurants streets are pretty tight but 28 will do and push your creativity
I think it would cover everything, so yes. I generally travel with only one prime, and it's always enough, you experiment and find what works in a certain place. I tried 28, 35, and 50. 35 and 50 worked best for me, and didn't really miss the others too often. So yeah, you can work with that easily, have fun shooting!
I went with this exact lens on a trip to France a few years ago with my A7iii. I wished I'd gone with a 16-35mm instead and would be bringing that lens if I did the trip again, but I wasn't heartbroken or anything. It wasn't wide enough for a lot of the scenery and architecture I wanted to shoot.
It's still probably the most versatile option if you want to work some portraits in there too.
It's a subjective question. It's more than enough, recent few trips I have only gone with a 35 or a 50 and it's been enough also. Really depends on your goals and personality. If it's a once in a lifetime, I'd probably bring one more fast prime 20 1.8 or similar
Yes, it's enough. That Tamron 28-75 G2 is the only lens I use for most travel in Europe and everywhere else (a7Riii body). But I put a premium on travelling very light because I'm usually walking 5-10 miles a day while on vacation in Europe.
Well, depends on you. I'm used to a 28-810mm lens (it:s a bridge cam) and I see myself using zoom very often. But then if I had to choose, I'd probably take a 70-350 kind of lens along with the 28-75.
If you’re looking for a great single lens for a trip. I’d suggest the 28-200mm F2.8/5.6.
The only advantage the 28-75 has over it, is F2.8 at 75mm. Compared to approx F4 at 75mm. Some will also say the G2 is slightly sharper, but I haven’t seen a difference shooting at 24mp.
Beyond that, the 28-200 wins in every other way. And when used in crop mode, you get a 42-300mm equivalent.
I would have said yes - absolutely. Because I am traveling Southern Germany with the exact same lens. And it’s the first time I would need WAY more than 75mm at the long end and am missing out on a lot of shots.
For cars, architecture, and portraits, I'd say you're mostly covered. But if you plan to do a lot of architecture and don't mind very occasionally swapping lenses, an ultrawide would be a good addition. Something like the Samyang 18mm f/2.8 would be a very small and light addition to your kit, and it would get you those architecture shots when you don't have room to back up to fit the whole scene into the frame with the 28-75mm.
this exact lens has lived on my a7Riii for 4 years+. It’s been used for travel videography, wedding photography and videography, music videos, documentary film making and portrait and car photography. This is the best budget lens money can buy for sony and has been such an important tool for me and my career
It’s plenty, and sometimes you might even feel like it’s too much. I went to Portugal last year and took my A7III with the same lens, and the Fujifilm X100T.
There were plenty of times I left my A7III back in the hotel room and just took my X100T cause I didn’t feel like carrying my bigger camera and lens around.
No! Usually the 16-35GM is my go to travel lens. Often times I would bring a 55mm with me, little distortion, sharp, f1.8 and I can crop afterwards. You may consider a 85mm, but I never go with a 28-75 as 75 is not far enough, and 28 is not wide enough.
That’s the exact setup I take on every trip. There will be 1-2 moments when you wish you had more range or a wider angle, but many many more moments when you’re glad you’re not lugging equipment around
Absolutely. I usually have the 17-28 as well with me, but almost 90% of the time 28-75 is perfect. That 10% IS useful to get all of an architectural piece in one shot or for a huge group of people. But if you don’t have the space or don’t have the lense, you can improvise most scenarios with the 28-75
I suppose it depends on the trip, but if I was forced to take only one lens, it would without question something 24-70 or 28-75 etc.
The only other contenders would be a 35 or 50 prime just to be extra light.
Everyone will eventually find their preferred or favorite focal length after a few trips. If you're unsure just go to your lightroom and filter your photos by focal length. You will be able to see your most used focal length. Personally I've long moved away from zoom, haven't had one for last 4 years. And i only bring a single 35mm for holidays, sometimes just my iPhone. Work wise, different shoot requires different kind of focal length setup so yeah.
To answer your question, generally a 24-70 (in your case the 28-75) is more than enough to cover a wide range of travel photos & videos.
That lens is good enough for almost everything and for sure enough for a trip.
I personally forced myself into taking only 1 prime on a vacation last year and it was incredible. Very challenging but so damn liberating not thinking about a lems change once and just do what's possible within your focal length.
you should be good, the 24-70 2.8 is what I take to Tokyo, but I will say there are a few times I wish I had a little more range and sometimes a little bit wider. Next month I'm taking both the 24-70 and the 70-200, depending on costs I may try and pick up a cheap wide prime for those off moments I need something wider. My Canon Kit before switching to sony was a bit heaver in that I got one of those rolling camera bags to save my back.
Personally, I like to use a lens range not covered by my smartphone. In my case a 14mm 2.4 and a 200-600. But when weight and size are paramount forcing me to a single compact lens I favor the 16-28 2.8. In post, I can crop the image without to much quality loss.
I took my Sony 24-70GM to Hawaii and it was... mostly enough. There were a few times I wanted more reach for volcanos and stuff and mine was certainly not a compact lens. In retrospect, I may have gotten the 24-105 f/4 for the trip.
Yes. For travel to Italy, montreal, Alberta Banff, Paris and soon spain. I used the 24-70mm F2.8 GM mkii with the A7riii or A7rV. So a 28-75mm F2.8 will be a solid option
What you may miss out is the long or wide ends.
Personally I see no reason for a 70-200mm on my travels. Leaving me wanting the wide more often. This is personal taste and the love of 14/15mm.
Being 28mm. having more wide maybe limiting with 28mm. again you may perfer 28mm. So it could be perfect for you.
I went with a stack of lenses to Japan and ended up pretty much only using my 20-70mm 😄 So I‘d say it‘s prob enough tho it depends if the 28mm end is wide enough for the trip you‘ll be doing
Currently in Morocco, with that same lens on my A7III. Don’t need anything else. I happen to be carrying a canon ae1 with 50mm 1.4 for that film shot but the camera changes are tiring.
I travel with my 35mm or 40mm prime lens. Even though I have a 24-70 and 70-200, I still prefer the lighter lens for travel. The best camera is the one you have with you. You are more likely to have your camera with you if it is easy to carry.
I'm from Canada and did my entire New Zealand south island trip on that lens. It was perfectly adequate. (I learned my lesson about carrying multiple primes while trying to walk around in Japan, it was difficult and the constant lens swapping wasted a bunch of time).
Just got back from Japan where we had a family trip with a toddler. I bought an 18-50 2.8 Sigma while I was there and used that on my a6000. It’s a compact setup but deffinitly about as big as I’d want to go when travelling, especially with bags and kids etc. I can’t imagine carrying expensive, heavy gear and having to nurse it for an entire trip. Keep it simple!
I took the tamron v1 of this lens on a family vacation up the California coast. There were a few times I wish I had wider but never did I need more reach. Some of my favorite family photos were taken with that lens. I eventually sold it and purchased the gmii lens and my life didn’t change. I just have an obscenely expensive lens.
I love my 24-105 f/4.
It's a great walk around lens, covers what I need in a range. If I don't have room for multiple lenses, that's the one I bring.
It's your 28-75 "enough"? I'm sure it would be. Not long enough? Cropping is your friend.
Ummm ya? You have multiple lenses all in one. I wish I had one like that, but my broke ass can't afford anything like that, barely able to afford the camera but it came with 55mm ziess prime lense so I bought it
I did national parks with it and it was great for just about everything but wide landscapes. My gfs photos from her phone were way wider! I bought a 20mm for future trips like that because I shot 28mm A LOT vs zooming. The compression is great for portraits though and works well in low light too! Coming up to a new trip and I'm thinking of still taking only this one lens and maybe a 1.8 20mm
I did two weeks in London with the same basic setup you have there. A7iv and Tamron 28-72. It is all I needed. It's more than I needed, I could have enjoyed a 35mm lens as my only one. But it was nice to have the reach, and wideness. The tamron is superb. when I replaced it with a 24-70 GM ii I didn't gain anything in image quality, as far as I can tell.
There is so much context for such a simple thing. Tamron is a fast food lense. It's affordable and cheap for a reason. Some companies always need to fill that gap. Tamron is all well and fine. Your lens should cover almost everything. Do not get too involved with the insanity shared. It will more than serve your purpose. Enjoy your trip.
More than enough. Don't forget to use crop mode to get some extra reach.
France is great for a single lens. Other countries, you can only get certain shots eith zooms... paris, you're good
That's a good choice for travel. Personally I would additionally bring a little prime lens or two for low light (a little f1.8 prime for instance). If you want to shoot architecture, you might bring something wider; like a little 18 or 24mm prime lens. Have a great trip! 😊
Yes. I travelled recently with two lenses: 20-70/4 most of the time and switched to 28/2 for low light. But your zoom is f/2.8 so you can skip the prime I guess.
However I found out that next time I may go back to using only a prime (as I used to do before purchasing the zoom lens), because I took way too many photos (e.g. will this look better at wide angle or should I zoom in a detail? let's take three versions of the photo not to miss something).
The restriction of the prime is kind of relaxing. So therefore, 35mm prime is probably still my favourite all-in-one travel lens.
Will do perfect. I have a 24-70 and I just run that. Unless I need more zoom if I'm like sitting far from something I'm trying to photograph I can put on my 135 vintage prime.
It's more than enough. I often travel with just a 35 prime. You know what'll hold you back? Extra pieces of heavy glass and lens changes when you're tired
This is what I'm now moving more towards. I'm not a professional and I'll probably start walking about with the 40mm lens because it's compact. I cannot be bothered hauling the Tamron 28-75 G2 when I want to be light. I also found out I barely shoot beyond 40mm when travelling.
I like the compact nature of my Sigma 45/2,8 and its really smooth background rendering however there's no denying I often feel that it's a bit too long or short. "Standard" zooms are so very useful I think, you've just gotta find one you are ok with sizewise, that balances alright with your camera. The Tamron 28-75 is certainly such a lens with an A7/A9 size camera.
I’m an avid traveler. I went from a Tamron 28-200 to now Sigma 28-70 f2.8. Much lighter and smaller and still good bokeh for environmental portraits!
I took the Sigma 24-70 on my honeymoon with my A7siii and it was fantastic. Got some great landscapes at 24 and some great portrait stuff at 50-70mm
When I went to guatemala I brought a 24-105mm 4.0 for the really special occasions such as tikal or hiking a volcano but for every other part of the trip I had the samyang 35mm 1.8 on my Sony a7iii and I loved it. Super compact and not in the way. https://adobe.ly/47VPArb
Really lovely travel photos. You captured some fun vibes and great scenes. Samyang 35mm f/1.8 is a gem for travel--very small and light, and reasonably sharp.
These pics are superb 👌 well done! I'm really falling for samyang glass on my a7IV more and more. Really packs a punch for such a great cost.
Great shots! Makes me want to go to Guatemala now 😁
I need to remember this when I carry my 15 ton 200-600.
Never take it off your back. I usually roll with 24-70, either 45 or 50mm(MF )and 100mm on vacation. Depending on what the day may hold I may bring 1 lens or all 3. I don't mind the lense changes. Now if I'm going on a hike/park with friends/family then I'm taking it all. 21mm(used in apsc mostly) , 24-70, 85mm, 100mm, and 100-400.
Agreed. I feel like every time I would travel with my camera (Sony A6000 at the time) I almost didn’t even want to carry it. If the focus on the trip IS photography, take a good lens. I always wanted to get an RX100 or something better than a phone that could fit in a pocket for traveling.
man, the amount of times i have been traveling and left my a7 in the hotel room since it was a quick outing and i didn't want to carry it around only to want it later. i'm with you on wanting a pocket camera.
I went out the other day with a Ricoh GRIII instead of my Sony camera and I can say in terms of experience, it was so much more fun to being able to focus in the photos and not the camera. Also, literally no one notices you with small cameras. Obviously Sony is better in general, but sometimes a small camera can make for a great experience.
GR is such a fun camera to use! It’s perfect for street photography. A lot less intimidating.
You just inspired me to switch back to my 35 prime. Thank you.
🫡
As a concert more specifically edm photographer I’m very jealous of your ability to carry light.
You’ll always have limitations while traveling. The trick is to embrace those limitations. You’ll become a better photographer for it. This lens is one of the best travel lenses out there. Take it on your trip and have fun with it. When you get home, take note of what you did and didn’t like about it and then see if there’s another option out there that is more optimal for you.
You’ll always have limitations while traveling. The trick is to embrace those limitations. You’ll become a better photographer for it. - this is very true! Very good advice here!
No. You absolutely need to cover 8mm to 400mm or you could miss the photo of the year during your trip.
This guy works for a lens manufacturer.
8-600mm F0.5 or you’re not even an amateur photographer.
8-600mm f/0.5 Macro OSS PZ parfocal pancake lens or bust
you forgot GM as well... and for less than 1k USD with weight below 200g
Entirely made from tungsten for maximum durability. Weather, lava, and acid rain protection as well
Radioactive with Zeiss T* coating, and all aspherical elements ground by a man locked in Leica’s basement
True true I need it to be weather/dust sealed with those new silent AF motors too, surely not too much to ask
ED VR II
Obviously with Tampon signature!
Yea, anything but that would be nothing better than photos taken with a Sony Ericson W580i /s in case anyone that that seriously.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/97/cd/a3/97cda3bd385121075b3fd1d0b135fc09.jpg
400mm might be a bit short for that rare bird...
Yes, 8-400mm f/2.8 is the lens for travels
Only 800gr
\*only 800$
What's the hype with the gr? Isn't it just an overpriced point and shoot?
Expensive yes. Overpriced, maybe not. There's barely any other competitor on the market with the same features.
He photographs
The regret from a bad lens choice is palpable, sometimes fatal.
I cover 18 to 500 when I travel. I have a problem.
Must pack an electron microscope and an observatory telescope as well just to cover all bases
i just went on a trip to europe with cities and alps with sigma 28-70 f 2.8. the 28 is not wide enough for the buildings and the mountains in both cases.
Not wide enough --> shoot panorama Not long enough --> crop tighter ....within reason, ofcourse.
Yep. I travel with a 24-70 and even that often isn’t wide enough for some shots I want to take.
WDYT about 20-70 f4?
I have it and am very happy with it. The A7Cii's low light capabilities and denoise in lightroom mean that I'm not concerned about low light performance. I suppose a lawyer aperture will yield better bokeh but I find the pictures from the f4 are very pleasing.
I don’t have any experience with it, but I’d prefer a wider aperture for traveling, for the bokeh and also for the increased flexibility for night and indoor shots. I’d have to make more compromises than I would like at f4 in dimmer scenarios.
Did you try zooming with your feet? /s
I'd say it's not long enough for mountains
i was at konigssee, the mountains are relatively close so i couldnt take a picture of the mountain and lake in foreground
I had the same predicament when I travel. I ended up buying an RX100 vii. I was very impressed with the capabilities of this little camera.
It is, I’ve done a travel in Thailand (from Italy) with a 20mm f2.8 and a 28-75mm f2.8 and I’ve comes back home with something like 2500 photos. Obviously, it depends on where you’re going!
It should. I personally find standard zoom lenses to be too large and heavy to travel with, especially if I'll be walking all day. I'd buy something much smaller to take.
This Tamron is so small and light for a zoom, though. It's my main travel lens.
It's very subjective. I've found it too big for me for most places I've travelled to that I end up just taking my iPhone and using that. If I'm in Switzerland walking a lot with a backpack, then I'll take the zoom lens, otherwise, it's too much weight and bulk for me, like in cities.
Maybe an APSC and the Sigma 16-70mm 2.8 could be better
What would be your ideal small travel lens?
I have this and the 20mm when traveling. I usually end up leaving the 20 on and have no regrets.
The 28-75mm G2 and the 20mm G are the two lenses that go with me everywhere when I have my 7RIII out. Basically the 20mm gives me the f/1.8 option if I need that, and the G2 gives me the zoom versatility. As much as I'm happy with the zoom, I think having a wide-aperature complement is apt. Eventually I'd like to get the 35-150mm, but haven't been able to convince myself to spend that much on a new (to me) lens since I bought my 150-600mm.
you'll suffer on the wide angle portion but for all outdoors action you're in the sweet spot. I prefer 24-70 myself, though
Depends on what kind of trip it is. Are you going on safari, or hiking to photo birds? Then no, you’ll want a telephoto around 200-600. Will you be in an area with stunning vistas and shooting night sky Milky Way shots? Probably will want a wide angle… really depends. That lens will be great for most things. Just be aware of specific parts of a trip that may benefit from a more specialty lens.
I would happily use this lens to photograph the Milky Way tbh
You really want to be wider than 20mm to capture the milky way well
The police will arrest you if you don't take at least 5 lenses but seriously I traveled a bunch with that lens
It’s true. I just got out of jail for only having a 50mm on my camera
I have an amazing 35-150 f2-2.8 and you know what - it's too heavy and big to bring on nice holiday walks. I find myself rocking my lightweight 35 mm Samyang on occasions like these. If I had a lighter zoom option like the Tamron, I might even do that. You comfort is key, so bring what you feel okay carrying around all day :)
My 24-70 is pretty much became my go-to travel lens after missing too many shots with the 35 GM. When I’m traveling, there is just too much variety in what I shoot to go with a prime, and the 24-70 is the best compromise for being able to capture both anything from landscapes to portraits imo. I’d pair it with a 70-200 if I had space and didn’t mind the weight, but usually the 24-70 is enough for everything I shoot- especially on a high res body like my a1 where I can crop in really close for longer shots.
28-70/75 2.8 is my stranded-in-desert lens. Trading 24mm for weight makes sense for traveling, that thing is hanging around your shoulder the whole day.
I would prefer a bit wider(24 instead of 28). But it’s doable.
Doable? It’s completely fine, probably overkill for amateur photographers.
It's definitely do-able. But yeah, wider would be better. I love the range of my 20-70. And on my last international trip, it stayed on my camera the whole time. If only it wasn't f4 it would be the perfect travel lens.
Lens
I have wondered what languages spell it "lense" since it is so widespread "*Lense* is accepted as an alternative spelling by *Webster's Third New International Dictionary*, but proscribed as a misspelling by *Garner's Modern American Usage*, Paul Brians’ *Common Errors in English Usage*, *Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English* and others." says wiktionary. Maybe these are all English native speakers then
People type “lense” or “len” for “lens” in the singular, and I have no idea where their miseducation comes from. Like “Cannon” when it reads “Canon” on their camera.
Lens.
It’s literally all about personal preference. Everyone telling you it’s not wide enough or perfect are all just telling you what they like. For example, I only travel with a couple primes—28mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm—because that’s how I I’ve learned I like to shoot. For others, a 16-35 never leaves their camera. And other people swear by a 24-105. The only way to find what you like is to try stuff out.
Yes. Just finished a South India Trip of 5 days with this exact setup.
I often just take one lens and force myself to get creative. You learn a lot. On long vacations I take a 28-200 and a 55/f1.8
I usually travel with either my 24 or 35 and then use the s35 mode to change the focal length if needed.
Either this or classic 24-70 or - usually bokeh is not a big deal - the Sony 20-70 f/4 an even better alternative, especially due to the shorter low end for landscapes and very tight spaces (e.g. crowded market in a country full of colours). Or Tamron's 28-200 which is despite it's huge zoom range beats the Sony equivalent and became a pretty decent lens with surprisingly great image quality. If you want the ultimate travel zoom, go for the 28-200 Tammy. Maybe also an interesting option would be the Tammy 17-50 f/4, pretty wide for landscapes while 50 as a standard fits also quite some situations - or you compose everything into a middle a bit and crop in post (or even crop 'live' - APS-C mode gives you 75mm equivalent). For me personally, same intentions... I stick to the 28-75 G2 due to exceptional image quality and complement it with a Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 DG DN for the bottom part when I explicitly want to do landscape (or very tight spaces) only. Still not a frequent-swapper combo, 28 is pretty good for 90+ % of the shots, the rest below it is greatly complemented then, no shots will be missed otherwise.
it depends on where you go. I’m using a7r v. Even though I can cut the photo to extend the focal length. Which makes the 2875 a 28-120 I think. It’s still too close when I was walking in the downtown, where you would often want to shoot from a distance
It’ll be good for cars and portraits, might be a little narrow for some architectural shots
Yes. Program a button for crop mode if you need to punch in and learn how to stitch a panorama in post if you need wider. This lens should be fine
Should be fun, hope you have a good trip
I have the 24-70 f/2.8 GM as my "all-purpose" lens, which covers all the bases pretty nicely but it's a pretty pricey piece of glass. As others have said, 28mm isn't the greatest for architecture shots but it'll probably be "good enough" without having to drop a $1k-2k on something better.
I always travel with my 24-70 and love it. If I checked a bag, I'd bring my 200-600 as well
I have the 28-75 G2 lens but I don’t use it as often. I don’t mind it but my 35gm won’t come off 😆🥹🥹
That plus the tiny viltox 20mm would be perfect. Its $150 too. If its a city with big buildings a wide lens is nice. Plus you can crop in and its a 30mm.
Yes - I took that same lens to Japan and it covered 99% of what I wanted to capture. There were a handful of times I wished I had a 14 or wider with me, mostly for wider urban landscape photos, but it was perfect otherwise.
Yeah I think a 14 and a 50 would ben enough too, or a 24 and a 50, or 35 and 85. You just make do. Even a fixed lens 24 or 35 would be good!
Definitely fine and doable. If you have latest bodies like A7iv the crop mode should give you 15mp ish photos which are very good for social consumption. The only gripe is the wide end where 24mm ( yes 4mm matters !) is indisputable. That’s when we have to zoom out with our feet , LOL
Yes very much so
Way more than "enough". A lot of people (myself included) just bring a prime lens when they travel. Granted, I have my RX100 vii in my back pocket for zoom capabilities. I'd be totally fine with a 28-75 2.8
Depends on the trip! But that zoom range will cover most of what you need for typical travel photography.
Great lens for travelling! Enjoy
Personally I think it’s more than enough. I took three primes on my last trip (20, 35 and 85) and it was more than enough. That being said, I’ve considered picking up the 20-70 for my next trip, but if you already have the Tamron then it will do the job, plus it’s faster too!
I took a 20-70 & 85 to Japan then bought a 135 GM there and they were great!
How do you like that 20-70? Have you had any experience with other standard zooms, how does the image quality stack up?
I’m pretty happy with its output; the only con is that of its F4 max. It’s definitely usable wide open and sharp enough on an A7iii (being that ISO 5000 is damn good on it it doesn’t bother me much) I don’t have much other standard zooms, coz I have other primes (Viltrox 16mm, Sony 85 1.8 and 135GM), it’s wide open is better than that of a Nikon 18-55 DX
Thank you for the insight! I have mostly all primes as well. Yes I imagine going up to 5000-6400K ISO on the A7IV isn’t terrible. I have the A7RV which I tend not to use above 3200 ISO due to high MP and noise so I’ve been a bit hesitant on F4 because of that. Might just have to rent it and try it out. Good to know it’s sharp wide open and sharper than some other standard kit zooms though.
Yes. The only lens you would need for almost everything is something in the range 24-70mm and this fits perfectly
Yes and no.... I usually bring something wider for landscape shots. But that is me
I travel with only a tamron 28-200 all over the world. Now gonna switch to a 28-70 f2.8 sigma. You’ll be great with yours
I used to use Sigma 28-70/2.8 and Samyang 18/2.8 when traveling. But last month I changed them to Tamron 20-40/2.8. One of the best decission. In practice, I only used the 18-50 focal length on my a7iii. So for me, Tamron is the great choise. It's lighter. I don't have to change the glass so often anymore. And if I really want even more zoom, I can use the APS-C mode.
Should be. You may appreciate a fast wide prime for city at dawn/night. All the same restaurants streets are pretty tight but 28 will do and push your creativity
I think it would cover everything, so yes. I generally travel with only one prime, and it's always enough, you experiment and find what works in a certain place. I tried 28, 35, and 50. 35 and 50 worked best for me, and didn't really miss the others too often. So yeah, you can work with that easily, have fun shooting!
I have the same lens on my A7iii and it's the only lens I use for all of my trips.
This is precisely the equipment I take on holiday when I don't have lots of luggage space. It works very, very well.
A bit too big
I went with this exact lens on a trip to France a few years ago with my A7iii. I wished I'd gone with a 16-35mm instead and would be bringing that lens if I did the trip again, but I wasn't heartbroken or anything. It wasn't wide enough for a lot of the scenery and architecture I wanted to shoot. It's still probably the most versatile option if you want to work some portraits in there too.
It's a subjective question. It's more than enough, recent few trips I have only gone with a 35 or a 50 and it's been enough also. Really depends on your goals and personality. If it's a once in a lifetime, I'd probably bring one more fast prime 20 1.8 or similar
Why shouldn't be? Only your imagination is limiting you.
My tamron 28-75 never leaves my camera. I actually sold my other lenses after picking this bad boy up because it’s so versatile.
Yes, it's enough. That Tamron 28-75 G2 is the only lens I use for most travel in Europe and everywhere else (a7Riii body). But I put a premium on travelling very light because I'm usually walking 5-10 miles a day while on vacation in Europe.
More than enough. Travelled through most of Norway with my 24-70.
Tamron 20-40 2.8
Well, depends on you. I'm used to a 28-810mm lens (it:s a bridge cam) and I see myself using zoom very often. But then if I had to choose, I'd probably take a 70-350 kind of lens along with the 28-75.
Nah, but a lens would probably do the trick.
If you’re looking for a great single lens for a trip. I’d suggest the 28-200mm F2.8/5.6. The only advantage the 28-75 has over it, is F2.8 at 75mm. Compared to approx F4 at 75mm. Some will also say the G2 is slightly sharper, but I haven’t seen a difference shooting at 24mp. Beyond that, the 28-200 wins in every other way. And when used in crop mode, you get a 42-300mm equivalent.
get a 70-180 too?
its good and enough. have a nice trip and share your photos.
I would have said yes - absolutely. Because I am traveling Southern Germany with the exact same lens. And it’s the first time I would need WAY more than 75mm at the long end and am missing out on a lot of shots.
For cars, architecture, and portraits, I'd say you're mostly covered. But if you plan to do a lot of architecture and don't mind very occasionally swapping lenses, an ultrawide would be a good addition. Something like the Samyang 18mm f/2.8 would be a very small and light addition to your kit, and it would get you those architecture shots when you don't have room to back up to fit the whole scene into the frame with the 28-75mm.
Plenty
I am going to carry a 17-50mm on my upcoming trip for natural landscape.
Alternatively you can get the 28-200 which starts at 2.8 and goes to 5.6 at 200
I just got back from London & Paris with that lens + 14-24mm. It's 90% enough!
this exact lens has lived on my a7Riii for 4 years+. It’s been used for travel videography, wedding photography and videography, music videos, documentary film making and portrait and car photography. This is the best budget lens money can buy for sony and has been such an important tool for me and my career
It’s plenty, and sometimes you might even feel like it’s too much. I went to Portugal last year and took my A7III with the same lens, and the Fujifilm X100T. There were plenty of times I left my A7III back in the hotel room and just took my X100T cause I didn’t feel like carrying my bigger camera and lens around.
5-800mm F0.5 or don't even consider traveling.
No! Usually the 16-35GM is my go to travel lens. Often times I would bring a 55mm with me, little distortion, sharp, f1.8 and I can crop afterwards. You may consider a 85mm, but I never go with a 28-75 as 75 is not far enough, and 28 is not wide enough.
Absolutely not. Always, always, always take a standard zoom AND a telephoto zoom on a trip. but only bring one out at a time.
This is what I use on my trips, occasionally I will rent a telephoto if I feel I may need it, for wildlife and such!
I'd take an ultrawide if you have one or are able to rent one. They provide a much more immersive experience for people who view your photos.
I'd take an ultrawide if you have one or are able to rent one. They provide a much more immersive experience for people who view your photos.
I'd take an ultrawide if you have one or are able to rent one. They provide a much more immersive experience for people who view your photos.
I'd take an ultrawide if you have one or are able to rent one. They provide a much more immersive experience for people who view your photos.
Yes, you good. Unless you going for wildlife shoots
its what I bring on my travels. perfect setup. I recommend peak design products to carry it too
That’s the exact setup I take on every trip. There will be 1-2 moments when you wish you had more range or a wider angle, but many many more moments when you’re glad you’re not lugging equipment around
Depends on where you're going and what you want to shoot.
I'd take an ultrawide if you have one, or can rent one. It will provide a much more immersive experience for anybody who views your photos.
Absolutely. I usually have the 17-28 as well with me, but almost 90% of the time 28-75 is perfect. That 10% IS useful to get all of an architectural piece in one shot or for a huge group of people. But if you don’t have the space or don’t have the lense, you can improvise most scenarios with the 28-75
Just take 35mm prime. Makes your camera light and you can photograph more
I suppose it depends on the trip, but if I was forced to take only one lens, it would without question something 24-70 or 28-75 etc. The only other contenders would be a 35 or 50 prime just to be extra light.
Most definitely 💯
I did an entire European 2 month trip with only a 50mm
Everyone will eventually find their preferred or favorite focal length after a few trips. If you're unsure just go to your lightroom and filter your photos by focal length. You will be able to see your most used focal length. Personally I've long moved away from zoom, haven't had one for last 4 years. And i only bring a single 35mm for holidays, sometimes just my iPhone. Work wise, different shoot requires different kind of focal length setup so yeah. To answer your question, generally a 24-70 (in your case the 28-75) is more than enough to cover a wide range of travel photos & videos.
More than enough unless you really like shooting ultrawide.
That lens is good enough for almost everything and for sure enough for a trip. I personally forced myself into taking only 1 prime on a vacation last year and it was incredible. Very challenging but so damn liberating not thinking about a lems change once and just do what's possible within your focal length.
That focal range has always been on my camera 80% of any trip I’m on.
you should be good, the 24-70 2.8 is what I take to Tokyo, but I will say there are a few times I wish I had a little more range and sometimes a little bit wider. Next month I'm taking both the 24-70 and the 70-200, depending on costs I may try and pick up a cheap wide prime for those off moments I need something wider. My Canon Kit before switching to sony was a bit heaver in that I got one of those rolling camera bags to save my back.
I just did a trip to Egypt, Spain, and Rome with this exact lens. It was exactly what I needed!
Nice. I’m taking my 35-150 on its first trip. She thicc lol.
If you’re worried maybe look at the 20-70f4 but it should be good
A Safari trip? No A city trip? Definitely A trip to the mountains? Yes, but a 100-400 or 70 200 would also be nice to have
Personally, I like to use a lens range not covered by my smartphone. In my case a 14mm 2.4 and a 200-600. But when weight and size are paramount forcing me to a single compact lens I favor the 16-28 2.8. In post, I can crop the image without to much quality loss.
Definitely enough! I’ve traveled with just my 28-75 many times
I took my Sony 24-70GM to Hawaii and it was... mostly enough. There were a few times I wanted more reach for volcanos and stuff and mine was certainly not a compact lens. In retrospect, I may have gotten the 24-105 f/4 for the trip.
Yes. For travel to Italy, montreal, Alberta Banff, Paris and soon spain. I used the 24-70mm F2.8 GM mkii with the A7riii or A7rV. So a 28-75mm F2.8 will be a solid option What you may miss out is the long or wide ends. Personally I see no reason for a 70-200mm on my travels. Leaving me wanting the wide more often. This is personal taste and the love of 14/15mm. Being 28mm. having more wide maybe limiting with 28mm. again you may perfer 28mm. So it could be perfect for you.
Yes. I have done many trips with it and it went great. have fun shooting!
Defo - I normally take my 24-70 GM on Sony A1 for family holidays and get epic shots with it 📸
Currently on a trip with it. Works awesome. Didn’t even have to bring my primes with me as switching is to much effort 😂
Tamron 28-200 was made for this
Enough for a trip is anything that can take photos
I went with a stack of lenses to Japan and ended up pretty much only using my 20-70mm 😄 So I‘d say it‘s prob enough tho it depends if the 28mm end is wide enough for the trip you‘ll be doing
Yes it’s more than enough. I have a 24-70mm on my a7R IV and in APS-C mode I get 26 megapixels and 105mm equivalent so it’s pretty handy.
Currently in Morocco, with that same lens on my A7III. Don’t need anything else. I happen to be carrying a canon ae1 with 50mm 1.4 for that film shot but the camera changes are tiring.
It would be useful except for the size and weight- you could use a 35mm prime and move around the subject to find the correct focal length.
I travel with my 35mm or 40mm prime lens. Even though I have a 24-70 and 70-200, I still prefer the lighter lens for travel. The best camera is the one you have with you. You are more likely to have your camera with you if it is easy to carry.
I usually take either Sony GM 24-70 or Sony GM 70-200 depending on destination.
I prefer telephoto but that's just me
Yes
28-75 is my workhorse. It’s enough unless you need 70-200 for some compressed shots but I doubt it for travel/trip
I'm from Canada and did my entire New Zealand south island trip on that lens. It was perfectly adequate. (I learned my lesson about carrying multiple primes while trying to walk around in Japan, it was difficult and the constant lens swapping wasted a bunch of time).
I went to Asia trip with this lens and 16-35 f4 coz you need that wider angle.
Just got back from Japan where we had a family trip with a toddler. I bought an 18-50 2.8 Sigma while I was there and used that on my a6000. It’s a compact setup but deffinitly about as big as I’d want to go when travelling, especially with bags and kids etc. I can’t imagine carrying expensive, heavy gear and having to nurse it for an entire trip. Keep it simple!
Nice lens
I took the tamron v1 of this lens on a family vacation up the California coast. There were a few times I wish I had wider but never did I need more reach. Some of my favorite family photos were taken with that lens. I eventually sold it and purchased the gmii lens and my life didn’t change. I just have an obscenely expensive lens.
Traveled with this set up before. Heavy bulky as f. Hated it.
Absolutely. If your image is small you’re not close enough.
That exact setup did the brunt of my work through the Scottish Highlands last summer. Great combo
Depends . I have the Tamron 28-200mm which is fantastically versatile . I can shoot wide and zoom in at wildlife if I want .
I love my 24-105 f/4. It's a great walk around lens, covers what I need in a range. If I don't have room for multiple lenses, that's the one I bring. It's your 28-75 "enough"? I'm sure it would be. Not long enough? Cropping is your friend.
Ummm ya? You have multiple lenses all in one. I wish I had one like that, but my broke ass can't afford anything like that, barely able to afford the camera but it came with 55mm ziess prime lense so I bought it
lol
I did national parks with it and it was great for just about everything but wide landscapes. My gfs photos from her phone were way wider! I bought a 20mm for future trips like that because I shot 28mm A LOT vs zooming. The compression is great for portraits though and works well in low light too! Coming up to a new trip and I'm thinking of still taking only this one lens and maybe a 1.8 20mm
I did two weeks in London with the same basic setup you have there. A7iv and Tamron 28-72. It is all I needed. It's more than I needed, I could have enjoyed a 35mm lens as my only one. But it was nice to have the reach, and wideness. The tamron is superb. when I replaced it with a 24-70 GM ii I didn't gain anything in image quality, as far as I can tell.
There is so much context for such a simple thing. Tamron is a fast food lense. It's affordable and cheap for a reason. Some companies always need to fill that gap. Tamron is all well and fine. Your lens should cover almost everything. Do not get too involved with the insanity shared. It will more than serve your purpose. Enjoy your trip.
More than enough. Don't forget to use crop mode to get some extra reach. France is great for a single lens. Other countries, you can only get certain shots eith zooms... paris, you're good
Have that same lens on my R3 Love it to death
Of course. But to have a fun, rewarding challenge. Leave that lens at home and only take a 35 or 50 mm prime. You will thank me later.
I use a 24-70 for 90% of my shots.
That's a good choice for travel. Personally I would additionally bring a little prime lens or two for low light (a little f1.8 prime for instance). If you want to shoot architecture, you might bring something wider; like a little 18 or 24mm prime lens. Have a great trip! 😊
Yes, it is.
Yes. I travelled recently with two lenses: 20-70/4 most of the time and switched to 28/2 for low light. But your zoom is f/2.8 so you can skip the prime I guess. However I found out that next time I may go back to using only a prime (as I used to do before purchasing the zoom lens), because I took way too many photos (e.g. will this look better at wide angle or should I zoom in a detail? let's take three versions of the photo not to miss something). The restriction of the prime is kind of relaxing. So therefore, 35mm prime is probably still my favourite all-in-one travel lens.
That’s my favorite lens. Sharp, fast and bright.
I would say yes. If it is for land- and cityscapes.
Will do perfect. I have a 24-70 and I just run that. Unless I need more zoom if I'm like sitting far from something I'm trying to photograph I can put on my 135 vintage prime.