Sony 16-35 vs 24-70 | Which Is The BEST Lens To Travel With?

In this video we compare the wide 16-35mm F2.8 vs the 24-70mm F2.8 from Sony! Both of these lenses are an absolute BEAST and so I decide to break them down by touring them around Toronto, taking advantage of the Sony A7IV on one, and the Sony A1 on the other.
This is an exciting one so let me know what you think in the comments below!

[@PhotoTrekr]

When I was younger, I would take everything if it was a once in a lifetime kind of trip. Now that I'm older, I can't take everything. I don't want to take everything. Recently I traveled to the Canadian Rockies and took the 16-35mm GM, 24-70mm GM II, and 70-200mm GM II. By far, most of my shots were with the 24-70mm GM II. But, as always, it depends on where you are going and what you'll be shooting to choose the lens or lenses to take.

[@brockwunder]

Honestly so true! The 24-70 definitely will cover all of your bases. I did the same thing and had the same experience haha

[@bunmeng007]

problem for me is i want to take many lens with me for travel just in case. so 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and a 50 prime lens. But it's just too heavy lol

[@bobleetech]

Just pair the 16-35 with the Tamron 35-150. It even does 50mm at f/2.2 so not too far from a prime. It really helps not having to switch lenses during travel

[@holdmyown32]

Same lol

[@mauriciolee7349]

Thank you for such a THOROUGH video. You cover all the things I need to know about 16-35mm wide angle lens and 24-70mm short tele lens. I LOVE the 2 points that you've made. They are: 1. The 16-35mm lenses creates better LOOKUP photos because more elements are included. Your sample photo says it all. 2. For street and travel photography: You always need extra reach with your lens to capture what you want. They're so true. I'll take them both.

[@Eikenhorst]

I would never take just 1 lens, certainly not just 1 of these two. The 16-35mm is great for wide angle to standard zoom, but certainly not narrow enough for many shots, especially in street photography. The 24-70 would probably cover 90% of my needs on an average trip, I still would not go on a trip with just this lens! The 20-70 f/4 gets a lot closer to a one and done travel lens, especially when traveling in the city. Out in nature, the 16-35 + 50-400 would be my lightweight combi of choice I guess

[@gilcarag274]

I bought the 20-70mm f4 and the extra 4mm at the wide end makes it probably the ideal light-weight travel kit.

[@michaelgondokusumo5336]

I think 16-35 more useable than 24-70 for me …. we bring two lenses , I always only use 16-35 much more than 24-70 …. Sony comes out new on 20-70 … I still doubt will be able to take advantage of 20-70 ….

[@pinikpikantv3555]

After several years being a hobbyist. The best set up for me turned out to be buying the minimalist set up for photography. Save me thousand dollars. I got 1 FF camera and build up prime lenses then later bought 2 reliable apsc camera, now 1 camera on wide, mid telephoto and one on long telephoto. This gives all fast lenses attached to all bodies and they are definitely lighter than zoom fast lenses on the market. More battery as well. Apsc bodies are very light and compact and gives longer range with crop factor.

[@VeryCoolJeep]

If i want to shoot something closer i fly my drone! I really want to trade in my Sigma 24-70 for Sony 16-35 gM. I travel vlog on KZbin and most of the time my 24-70 doesnt do landscapes too well.

[@gettriggered8404]

Question, what would you recommend? i own a 35mm GM. find it too zoomed in. i do alot of hiking, and traveling. i do more videos than photos but i try to combine either way. im thinking of buying either the 16-35mm gm1 or 24-70mm gm1. Which would be best for capturing sight seeing/travel. ? (cinematography) Thanks

[@AP_wok]

16-35 for wider scene

[@techdomain6901]

Which one is better for product photography ?

[@am.olaveTT]

Is it just me or every photography yt I like is from Toronto 😂😂

[@86BBUB]

Neither is "better". That's why many carry BOTH. 24-70 Gm and the 16-35 G is a great combo.

[@duvalpenny100]

Were you tempted to pair the 24-70 with the new 16-25?

[@86BBUB]

@@duvalpenny100 No - I like having the full range of the 16-35 in a second lens while traveling. Along with a second body it provides the backup I need if the 24-70 is stolen, dropped, craps out, etc. Hope that makes sense.

[@Tsyras]

I think 24-70 much more versatile. 35mm is really wide still, so I would probably find it too limiting. While not having the 16-23mm focal range isn't ideal, I have used Microsoft ICE (free tool from MS that doesn't seem well known) to make some nice stitched photos (I found that ICE did a better job than Lightroom/Photoshop ... but I haven't tried to do it in Adobe tools in probably 3-4 years, so they may be better now).

[@brockwunder]

I totally agree! 35 isn’t enough most of the time, and the 24-70 can literally do anything :)

[@explorewiththeodore]

thank you for this exact video I was looking for... I have both lenses in my cart and dont know which one to get. Also squirrel at @3:53

[@Alexframesrj]

I was thinking what is that?? Big rat 😱

[@brockwunder]

Hilarious!

[@omranmohammed4811]

I hope if they done 16-70 lens 💔💔 this will be super perfect man 😊😊

[@powdermuaythai]

trick question; it's the tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8!

[@Tobirama_isHimju]

What do you think about the Zeiss versions of these lenses if you don't have the extra cash for the GM version?

[@brockwunder]

Ironically the GM lenses are made with Zeiss glass! So it’s basically the same at this point :)

[@Tobirama_isHimju]

@@brockwunder I didn’t realize that. I ended up buying the sigma 24-70 f2.8 It’s really nice as well.

[@Shawns_snapshots]

The Zeiss 16-35 is alright, but especially the 24-70 isn’t all that great. The Zeiss primes are good.

[@abuzele]

It is Very interesting comparison , what is your opinion about 24 -105 as a travel lens

[@brockwunder]

Super great if image quality and distortion isn't an issue for you! Otherwise you might want less of a focal range :)

[@MODESTYXO205]

What would you choose for documentary/ vlog content

[@brockwunder]

@@MODESTYXO205 For sure the 16-35 in that case!

[@MODESTYXO205]

@@brockwunder, would you pair the sony 20 1.8 with the 24-70 or Just buy the 16-35 I primarily shoot video. Thanks

[@brockwunder]

@@MODESTYXO205 If you're mostly shooting video I think it depends on the look you're wanting to create. A lot of videographers will swear by primes lately for the depth you're gonna get. If you're on a budget though and want versatility while being able to shoot multiple different types of projects than the 16-35 will be your go to!

[@kungfucj]

what happened to that squirrel!

[@chriss2295]

Answer - You need both. It depends on the use case.

[@WaitButHow]

Agreed. It's nice to have an ultra-wide in your kit. I ended up getting 14mm f1.8 though for a bit better performance indoors. You can also use in APS-C mode on FF camera. It looks like 21mm with a crop. You do sacrifice resolution though. 14MP in APS-C vs 33MP in FF mode on A7 IV.

[@ferdinand6041]

An 8 minute video that tells you to bring both…. 😂

[@brockwunder]

I provide enough information in here for you to make an informed decision I feel :) It's all about opportunity cost at the end of the day!

[@onmywatch9165]

Too much hullabaloo… a basic and light 16-50 kit lens is all you need for travel photography. I just use bigger specific lenses for work

[@PritishBharti]

Audio sucks dude

[@brockwunder]

Thanks