Canon 17-40mm f/4 on a DSLR full frame for landscape, 50mm f/1.8 on another DSLR full frame for portrait, and 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on a mirrorless R6 for everything. I shoot for hobbies and on a budget. I usually carry 17-40mm, or/and 100-400mm with camera(s) outdoors.
Although quite underrated I have found the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 an excellent lens more than capable especially when stopped down to f/8 which is perfect for Landscape Photography.
Always enjoy your videos, Pat. I don't know if I've mentioned this on here before, but the "right" lens for me depends on what I'll be shooting. When I'm home, a 24-70 GM II and a 70-200 GM II usually gets the job done. But, when I travel, and that's almost always to the western US or Canada, I'll need something wider. My travel kit now consists of the 16-35 GM II, the 50mm 1.4 GM, and the 70-200 G II. I can never tell what's going to work best until I try them for myself. And I always encourage other people to find what works best for them.
The right lens is always context dependant, which is why I always provide options! Sometimes I also travel with your same travel setup, but replace the 50 1.4 with the 55 1.8 as its substantially smaller and lighter but still has amazing IQ.
Totally agree. I took the same focal lengths (although in my case it was a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Sigma 20 f1.4 on a Lumix S1r body). This is a super versatile setup with the 24-70 covering most things and the fast 20 doing interiors, landscapes, and night time street photography. Worked perfectly for me. At home doing landscapes though I would most commonly use the 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4.
Excellent introduction Pat. You make great points in a concise, easy to understand way. You briefly mention the convenience having using two bodies. Using two bodies was a game changer for me. People often think that landscape photographers have all the time in the world to set up their shots, change lenses, move tripods etc. But light can change so incredibly fast outdoors. One minute your 16-35 lens is the best choice, then suddenly the light changes and you want to isolate a subject and need your 70-200. By the time you change lenses the light has changed again and you've missed the 70-200 shot and now you're missing the 16-35 shot while you change back! If I were just starting starting in landscape photography I would save money and buy f4 lenses or third party lenses from Sigma (the SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN II Art is a fantastic lens and half the price of the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II) and use the money I saved on a second body. Great work as usual. I'm looking forward to watching your next work.
I'm definitely a huge advocate for having two bodies with contrasting lenses at the same time! That's definitely not a beginner move though haha. I can't live without it however when I'm shooting "seriously".
Very good explanation and the same conclusion I came to when thinking about this. I don't mainly shoot scapes and don't own any zooms at the moment, so my kit is two bodies and the 3 to 4 best focal lengths for the job, chosen between 16, 20, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm.
Awesome video! I was specifically looking for something in the wide side and your advices really helped me! Just to point out, there is also the tamron 35-150mm f2/2.8 which is really sharp and really versatile! And although it's expensive, it might cost less than buying 2 sony zoom lenses 😅
Thanks so much for watching! I'm not allowed to review or use Tamron lenses, but I'm glad there are many options for everyone shooting Sony! Only makes the selection better for everyone.
@@darrenhaken He apparently does. If I was forced to only go with one lens however, I would get a 16-35 GM II as a compromise and I would definitively find it not wide enough, missing my 12-24 GM. 😂
It depends what you want to do with it. For landscape I'd say the 16-35. The 12-24 is usually used for some extreme perspectives, bringing in objects in the foreground while capturing the background too, to give a sense of being in the scene, to distort shapes, and obviously to get in the frame ridiculously tall buildings and towers from a very close point of view (last year I went to Tokyo and wanted to shoot the Tokyo tower from a certain place, and I couldn't have done it at 16mm)
12-24 for sure, and on Sony the GM for sure, which deals excellently with the sun being in the frame. I have a lot of two-image panoramas sitting on my disk waiting for me to stitch from the years on Canon with a 16-35 that I can not be arsed to do. Just being able to take one shot at 12 mm (and 61 MP) and get a likewise panorama by quickly cropping to e.g. 2:1 is so much better.
For landscapes I use 2 lenses, a 15mm-35mm f2.8 particularly if I want to include a foreground element and most likely focus stack to put everything in focus, and a 70mm-200mm F4 to get more reach to detail more distant objects.
I have recently moved to Nikon Z and my 'holy trinity' if you will is, 14-24 f2.8 S, 24-120 f4 S, and 85mm f1.8 for portrait. The 14-24 image quality is astounding while the 24-120 gives that little extra reach when I want it. I also have my 70-300F mount with FTZ.
Have you used a 24mm prime for landscape photography as a substitute for 1635? I've heard people who do panorama stitches (for the wider FOV) and then the APS-C crop (for the narrower FOV)
Do you have any thoughts on getting an 18-50 f/2.8 or a 10-20 f/4 lens for APSC? 16-35 lenses are full frame lenses and also more expensive than I want to consider at the moment. I imagine that either of the two alternatives would do fine, but I'm looking to start getting into photography and want to start with a good general lens.
I was very close with getting the 2470 GMii, but I decided to keep the 2070 G lens. Thinking of coming up with my own collection of the holy trinity 😂 - 1635 F4 G - 2070 F4 G - 70200 F4 G
G boi right here haha. In many cases you've got the best f4 holy trinity version out there; that 20-70 is the best in that ilk right now (vs 24-70 f4, 24-105 f4, etc)
@@darrenhaken Yeah, Sony should take inspiration from Canon and add an excellent 10-20 f/4 there. 🤔 These overlaps and holes in the native lens lineups are really silly.
When advising people on what lenses to get for landscape photography I tend to ask more about what other types of photography they are into - as that has more impact on what lenses you should consider. Personally, I went with 16-35mm F2.8 for wide because I shoot travel and astrophotography also and they really are improved by having F2.8. For a standard lens I have both a 24-70 F2.8 and a Superzoom option - again the 24-70 F2.8 is mainly because it is a great lens for travel and family photos, but the Superzoom is great for travel and hiking and not having to take more than one lens when scouting. Lastly for Telephoto I mainly use a 100-400mm.... reason I didn't go with a 70-200 F2.8 is that I don't tend to do much in the way of portraits - But I do like doing wildlife photography and close up/macro type work and the 100-400mm works well for that. Of course sometimes when I go out with the Superzoom I can cover out to about 240mm - sure there is a quality hit - but being light is sometimes more important - and I have printed shots zoomed in at 24x36" so it can be good enough.
To each their own! I meet hundreds of photographers every year, many of them hybrids, but just as many "single category" photographers too. I'm sure we're all mature enough here to realise that there's no one piece of advice that fits everyone, and that we can just take whatever fits for our use case and discard the rest!
APS-C shooter here. Funnily enough, I also shoot most of my photos at f5.6, as my 17-55mm 2.8 is sharpest at 5.6 on average. Alongside that, I shoot with a 10-18mm (4.5-5.6 means I also shoot at 5.6 to keep the aperture consistent lol) and a EF 70-200 f4. Hoping to upgrade to the Sigma 10-18 2.8 (260g!) and the RF 70-200 f4 for the size and newness. Maybe the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 if the budget allows.
Landscape is not my area of interest or experience but when I do I really enjoy the 50mm 1.2. Im not usually at 1.2 but I like having parts of the landscape out of focus and the compressed/ narrow focus of one part of the landscape. I had the "holy Trinity" (16-400 f/4) for about a year and recently got rid of all of it for 50mm and 200-800mm.
Very nice video. Because I shoot a lot of different things beside scapes I usually start with an f/2.8 holy trinity like my GM II but that’s also on a full size full frame body like an A7RV. These days though I’m trying to shift my travel / landscape kit to the A7CR or A7CII compact bodies so I’ve been getting small lenses like the 24-50/2.8 G (since I also will use for events), FE 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II, and at the wide end not sure yet. Personally I did not like the PZ functionality on the 16-35/4 G so will either still take my FE 16-35/2.8 GM II or looking at the FE 16-25/2.8 G. The 20-70/4 G looks very interesting but I almost never see it being used with people so it tends to lack that flexibility to me. Thank you and take care.
I love my 16-35 PZ, but honestly, never us the actual PZ part haha. Maybe consider the 12-24 f4 if you want wide as well! That's amazingly sharp for the price and size.
@@patkay Actually have the FE 12-24/4 G. Wider than I typically like to shoot and not the best if you want to use filters but not a major restriction. Will try to warm up to that lens. Actually the 12-24/4 is bigger than the 16-35/2.8 GM II.
What about sensor size considerations? I know of people who shoot landscapes on APS-C and even M4/3. Sure, finding a 16mm equivalent lens for a smaller sensor that will be as sharp as it is on FF is harder, but much like you can shoot landscapes at 24-36mm you can do so on the small sensor, I'd assume?
@@patkay Well back in the days, it was better than the first 24-70 GM. Plus the 100-400 GM is very nice to go along with it. But yes, contrast in backlit situations drops notably, so I am hoping for a MK II incarnation with newer coatings to come sooner rather than later...
That 20-70 sure is nice! Definitely much better than the much older 24-70 f4 Zeiss. I'm personally not a huge fan of the IQ from the 24-105, but the range sure is nice.
Your F2.8 to F4 doesn’t him home with Nikon, because Nikon made their F4’s their S line. I picked up a 14-30, and 24-120F4’s, and the loss of sharpness to the 2.8 versions is so negligible that you have to pixel peep at 300% and look very hard. Some people even claim (wrongly) that the 14-30 is sharper then the 14-24 2.8. Hopefully this doesn’t steer people away from Nikon’s excellent F4 S series of lenses. Shame on the other manufacturers, they should follow what Nikon is doing.
I'll add that a 24-105mm is an option to consider for your "Holy Trinity'. In fact, I'd suggest that a compromised 'Holy Duo' might be a very wide angle zoom plus a 24-105mm as a Duo. Sony has a 70-350mm f4 that I enjoy a great deal, although this is limited to APSC coverage. For that matter APSC bodies and APSC lenses open up a whole different set of additional options. Thanks for this Pat!
only recently got a a7iii, and for a decent price the 16-35 f4 G PZ came up. will definitely be nice having native optics for once. That said there are some great vinage optics that still compete with the modern optics in terms of resolving power/sharpness. For those wondering you're mostly looking at dedicated macro lenses due to the lower ISO film (sub 50iso) used by that particular field.
Also I would argue that a landscape photographer would want the 24-105(120) F4’s, and a 100-400. Why would any landscape photographer opt for the 24-70 and 70-200 over 24-120 and 100-400? I can’t ever see it. 400mm landscape shots of waterfalls and mountain vistas are incredible and doubles for wildlife. The holy trinity seems like a cop out.
Good points there! When I‘m shooting landscape/nature I either need a wideangle or a telephoto lens, not that 50ish mm range in between. That’s why my setup for that is 16-35 f/2.8 II + 70-200 f/4 II Macro (+ 1.4x teleconverter). For me this is the best combination in terms of iq, size and flexibility out there. ⛰️
Canon 17-40mm f/4 on a DSLR full frame for landscape, 50mm f/1.8 on another DSLR full frame for portrait, and 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on a mirrorless R6 for everything. I shoot for hobbies and on a budget. I usually carry 17-40mm, or/and 100-400mm with camera(s) outdoors.
Although quite underrated I have found the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 an excellent lens more than capable especially when stopped down to f/8 which is perfect for Landscape Photography.
Always enjoy your videos, Pat. I don't know if I've mentioned this on here before, but the "right" lens for me depends on what I'll be shooting. When I'm home, a 24-70 GM II and a 70-200 GM II usually gets the job done. But, when I travel, and that's almost always to the western US or Canada, I'll need something wider. My travel kit now consists of the 16-35 GM II, the 50mm 1.4 GM, and the 70-200 G II. I can never tell what's going to work best until I try them for myself. And I always encourage other people to find what works best for them.
The right lens is always context dependant, which is why I always provide options! Sometimes I also travel with your same travel setup, but replace the 50 1.4 with the 55 1.8 as its substantially smaller and lighter but still has amazing IQ.
Quite informative and quality information Pat. Thanks for sharing mate.
The Sony 20mm f1.8 G is one of my favorites, only took that to Japan along with my 24-70 GM II and I was very happy.
I have that lens also! An absolutely underrrated lens and one that people don't talk enough about to be honest.
Totally agree. I took the same focal lengths (although in my case it was a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Sigma 20 f1.4 on a Lumix S1r body). This is a super versatile setup with the 24-70 covering most things and the fast 20 doing interiors, landscapes, and night time street photography. Worked perfectly for me. At home doing landscapes though I would most commonly use the 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4.
Thanks for the talk. What do you think of taking 3 to 5 shots and sticking them in LRC?
Excellent introduction Pat. You make great points in a concise, easy to understand way. You briefly mention the convenience having using two bodies. Using two bodies was a game changer for me. People often think that landscape photographers have all the time in the world to set up their shots, change lenses, move tripods etc. But light can change so incredibly fast outdoors. One minute your 16-35 lens is the best choice, then suddenly the light changes and you want to isolate a subject and need your 70-200. By the time you change lenses the light has changed again and you've missed the 70-200 shot and now you're missing the 16-35 shot while you change back!
If I were just starting starting in landscape photography I would save money and buy f4 lenses or third party lenses from Sigma (the SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN II Art is a fantastic lens and half the price of the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II) and use the money I saved on a second body. Great work as usual. I'm looking forward to watching your next work.
I'm definitely a huge advocate for having two bodies with contrasting lenses at the same time! That's definitely not a beginner move though haha. I can't live without it however when I'm shooting "seriously".
Very good explanation and the same conclusion I came to when thinking about this. I don't mainly shoot scapes and don't own any zooms at the moment, so my kit is two bodies and the 3 to 4 best focal lengths for the job, chosen between 16, 20, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm.
Prime guy! I mean, that will do absolutely everything you need for sure! What a spread!
Thank you for this video, I really appreciate your insights and advise. Would you recommend a different set of lenses for APS-C?
Awesome video! I was specifically looking for something in the wide side and your advices really helped me! Just to point out, there is also the tamron 35-150mm f2/2.8 which is really sharp and really versatile! And although it's expensive, it might cost less than buying 2 sony zoom lenses 😅
Thanks so much for watching! I'm not allowed to review or use Tamron lenses, but I'm glad there are many options for everyone shooting Sony! Only makes the selection better for everyone.
I have a compromise for my lightweight travel in SE Asia. I took the A7Cii & Sony 20-70 F4.
Just that lens? Do you find it wide enough?
Nice! Definitely can do most things with that setup.
@@darrenhaken He apparently does. If I was forced to only go with one lens however, I would get a 16-35 GM II as a compromise and I would definitively find it not wide enough, missing my 12-24 GM. 😂
Hey Pat!
Would be getting my very first mirrorless camera this coming Sunday and was wondering what are your thoughts of the Sony 12-24mm f2.8 GM?
amazing video, very informative
If you already have a 24-70, would you opt for a 12-24 or 16-35 for an ultrawide zoom?
It depends what you want to do with it. For landscape I'd say the 16-35. The 12-24 is usually used for some extreme perspectives, bringing in objects in the foreground while capturing the background too, to give a sense of being in the scene, to distort shapes, and obviously to get in the frame ridiculously tall buildings and towers from a very close point of view (last year I went to Tokyo and wanted to shoot the Tokyo tower from a certain place, and I couldn't have done it at 16mm)
Personally I go with 16-35mm because wider lenses tend not to support screw on filters.
If you're inclined to do a bit of architecture or interiors, I'd go the 12-24. Otherwise 16-35 for sure.
12-24 for sure, and on Sony the GM for sure, which deals excellently with the sun being in the frame.
I have a lot of two-image panoramas sitting on my disk waiting for me to stitch from the years on Canon with a 16-35 that I can not be arsed to do. Just being able to take one shot at 12 mm (and 61 MP) and get a likewise panorama by quickly cropping to e.g. 2:1 is so much better.
For landscapes I use 2 lenses, a 15mm-35mm f2.8 particularly if I want to include a foreground element and most likely focus stack to put everything in focus, and a 70mm-200mm F4 to get more reach to detail more distant objects.
I have recently moved to Nikon Z and my 'holy trinity' if you will is, 14-24 f2.8 S, 24-120 f4 S, and 85mm f1.8 for portrait.
The 14-24 image quality is astounding while the 24-120 gives that little extra reach when I want it.
I also have my 70-300F mount with FTZ.
Have you used a 24mm prime for landscape photography as a substitute for 1635? I've heard people who do panorama stitches (for the wider FOV) and then the APS-C crop (for the narrower FOV)
Fuji shooter here. I have the 16-80 f4 and the 100-400 f4.5 to f5.6. I also have the 14mm f2.8 and the Laowa 9mm f2.8.
Do you have any thoughts on getting an 18-50 f/2.8 or a 10-20 f/4 lens for APSC? 16-35 lenses are full frame lenses and also more expensive than I want to consider at the moment. I imagine that either of the two alternatives would do fine, but I'm looking to start getting into photography and want to start with a good general lens.
I was very close with getting the 2470 GMii, but I decided to keep the 2070 G lens. Thinking of coming up with my own collection of the holy trinity 😂
- 1635 F4 G
- 2070 F4 G
- 70200 F4 G
Don’t you find too much overlap of the 16-35 and 20-70?
G boi right here haha. In many cases you've got the best f4 holy trinity version out there; that 20-70 is the best in that ilk right now (vs 24-70 f4, 24-105 f4, etc)
@@darrenhaken Yeah, Sony should take inspiration from Canon and add an excellent 10-20 f/4 there. 🤔
These overlaps and holes in the native lens lineups are really silly.
When advising people on what lenses to get for landscape photography I tend to ask more about what other types of photography they are into - as that has more impact on what lenses you should consider. Personally, I went with 16-35mm F2.8 for wide because I shoot travel and astrophotography also and they really are improved by having F2.8. For a standard lens I have both a 24-70 F2.8 and a Superzoom option - again the 24-70 F2.8 is mainly because it is a great lens for travel and family photos, but the Superzoom is great for travel and hiking and not having to take more than one lens when scouting. Lastly for Telephoto I mainly use a 100-400mm.... reason I didn't go with a 70-200 F2.8 is that I don't tend to do much in the way of portraits - But I do like doing wildlife photography and close up/macro type work and the 100-400mm works well for that. Of course sometimes when I go out with the Superzoom I can cover out to about 240mm - sure there is a quality hit - but being light is sometimes more important - and I have printed shots zoomed in at 24x36" so it can be good enough.
To each their own! I meet hundreds of photographers every year, many of them hybrids, but just as many "single category" photographers too. I'm sure we're all mature enough here to realise that there's no one piece of advice that fits everyone, and that we can just take whatever fits for our use case and discard the rest!
I've just revamped my lenses to: Sony f/4 24-105mm G & Sigma f/3.5 100-400mm, I also have a Sony 20mm f/2 prime.
Love it!
R6ii + 24-105 f4 and EF 100-400ii (with adaptor) for sea scapes, surfing and beach lifestyle and surfscapes.
APS-C shooter here. Funnily enough, I also shoot most of my photos at f5.6, as my 17-55mm 2.8 is sharpest at 5.6 on average.
Alongside that, I shoot with a 10-18mm (4.5-5.6 means I also shoot at 5.6 to keep the aperture consistent lol) and a EF 70-200 f4. Hoping to upgrade to the Sigma 10-18 2.8 (260g!) and the RF 70-200 f4 for the size and newness. Maybe the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 if the budget allows.
Nice! Love a good APS-C setup. Always good for the size tradeoffs
Landscape is not my area of interest or experience but when I do I really enjoy the 50mm 1.2. Im not usually at 1.2 but I like having parts of the landscape out of focus and the compressed/ narrow focus of one part of the landscape. I had the "holy Trinity" (16-400 f/4) for about a year and recently got rid of all of it for 50mm and 200-800mm.
Fair enough! Some people absolutely adore the 50! It's the most popular focal length for a reason!
Thank you very much
Thanks for watching!
Very nice video. Because I shoot a lot of different things beside scapes I usually start with an f/2.8 holy trinity like my GM II but that’s also on a full size full frame body like an A7RV. These days though I’m trying to shift my travel / landscape kit to the A7CR or A7CII compact bodies so I’ve been getting small lenses like the 24-50/2.8 G (since I also will use for events), FE 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II, and at the wide end not sure yet. Personally I did not like the PZ functionality on the 16-35/4 G so will either still take my FE 16-35/2.8 GM II or looking at the FE 16-25/2.8 G. The 20-70/4 G looks very interesting but I almost never see it being used with people so it tends to lack that flexibility to me. Thank you and take care.
I love my 16-35 PZ, but honestly, never us the actual PZ part haha. Maybe consider the 12-24 f4 if you want wide as well! That's amazingly sharp for the price and size.
@@patkay Actually have the FE 12-24/4 G. Wider than I typically like to shoot and not the best if you want to use filters but not a major restriction. Will try to warm up to that lens. Actually the 12-24/4 is bigger than the 16-35/2.8 GM II.
Sony Gm F1.4 14 mm is my favorite lens
2:44 good I can close the Amazon tab now
Sony 20-70mm + tamron 50-400.. and thinking to switch to tamron 50-300
A7C ii + 28-200. That’s all I need for travel.
amazing!
I usually get the 2.8 versions however, I get the tamron or sigma versions as they have the cost of the manufacturer ones.
What about sensor size considerations? I know of people who shoot landscapes on APS-C and even M4/3. Sure, finding a 16mm equivalent lens for a smaller sensor that will be as sharp as it is on FF is harder, but much like you can shoot landscapes at 24-36mm you can do so on the small sensor, I'd assume?
Great video! But what about 24-104 F4?
Decent! But I'm not the biggest fan of the image quality out of it, so I prefer something like the newer 20-70!
@@patkay Well back in the days, it was better than the first 24-70 GM. Plus the 100-400 GM is very nice to go along with it.
But yes, contrast in backlit situations drops notably, so I am hoping for a MK II incarnation with newer coatings to come sooner rather than later...
an amazing video . thank you pat
Thanks so much for watching!
I've been using the Sony G 20-70mm f4 and it's pretty awesome so far.
Heaps of people love it!
With Sony instead of the 24-70 f4 one should really choose between the 20-70 f4 and the 24-105 f4 in my opinion
That 20-70 sure is nice! Definitely much better than the much older 24-70 f4 Zeiss. I'm personally not a huge fan of the IQ from the 24-105, but the range sure is nice.
As always, an amazing video bringing value to the table.
Thanks so much for watching!
This is great, thank you. I plan on getting the 16-35mm this year and I think you may have just sold me on the PZ f4!
I'm sure you'll love it! I sure do.
Your F2.8 to F4 doesn’t him home with Nikon, because Nikon made their F4’s their S line. I picked up a 14-30, and 24-120F4’s, and the loss of sharpness to the 2.8 versions is so negligible that you have to pixel peep at 300% and look very hard. Some people even claim (wrongly) that the 14-30 is sharper then the 14-24 2.8.
Hopefully this doesn’t steer people away from Nikon’s excellent F4 S series of lenses. Shame on the other manufacturers, they should follow what Nikon is doing.
Many thanks Pat - this is helpful as I'm rethinking what lenses I need.
My pleasure! Thanks for watching.
I'll add that a 24-105mm is an option to consider for your "Holy Trinity'. In fact, I'd suggest that a compromised 'Holy Duo' might be a very wide angle zoom plus a 24-105mm as a Duo. Sony has a 70-350mm f4 that I enjoy a great deal, although this is limited to APSC coverage. For that matter APSC bodies and APSC lenses open up a whole different set of additional options. Thanks for this Pat!
To each their own for sure! I'm personally not a huge fan of the Sony 24-105 image quality, so I'd prefer the newer 20-70!
Spot on Pat! I use 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4
Any reason why 2.8 for the mid zoom?
Love it! An amazing setup you got right there!
Tamron 50-300 ?
Is it good?
@@patkay I wanted you to tell me 😂🙈
I shoot most of my landscape shots with a 85 mm prime. I love it.
only recently got a a7iii, and for a decent price the 16-35 f4 G PZ came up. will definitely be nice having native optics for once. That said there are some great vinage optics that still compete with the modern optics in terms of resolving power/sharpness.
For those wondering you're mostly looking at dedicated macro lenses due to the lower ISO film (sub 50iso) used by that particular field.
Love that 16-35 PZ!
@@patkay Turns out marketplace showed the listing as local even though he is on the other side of the country (Calgary instead of southern Ontario)
@@patkayshould I downgrade my gm I to g?
First! 🔥
You got it!
Also I would argue that a landscape photographer would want the 24-105(120) F4’s, and a 100-400. Why would any landscape photographer opt for the 24-70 and 70-200 over 24-120 and 100-400? I can’t ever see it. 400mm landscape shots of waterfalls and mountain vistas are incredible and doubles for wildlife.
The holy trinity seems like a cop out.
its not "wider" focal length; it is the "shorter" focal length!
Good points there! When I‘m shooting landscape/nature I either need a wideangle or a telephoto lens, not that 50ish mm range in between. That’s why my setup for that is 16-35 f/2.8 II + 70-200 f/4 II Macro (+ 1.4x teleconverter). For me this is the best combination in terms of iq, size and flexibility out there. ⛰️
Sounds perfect!