Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.Sony PZ 16-35Tamron 28-200

Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.Nice photos!I also really like that combination of two lenses and have used it before. Both are outstanding lenses. I would have no problem recommending them as a travel kit.I recently got the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and I prefer that for travel over the PZ mainly because it's one stop faster, for indoor shots like churches and taverns....but also because it's not a power zoom.Lately. because it's new, my travel kit has been the new 20-70/4 G along with Tamron 70-300...a very lightweight kit.When I was in Portugal, I was a kid with a Kodak Instamatic 100 film camera. I'd love to go back.Thanks for sharing your trip!

I use the Tamron 17-28 and the Tamron 28-200...same brand, same filter size, no overlap. The Sigma 16-28 is also a fine choice-might go that way if I decide 1mm wider is needed.

DP13Photo wrote:Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.Nice photos!I also really like that combination of two lenses and have used it before. Both are outstanding lenses. I would have no problem recommending them as a travel kit.I recently got the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and I prefer that for travel over the PZ mainly because it's one stop faster, for indoor shots like churches and taverns....but also because it's not a power zoom.Lately. because it's new, my travel kit has been the new 20-70/4 G along with Tamron 70-300...a very lightweight kit.When I was in Portugal, I was a kid with a Kodak Instamatic 100 film camera. I'd love to go back.Thanks for sharing your trip!Thanks a lot! What about the new 20-70? Are you enjoying it?

wpstl wrote:I use the Tamron 17-28 and the Tamron 28-200...same brand, same filter size, no overlap. The Sigma 16-28 is also a fine choice-might go that way if I decide 1mm wider is needed.I always considered the Tamron 17-28 as a possibility. However, first I decided to go with the Sony 20mm G and later the PZ 16-35. I don't regret my decisions, even without having tried the 17-28.

Rluizsm wrote:DP13Photo wrote:Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.Nice photos!I also really like that combination of two lenses and have used it before. Both are outstanding lenses. I would have no problem recommending them as a travel kit.I recently got the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and I prefer that for travel over the PZ mainly because it's one stop faster, for indoor shots like churches and taverns....but also because it's not a power zoom.Lately. because it's new, my travel kit has been the new 20-70/4 G along with Tamron 70-300...a very lightweight kit.When I was in Portugal, I was a kid with a Kodak Instamatic 100 film camera. I'd love to go back.Thanks for sharing your trip!Thanks a lot! What about the new 20-70? Are you enjoying it?I like it a lot. I started a thread and posted some snaps here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66933004It's a very sharp lens and not too big or heavy. It's an amazing focal range but the 28-200mm I think is more valuable as a travel lens, since I am going to bring a wide angle zoom anyway that starts at 16mm.I started a thread about the 20-70 vs the 28-200 here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66950860

DP13Photo wrote:Rluizsm wrote:DP13Photo wrote:Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.Nice photos!I also really like that combination of two lenses and have used it before. Both are outstanding lenses. I would have no problem recommending them as a travel kit.I recently got the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and I prefer that for travel over the PZ mainly because it's one stop faster, for indoor shots like churches and taverns....but also because it's not a power zoom.Lately. because it's new, my travel kit has been the new 20-70/4 G along with Tamron 70-300...a very lightweight kit.When I was in Portugal, I was a kid with a Kodak Instamatic 100 film camera. I'd love to go back.Thanks for sharing your trip!Thanks a lot! What about the new 20-70? Are you enjoying it?I like it a lot. I started a thread and posted some snaps here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66933004It's a very sharp lens and not too big or heavy. It's an amazing focal range but the 28-200mm I think is more valuable as a travel lens, since I am going to bring a wide angle zoom anyway that starts at 16mm.I started a thread about the 20-70 vs the 28-200 here:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66950860Thanks again! I have been following both threads.

I wouldn't call the total weight of the A7RV + Sony 16-35mm + Tamron 28-200mm which together is around 1.7kg a perfect walkaround kit. But it sure is a great travel combo. Of course depending on you focal range needs during travel.I brought the Tamron 28-200mm to a few of my travels and it has served me well. I don't have to change lenses and in most cases 28mm is wide enough for me. And zooming in to 200mm is great to have in some travel locations for compression.I recently also purchased the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. I enjoy that lens more for general walkaround purposes in the city on my A7C because it's a whole lot smaller and lighter (870 grams for body + lens). I think it depends on the destination which lens I will bring.Sometimes I contemplate buying the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 so I can bring the 20-40mm + 70-180mm as a travel lens setup. But then I remind myself that lens is 810g and I hate carrying backpacks filled with camera stuff during hikes and therefore I would leave it at the hotel probably all day.

Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.I tried the PZ 16-35, nice optic, but I just can't stand the power zoom operation.I have a 28-200, not my favorite lens at all, I bought it for travel, but only used few times and it's back in the closet now, image quality wise is pretty good for a super zoom, but as any super zoom, it has very small maximum aperture, focus slow in dim light, also when I need a wide angel shot, 28mm is NEVER wide enough, so I have to pair that with another wide lens, so totally defeats the purpose of having a One-Fits-All travel lens purpose, my Nikon 24-200 is a little better in this regard, about the same quality optic but at least it starts from 24mm instead 28mm.With that being said, I normally just travel with whatever lens I normally use instead of a dedicated set of "travel lens", size and weight is not the top consideration for me most of the time, except for Backpacking trips which ever OZ counts, but for car, air travel, a Z9 or A7R III, 6 primes and/or 2 big zoom makes no difference at all for me.I also got the chance to play with my friend's new 20-70 F4 few times when we shooting out, I think it's a really nice little lens for travel, just like most modern lens, you need some help with software correction using the lens profile of course, without it it would be a horrible lens, but at least that focal length works perfect for me, i normally don't use focal length longer than 85 that much unless is for sport and wildlife, but I use 20-35 all the time when I am in National Park, casually walking around the city, and even in door like restaurants, so if I have to make a choice between the 3 lenses you mentioned above for family vacation type of travel where photography is not a top priority and purpose , the 20-70 would be my top choice. i am thinking to get one for my up coming backpacking trip in late April. Lens choice is so personal, my preference is manual focus primes so i always bring a bag full of those Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander as well as GM on all my photo trips, by car, by air, local or oversea.

Dan_168 wrote:Rluizsm wrote:Yesterday I was visiting some interesting places in Portugal, close to Lisbon. I was using my (handheld) Sony A7RV with the two above referred lenses.Below are two images, the first with the PZ 16-35 at 21mm and the second with the Tamron 28-200 at 102mm. More and more I come to the conclusion that these lenses complement each other to my satisfaction.Even though I'm tempted by the new Sony 20-70, I'm not sure about convenience, necessity and real gain/loss, if any.I'd appreciate your opinion.I tried the PZ 16-35, nice optic, but I just can't stand the power zoom operation.I have a 28-200, not my favorite lens at all, I bought it for travel, but only used few times and it's back in the closet now, image quality wise is pretty good for a super zoom, but as any super zoom, it has very small maximum aperture, focus slow in dim light, also when I need a wide angel shot, 28mm is NEVER wide enough, so I have to pair that with another wide lens, so totally defeats the purpose of having a One-Fits-All travel lens purpose, my Nikon 24-200 is a little better in this regard, about the same quality optic but at least it starts from 24mm instead 28mm.With that being said, I normally just travel with whatever lens I normally use instead of a dedicated set of "travel lens", size and weight is not the top consideration for me most of the time, except for Backpacking trips which ever OZ counts, but for car, air travel, a Z9 or A7R III, 6 primes and/or 2 big zoom makes no difference at all for me.I also got the chance to play with my friend's new 20-70 F4 few times when we shooting out, I think it's a really nice little lens for travel, just like most modern lens, you need some help with software correction using the lens profile of course, without it it would be a horrible lens, but at least that focal length works perfect for me, i normally don't use focal length longer than 85 that much unless is for sport and wildlife, but I use 20-35 all the time when I am in National Park, casually walking around the city, and even in door like restaurants, so if I have to make a choice between the 3 lenses you mentioned above for family vacation type of travel where photography is not a top priority and purpose , the 20-70 would be my top choice. i am thinking to get one for my up coming backpacking trip in late April. Lens choice is so personal, my preference is manual focus primes so i always bring a bag full of those Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander as well as GM on all my photo trips, by car, by air, local or oversea.Thanks for the feedback. No doubt you have a good point! I have an A7C and I have travelled with it and some primes, including the Sony 20mm f1.8G, 24mm f2.8G, 35mm F1.8, 50mm f2.5 G, 85mm f1.8 and the A7C kit lens. I think the 20G, 35 and 85mm also make a good travel kit alternative.