I have really started to enjoy travel photography, focusing on landscapes especially. When I travel to a new city I carry my D750 with my 20mm f/1.8, and my D7000, mostly with my 50mm f/1.8, but sometimes when I know I will need the extra zoom and I know we won't be walking all day, my 70-200mm f/2.8. So I look like a real Chinese tourist. When it starts getting dark and I need the better low light performance of my D750, I start swopping lenses when needed, although it doesn't happen often. I would say 75% to 80% of the photos I take in this way will be with my 20mm. And just as a small advert, the new 20mm f/1.8 that I mention here is a FANTASTIC lens for a very reasonable price.
Anyway, so this setup works, and allows me to use the low weight primes I love. BUT, am I missing shots because I don't have the reach or versatility of the 24 - 70mm? Would you say this method is sustainable for the kind of traveling I do (I've only recently moved to Europe so every city I visit is new and exciting and usually we don't have a lot of time in them so I need versatility because we will be on the move from sunrise to sunset)? And lastly, since I use my 20mm for almost everything, will the 24mm be wide enough for my liking? Or am I going to end up reaching for the 20mm most of the time anyway?
Basically I want to know if there is a compelling reason for me to move away from my current setup.
I was hoping that some of the more experienced travel photographers can help me out on this.
Thanks in advance :)
Hi Nadia, on a Full frame camera, the 24 mm is really ultra-wide and I find my 24-70 versatile when shooting landscapes. Nikon's 24-120 f/4 is even better for travelling; offering a wide aperture and good image quality with a longer zoom. The 28-300 is even more versatile for traveling, but maybe not quite wide enough should you want to shoot wide scenes.
Finally, remember that you can also turn any wide lens into ultra-wide by shooting panoramas. I do it all the time :)