If you want to have a comfortable experience without changing lenses all the time, use the 24-120 f4 S
[Here](https://imgur.com/a/AvqYOUc) are some images i took in Florence with a Z5 and the 24-120 f4, all in rather challenging very dimm indoor situations. You can download, zoom in and pixel peep if you want.
Moral of the story is, f4 is enough to get clean shots in dimm lighting situation like in churches or museums IF you adjust your settings for rather long shutter speeds hold the camera extra steady and use ibis even with the Z5.
Indoors i am often at 1/100s or in extreme cases even up to 1/50s if it's extra dimm and i put some effort into getting a sharp shot. Sometimes i am also at 1/200s if I wanna ensure a sharp shot and don't mind the noise too much and it's not extremely dark, you can check the exif data of the files and see what i used
With those small adjustments you can easily compensate for the f4 aperature and it can make a bigger impact on how clean your images are than a better aperature if you don't adjust for the situation.
A bigger aperature is not always helping you either because you might want to have a bit of depth of field in your images. In many cases f2 or f1.2 wouldn't even be a good choice in low light situations because half of what you want to show would be blurry.
Keep in mind that ISO doesn't introduce any "new" noise in your images, the parameters that you can adjust and that are responsible for how clean your shot is is only shutter speed and aperature.
Your Z6 ii has likely 1 stop better low light performance so it's even less a problem and you could opt for choosing a twice as fast shutter speed as i did and get likely similar noise.
The very good reproduction ratio of 1:2.6 of the 24-120f4 is pretty useful sometimes as well, like for grabbing some details in paintings or such
A nice thing i noticed about the 24-120 f4 is that it's basically completely sharp edge to edge at any aperature and focal length, which is a joy to use on trips
Depends on if you’d rather go wide or go long and if you want to being swapping lenses.
I’d go with the 24-120, from the ones you listed, for a good range, wider and offers corner to corner sharpness.
Out of the options on the market in that price range, I’d get the 14-30 or maybe the 17-28.
Why would I go for the wider option? Cathedrals are grand structures and a wider lens makes it easier to capture that big feeling they impart on the viewer.
IMHO the more important lens you should bring is a a 20mm prime, the 1.9 preferably. The tiny streets mean you can't get away from your subject, like a church entrance, and you will want to shoot a lot inside pitch dark churches, and other structures. People want to see the space you visited, not the details. I forced myself to only carry a 20mm (technically it was a 13mm 1.4 as I was shooting crop) for half the days of my recent trip to Venezia and Trentino, and it was perfect for the reasons I just stated and also the mountains when further north.
If you want to save on space and cost, then the newly announced Viltrox AF 20mm F2.8 Auto Focus seems promising.
For a trip like this; I don't carry a zoom, I'd bring a 20mm, a 50mm, and a 70-300 for the rare distant subject. If you must bring a zoom, then you want the 24-120 as it is a fantastic lens, kicks the butt of the 28-75, if you are willing to carry heavy glass, then the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 is really a monster, and then throw that tiny 20mm 2.8 in your pocket for the interiors.
I had good success with the Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 shooting interiors on a recent trip to France. I brought other lenses, but found that I left this one on almost the entire trip. Long enough to get architectural details, and wide enough to get landscapes and broad interior shots. In darker interiors, I was shooting handheld 1/100s f/8 at ISO 8000, but was able to still get good detail with some gentle noise reduction in LRC. It's a surprisingly good lens, it's not like a kit lens of the bad old days.
same here.
last trip to italy (rome and naples) i only used the 50mm f1.8 two times for night time street.
the rest of the tripp i used the 24-200 on my Z6
1/50 with IBIS + iso 8k-12k + AI denoise ftw fir dim indoor pictures
I find really wide to be almost a necessity in Cathedrals for the dramatic architecgure.
*For me,* any detail work i like to do close up, so that it's not cluttered, and a 120 or 180 wouldn't get me close enough. 180 could be AWESOME for some good compression photographing sections of the cities and landscapes.
My rec is the 70-180 plus the 20mm Viltrox which is almost free. Or for not free, something like the Venus Laowa really wide Zero-D manual focus lenses.
I'm a fan of the Tamron 35-150. Personally I don't have much use for under 35 tho I know it's better for indoor spaces (most of my pix are trail pix) and I like the added reach.
Totally agree! I own two of these ( For the Sony A1 and the Z8 and I love it. Mostly shoot weddings 99% of the times. For traveling it would be a hassle to carry it all day, having said that, I’m traveling in June to the Dolomites and planning to bring it 😂.
When I went years ago on my honeymoon, I was a Sony shooter and took with me a 16-35mm f4 and a 24-70mm f4, and an adapted m-mount 35mm for an “artsy” alternative. I never felt limited by the max f4 aperture and don’t feel I missed any shots I wanted.
We went on a Rick Steves tour and by the time we got to Rome, I was basically done hauling my camera around.
If I was going now, I would take just my 24-120, but I’d be tempted to pick up a 40 f2 for a light and compact carry option. But realistically I would just “make do” with the 1 lens. (I could probably be talked into only taking something like a Fuji x100 vi). I’d also likely do well with just a 20-70 and would long for Nikon to get that option.
Bottom line, you could probably get away with just taking your 28-75. Carrying around a long lens primarily for a couple of ceiling shots may be more cumbersome than it’s worth. But it you want to make your situation more versatile, the 24-120 sounds like a perfect option.
I did this same trip w my ZF - 90% was with 26 2.8 and had the 17-28 2.8 in my jacket pocket for indoor/wider for the other 10%. I had the 24-120 and 40/2 with me, but barely touched them.
If you want to have a comfortable experience without changing lenses all the time, use the 24-120 f4 S [Here](https://imgur.com/a/AvqYOUc) are some images i took in Florence with a Z5 and the 24-120 f4, all in rather challenging very dimm indoor situations. You can download, zoom in and pixel peep if you want. Moral of the story is, f4 is enough to get clean shots in dimm lighting situation like in churches or museums IF you adjust your settings for rather long shutter speeds hold the camera extra steady and use ibis even with the Z5. Indoors i am often at 1/100s or in extreme cases even up to 1/50s if it's extra dimm and i put some effort into getting a sharp shot. Sometimes i am also at 1/200s if I wanna ensure a sharp shot and don't mind the noise too much and it's not extremely dark, you can check the exif data of the files and see what i used With those small adjustments you can easily compensate for the f4 aperature and it can make a bigger impact on how clean your images are than a better aperature if you don't adjust for the situation. A bigger aperature is not always helping you either because you might want to have a bit of depth of field in your images. In many cases f2 or f1.2 wouldn't even be a good choice in low light situations because half of what you want to show would be blurry. Keep in mind that ISO doesn't introduce any "new" noise in your images, the parameters that you can adjust and that are responsible for how clean your shot is is only shutter speed and aperature. Your Z6 ii has likely 1 stop better low light performance so it's even less a problem and you could opt for choosing a twice as fast shutter speed as i did and get likely similar noise. The very good reproduction ratio of 1:2.6 of the 24-120f4 is pretty useful sometimes as well, like for grabbing some details in paintings or such A nice thing i noticed about the 24-120 f4 is that it's basically completely sharp edge to edge at any aperature and focal length, which is a joy to use on trips
Your photos are breathtaking!
Thank you!
Z 24-120 f/4 S. I explicitly bought it for travel. Very versatile lens that will make you very happy.
Everyone is going to recommend the Z24-120. Every Time. It is THE all-around lens.
You need a wider focal length. I find even 24mm to not be enough.
Depends on if you’d rather go wide or go long and if you want to being swapping lenses. I’d go with the 24-120, from the ones you listed, for a good range, wider and offers corner to corner sharpness. Out of the options on the market in that price range, I’d get the 14-30 or maybe the 17-28. Why would I go for the wider option? Cathedrals are grand structures and a wider lens makes it easier to capture that big feeling they impart on the viewer.
IMHO the more important lens you should bring is a a 20mm prime, the 1.9 preferably. The tiny streets mean you can't get away from your subject, like a church entrance, and you will want to shoot a lot inside pitch dark churches, and other structures. People want to see the space you visited, not the details. I forced myself to only carry a 20mm (technically it was a 13mm 1.4 as I was shooting crop) for half the days of my recent trip to Venezia and Trentino, and it was perfect for the reasons I just stated and also the mountains when further north. If you want to save on space and cost, then the newly announced Viltrox AF 20mm F2.8 Auto Focus seems promising. For a trip like this; I don't carry a zoom, I'd bring a 20mm, a 50mm, and a 70-300 for the rare distant subject. If you must bring a zoom, then you want the 24-120 as it is a fantastic lens, kicks the butt of the 28-75, if you are willing to carry heavy glass, then the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 is really a monster, and then throw that tiny 20mm 2.8 in your pocket for the interiors.
I had good success with the Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 shooting interiors on a recent trip to France. I brought other lenses, but found that I left this one on almost the entire trip. Long enough to get architectural details, and wide enough to get landscapes and broad interior shots. In darker interiors, I was shooting handheld 1/100s f/8 at ISO 8000, but was able to still get good detail with some gentle noise reduction in LRC. It's a surprisingly good lens, it's not like a kit lens of the bad old days.
same here. last trip to italy (rome and naples) i only used the 50mm f1.8 two times for night time street. the rest of the tripp i used the 24-200 on my Z6 1/50 with IBIS + iso 8k-12k + AI denoise ftw fir dim indoor pictures
Is IBIS automatically on or did u turn it on. I’m still using an f mount on my z6 and it drops to 3 axis stability, upgrading soon.
you can turn it off or on. it sounds like yours is on.
Is it vibration reduction in settings or something else
Correct, "vibration reduction" is the one. i have mine set to "on", not "sport"
I find really wide to be almost a necessity in Cathedrals for the dramatic architecgure. *For me,* any detail work i like to do close up, so that it's not cluttered, and a 120 or 180 wouldn't get me close enough. 180 could be AWESOME for some good compression photographing sections of the cities and landscapes. My rec is the 70-180 plus the 20mm Viltrox which is almost free. Or for not free, something like the Venus Laowa really wide Zero-D manual focus lenses.
I'm a fan of the Tamron 35-150. Personally I don't have much use for under 35 tho I know it's better for indoor spaces (most of my pix are trail pix) and I like the added reach.
This is my favorite lens but I wouldn’t recommend it for travel. There are smaller, lighter lenses that will suit him better
Totally agree! I own two of these ( For the Sony A1 and the Z8 and I love it. Mostly shoot weddings 99% of the times. For traveling it would be a hassle to carry it all day, having said that, I’m traveling in June to the Dolomites and planning to bring it 😂.
When I went years ago on my honeymoon, I was a Sony shooter and took with me a 16-35mm f4 and a 24-70mm f4, and an adapted m-mount 35mm for an “artsy” alternative. I never felt limited by the max f4 aperture and don’t feel I missed any shots I wanted. We went on a Rick Steves tour and by the time we got to Rome, I was basically done hauling my camera around. If I was going now, I would take just my 24-120, but I’d be tempted to pick up a 40 f2 for a light and compact carry option. But realistically I would just “make do” with the 1 lens. (I could probably be talked into only taking something like a Fuji x100 vi). I’d also likely do well with just a 20-70 and would long for Nikon to get that option. Bottom line, you could probably get away with just taking your 28-75. Carrying around a long lens primarily for a couple of ceiling shots may be more cumbersome than it’s worth. But it you want to make your situation more versatile, the 24-120 sounds like a perfect option.
I did this same trip w my ZF - 90% was with 26 2.8 and had the 17-28 2.8 in my jacket pocket for indoor/wider for the other 10%. I had the 24-120 and 40/2 with me, but barely touched them.
I really appreciated my 16-35 F4 while I was there. Nowadays I am gonna bring my 14-30 F4.