Looking for some input for lens choice

[Mk1Racer]

I hope this is the right place to ask this question. I'm travelling to Western Pa. next week, and will be visiting Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water. We are taking a private tour that allows photos. I'm trying to travel light, so I'm looking for opinions on which lens I should take. I have an R6-II, and what I'm considering are the 24-105 f/4 L kit lens or the EF-16-35 f/2.8 L. Due to the weight, I'd really like to only take one. Am i going to need the extra stop of the 16-35, or can I compensate for that by pushing the ISO on the 24-105, without compromising IQ? Appreciate any input.

 

[Dicky109]

I am a micro four-thirds shooter and therefore am generally limited to slower lenses; the best I have is f3.5 variable on a 14-140 zoom and unless it is very dark, I've never had an issue. If you go with the slower lens, in my opinion, you should be able to push the ISO with good results.
That being said, so long as you have some form of stabilization, your f4 lens should be good, however, you may find you miss the ultra-wide of the 16-35, especially for indoor room shots. The top range in FF terms is 56mm or around standard, so I believe you'd be fine for most shots. Personally, I would take the 16-35.
Good luck.

 

[Mk1Racer]

Thanks for the input. I'm leaning towards the 16-35, just because it's such an awesome lens. The 24-105 does have IS, and there's the IBIS. I'll have both with me, but don't want to carry a bag around while touring the site.

I've been to the site a few times, the first being in the early 70's, before there any visitor's center. I've always been fascinated with it. Finally getting there w/ a top-level camera.

 

[ShipleyNW]

If the tour involves interiors, I'd think you'd have more problems getting far enough back than you would having trouble getting close enough. A wider angle lens would help with that. I'd go with the 16-35.

 

[paddler4]

I think the issue is really FL. I almost never shoot wider than 24mm, but I can see that you might want to doing interior shots.

Re ISO: you're talking about only one stop. Any increase in ISO will reduce DR and increase noise in the shadows, but a one-stop difference on a camera like the R6 II makes very little difference. What does make a big difference if you use a high ISO is exposing to the right. You want to maximize signal to avoid the increased noise in the shadows.

 

[Anton Largiader]

I'd go with the wider lens. To me, 24mm is not wide enough for interiors.

 

[Nick5]

If Hand Holding, will lack of Image Stabilization be an issue?
I shoot Hand Held 3 Bracketed Images -2, 0 and +2 through an EF 16-35 f/4 L IS in European Cathedrals at Slow shutter speeds with no problem with IS. Razor sharp. Without it who knows. For me, IS was the determining factor now almost ten years when I bought my 16-35. IS vs one additional stop.
Maybe you can squeeze the extra lens somewhere with you and see which one is working the best while on sight.
For me if only one, the 16-35.

 

[paddler4]

If Hand Holding, will lack of Image Stabilization be an issue?

The OP said they are shooting with an R6 II. That body has 5-axis in-body image stabilization. That should be adequate except for very slow shutter speeds even with a lens that has no IS.

Bracketing raises another issue: the risk of hand motion that is beyond what any IS can handle. However, the R6 II does fast bursts, so it should be able to handle this. I'd set the shutter to electronic rather than the default electronic first curtain (which I usually use) for the fastest burst rate.

 

[Mk1Racer]

Thanks for all the input. I'm going to look into bracketing

 

[Nick5]

Mk1
How was the trip.
A friend of mine and I may set up a road trip this spring as we can drive from my place in State College.