Certainly not one of our rigid airship, though one that we might rent from whomever is there. Perhaps we can get a discount on one of their good but Rent-A-Leak airships.
The terrific buoyancy of the Venus atmospheric ocean is almost too good to be true. It's certainly calm under them clouds, and much cooler at elevation and while operating within the extended season of nighttime.
Below them relatively cool nighttime clouds, say if cruising along at 100 knots and 20 km off the deck is absolutely dry and thereby corrosion proof, whereas even mild steel could remain polished for a decade without any protective coating whatsoever.
Basalt and silica composites are yet another avenue, combined are easily ten fold stronger than alloy steel, and as a material of construction and insulative fill offers an ideal airship structural as well as containment solution.
In fact a one meter thick composite modular unit of airship construction could offer a rather robust structural shell that's actually nearly self-buoyant/m3, and providing R-1024/m at that, if need be capable of sustaining 1000°K while safely containing the likes either H2 or just that of N2 or perhaps a vacuum might be sufficient.
How many thousand tonnes of payload capability would you like to have at your disposal?
Being that we can't hardly keep those Ospreys in the air, certainly can't get ourselves to Mars, much less back (even at that it'll take body-bags), still can't seem to robotically place anything upon the moon (much less land folks and return them), thus obviously that's why I've voted for the robotic TRACE-II solution as stationkeeping at Venus L2 (all total not 1% of Hubble), then if need be deploying a few fully interactive transceiver kiosks on the deck, so that our primitive forms of communications can replace and/or supplement whatever optical communications that so many folks keep insisting is a total waste of time and resources, almost as though our microwave components and of the entire data-link is reliable and cheap (I think NOT).
BTW; use of vacuum tubes on Venus is also NOT rocket science, whereas I believe those nifty suckers would like it hot and nasty (damn little of any cathode energy whatsoever is almost like having a field-effect transistor in a tube), though of open to atmosphere arc lamps seems like an even better notion, at least for the raw function of their transmitting a terabyte worth of packet/ms.
Of what I'd like someone to share upon is, of how much photon energy at exiting Earth atmosphere having a divergence of 0.5 milliradian (I'm assuming that's possible), and at a target range of 50 million km is it going to take how much energy as to be delivering a sufficient number of photons (425~450 nm) upon those nighttime clouds of Venus. I mean, what do we have to lose?
  