Help with choosing lenses for my first travel kit.

These are now my two kit choices:

 

Canon 17-40L, 50 1.8, 70-300 IS

 

or

 

Tokina 12-24 and Canon 24-105L IS

 

Which one do you like and why?

 

I'm going to New Mexico.

JDM:

 

Sounds like you would opt for the Tokina 12-24 and Canon 24-105 package.... (It's a bit heavy - that's my only concern - I WISH I had the new Canon 10-22. My friend does and it is sooooo light!)

 

Diane

I like the second package all the way. The only reason I would say go for the other one is if you really like shooting birds or

wildlife, then you need the long lens.

 

Otherwise, for the great canyons and redrock of New Mexico, go for the ultra wide 12-24 and the walkaround 24-105.

Wow, that's a hard choice. But in a way also a simple one: what's your shooting style?

 

If your style's like mine (you could hop by my pages) then 105mm is way too short to be your longest lens. (And I

would advice the first set.)

However if you prefer wider shots than a 17mm can give you, you should take the second set.

 

Third option might be the second set plus the 70-300.

 

Anyway, the zen answer is, it doesn't matter. Just take one or more lenses, shoot what comes naturally, enjoy the

flow and the moment.

 

The consultant answer is, take the lenses you feel most confident with. Confidence frees you from imagined limits.

 

The amateur (as in photographer who's been everwhere and seen everything) answer would be, just concentrate on

your style and technique. The photographer is way more important than the camera and the lens. The amateur could

also say, take the equipment you have used the most with you, that's the hardware you'll get the best result with

because you know it's quirks and qualities.

 

There are also focal length and/or pixelpeeping answers but those you've got enough from the other posters I think.

 

Regards and don't forget to have fun, Matthijs.

 

P.S. Just to throw in a final option: any cheap wide to standard zoom, the Canon 50/1.8 and the superb Canon

70-200/4 IS... (-:

Then there's the boy scout answer plan ("be prepared"):

 

Take both sets and decide on a daily basis what will be useful to be in your bag.

You guys are great! I'm new to the L lens thing so with both it will be a bit of a challenge. I, of course, love the size of the 17-40, but have yet to take a really good picture with it... I swear, with the Tokina, I just set it on infinity and it always comes out beautifully. I will practice this weekend with the 24-105. If I like it, I'll send back the 17-40.

 

As an aside - do either of you guys, Jeff, Matthijs, have experience with the Canon 17-85 IS? I swear, the 17-40 pics don't look any better than the 17-85 pics.....

 

Thanks,

Diane

As I said before, I love my 17-85 and would never go anywhere without it.

 

Still, I think you will want the Tokina for New Mexico. That, plus a longer zoom of your choice.

 

My "ready for anything" kit for my own travels is the Sigma 10-20, the 17-85 IS, and my old 75-300 IS. And of course, the 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 for low light.

 

If only one lens, it is always the 17-85mm. I'll be first in line if Canon ever improves it, but until then I'm using it. I've actually done architectural photography with it in a shoot I hadn't planned on in Oak Park IL (and a little Photoshop tweaking back home).<div></div>

I have always been happy with my 17-85 IS. I do not understand the occasional bad rap (which oftens comes from some of the pros on this board - and I fully understand their attitude and their reasons - but for the 90% of the rest of us, it's a very, very useful lens.). I was very happy with the 17-40 also (still distorted at 17-18mm like the 17-85 maybe not as bad but it matters little because you are going to correct in in PT Lens or whatever; plus the fact most of the shots I have taken at 17mm on the 17-85 need no correction). The 17-85 IS is slower but it has IS and greater range (a much, much better walk around lens than the 17-40) but then the 17-40 is better built. I think the 24-105 is a better walkaround than either of them - particularly if you keep the Tokina but it's twice the cost of the 17-85 and over $300 more than 17-40.

 

Anyone who already has a real wide zoom such as your Tokina I think would be better served with the 24-105. That one has the range and the IS and it's an L and it's very well built. Isuggest that on a trip to New Mexico you would cover 90% of your shots with the Tokina and the 24-105 and not miss a long zoom at all.

 

I think you series of questions and answers and everyone else's posts in this dialogue have been very helpful on a number of lens issues to a bunch of people. Good job.

Here's a long exposure taken with the 17-85 IS in near total darkness (11pm EST) not processed through PT Lens.<div></div>

Beautiful shot Jeff.

 

It has been a great conversation and again, I thank everyone!

 

I'll let you all know what I take.

Wow, lots of questions!

 

When I was in almost exactly your situation, I took a 10-22, 17-55 IS, and 55-250 IS (all by Canon). The 55-250 had great image quality at 55mm, and was decent at 250mm. The small size and light weight were amazing and very helpful. 10-22 is an extremely sharp lens for a wide angle zoom. The 17-55 IS frustrated me because I felt like the zoom range was limited (which was rather silly of me considering that it is greater than 3x) and I wanted more reach. These are mostly pricier lenses than you describe.

 

The Sigma 12-24 is a rather bulky and heavy lens if you haven't handled it.

 

If I was trying to save money, I'd seriously consider the 18-55 IS lens. Price is low, and if photozone and various reports are to be believed, it is very sharp! IS is useful, though the f/5.6 aperture doesn't thrill me.

JDM I noticed your photo, I live in Elmwood Park just outside of oak park. Nice to see someone so close.

I'd love to try the 17-55 IS lens. I wonder if it is better than the 17-40.... I've seen some amazing shots with it.

Hey, Diane, when you get back, don't forget to post some of your pics here in your portfolio!

Diane, I have neither the 17-40 nor the 17-85. My current wide zoom is a Sigma 18-200 which I want to upgrade in a year or so. My research led me to believe the 17-40 would be the best choice for me.

 

 

Reasons: Image Quality, including contrast and color, build quality, internal focus and zoom. Plus it is in the focal range that I want to upgrade. I do not need to shoot wider and I have the longer focal lengths nicely covered with a 50/1.8 and my 70-200/4 IS.

 

 

I might consider the 17-85/IS if it's as good as some of you say.

 

 

Regards, Matthijs.

Hey guys,

 

How do I upload a photo for our discussion?

 

Diane

Uhm... either you post it on your photo.net page (max size is 1024 pixels) or append it after you post a reply (max size 700 pixels if I'm not mistaken.) there's a line you can browse for a image to upload it.

 

 

Scaling can be done with any tool, including Microsoft Paint.

 

 

By the way, have you looked at pixelpeeper or pbase for sample images by the lenses you're interested in?

 

Otherwise try this one:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=23&camera=8

 

 

Kind regards, Matthijs.

>>I might consider the 17-85/IS if it's as good as some of you say. <<

 

Well, it's not so much a "as good as" kind of argument. What those of us who have and who love this lens feel is

that it is about as convenient tool for day-to-day photography with a 15x22mm sensor as you can find, and we are

willing to accept some warts because of that. Especially, since those warts on only visible in certain kinds of

photography and can be fairly easily fixed in post processing.

 

The same convenience aspect is what made the sometimes fairly so-so 28-130 or so lenses so popular in 24x36mm

film cameras.

 

Look at Photozone.de and Bob Atkin's website reviews of of the EF-S 17-85 and you will see that it has some

strong features, and is praised despite its sometime flaws.

 

I wish Canon would make it better even than it is, but until they do, I will keep and use mine -- more than any

other of the literally 100s of lenses I own (admittedly, most of these are old M42 and Nikon mounts from my

older film cameras, but I do shoot with them).

Another vote for the 17-50, 50 1.8 and the 70-300 IS...

Well I leave early tomorrow. I've got my Tokina 12-24, Canon 24-105L and 50 1.8 packed. Thanks so much for all of your input and I'll check in upon my return to let you know how it went and what I thought of these lenses.

 

Diane

YES, Well done! Enjoy your trip