Jump to content

Help! Which 2 of the 5 Canon Lens to take?


stevenraub

Recommended Posts

<p>Is the point of this thread to show of your lens collection as I have difficulty imagining that someone that owns all of this nice stuff doesn't instinctively know what to take for a given trip. Besides, is there some law that says you can only take 2 lenses with you? </p>

<p>Given this, I will assume that you are renting this stuff and really need to pick only two on account of budget. </p>

<p>70-200/2.8 is easy. Great for streets and landscapes</p>

<p>The other lens is a bit more difficult not knowing where you are going and what body you are shooting. If you're shooting crop (which I doubt), take the 17-40, otherwise take the 35, unless you are going somewhere with expansive wide vistas, in which case you should take the 17-40. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>William,</p>

<p>Thanks for that, I didn't like the page view either but there is no way I'd have figured that out!</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I'm kinda with Craig here, if you have those lenses that you use regularly you should be the best judge of what you should take. From your selection I'd take the 35 on its own.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Steve,<br>

Excellent lenses and agree with your final selection. I was thinking, that the two: 17-40 and 24-105 would be the most useful for your trip.<br>

If you don't mind to give us your feedback after the trip. Which lenses were the most usefull for you? I would appreciate this very much. I have Canon system as well.<br>

Andrzej</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you only can take two, assuming FF, the loss of the UWA is probably doable given your trip. If it was more landscape and less city, I might argue the 17-40 more, but I think more the 24-105 given your parameters. I have actually seen a long series of street photography shots from a variety of photographers using the 85mm, and I was impressed (Some I admit were taken on the FD 85mm ). I was thinking it might make you stand a bit further away, but I was counseled that, in reality, it helps you take the photos of people interacting around you without necessarily having the lens in their faces!<br>

@ Those selecting 70-200, I'm curious as to why you would suggest this. (Sincere question!) I know it adds a bit of range, but given landscape, and city shots, would this not be a little too much? He does have the 2.8 IS version, and if weight is an issue, I think you are suggesting the heaviest lens in the line. Yes, on the wider end I could see the use of it, but why would you want the part thats 100mm+? (Again, sincere question!)<br>

As to those suggesting 50-f/1.8, they have a point, you could throw that into your back pocket!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not to assume anything about the original poster, but I'm just throwing this out as a possible answer to the question why he asked this question while he owns such nice lenses. Well, having good lenses doesn't mean he is an experienced photographer, right? </p>

<p>Faysal, sometimes, in landscape, a 70-200 is useful (one usage is in creating panorama photos to be stitched later in photoshop). However, if weight is a limiting factor, I agree that I wouldn't consider 70-200 f/2.8.</p>

<p>To the original question: what is the purpose of the trip? Do you have time to slow down and take time to set up a tripod and take photos? Do you have time to stop and switch lenses? (The risk of me dropping an expensive lenses on the pavement while changing lenses is way too great). I would pick 17-40 and 24-105, and add the 35 for night time (not weight conscious though). The convenience of the zoom (and the IS of the 24-105) outweighs the difference in optical performance that the prime lenses offer (especially when weight is an issue).</p>

<p>In fact, if you're shooting a full-frame, I think someone previously suggested 24-105 + 35 combo. That's a good idea. I have a 50mm f/1.8 and I would use this lens to complement my 24-105 in travel.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let's change a variable here. What if he were using an APS-c , say a 50d and was making lens choices. I just got back from a trip to Salzburg and Munich, and I took a Sigma17.-70 2.8 4.0 and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. I found the weight of the 70-200 to be a burden while hiking through the streets of Salzburg. It did come in handy on a boatride in St. Gil, as I was able to get great shots of some seaplanes landing. Next time I would opt for another lens. I have a Canon 28-135 kit lens, a Canon 17-85 3.4 4.6 IS as well. What should I purchase next that will give me longer focus length that won't weigh a ton? (and won't cost a fortune, LOL)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>17-40 F4L My favorite lens for landscapes and architectural has much less vignetting and keeps vertical and horizontal lines much straighter than 24-105.<br>

17-40 F4L, 70-200 F2.8 II, 50 1.8. I very seldom travel with my primes they are for studio only work. However, I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II so I very seldom need such fast lenses outdoors.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...