If Travelling Oversease What 2 Lens Setup is BEST for FF?

<p>So here is the question, On full frame and I am Travelling Overseas and I don't mind Weight (relatively) but I do want to minimize the Lenses I carry, prefer 2 ONLY and Bear In Mind my trip Even though is overseas will be mainly i.e. 90% of shots in our relatives and friends and neighbours houses both indoor and outdoor, day and night, and much of it is groupshots, portraits, many candids and many poses.<br>

I know the 1 lens travel solution is hopeless in quality, i.e. tamron 18-270 in aps-c or canon 18-200, OR the canon 28-300 L in FF. I don't want a one lens solution.<br>

Basically the overseas trip is not to see the country and places like a tourist, but to catchup with the 'loads' of relatives and loved ones in there if you can imagine this trip :)<br>

Guys feel free to suggest 3 lens setup too provided the total weight of lenses isn't that HUGE, and also if you want to say general things e.g. 1 standard zoom and 1 telephoto is best etc... also welcome.<br>

I was thinking if 2 lenses suffice awesomely, I might add a macro or a prime general purpose for a 3rd lens.</p>

<p>I must say, I found Telephoto in my last trip Essential. and back then I had the Canon 55-250 on a 1000D and it did me well esp for Candids, and for people who are SHY! , this time I have the 70-200 F4 IS for it, as I don't think the F2.8's weight is handy in overseas travel, esp im not extremely fussy about bokeh being in all my shots, I can always get a light prime.<br>

So the question refined is which 2 or 3 lens setup? bear in mind I might travel with 1 FF, and 1 APS-c, but let's talk about FF in here.</p>

<p>Thanks to all!</p>

<p>Do you have lenses already, or are you buying? I'd think the 70-200 f/4L IS would definitely be in the bag. After that, if you're looking for wide, and "less conspicuous", you could go with either a 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4. If you're looking to buy, but don't want to spend quite that much, maybe the 28-135?</p>

<p>I'm traveling to Sweden & Finland the end of the month. I'm taking along my EOS 7D with my Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 (Di VC USD, if you care...) and I just ordered a refurbished EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM for 'walkaround' duty. I've got a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L that's staying home, but that's a heavbeast at three lbs (1.3 kg), though I just know there will be one or two shots I'll have wanted the 400mm for!</p>

<p>I would think that 24-200 would be the necessary range, and that could easily be accomplished w/ a 24-105/4 and your 70-200/4. OTOH, you could 'widen' your perspective (and not impact your budget to badly) by using a 17-40/4 + 28-135/3.5-5.6 (general purpose walkaround) and the 70-200/4. Weight wise, they'd be almost equiv.</p>

<p>My personal choice would probably be the 17-40/4 + 50/1.4 + 70-200, which would generally cover all your focal ranges, plus give you a fast 50 for when you need it.</p>

<p>With my 5D MkII, I take my 24-105mm f/4L IS and my 70-200mm f/4L IS. Both of these have exceptional IQ , particularly if you process your images using a software, like DPP, that has lens correction modules embedded.</p>

<p>Safe travels.</p>

<p>What lenses do you normally use..? Just pack your standard minimalistic setup and forgetaboutit. If you are planning portrait and group shots, a folding reflector or two would be nice and perhaps a fill in flash but unless you have a specific photographic goal in mind, chances are that your style and approach will not change just because you are leaving your neck of the woods.<br>

FWIW: I used only 3 lenses during my last travel to Europe for fun this spring: 35mm 80% of the time and almost equally split between a 24-105 zoom and a 24mm T/S. But that's me...</p>

<p>Nice suggestions, as I feel somehow covered,<br>

I just wasn't sure of the quality of the 17-40 hence I was aiming at buying a standard zoom which is what I feel am mostly missing really.<br>

Larry, My lenses are 17-40, 35L, 135L and 70-200 f4 is. and yes Im looking to make 1 purchase based on what ppl suggest these IDEAL 2/3 lens setup would be. I like the wide angle 17-24 mm range BUT its not essential, in other words if the 24-105 OR the 24-70 are superior in quality i would swap them around for the 17-40<br>

Just for record, this oversease trip I had before in 2009, and I had the canon 1000d, Tamron 17-50, Canon 55-250, and Canon 50 1.8 and I thought it was a remarkable and lightweight setup, I only slightly missed Macro on a few occassions :) not that I shoot macro usually, but just to show my relatives how cool macro was :) hehe</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is no "best", only what serves to actualize your vision. For me, the key to lens recommends for H JM's trip is his description of its mission: "...to catchup with the 'loads' of relatives and loved ones in there if you can imagine this trip :)".</p>

<p>Keeping in mind the use of FF, and that most of the pictures will be portraits, group shots, dinners, hanging out, houses, landscapes, and more people, what I would take:<br>

1) 24-105L, which allows one to work fast and with a decent range of focal lengths. 2) A very fast wide angle for night-time and available darkness interior pictures, something like a 24/1.4L or 35/1.4L.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I were you, I'd take my 70-200/4 L IS, and pick up a 24-105/4 L IS. Alternatively, you could save some money and take your 35/1.4 L instead of adding a second zoom. The prime is a great lens for group shots and low light work. (And you could even add a 50/1.4, which is light and compact, or a 50/1.8, which is lighter and more compact still.)</p>

<p>The others said wise things.</p>

<p>My take:</p>

<p>1 lens: a fast 50mm (EF 50/1.8, EF 50/1.4 or Zeiss 50/2 MP)<br /> 2 lens: 17-40/4L plus 100L macro [or if you like longer: 28/2.8 plus 70-200/4L IS]<br /> 3 lens: 17-40/4L, fast 50, 70-200/4L IS</p>

<p>Note: if you prefer longer than 200 you could always swap the 70-200 for the 70-300L...</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

<p>Post scriptum: the 28mm is very usable as standard lens on a crop sensor camera. (The 17-40 as a standard zoom works o.k. as well.)</p>

<p>Mathjis, I must say your UWA and Macro combo idea is something I never thought of and seems nice. I was thinking about you're 3 lens combo as I will write below:<br>

Mark, the need for versatility in such a trip makes me willing to not save money :) I know I need a standard zoom for such a trip and the 24-105 L seems ideal, esp. how everyone so far is mentioning it. The other thing don't worry about 50 mm primes they are too tight for me even on FF indoors, the 35L is pretty light, I already have it and like it.<br>

what's going in my head is these 2 setups:<br>

1) 17-40, 35, 70-200 as matthjis suggested (except 35L rather than a 50)<br>

2) 24-105, 35, 70-200<br>

3) ? watever other people suggest in here<br>

Option 1 gives me UWA But, option 2 gives me versatility in the most used range i.e. standard zooms.<br>

Also, not to confuse anyone with too much options here, but in the most likely event I will buy an APS-C too, the 17-40 will have a dual purpose of UWA on my FF, and a standard zoom on an aps-c.<br>

DeCiSiOnS!</p>

 

<p>I shoot a fair amount of situations like this, and I've found that fast lenses are MUST. I usually carry the following primes: 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8. I'm planning on replacing my 35f2 with the 24 f1.4, since that will be great for getting whole tables of people under dim light as well as landscapes. I sometimes leave my 35 or 50 and take my 135, since it's such a great portrait lens. I think the 24-105 f4 would be an okay choice, but you risk a lot of blur as people move in low light. However, the IS can help the background stay sharp, and it's got a really useful focal range for groups and portraits. If I didn't hate zooms so much, I'd probably own that one.</p>

<p>Since you already have 17-40, 35 and 70-200 I would go with that and ad the second body. I got a 60D for travels and I find I like it more then I thought I would. I use it mostly with my 70-300L and my macro lens and it shares the same battery as the 5D2 which is an added bonus. </p>

<p>Someone that "hates" zooms probably hasn't used the latest generation in combination with competent software such as DPP, LightRoom and DxO that automatically correct for vignetting, geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. It's a brave new world and we no longer have to limit ourselves to lenses ideal for slide film.</p>

<p>With bodies like the 5D MkII or the 1Ds, high ISO's can still result in good IQ. ISO 6400, for example, makes night street photography a reality with an f/4 lens:</p>

<p><a title="Anyone for absinthe? by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5190792043_85e2c6f940_z.jpg" alt="Anyone for absinthe?" width="427" height="640" /></a></p>

<p>I've gone travelling many times over seas with my camera. I recommend you to try to keep your gear light. You've mentioned that you don't mind the weight but consider that you've never done this before and hence you are here asking advice. If it is a job for you to shoot professionally, it'd be a different story, but you're out there to enjoy the time with other people. <br>

So what do I recommend if I were to take two lens? I would take a 24-105mm and a 50mm. You've mentioned that a 50mm is too tight for indoor group shots. Well, it may be. But, the 24mm from at 24-105mm isn't. Secondly, when shooting groups, you don't want to shoot wide open because the DOF may become too shallow that some people maybe out of focus. So, for these conditions, use a flash with a slower lens.</p>

<p>The 24-105mm will give you the range. A fast 50mm will give you low light capabilities. The 24mm will give you a pretty wide field of view. But if you need more width, shoot multiple images and combine them as one. And btw, take a tripod with you. I usually take a small tripod that I can place on a table.</p>

<p>If you are willing to carry a 3rd lens, I recommend you to take the 135mm. This lens is fast and can be used with a 1.4x extender to give you a 189mm f/2.8 lens. The 135mm/1.4x extender should still be lighter and faster than the 70-200mm f/4 lens and will give you two focal lengths.<br>

And lastly, get yourself an s95 point and shoot. You may not want to carry your gear out all the time. Plus, you can have someone else shoot the s95 so that you can have pictures of yourself during the trip.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>what's going in my head is these 2 setups:<br />1) 17-40, 35, 70-200 as matthjis suggested (except 35L rather than a 50)<br />2) 24-105, 35, 70-200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd go with option 2, given the applications you've mentioned. I do much of the same kind of photography that you do (also with full frame bodies), and I dumped my 17-40 in favour of fast primes (24L, 35L, 50/1.4). I almost never feel the need to go wider than 24mm. And for daytime walkabout use, I have found the combination of the 24-105 and 70-200/4 IS to be all I really need.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even though is overseas will be mainly i.e. <strong><em>90% of shots</em></strong> in our <strong><em>relatives and friends and neighbours</em></strong> houses <strong><em>both indoor and outdoor, day and night</em></strong>, and much of it is <strong><em>groupshots, portraits, many candids and many poses</em></strong>. . .<br>

My lenses are 17-40, 35L, 135L and 70-200 f4 is. and yes Im looking to make 1 purchase based on what ppl suggest these IDEAL 2/3 lens setup would be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think you have mentioned : “Flash”. And also not responded to the two mentions made to: “Flash”</p>

<p>Assuming you are not predisposed to using Flash: then I would suggest the 35/1.4 has a place in the bag, and also maybe the 135/2 – solely based on what you describe your tasks will be: "<strong><em>90% of shots".</em></strong><br>

A <strong><em>better Prime Pair</em> <em>for those 90% of tasks:</em></strong> would be 35/1.4 and 85/fast, (either F/1.2 or F/1.8 is a fine lens also).<br>

For the trip, I would add the 17 to 40 to that pair of Primes.<br>

If you really want to make a purchase / or you want longer reach in the walk around zoom – then the 24 to 105 is a good choice to take, instead of the 17 to 40. <em> </em></p>

<p>WW</p>

>>> but let's talk about FF in here.

 

I'd go with a single lens. Either a 35mm f/2, or a 35mm f/1.4.

<p>Try a 24 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.2. Simple and high quality. Zoom with your feet - walk closer and further away.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for this!<br>

The majority voice seems for getting the 24-105 IS L for that 2/3 lens setup. Also almost everyone suggested a prime e.g. 35L and some suggested the 70-200. I will stick to that hopefully, and consider getting a 2nd body too (APS-C) lightest one possible, as in my last trip my camera body did play up during the trip and only fixed it upon returning to Australia after the trip under Canon warranty.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for this, I was quite surprized to be honest, that almost EVERYONE who suggested a standard zoom chose the 24-105 L and didn't mention the 24-70. I guess I will go with wat everyone has said!<br>

O, btw William, yes I will use my 430 exII and yes most of my photos by far will be flash.</p>

 

<p>Another vote for your Speedlite 430ex.</p>

<p>Your new 7d will be able to use it's built in capabilities to remote control the other external Speedlite, set as a slave, on a tripod, or on it's own flash stand. A 60d will require different memory cards, but the 7d will use the same CF cards, as your 5d does. Please take plenty of CF cards with you too!</p>

<p>For your multiple purpose general zoom, the 24-105L is, is extremely convenient, with comparable IQ to the 24-70L. On a crop C camera the 24-105 will become a 38-168mm. Your 35L will become a 50mm prime on the 7d. With your 5d caring the 17-40, and with the 24-105 mounted on the 7d, from these combinations, you should be able to get most of the range that you were looking for.</p>

<p>So, my 2 cents; ex flash, 17-40L, 24-105L, and one of your primes, probably your 35L. If the 35 is to wide then substitute it for your 70-200L, plus a 1.4x converter.</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was quite surprized to be honest, that almost EVERYONE who suggested a standard zoom chose the 24-105 L and didn't mention the 24-70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is, I think, because the 24-105 is the more versatile lens for travel and walkabout use; it's lighter, more compact, has a greater zoom range, and has IS. And their resolution figures are very comparable.</p>

<p>The 24-70 has the edge for portraiture with its better bokeh, but primes are of course better still in this regard.</p>

<p>I think you'll find that the 24-105L, 70-200/4L IS, and 35L make a very fine three-lens travel kit.</p>

<p>My two cents...<br>

My two lens, travel set up on my 5DII: 28-135 and 70-300. Covers a great range. For a flash I throw in my 220EX. This set up is relatively light and it all fits will into my Lowepro backpack.<br>

Depending where I'm going I may swap the 70-300 with my 100 macro.<br>

Have fun on your trip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"yes I will use my 430 exII and yes most of my photos by far will be flash."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Have a great trip, 24 to105 with Flash - easy.<br>

<br />WW</p>

<p>Interesting that you will get what "everyone says"rather than checking and making the decision on your own.<br>

I hope on your trip you don't take the same old same'old stuff 'everyone' takes with the camera.<br>

If you aren't developing your own vision the images will be more of that 'same old' that we keep seeing.</p>

<p>Paulie.... my guess is that your remark could be rephrased to make it a little less sour.</p>

<p>H. JM is going on a trip, that's a joyous occasion. That should not be lessened by words like "same old, same old".</p>

<p>All the best,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>