Primes okay?

Hi I'm going to Jamaica....and I was wondering if my setup is good enough?

I mainly do portraits and a little landscape?

 

Canon 5d mark ii

Canon 35 mm f1.4

Canon 135mm f2

 

I don't want to carry more equipment...just wanted to know if I should substitute one of these lens.

Canon 24-70mm mark I a little too heavy for me and the mark ii Is a bit expensive for me at the moment.

<p>I'm not sure how others can answer this question for you. I would bring one zoom. It's all give and take...speed, size and zoom. I like my 17-35mm and 85mm for my two lens combo. Of course, primes are okay but I don't like to to change lens too much...</p>

<p>PS. I think you better find out yourself, develop your own style. Then, you'll know what you like and not, instead of asking here.</p>

I'm a prime shooter to be honest but I

have never travelled with photography

before.

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a prime shooter to be honest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What exactly does that mean? That you can't shoot with a zoom, but only primes? Well, maybe you are. Then, why even ask at all? When I shoot, I tend to try to get the best shot possible, with any lens, prime or zoom. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I have never travelled with photography before</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography is photography, no matter where you are. If the two primes are good enough for you at home, then why suddenly not during your travel? </p>

<p>Back in the days when zooms were not so great I used to only carry only primes. Two lenses is fine, it just means you reduce your options. This meant for me I was forced to be a bit more creative. So, I suggest you take whatever you are comfortable with. For me it was usually a 20mm ultra-wide and an 85mm but I can see that would not suit everyone.</p>

Thanks guys

<p>Wow, you've got two of the best lenses in Canon's lineup. If these two lenses are the one's you "see" best with, then by all means use only them. The mid range zooms may be great for social events, but I have never desired one for my typical shooting, especially for the cost.</p>

<p>Admittedly I am an ultrawideangle freak, so I would be taking a lens wider than 35mm. I have no idea what sort of images you like but you might consider something wider in the future. An inexpensive used Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 would be a good start to experiment with. It will introduce you to a range of focal lengths that you could use as the basis for adding a particular prime. Yes, I am also a believer in prime lenses. I own five plus one zoom. Still considering selling the zoom.</p>

<p>Leslie,<br>

I'm with John on this one, but that's my kind of photography. However my first trip to Europe I took only a Spotmatic and a 50mm f1.4 lens; I couldn't imagine taking anything else! Not now of course; I need something wide 12-20, a macro (I shot a lot of nature) and generally go up to 200mm. And yes, I use the range, but that's me. I probably overly burden myself with lenses, more power to you if you can discipline yourself with these two lenses. Rule of thumb though; it's helpful to be able to double your focal lengths over the range you like to use (ie, 20 to about 50 to your 135).</p>

<p>When I travel, I take a wide zoom and a fast 50. But that's just what I do, the fast lens is for night time. I wouldn't travel without something that lets me get really close.</p>

<p>I tend to prefer prime lens. I'm very willing to adjust the photo with my feet than with a zoom. That's my bias. That said...<br>

1. Think about the type of photography you're likely to do. Buildings or interiors? Than you'll want a wide-angle lens. Sunrise/sunset? Probably a GNDF (which then means you need to think through which lens it is going to go on). Low light? Tripod or monopod. Any need for speed lights or fill flash? Wildlife (which does benefit from having a zoom)? Street photography? Then a zoom is a real plus. Let the likely targets dictate what you're bringing in terms of equipment.<br>

2. Traveling: I disagree with the claim that "photography is photography" and if you're local or traveling it makes no difference. It ain't rocket science but it does matter. When I'm local I don't need to bring a battery charger (but for a lot of shooting you'll need extra batteries or your power setup). You'll need to plan a lot more (much like doing a location shoot with a 2 hour hike in)....if you want some great dusk/post-sunset pictures you'll need to plan a way to stabilize your camera before you pack (or buy stuff there). Just a couple of tips: I travel with almost all of my gear as carry-on (including a manfrotto) so traveling light yet prepared is very do-able...you just need to plan. I've heard from some photographers with new gear that they sometimes get hassled at customs to prove that they actually owned that new-looking body or lens rather than sought to avoid VAT or taxes on it. So proof of purchase of newer looking items can be important. Have a good means of schleping your gear once you're on the ground (I have a old Tamrac holster that holds a body with 2 lens plus stuff). Bring lightweight and portable camera care options (pen, cloth, wipes, zip lock bag to protect from sand and water). I like to travel with a small flashlight (very handy for setting up pre-sunset). For Jamaica, filters and reflectors will be your friend (as you manage lots of glare and sun). But putting a backpack (unless you plan to hike) in your luggage may not be great. So think through what you think you'll need for what you want to shoot and HOW you want to carry it.<br>

3. As I said, I mostly shoot with prime lens. But for travel photography or wildlife or street photography, I think you're going to find a zoom to be invaluable. There are simply too many instances where that hummingbird isn't going to wait for you to get closer on foot, or the spontaneous scene on the street will disappear or you simply can't get closer to the crest of the hill without a 30 minute hike. In which case, look at a longer zoom (i.e.: something like 200mm).</p>

 

<p>Frankly I prefer primes. I was going to offer something that's not so tele., but if you're comfy with the 135mm for portraits...then who am I to suggest ? My own preference would go closer to 100mm. How about renting a lens that you'd desire (that fits your vision), but for whatever reason don't wish to buy at the moment ? I just rented 20mm to explore, since I've never went beyond 24mm before.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>I'd bring the 35 and I'd leave the 135 at home.</p>

<p>I find the snobbery relating to prime lenses somewhat amusing. If you can't make a decent image with a good zoom lens then there is something wrong with your technique or more probably attitude.<br /> Primes are great under controlled conditions like in studio, or for a specific subject. where you have time to set up tripod in the field. If you are in your home country where you are shooting for yourself then that is very different to being in a travel situation.<br /> The OP has not specified what kind of travel style she is doing. If she is on her own dedicated the trip for photography, then she will have more flexibility. In a tour or group having to change lenses will be a liability for yourself or those you are traveling with.<br /> For travel, a mid range zoom lens is invaluable. if you are in on the street and in markets etc things are changing quickly you are going to miss shots due to having the wrong focal length and have to change lenses. limiting yourself to primes is going to make things difficult. It doesn't matter how good your lens is. if its not on the camera its useless.<br />There is a lot to be said for light weight travel; especially now there are so many airline baggage restrictions.<br /> Small lightweight primes like a 50mm 1.4 weighs little and is invaluable for low light and for portraiture. I always keep one in my bag. F2.8 Zooms are mostly heavy; so I'd avoid buying one for travel.<br />I use a 24-105 F4 for travel; which is a near ideal range as it covers moderate wide to portrait focal lengths It has Image stabilization which is very useful for static subjects in low light. I always take my 70-200 F4 IS for travel as well + a Canon G1X for occasions where I don't want to carry a heavy camera with me. A more modest compact would do, as for travel you might want to take fun pics of your family, friends etc. <br /> In conclusion (from someone who lives for travel photography and makes a living out of it)<br />I'd take the 135 prime with you for portraits and the 35 F1.4 as they are both great lenses; but add a 24-105 F4 if you have the budget for it + a compact digital for fun</p>

<i>if you are in on the street and in markets etc things are changing quickly you are going to miss shots due to having the wrong focal length

and have to change lenses. limiting yourself to primes is going to make things difficult. It doesn't matter how good your lens is. if its not on

the camera its useless.</i><p>

No matter what lens you have on your camera, you will never be able to get every possible shot. I shoot with primes almost exclusively

when traveling (and when not traveling). I don't feel particularly limited, and shooting isn't difficult . I look for shots that suit my chosen focal

length rather than trying to change the focal length to suit a shot . Most good shots come about because of good awareness and readiness

when something develops, not from fast reactions .

<p>I really want to second Dave's post, at least for some types of travel. I have stumbled upon markets in Asia and Africa that would contain a mix of ethnic groups and out of the corner of my eye see a type of dress I had never before seen - and I could not use my feet at the time being fairly hemmed in. Yes I often did not get a good shot but I have a few that worked and many occasions where I never saw another person attired that way. </p>

<p>On one occasion we were driving on a rather new 'high speed' road in Gujarat and saw a group of nomadic Rabari crossing. We had no time to change lenses and while we certainly did have to use our feet there was no way they were going to wait for us and I was quite glad I had the 24 - 105 Dave mentions. BTW - we spent another two weeks traveling around that area well off the track and while we saw a number of other interesting groups we never saw nomads from that same tribe again.</p>

<p>I like Mike Dixon's approach and try to strive for awareness and preparedness but I still remain too 'primed' for action and have had too many chances never repeat themselves...</p>

<p>"Are primes okay?" Of course. Any lens, any camera is "Okay" for anything. I once shot a wedding with my sister's Canon Elph. The B&G loved the shots enough to make a book out of them.</p>

<p>However, for me personally, I find a good zoom essential for travel. I can compose easily from anywhere - from a car or boat, on the street market, obtrusively or unobtrusively, ... YMMV.</p>

<p>Just what you like ... Some prefer zooms, some prefer the primes. I may prefer primes just b/c they are smaller, lighter, not necessarily better IQ b/c zooms have progressed a lot now. I don't photograph everything, I take my time etc .. and shoot a couple. To me I find it easier to think with one FL and I don't photograph everything b/c there has to be a point in that, or else they just sit on the hard drive doing nothing, I rather relax and soak in the atmosphere LOL. Some others may not dislike it too much and can carry a body with two 2.8 zooms, it depends.</p>

<p>I personally travel with gear that I also use for photography near my home; I'm familiar and comfortable with it and so things usually work out well when far away from the familiar locations.</p>

<p>I like primes myself, especially for people photography; they let me isolate people in crowded places and make visually clean images. They also let me shoot hand-held into the night without cumbersome lighting equipment. I find carrying a tripod a burden when traveling if I'm not specifically shooting still subjects such as landscape, macro, and architecture (I might be). Having to put down the tripod for the people photos where I have to be quick and hand-hold the image is just awkward. However, I do have a small travel tripod which I can use for architectural shots and I can hang it from my backpack so that's not a problem, but it's often not tall enough, and sometimes not stable enough especially if there is wind. For travel where I'm serious about architecture, macro, or landscape I will bring a heavy tripod with me, but then I have to leave it to the hotel if I'm going to just walk about in the streets of the city and capture local life in pictures.</p>

<p>I think the spacing between 35mm and 135mm is too large. I prefer something like 35mm and 85mm as a lightweight pair for people images. For landscape I tend to prefer a zoom since the proportions of foreground and background features in the landscape and how they fit each other can be crucial for the overall composition and effectiveness of the photograph. The 24-70 would be ideal for this; you could bring the 135 for more distant shots and details. My choice in this case would be to bring the 24-70 and 135mm. If you find the wide aperture option and the lighter weight of the 35mm prime more important than the compositional flexibility of the zoom, then I would recommend getting the 85mm f/1.8 to fit between the two, offering more options in case the subject does not fit either the 35mm or the 135mm. The total weight of course will increase if you bring three lenses. However the 85mm f/1.8 is not that heavy, nor should it be prohibitatively expensive.</p>

<p>I use two cameras with two primes, usually the 28mm and the 50mm, and use them interchangeably for convenience. For <strong>me</strong> those two lenses are all that I will probably ever need for walkabouts. Not that it applies to everybody. especially those without two cameras, but it works for me and if I ever need a bit wider or closer I <em>moooveee...</em></p>

<p>Went to jamaica...my 2 canon L lens set up worked fine....next time I shall try the canon 24-70mm f2.8 mark ii and canon 135mm f2. The only thing was versatility because I kept having to switch lens</p>