Recommended Ultra Wide Travel Lens?

Lots of suggesting an conflicting information to confuse you. So forgive me for adding another suggestion...

 

Personally, I would get the 16-35 f4 unless that is too much money. Another alternative would be to get an SL-1 body dedicated to your 10-22. But that is more gear to carry, although you would have a backup camera. That SL-1 would also serves when you want to carry a camera with a minimum amount of bulk. A 40 pancake lens partners nicely with the SL-1.

<p>Fuji xbody, 10-25 & 18-55</p>

<p>The same website also has this general look at the different options available for Canon... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wide-Angle-Lens.aspx</p>

<p>Another solution could be to use a neoprene camera strap: with such a strap, it really feels like your only carrying half the weight.</p>

<p>Stefan, that is an excellent idea! these OpTech straps are fantastic, I should get a couple.</p>

My most used lens is the 24-105L, when I want something

lighter and wider than 24mm's I'll use my 20-35 f3.5-4.5

USM. It's very good at f8.

<p>I found the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 to be great for walking around. Wide enough to get a nice landscape, but with just enough zoom to get a portrait. If I were to only pick one of my lenses to put in the bag for a vacation that would be it. I just think it would give some good options and I know I can count on very good image quality, fast lens and just works so well with my 6D. Just my opinion. Landscape from Acadia and selfie on Cadillac Mountain with 24-70mm.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038139-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038140-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

Ended up getting the 16-35/4L. It

wasn't much bigger in person than

the 10-22 and not much heavier

either. Also got an Optech strap

just in case.

 

 

I hear the point about "long

enough for portraits" but in my

own experience I always ended up

using the 10mm end of the 10-22.

I almost never thought "gee I

wish for more long end" but

there were times when even more

wide end would be useful.

 

 

35mm isn't particularly long, so

I guess if I really want a long

end I'd lug the 70-200. But I

probably won't, based on past

trips, a lens that long simply

isn't that useful. Now I wish I

hadn't sold my 85/1.8...

Congratulations...an excellent lens. An 85 would complement the 16-35 nicely without adding a lot more weight or space lost.

 

I often take just a 24 2.8 IS and 100 2.8 IS for walk-around nature shooting. If in an area with with a lot of nice scenery, I will add the 17-40. If in an area where there is a decent chance of wildlife, I will take the 70-200. That is with full frame.

 

On the other hand there are certain situations, where, say, a 24-70 or 24-105 would be an excellent one-lens solution, especially with my 6D. Unfortunately I do not have either of these lenses. For me, it works best to vary my equipment depending on the location or type of shooting I do.

<p>I started another thread to cover the long end - http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dLGU</p>

<p>I have never had the chance to use a 100mm prime on an FF body (back when I had the 100mm macro, I had a crop body) and 160mm equivalent is way too tunnel-vision-ish for my taste as a general-purpose lens. Maybe on FF it's less limiting, but I suspect 85mm is easier.</p>

<p>I've had lots of experiences where a lens was "too long" and getting the subject into the shot a royal PITA.</p>

<p>Orlando said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have never had the chance to use a 100mm prime on an FF body (back when I had the 100mm macro, I had a crop body) and 160mm equivalent is way too tunnel-vision-ish for my taste as a general-purpose lens. Maybe on FF it's less limiting, but I suspect 85mm is easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Orlando, some have trouble seeing ultra-wide and some have the opposite problem. You need to expand your vision by working with different focal lengths. When taking landscapes, I routinely range from 15mm out to 700mm, depending on the subject. Here's a 97mm shot taken with my 70-200mm:<br>

<br>

<br>

<a title="Twilight Before Sunrise by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7476/16061623689_ed0f3a89b6_c.jpg" alt="Twilight Before Sunrise" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Here's 500mm:</p>

<p><a title="Virga rain/snow at sunset by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8060/8276573232_ea759e19a4_c.jpg" alt="Virga rain/snow at sunset" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

Lookin' good, David!

<p>I looked at the awful corner sharpness of the EOS 17-40 and the 16-35 f/2.8 lenses, looked at the prices of the 11-24 f/4 L and the 14 f/2.8 L and promptly bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS (second-hand, but looked like it had never been used). </p>

<p>It is fantastic. Sharp at all apertures everywhere in the frame, almost no chromatic aberration (and only a tiny bit at the edges in the most extreme contrast situations ... usually there is none), very little and easily correctable distortion and a nice colour rendering that matches my other Canon lenses. It is weather sealed too, so need not be molly-coddled.</p>

<p>The Image stabilisation is bonus. As wide-angle lenses are already the most easily hand-holdable of lenses giving one IS as well means that I hardly ever need to use a tripod. Finally it is quite modest in size and weight ... about the same as the 24-70 f/4 L IS.</p>

<p>If I was forced to choose just one lens for the rest of my life this could well be the one.</p>