Advise re: 50 1.8 for a Euro trip

<p>Dear Photo.net members;<br>

I know I have been asking lots of questions recently; but that's the last one in my mind!<br>

I got my first Europe trip for me and my wife planned soon. We will be going to Vienna, Prague, Budapest and Sweden (if knowing the context helps).<br>

I have a 6D. My plan is to take minimal gear. Initially I wanted 24-105L ONLY. Lately my sister who is into arts and history convinced me to take my UWA too as she things there will be a LOT of use for that 17-24 mm range.<br>

My question is given I am interested in photos of me and my wife and Europe landmarks mainly; would there be any benefit of taking a nifty fifty?! I don't imagine needing to blur things out much but at same time I can see it being a creative light weight lens.<br>

I'm asking mainly cause I don't have the lens and I have to buy otherwise I probably wouldve taken it given the weight.<br>

Second part of question do you agree to taking the UWA to those who've been there before?<br>

Regards<br>

Peter</p>

<p>I haven't been to the exact places you mention, but I know Europe quite well ;-).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...do you agree to taking the UWA to those who've been there before?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This doesn't depend much on Europe being Europe, or the sites you visit - it depends on you. How often do you use wide angles? How interested are you in photos "that take everything in" (at the risk of having a lot of sky/pavement), or do you prefer tighter compositions where you focus around something particular?<br>

It's about your style; if you use a wide angle frequently, certainly bring it. If it's usually dead weight in your bag, leave it home.<br>

As for a 50mm - again depends on your style. Late evening/night photography, your IS will not stop movement, whereas a larger aperture with higher shutter speed will. Having at least one fast lens to do some selective focus gives a bit more creative wiggle room - but... again, if you do not see yourself doing these things, I sure wouldn't spend money on it.</p>

<p>The nifty fifty gives you a nice f/1.8 for low light. That alone probably justifies having it in your kit.<br>

The price, especially if you buy a nice used one, is fairly trivial compared to the other costs of your trip. <br>

On the other hand, in these days of high ISOs, the f/4 24-105 will do a lot. </p>

<p>On the UWA, I don't really see 17mm as so ultra, even tho' a few mm at the wide end makes a lot more difference than at the long end. Don't forget that you can stitch 24mm views together into panoramas with Photoshop or suchlike programs.<br>

I will say that I tend to take too much gear when I travel, "just in case", but when I get back home the vast bulk of my pictures turn out to have been taken with the 24-105.</p>

<p>The nifty-fifty is fine in low light, but f/4 is fine on a 6D, with ISO 3200 or 6400. It's one more lens to mess with, for no good reason that I can think of. We're not shooting Kodachrome in 1959 anymore.</p>

<p>Only carry your ultra-wide if you love it. The fact that someone talked you into it tells me that you haven't really connected with it. I love my ultra-wide and I'm even thinking about investing in the EF 14mm f/2.8L II, but ultra-wide shooting is not for everyone. </p>

<p>When I travel, I carry my ultra-wide (currently a 15mm, but soon to be replaced with the 14/f2.8 II), 24-105mm, 70-200mm, 1.4x and 2.0x TC-IIIs and my 5DsR. If I might be shooting birds or wildlife, I add the 7D MkII and the 500/f4. My thoughts are that I have the equipment and know-how to take world-class pictures and if I'm in a once in a lifetime scene, I'd hate to compromise my images because I didn't bring the right pieces.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We're not shooting Kodachrome in 1959 anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A touch, a palpable touch! Ouch.</p>

<p>Of course with f/1.8 at ISO 6400 you can go even deeper into the available darkness spectrum :)<br>

On the other hand, even back when, I was personally shooting with an f/1.2 lens with GAF 500 slide film.<br>

Of course, the grain (film analogue to digital noise) was kinda "golfbally".</p>

<p>My motto is get the image, pay the price.</p>

<p>I was only 12, so I hadn't gotten past Kodacolor and Kodachrome in my Yaschica 44. Those 44mm slides still look amazing. </p>

<p>I would go for a zoom like 24-70 or 24-105 for the sightseeing tours like you will do... 50 will be narrow in most cases...</p>

<p>I think you should take lenses that suit the photography you like to do. Lots of people seem to think that an ultrawide is essential in Europe, and I don't buy that mantra unless you happen to be interested in very wide shots. I see a lot of very wide shots that appear bland and free of subject. I have the 17-40 and the 24-105 for FF cameras and the latter gets five times the use. The vast majority of the time, 24 is wide enough for me . Indeed there's plenty of scope to use a long lens in cities , for details and if I had to choose between the 17-40 and my 70-200 then mostly I'd choose the latter without too much agonising. I do though always carry 3 L zooms in the belief that if get even a few good shots that I wouldn't have got with a smaller lens set, its worth the weight.<br>

If you like interior or low light photography I would consider the fast prime rather than the 17-40 not least because in cities you won't be using a tripod much even if you take one. </p>

<p>I would take the nifty fifty. It is so light, you might as well, and it will give some shots a different look from the f4 lenses, but it is not necessary. As your initial thought was to take just the 24-105mm, I would not take an ultrawide zoom. For the places you mention I think again you can manage very well without it.</p>

<p>I can’t speak for the rest of Europe – but l live in the UK, and spend most weekends visiting various bits of the countryside, castles, historic houses, ancient monuments, woodlands etc. (Gets us some air and the kids out of the house kind of thing).<br>

I don’t use a 6D FF, but I do still shoot mainly 35mm with an EOS 50e and have never needed more than my 24-85mm USM lens that I take 99.9% of my shots with (I don’t take a camera bag around with me and like to travel light). I don’t personally think you’ll need the UWA much unless you’re going to go for some arty wide angles or shots of the mountains – I suspect you’ll end up using your standard zoom most of the time and the UWA will end up left in your case at the hotel most of the time.<br>

As for the 50, I have the normal 50mm F/1.8 mk.I and I do take this everywhere I go as it’s so light. It can be really useful; for low light work, portraits etc. or if you just fancy a change of pace from the zoom (which can be quite heavy to lump about TBH). I keep mine in a padded drawstring bag with a belt clip on it (it will also take my 24-85 at a push when I change lenses) – I either attach it to the strap loop of my shoulder bag or a belt loop of my jeans – either ways it’s not a problem to carry.<br>

Hope that helps and most importantly I hope you and your wife enjoy your holiday!<br>

Regards<br>

Stuart</p>

<p>Prefer 35mm if only one focal length. Add an 85mm for travel.</p>

<p>Helo Peter!<br>

It everything depends what kind of photography You prefer, if You like street photography, portraits and more artistic point of view I think standard 50mm lens would be good choice for FF. I live in Europe and I was in these three cities and I think 24-105 lens would be more useful for general travel photography. This cities in Europe especialy this old parts were built in Middle Ages and they are very compact and tight and 24mm lens would be more useful in such a places.<br>

Both Prague and Budapest (it was 2 cities: Buda&Pest) are cities located on two banks of river and 105mm would be useful for long distance views.<br>

In Sweden weather can be tricky (very windy and rainy) and I would take professional lens, 24-105 would be better choice as well. <br>

Have a great trip<br>

Maciej<br>

p.s. Beware of pickpockets in crowded places.</p>