Travel Photography Lens Help

Hi, I'm travelling to Europe soon and I'm wanting to get some advice on the best lenses for the trip.

 

Currently I have a Canon 6D with 17-40mm f4 and 50mm f1.8.

 

What other lenses would you guys recommend? I was looking at the 24-70mm f4 since it has IS and is cheap for an L lens, however thought maybe I would be restricted by the f4. I also figured that it may be a waste of money as I may end up using my 17-40 more often as it can go a little wider and I may not need the extra zoom range of the 24-70.

 

Keep in mind I also don't want to take too much equipment and would rather take a couple of versatile lenses than a suitcase full of lenses.

 

I'm open to any suggestions you guys have, thanks!

If you want/need a lens longer than 50mm, you could consider the 70-200 F4L IS (version I or II), or the 70-300 IS (version I or II or the L model). The 17-40, 50, and 70-200L plus 5D was my basic travel kit for many years and served me well.

I use 5D Series and have modified (refined by taking less) my EOS DIGITAL kit for travel over the past 10 years: - now I take a 24 to 105/4L IS and sometimes a 35/1.4.

 

I like to make general travel photos of scenes, city and landscapes, and people/street shots; especially I am interested in indoor architecture. I find that the extra mm (from 70 to 105) is useful. I don't think wider than 24mm is absolutely necessary for what I do, it would be handy, but only for an handful of shots and not worth the extra weight. The IS is invaluable and I find f/4 is not a limitation. The 35/1.4 is better (for me) than a fast 50. I have no need for the weight of a 70 to 200 only for the extra 85mm.

 

I always carry one extra camera, presently I am travelling and I am using an EOS M5 with a "kit lens" 18 to 150 and one fast wide prime (21/1.4). In this case I do not have my EF35/1.4. I have an EF to EF-M adapter, providing redundancy to use my 24 to 105 on my M5 if necessary.

 

I have been through many refinements of my 'travel kit' over 40 something years, however, each time and always taking two camera bodies.

 

LINK HERE to 24 to 105 Travel Photos

 

WW

24-105mm L (either I and II they are much the same) and also take the 50 f1.8. If you still really want wider than 24mm then keep your 17-40mm and get the 85 f1.8: small, cheap and good.

Maybe consider a second camera, specifically something compact? I keep a little waterproof Olympus compact in a side pocket of my bag, it's the size of a packet of cigarettes, I don't even notice it's there. The image quality is nowhere near as good, but I use it to fill in for focal lengths I rarely use, rather than lugging a bunch of lenses around that I might use once or twice on a trip. Better to get a shot in poor quality than to miss it altogether because you didn't have the right lens with you. Plus, it comes places I wouldn't bring one of my better cameras, on the beach, out for drinks, etc.

 

It's always handy to have a second camera, if it can replace a rarely used lens for less weight, even better.

Tamron 35-150/2.8-4?

I obviously don't have one (yet); it is getting released today. A Nikon F mount sister has been out, for some weeks.

Thoughts so far:

It is stabilized, has reasonable zoom range to shoot a person, weighs way less than my "stay at home" 70-200/2.8L. It also has minimal overlap with your existing zoom.

Cons: AF speed? - Tends to be a Tamron issue, when their 24-70/2.8 gets compared to the L.

Quality? - I'd say: Come on, it'll mount. The 6D hasn't that many MP...

 

It is high on my shopping list, for 2nd EOS lens. - I'm sufficiently happy with CV 15 & ZM 21 on Monochrom for my wide end and hope the Tamron might render the 5D IV into a piece of travel or "carry casually" gear. I want to see on EOS reviews though, before I'll buy, maybe in fall.

 

My understanding of 24-# market:

I'll want stabilized (or'd stick to primes I have, non EOS).

24-70/ 2.8 II out for obvious reasons.

24-105: optically weaker than crop from Tamron 24-70/2.8, according to Tony Northrup.

24-70/4 Probably a sane unspectacular but light choice. Considering how much I dislike lens juggling in the field, a bad choice for me though. - I'd be leaning towards EOS R & it's 24-105 instead, unless something 6D / 5D II comes my way.

The gap around 35mm seems more bearable than at 70mm to me. At least no annoying / embarrassing lens changes in front of folks I want to shoot.

 

Traveling seems to require a "keep this mounted!" lens, sometimes. With 2 bodies I might warm up with 17-40 & 70-200/4 IS. with just one body and a 24-70, I'd be tempted to leave 17-40 at home or the tent / hotel.

For a GP lens, I would go with the 24-105

Then add the 35/1.8 for low light conditions. My logic is low light would likely be indoors where it is cramped. If so I would want a wider lens than a normal lens, hence 35 over 50.

 

Then based on where you are going what other lenses you want to add.

• Crowded/tight conditions, then the wide 17-40 makes sense.
  
• Distant shots/wildlife, then a longer lens, like a 70-300.
  

The 24-105 would probably be good for 95% of your shots.

If this isn’t primarily a photo trip, especially if you will be with family or a group, consider a capable small pocket camera like the Sony RX100. Very capable, gives high degree of manual control, and good image quality. And it can be slipped into a pocket, making you less of an obvious target for thieves. There are similar cameras from other manufacturers.

 

For me, the next step up from the Sony would be either a 24-105/4 or a 16-35. Since I shoot Canon, the wide angle zoom would be the 16-35/4 IS rather than the faster version without IS. I view 16-24mm as essential for many interior shots and some scenes showing whole buildings or other wide views. But I’d only take one of the two lenses, I hate carrying around multiple lenses and messing with changing lenses when photography isn’t the primary goal. If I did take the 16-35, I’d have the RX100 in my pocket to cover longer views.

I'm late to the party, but I very much agree about the overall utility of the 24-105mm as a 'one lens does it all' for travel.

(the EFS 17-85mm does the same for the APS-C cameras).

 

When you are traveling with non-photographers (sometimes known as 'family') this wide to short tele is a godsend.

By yourself, or with other photographers, you can stuff in some ultrawides, a long telephoto, t/s lenses, etc. as you please.

Like @JDMvW, i"m late to this party. IMHO your decision really depends on the kind of shots you're anticipating (or want to to be prepared for and your budget.. With your current lenses, you're covered in the wide- to mid-range. You lack the 70 - 200mm range (close-ups of people, distant objects/buildings brought up closer). Only you can decide how useful this extra range might be for your trip.

 

Since your current lenses already have the 17- 50 mm range covered; if you feel that you want to expand this range you have a couple of options:

- the 24-105 lens

- the CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L USM or EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

- the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ( more expensive but better in low light)

- a 3rd party lense 700-200 mm (such as Sigma/Tokina) which are often just as good but much cheaper

- buy any of the above 2nd hands (and cheaper) via E-bay