advice on a small travel kit

Hi, I am doing a lot more travel photography now, and love travelling small (as

opposed to light, as small size is more important to me than small weight)

because I do a lot of hiking and backpacking.

 

I used to just use a 24-105 with my 5D which is great, however once I get out of

the cities and into more remote areas, I have found I need a decent tele.

 

The 100-400 seems to make sense to go with my 24-105, however I am wondering

whether a 28-300 would be better, so I only need one lens in total that I can

throw in my lowepro toploader and be done with it, ready to shoot! The lens is

heavy, however I figure it would be lighter than carrying both the 24-105 and

the 100-400 as a kit, plus I wouldn't have to change lenses in wet or dusty

conditions as I tend to go off the trail a bit.

 

The 28-300 is more expensive (for the same price I could get a 100-400L and a

70-200L f4), and a compromise optically, but might be more handy? Theres also

the problem of always having to use a big white lens even in cities which draws

unwanted attention.

 

Money isn't really a problem, however I want to avoid primes as they are not

versatile enough for me. The less gear I need to house in my bag the better.

 

If you were in my position, what would you do? I'm just looking for subjective

responses because I have overthought this too much and can't decide!

 

Thankyou!

It would be relative to what I hope for in the final image, if all I'm after is to show friends where I've been, then I'd take 2 zooms to cover everything from 24 or so to 300 or so and I'd include an extender/teleconverter. If I'm a little more serious minded, I'd tough it out with 2 bodies and a bag of my better quality primes.

I'd keep the 24-105 for urban shooting since it's lighter and less conspicuous, and get the 100-400 for situations when a longer reach is necessary. The extra weight of a 2nd telephoto lens is really not an issue if it's in the backpack but having to lug a 5D + 28-300 all day long sounds like a pain to me.

i would recommend a leica M with a 50mm lens.

Just went with a Domke , 3x6 tall x 10 long. M6, 24 CV, 35, 50, 90, 135 lenses.

I took this shot of a castle in Bavaria from quite a distance with a 300mm lens. There are times when you just got to have a telephoto lens.<p><img src="http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3631/hohenschwangauph1.jpg">

I'll cast a big vote for the 70-200 4L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter. I use a 5D and 24-105 for travel, so I'm basically in the same boat. I love the 70-200 4L (non-IS) because of the very low weight and relative compactness (perfect for travel), the cost (low), and the incredible image quality. The 1.4x works really well with this lens as well; I don't see any dropoff in image quality when using it, though of course the combination becomes somewhat slow at f5.6 (such are the tradeoffs of travel, and IS would mitigate the problem to some degree).

 

The IS version didn't exist when I bought mine, but if I was shopping today it is probably the lens I would buy.

I forgot to add that I often leave the 70-200 lens and 1.4x teleconverter connected in my bag as a 100-280mm f5.6 lens to minimize the number "things" I need to expose to the elements, since I usually want the full 280mm reach if I'm going through the trouble of switching lenses while traveling. This would be even more workable with IS to offset the slowness of the combo (to some degree).

Travel light with any rangefinder. One 16-55mm lens, one 28 or 35mm, one 50mm, one 90 mm and you are all set.

wow thanks for all the quick replies!

 

See my problem is that I plan to do a lot of adventure travel trips, where I need to carry all of my gear, all of the time, so selecting a few lenses for the day and leaving the others in the hotel is not really an option, hence my reluctance of taking my primes - just more gear to house and worry about.

 

I'm not new to photography or lenses, however I am new to mixing travel/weather/planes/hiking with camera gear rather than a clean studio, that isn't on my back haha. So thats why I am concerned and asking others who might be more seasoned travel photographers. I need the least amount of gear to cover almost any situation. Unlike my other work, perfect quality is not needed, as with this type of stuff I allow myself to be more... creative.

 

That's why I am attracted to the 28-300. I have a second body as well though, so in really poor conditions I can tough out two setups so no elements are exposed in lens changes, but would prefer taking just my 5D.

 

As for the Leica M, a great camera! I have used, but never owned one. Although I started photography with a canon AE-1 and 50mm lens only, and found it too limiting for what I shoot now. Thanks for the suggestion though!

 

When I have decided on, and used my setup and get back from my trip, I will post feedback on it so that anyone else in this position might benefit.

 

Thanks again for the responses, feel free to keep them coming!

Oh great photo by the way. I love castles like that, especially those similar in germany.

In the end only you can decide what works best for you, but while I also limit my travel gear to one still camera plus a couple of lenses and one HD video camera, I've seen folks who don't believe in any compromises...<p><img src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5792/photogfirenzefv8.jpg">

Yes I have found one body and a couple of lenses to be all I want to bring. Looks like that guy has a 24-105 and a 70-200 f/4. For me to carry a whole second lens, only gaining an extra 100mm in focal range is not worth the hassle, especially in a city where you can walk closer.

My travel kit is a 5D body, the 17-40 L for landscapes, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS for long shots and either a 50mm prinme or sometimes a Sigma 24-70. Usually just the first two lenses do all I want.

i have a 10-22, 24-105 & 100-400 combo, with (now) 40D & 20D, for "full" travel, but for a light kit I use the 24-105 plus a 70-300 IS

 

A 28-300 is going to get pretty heavy for fulltime use

Hi jack,

 

I agree, the 28-300 will make a very heavy combo, and I'm the type of person that never wants to bag his camera, it's always at the ready. Although its only 300 grams heavier than the 100-400, and it has a 70cm focusing distance which might be great for makeshift macro work? (remembering i need least amount of lenses for max amount of uses)

 

So you have both the 100-400 and the 70-300? How do they honestly compare?

I used to have the 70-200 f4 L which was magnificently sharp. The 70-300 f4-5.6 IS (NOT the DO version) by comparison is smaller, lighter and has a longer zoom range. On a tripod the 70-200 is noticeably sharper but the 70-300 is pretty good - the best I have seen from a canon non-L lens. Handheld in low light with a marginal shutter speed the IS reverses the order with the 70-300 IS coming in ahead. (Of course the IS version of the 70-200 would help it to retake the lead here.)

 

Summarising the 70-300 is a very good lens indeed, optically very good but not quite up to L standards. Build quality is a bit disappointing after the 70-200. I carry the 70-300 around because it is smaller, lighter and not-at-all-bad for IQ.

Ricoh GR1. Only for purists.

Canon G9 and Canon HV20 HD camcorder. Throw in the WA converter lens for the G9 with the 220EX flash. Go light and unobtrusive.

For handy and convenient, the 70-300/4-5.6 IS DO might be a consideration.

 

A number of folks don't believe it is worth the extra coin over the non-DO, but in your case the compactness and build quality might be more significant factors. It's not lighter but it's more than an inch and a half shorter (43mm) than the non-DO and slightly smaller than your 24-105/4 L which would likely remain your main lens.

 

You could wear a lens pouch on your belt that can hold either lens so switching lenses could be as convenient as using two lenses could be.

I would second the suggestion for 70-300, even the DO version. The 100-400 is a monster. Not my first or second choice as a travel lens, apart from African safari.

Buy a Nikon D40 or D40x with the 18-200 VR lens.

It really depends. I travel with a shoulder camera bag with my OM-1, 50mm f/1.4, 24mm f/2.8, 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and 70-210mm f/3.5 along with film, a few filters and hoods and a remote shutter release. For backpacking I plan/will take my om-1 24mm f/2.8, 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 and I'll either carry my 135mm f/3.5 or I'll go out and get a 75-150mm f/4. I've found that sometimes I do need some tele reach, but most of the time I need it I am traveling and not backpacking. Oh sure there has been the occasional situation where I would have loved to have a 300mm reach or even more in a few cases (such as running across wild turkeys in a field)...but I just don't feel like it is feasible or worth while to carry such a big heavy lens for the, literally, handful of shots I might want to take with it.

 

For travel my much heavier 70-210mm f/3.5 is just fine to carry with me. Same goes with day hikes. Its really multiday hikes where I am not willing to compromise my comfort much by carrying an extra 1 to 2 or 3lbs of lens(es) and it begins to make it hard to fit everything in. Combine that with making it hard to get the shot. When I backpack I like taking my pack off twice a day, at lunch time and when stopping to make camp for the evening. With a holster type camera bag I can fit the 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 on the camera with the 24mm f/2.8 at the bottom and some film and filters. I can then pack the 135mm f/3.5 or a 75-150mm f/4 either in a lens case on the side of my hiking pack or stick it in the top of my pack.

I haved traveled around with a nikon d2x, a 24-120VR,and 80-400VR. This was my basic travel kit for a while untill I broke my 80-400. I found that when I needed reach I always worked at the long end so I bought a 300 f. This lens is sharper and lighter than my 80-400 and I am able to pack everything in a lowe 100 sling pack

Hi Rick,

 

that sounds like a good option as well, however I am a very erratic photographer and often shoot wide angle then switch to telephoto shots, sometimes to shoot the same subject, to play with how things are seen differently, so a zoom is great for me. I think a 100-400 will be enough of a variation? I usually take two bodies but for my recent style of travelling this is not ideal.

 

I looked up prices (mid message writing) and found I can get a canon 300mm f/4 for a little less that the 100-400, and the quality will be better especially with any teleconverter. Maybe I'll think about going down the road you did after all.