What lenses would you take?

<p> The precursor to this "question" is that I am asking in the hopes of an interesting discussion, not a lecture on not knowing stuff I should know. If you are not interested in playing along, and there is no reason you should be, then just don't post, lets have a fun thread just for the sake of talking lenses. Yes I can look in my EXIF, but what would <strong>you</strong> take and why.</p>

<p> Anyway, I am off to India for two months (though the location is really irrelevant) and I have my lens set, what would you take from it and what glaring omissions are there that you would take/won't travel without? I will have one "FF" body.</p>

<p> My lens choices are 15mm fisheye, 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS, 17TS-E, 50 f1.4, 100 L Macro, 300 f2.8 IS, TC's and extension tubes.</p>

<p> My current thinking is 16-35, 24-70, 17TS-E and 100 macro, this gives me very good coverage, a bit of overlap, it fits in a Retrospective 10, and is not too heavy (relative I know). I get on well with the 15 and 50 but my thinking is they both add weight and bulk unnecessarily.</p>

<p> Thanks, Scott.</p>

<p>I'd take take the 16-35, 50mm, 70-200 + T/C's, and 100 macro. I usually shoot landscapes or wildlife and so I work at the wide and tele extremes 95% of the time. The 50mm would be a fast lens to fill the gap that is lightweight. I prefer the 17-40mm (although not a choice from above) for travel b/c its lighter and shares the same 77mm filter thread as most other lenses (for polarizer). I'd take the 100mm too b/c it's nice to have a macro.</p>

<p>That's interesting Nathan, that gives you a potential 400mm f5.6, my thinking limits me to a 100mm.</p>

<p>My 16-35 is a MkI so it has the 77mm filter thread, though the main reason I never upgraded it was because it is pretty sharp for an ultra-wide zoom and it fits in underwater housings much easier than the elephantine MkII. If I was to not take any of my first four, it would be the 16-35 as the 24-70 covers my most used walk about lengths and the 17TS-E gives me a far better ultra-wide.</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight.</p>

<p>I'd take the16-35, 50 and 100 and leave the rest at home. To me there's no sense in carrying a lot of extra stuff which I'm unlikely to use, and I would have sufficiently wide coverage with my proposed kit.</p>

<p>Actually I think that where you are going and what you are going to photograph does make a difference, especially if you limit yourself to 100mm. I tend to heavily use my 10-22mm; and my 70-200mm but that's because I shoot landscapes and wildlife, and I don't know what your favorite and planned subject matter might be. I guess I'd bring the 50mm along to have something in the middle, with good low-light capability. </p>

<p>Scott - Take a backpack/sling bag as your main shooting bag when you walk around with all your gear and something smallish to carry one camera when you go light. Shoulder bags are a bad idea in India IME.</p>

<p>As for the lenses - et tu, Brute?<br>

:-)<br>

70-200, 24-70, fish eye, 24 T/S, 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 was my last set over there: I had a thing to do that required 70-200 and a T/S lens, but over 80% of pics, inside and outdoors were taken with the 35 mm. A fast 24 is good for interiors although I'd entertain the new 24 IS lens if I had to do it again. Dependong on your arrangements you may have to play a snail and carry your house with you at all times while in India so consider this angle as well. FWIW, the safe in our room ina Big Expensive Hotel in Bombay was broken and there were many places with no safes at all so I eneded up chaining a locked Peli case to the toilet in the bathroom (can't move that...) The management was not amused but supportive nonetheless :-)</p>

<p>For sure I'd take 16-35 and 24-70. And probably rent a 70-200 f/4 IS and take that and extension tubes to cover tele+macro. If your weight budget is higher add the 17 TS-E, 50/1.4, and 1.4x extender. If the weight budget is really high just take the 70-200/2.8 IS. I wouldn't consider the 300/2.8 IS unless I had a Sherpa to carry gear.</p>

<p>Another option would be leaving the 16-35 and taking the 17 TS-E plus the 1.4x extender. Depends how quickly you need to work. If you'll have to work fast when shooting, or you have to shoot in low light, the 16-35 would be better; if you have time to set up the 17 TS-E, it will probably get better shots.</p>

<p>Personally when I travel I prefer to take a lot of gear, then pick a few lenses for each day's adventure, and leave the rest in the hotel. But from what I've heard of travel to India, it's advisable to take everything with you at all times.</p>

<p>Hwo about 17/4, 24-70/2.8, and 50/1.4</p>

<p>I would take the 17 TS-E, 24-70, and 70-200.</p>

<p>if you throw the ext tubes in, you could leave the 100 macro behind; they work quite well on the 70-200mm.</p>

<p>India is kinda big and diverse, so where you go matters. If you're going to the jungles to photograph tigers, etc it is very different than if you will be walking the streets of cities, or the mountains. If you were going to drop me there without giving me any idea of where I was going, I'd take the 24-70 (or better yet, a 24-105) and a 35/1.4, but everyone's mileage varies. I tend to travel light and Sherpa-less.</p>

<p>Last time I went to India (on vacation) I took a 40D (which had just been released) with a EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-105mm, and EF 70-300mm DO lenses - it proved to be a relatively light and versatile travel kit. Most of my shots were of architecture and people/street with a few landscapes thrown in. Question is, what are you planning to photograph? Given the choice of lenses, and assuming similar subjects I would go with the 16-35 (heavy but good WA), 50 f/1.4 (great for street, low light), 17TS-E (great for architecture - there's so much spectacular architecture in India! - and landscapes, becomes a 24mmTS-E with 1.4xTC), 70-200 f/2.8 (rather heavy medium telephoto) with TCs and extension tubes. If you don't need to go beyond 100mm then the macro would be a lighter alternative. However, for travel I prefer the 70-200 f/4.0 IS to the f/2.8 just because of the weight, it also makes a great macro lens with extension tubes. Now, if you are after wildlife/birds, then you will need that 300mm f/2.8 and TCs too. For me, the glaring omission is the one "FF" body - I would take a 7D body too as a back up and it will extend the utility of the lens selection. <br />Now I have to decide what to take on a trip to Peru and Galapagos in October....</p>

<p>For me the UW would be a given for most travel. I generally go with a Retro 7 with no more then 2 to 3 lenses. Most often a wider zoom with some mid range prime but it depends on where I go.<br>

For places like Galapagos I would take a tele. I was there a few years back and I used a 70-200 about 75% of the time ( wish I had longer back then ) I also will take a backpack or sling back of some sort if I manage to go back. Hiking up hot volcanos with a shoulder back was rough.</p>

<p>Aside from personal preference that I don't know about and circumstances of your travel and potential subjects that are unknown to me, I would most likely carry the three core zooms, perhaps adding the 50mm prime.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Scott, all your lenses are heavy! If I were you, I'd lend them to me and borrow my f/4 optics for your trip!</p>

<p>Seriously, though, weight is always a big issue for me. Perhaps it wasn't when I was younger. So to answer your question, I'd have to dip into my own lens collection, not yours: 16mm Zenitar fisheye, because it's light, small and fun; 17-40/4 -- light/small and great at f/8-f/11; 24-105/4 -- my most versatile lens, not so large as to be painful; 70-200/4IS -- a minor sacrifice of weight/bulk, but it's such a great lens for candids. Oh yes, and I'd upgrade from the 5D to the 5DII.</p>

<p>Most importantly, I'd take my Lowepro Toploader 75 (?) holster bag, which will usually accommodate an extra lens deep in the bottom and sundary stuff in the pockets.</p>

<p>One last note: All that EXPENSIVE gear might not work well for you in such an impoverished country. Even if theft isn't an issue/concern, being the rich guy holding all the expensive gear could adversely impact your relationship with your subjects. Sometimes there's a lot to be said for a (good quality of) compact digital, preferably in non-black, if that's possible.</p>

<p>I depends what type of subjects do you think you will be shooting the most ?</p>

<p>Harry,</p>

<p>If the question was <em>"what should I (Scott) take?"</em> then yes, but that wasn't the question, the question was<em> "what would you (Harry) take from it and what glaring omissions are there that you would take/won't travel without?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>As a little background, I have been to India before, I have traveled with all the listed gear and two film bodies and tripods and P&S's etc, weight is not a concern, neither is value, I'm not too worried about presence either, not because I am special, but I am comfortable in travel situations. But I was much more interested in talking about where other peoples ideas/shooting preferences are.</p>

<p>For instance, I was not surprised to see Nathan thinking of getting focal length, but for the way I shoot a 400mm is about 300mm longer than I would expect to use on this trip, but it did make me think what would I do if I took it and left something else. I know, as a very broad generalisation, India is much more restrictive with regards tripod use than my more normal SE Asia shooting environment, because of that the 17mm TS-E will be less useful to me than normal. Looking at my EXIF I have less than 20 70-200 with 2x TC images in over 40,000, and none of them are good!</p>

<p>It is also interesting to see people list a bag choice, it just reiterates how different we all are, I have bought as many camera bags as many of you and I really like the Retrospective 10, for me the size, functionality, etc, are the perfect balance but others have equally strong views about other bags. Bags definitely fall under the "<em>won't travel without</em>" part of the question.</p>

<p>Let me ask another question in the spirit of the thread.</p>

<p>If you could go to an interesting place (to you) for a month, what one body and one lens would you take? </p>

<p>My choice would be a 5D MkIII and a 24-70 f2.8.</p>

<p>Do you use a grip? if not the Retro 7 is much better IMO. I had the 10 and always felt it was a bit to deep. I also have a retro 30 which can hold a ton but the 7 is my ideal bag for most anything</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you could go to an interesting place (to you) for a month, what one body and one lens would you take?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree with you here but I would say 24-70 II just because its going to be lighter and probably a bit sharper with no reverse zoom. Very curious to see the real world results of this lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unless you are really into birding, racing, large scale sports events, etc (only you know that) I would think you won't be taking many pictures past 135mm or so. So, I think limiting yourself to the 100mm L macro isn't going to be the end of the world. You might find yourself cropping for distance objects but that's a prime advantage of a high resolution FF (5D2,5D3,etc).</p>

<p>When I first read your list I thought - heavy. Especially the 16-35 and the 24-70. I think you could leave one of these behind and not regret every single day :) If it were me I'd pick up a 14mm non-fisheye in place of the 15mm canon. I have a hunch that lens and the 24-70 would be on the camera most of the time.</p>

<p>You say you will be gone for 2 months - awesome! Maybe a lot depends on the two months. If you will living from one town to the next and always on the move, it's one thing. But if you will be staying in one central place (eg a work assignment at a office in India) and making trips out of that location then I would bring a lot more. Can you tell us a bit more about how often you will be changing hotels?</p>

<p>If the trip was just for a week, I would think the 17ts would be hard to justify. But you have two months so there will be lots of time for the 100mm L macro and the 17mm tS to come out and play!</p>

<p>My vote would be for a 14mm, 35L , 24-70L or 24-105L, 100L and a cheap T2i or XSi as backup. And add the 17mm ts lens if space and weight permit or you will be based in one location for a long period of time. Sorry if that's not all from you kit. </p>

<p>I love the pelican case security idea. When I take my gear on scuba trips it all goes in a pelican that also gets locked to a fixed structure in the room and then I use a backpack from there. But that is for travel where that kind of size and weight can be handled w/o being a hassle.</p>

 

If 16-35 is compatible with the tc, I would

choose it, otherwise..... I would confused

between 16-35 and 24-70, but preferable 24-

70, for wider focal range (not focal

length), you're in ff body anyway, since I

don't really like to keep changing lens.

Too complicated and could make you loose a

moment.

Prime lens is not my favorite for 'walk-

around' shot, since it's harder to compose

(at least for me) than zoom lens.

70-200 is a must, you won't never knew what

can that lens do when you saw something

interesting, even at landscape.

And in cityscape, tele lens could be useful

to zoom for a architectural part of a

building, but if 2.8 is too heavy, you can

consider the F4 for half weight.

<p>If I were relegated to one lens, it would be the 24-70 L f2.8. But for your trip I'd give serious thought to the 16-35 II L instead. </p>

<p>I spent three weeks in India earlier this year with a FF and 3 zooms. I'll give the proportion of photographs taken with each lens, recognising the possibility that you and I might prefer different types of photography. </p>

<p>17-40L 2%<br>

24-105L 65%<br>

70-200L f4 33%</p>

<p>I should say that the 33% of undeleted photographs taken with longer zoom represent some 700 photographs and the vast majority of these fall outside the overlap with the 24-105, so I'd have really missed the long zoom. I found that the high ISO performance of my Canon meant that I didn't need or miss faster lenses at all, despite the fact that I could nor use a tripod in virtually any of the tourist sites I visited and there was no space and no time for one outside those sites.</p>

<p>I used the 70-200 extensively in the markets for candids and details of shops, street-food cooking and so on. I did not miss anything I didn't take except I had to buy more cards. The only filter that got more than cursory use was a polariser. I used ( as I always do) a shoulder bag to facilitate easy lens and filter changing and pulling the camera out of the bag on the move. I had a 5D Mk1 in my luggage as backup because P&S photographs don't cut it for my stock work. </p>

<p>If taking one lens -</p>

<ul>

<li> 24-70 L f2.8 USM or 24-105 L IS USM f4.0</li>

</ul>

<p>If taking two lenses </p>

<ul>

<li>Add the 16-35 L f2.8 II to the lens above</li>

</ul>

<p>If taking three lenses</p>

<ul>

<li>Add the 70-200 L f2.8 IS USM II to the lenses above</li>

</ul>

"If you could go to an interesting place (to you) for a month, what one body and one lens would you take?"

 

I'm going to cheat here - I've got reasons - and take two bodies and two lenses. They would be a pair of T3i's (because

they're really cheap right now), a 17-55 f2.8, and a 55-250.

 

Reasons? Well, I'm not a pro so I'm not shooting for stock or any other professional reason, I'd be on holiday for me (well,

ok, for us - not only would my wife be along, she'd have approved the holiday in the first place) and therefore photography

would only be part of it. Having two bodies, each with a lens permanently attached would diminish lens-changing time to

zero, and using T3i's would lighten the load considerably. I know that the bodies and the 55-250 aren't very robust (the

lens especially), but the other side of that is that because they're cheap I wouldn't be constantly worrying about damaging a lot of seriously expensive gear. And taking two bodies means that if one failed I'd have a backup.

 

Yes, I know that in absolute terms the IQ from a 5DII or III plus 24-70/105 would be better, but given that I don't print big,

and most of my stuff will go on the web, what I've suggested will be plenty good enough for me. And it would be small

enough and light enough to not get in the way of our holiday.

One lens: 50/1.4

Two lens: 16-35 plus 100L

 

I like travelling light and don't mind gaps.

(personally I own the 17-40 and combined with the 100L it is my preferred minimalist combo)

 

The 100 is so versatile that I might even bring just that.

And when I need a wider shot I'll use my phone. (about 28mm equiv I think)

 

Of course when I want to hang the results on a nice wall the phone won't do.

 

Have a nice trip!

 

M.