Which two lenses for travel in Europe?

[vassil_mihov]

Hi everyone. Others have asked this, but since there is no

unique "right" answer, I'd like to benefit from you exerience on the

following. I will be traveling in Europe this summer with a EOS

film body. I'd like to travel as light as possible. If you were to

take no more than two lenses, which ones would you take? I have

Sigma 28 1.8, Canon 50 1.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8 (this one stays home),

Canon 100 2.8 macro. I am leaning towards going only with the 28

1.8, and maybe the 50mm. Should I consider buying a relatively

cheap 28-105 or 24-85 zoom? I have no specific photographic

objective in mind, probably will be shooting mostly buildings,

streets and people, regular tourist fare. Thanks in advance!

[aljaz_.]

I say 28-105mm zoom and the 50mm for the low light moment. That's what I use. If you like buildings the 28mm prime may be added to the bag.

 

Actually I don't think there is much need for a specific setup for Europe. I can think of only one particularity in relation to other planetary locations, which is that the streets in cities may get narrow. And even this is surely found elsewhere just as well.

[vitaly_shub]

Depends on the perspective you like. But if you are going to be traveling in older European cities with a lot of narrow streets and/or like to shoot building interiors I'd take something wider than 28mm. Maybe a 24 (or even 20) prime or, better yet, a 20-35 (or 17-40 if it's in your budget.)

[basscheffers]

Just a 50mm worked for some famous french photographer. Works for me as well, but if you can cary it, take the 28. Don't go for a cheap zoom; considering you seem to like your primes and other quality lenses, you'll think they quality of 28-105 is rubbish.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 28-135, 50/1.4, 300/4, and 1.4x TC. In your situation, with my lenses, there's no way I would leave home without the 28-135. You can't always step forward or back far enough to make the scene fit your one or two primes. If I could, I'd also take the 50/1.4 for its speed.</p>

 

<p>Let me ask you a question: with your current widest lens being a 28, do you find yourself putting the 28 on the camera, looking through the viewfinder, and thinking "Geez, I wish I had something wider"? If so, then I'd echo what someone else suggested - something wider than 28. My take on it would be the 24-85 (quite a good lens, by reputation, and not dreadfully expensive, particularly if you can find one used) and the 50.</p>

[vassil_mihov]

Thanks, everyone. Bas, for years I used only a 50mm, but I find it a little tight on occasion. Steve, 28 is generally wide enough for me, I was never too much into landscapes or buildings as opposed to shooting (I mean, photographing) people; 24 could be an improvement, though. I appreciate your suggestions.

[psoriano]

I have a Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 for that uses. It cost 300$ at adorama, covers the range

of usual situations on travel - from landscape to portrait-, and provides good quality

images. Weights 530g / 18.8 oz

 

Enjoy!

[johannes_minkus]

"Which two lenses for travel in Europe?"

 

Let me ask back: Which two lenses for travel in the US?

[vassil_mihov]

Johannes,

 

I see your point. Still, Iowa or Manhattan?

 

Vassil

[arthur_byrnes]

Which 2 lenses for travel?

 

The original questioner mentioned a 70-200 zoom which he stated would stay home. This to me is wrong. One of the main reasons for a zoom is to allow you to travel without carrying a lot of lenses. With that and the 24-85 zoom you would need no others. Yes, it might be nice to have the 50 for lower light, but it is not needed.

 

The longer lens will allow you to capture the detail of the building, or get people shots without being obtrusive.

 

The other good reason for using a zoom is that you can frame the shots properly without having to relocate, which is good when dealing with the small streets.

[jim_larson1]

With only one lens, I would go 24-85.

 

For two lenses, I would go with the 28 and the 50.

 

Frankly, for three lenses, I would get a Canon 70-200/4L. Very portable lens.

 

Don't forget mini tripod and flash.

[tom_burke3]

Partly it depends whereabouts in Europe. There is a difference, and that's the latitude -

much of 'Europe' is well to the north of most of continental USA, and eventhose bits that

overlap are on the same latitudes as norther USA. I live in the UK, just north of the 53rd

parallel, which is on the same latititude as northern Newfoundland or mid-coast BC. This

makes for a few differences vis-a-vis light: a) days are longer in summer and shorter in

winter, compared with continental USA; b) the sun is lower in the sky at noon than in

continental USA; c) evenings last a very long time, esp as you go further north. Your

chances of having to shoot in low light situations are therefore high.

 

And finally the weather is less predictable than in the USA. In northern europe especially

cloudy weather or rain is quite possible any day of the year, including "mid-summer"

(hah!). Once again, therefore, low-light photography is likely to occur.

[qtluong]

My choices would be Canon 28-135 (good all around and people lens) and 24 TSE (for architecture and tighter spaces). About 50% of these

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/europe/">photos of Europe</a>

were made using those.

[ryanjoseph]

28-135 IS, 70-200mm F4 L, and heck carry a EF 50mm F1.8 too, its only 130 grams!

[test11664875106]

Unless you plans include "hunting" in the crowd or documenting every brick in the wall you'll hardly have space for longer than 50mm in most european towns. I used to own only 24mm TSE and 85mm, the first one was mounted most of the time. The second one I tried few times in the cities, but it was too long, so I went and bought 50mm and use it nearly exclusively now. If you have money, get 24mm TSE, otherwise 50+28 seems reasonable choice.