mike_webster Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 In a couple of weeks, I'm traveling with wife to Maui, Kauai and Hawaii. Must travel light and will probably forego taking tripod and more than 1DmkII + 2 or 3 lenses. Interested in landscape and general people and places photography - no surfing long lens requirement. When in Monument Valley last fall and using 10D, I shot well over 80% of large vistas with 24-70/2.8 and missed the 16-35/2.8 only once. Seeking suggestions on lens combo that will minimize weight and lens changes given variety of subject matter. At this time, I'm leaning towards 24-70/2.8 and 135/2.0. Certainly not the lightest combo but seems to cover what I expect to be the range. Thanks for any suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_villarmia Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Might I suggest the 50mm or 100mm macros? Macro shots of the amazing Hawaiian vegetation might be worth something to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_garcia5 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Since your not taking a tripot then just stick with your 24-70 f2.8 with fast film. In bright daylight your should be able to hit f/22 with no problems. Just have fun! I'm heading to Cancun and taking a few tours into the Aztec ruins where a tripod isn't allowed. Well not free at least. And I'm taking just one lens, my Minolta 24-105 f3.5/4.5 shooting 100 speed film for finer grain and color, and my minolta 3500xi flash. That's it, I'm just going to have fun and take some pretty good photo's (I hope). Happy shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_lau3 Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I find wider angle lenses much more useful for travel photography (landscape, landmark, steet etc). I love the 24-70 on my EOS 3 for travelling light (still near 1kg weight) but on your 10D 24mm becomes 38mm. To me I need something wider. Your 16-35 on 10D becomes 26-56, sounds much more useful for travel photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrianhinojosa Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 The 24-70 and the 135 prime will be perfect. The 135 is enough telephoto for close ups and some nice portraits of your wife. The 24-70 will take care of all other travel photography needs. What you might really want is an image vault or something you can download all your pictures to each night. You can live without the wide angle - there are plenty of scenic post cards and books done by artist dragging around all the heavy gear - support them, visit art galleries and buy their stuff - they did all the work for you. Have fun, enjoy your vacation and take lots of pictures of your family having fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey L.T. von Glück Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 I've been there, done that, for 4 years in a row. Try these links for previous discussion: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0083Tg http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007hhM Good luck and enjoy. No one doesn't like Hawaii, ever! Jeffrey L. T. von Gluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_lau3 Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 <<You can live without the wide angle - there are plenty of scenic post cards and books done by artist dragging around all the heavy gear - support them, visit art galleries and buy their stuff - they did all the work for you.>> This is a good point. In the future we don't need to worry about what gear to take for holidays and to carry them around. Just leave them all at home and buy postcards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 "missed the 16- 35/2.8 only once" I think you answered your own question. No one elses opinion on this really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_webster Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 Thank you all for your suggestions and comments. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 <<Must travel light and will probably forego taking tripod and more than 1DmkII + 2 or 3 lenses.>> Boy I'd hate to see what your idea of not travelling light would encompass. I'm 6'5" 260 lbs and wouldn't even for an instant consider carrying aroud all day a 1DMk-II (I've got a MK-I, same size)and a 24-70/2.8. Even my D60 and 28-135 is more than I want around my neck all day. If I were doing your itinerary with a digital (which I wouldn't, the end results just aren't good enough)I'd take my DRebel and 17mm Tamron, 28EF and 50/1.8-MK-I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_webster Posted June 14, 2004 Author Share Posted June 14, 2004 Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions. Jay, you're absolutely right, it's too heavy. For this trip, the 24-70/2.8 is history. As of today, and I emphasize today, I'm inclined to take the 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 70-200/4.0 (a total of 3.52 lbs). For me, the issue has always been lens weight. Based upon my experience walking the summer streets of NYC, if I use both a shoulder and wrist strap, my feet will give out prior to my arms tiring from carrying the 1DMkII. This will not be an adventure akin to a trek to a Himalayan base camp. Tripod will be left in car and carried, I hope, no more than a few hundred yards at a time. Frankly, it may make sense to forget the backpack and just throw the Billingham over my shoulder and pretend I'm walking through Central Park while carrying a relatively light tripod. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrybc Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Mike, I did the Big Island around Christmas time last year using a 24-105 and 70-210. The 70-210 was quite useful since it was semi-macro so it served well for flora photos, as well as for shots of the rugged lava coastline and some great turtle shots. I'd bring that rather than a macro/portrait lens. Definite bring along a polarizer to remove the reflections from the lush vegetation. Larry<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_green2 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I agree with your camera/lens choice, but I would strongly recommend taking a tripod, no matter how light and flimsy. When you get in the trees there is not as much light as you would think. I hated lugging my tripod around (my wife opted not to carry one) and it did slow the pace, but nearly all the good shots were taken from it. Keep in mind, I also was shooting MF on Velvia for some of the trip. On my last trip most of my images were shot with a Fuji MF (28 mm lens equivalent) and a Canon with a 28-70. The macro capabilities of that lens were good enough. I also would consider a 1.4x converter because the other lens that got a workout was my 100-400, but it depends how you shoot -- and I was shooting kiteboarders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now