Lenses for Africa trip

[aaronp]

Hey guys, I hope you can tolerate one more request for help on deciding what

lens to take on a trip. My sister is living in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for the

year working with the World Health Organization, and I am going to visit her

for two and a half weeks this fall. This is what I�ve got right now:

 

20D

Rebel 2000

 

24mm/f2.8

35mm/f2.0

50mm /f1.8

135mm/f2.8

18-55mm/f3.5-5.6

 

and I am contemplating buying the Sigma DC 17-70/f2.8-4.5 as a walk around

lens

 

one 20D battery (am going to get another)

 

wired remotes for both cameras

 

LowePro TLZ Mini (holster bag � for camera plus short to medium length lense)

LowePro Nova 1 AW (carries camera plus two lenses)

 

A major concern is traveling light and compact since my main purpose in going

is not to take pictures, though it is still pretty important in my mind. I am

hoping that after taking several days to get my bearings and familiarize

myself with my sister�s routine that I can follow her around and try to

document the plight of the people she works with (she works with aids patients

in the city) as well just the general feel of the city and country. We will

also be doing some traveling around, up to the rock-carved churches in

Lalibela, and possibly a safari in Kenya. Another concern is being as

inconspicuous as possible; it seems like the 72mm size of the Sigma might be a

problem here.

At this point I am leaning toward taking the 20D, the Sigma (unless someone

can recommend a better option in a similar price range � I can go little bit

more) and the 35mm/f2.0, both of which would really just be walk around

lenses. I wouldn�t be prepared for everything for sure, but it seems to be

somewhat versatile. Would probably have to buy another camera bag or just use

a daypack. My sister has a laptop there with a dvd burner, so I can download

my pics (raw) at the end of each day and burn to either a cd or dvd.

It would stink to not have the reach of the 135mm(~200mm on the 20D),

especially for a safari, but three lenses start to add up in space and

weight. And I like to work with idea of context with my pictures, so the

wider end would be more useful.

Should I take my film camera as a backup? The Sigma is useless on it. Or

should I scrap the whole digital thing and try to buy film and find a

developer there, coming back with negatives? I have a Nikon CoolScan V as

well.

Any input, thoughts, experience would so appreciated. I�m not sure I know

what I�m getting into. Thanks.

[awindsor]

The Sigma is probably the best walk around lens for the money on a 1.6x crop factor camera (assuming you get a good sample). Personally I get more use from my 50/1.8, for portraiture, than my 35/2 but since you own both you know which one you use more.

 

My lightweight kit is currently based around the 17-40/4, 50/1.8, 70-200/4, and 1.4x TC. I own a macro lens but when I am carrying as little as possible I instead through a 20mm extension tube in the bag.

[John Crowe]

I question whether the Sigma is much better than your 18-55. More expensive and slightly faster from a third party manufacturer does not necessarily mean better.

 

 

Compared with the lenses that I regularly take everywhere yours are very small and light. I'd take the 24, 35, 135 and 18-55. I use a 10D and if I were to invest in a wideangle zoom it would likely be a 17-40/4 L or Sigma 12-24. If you did not already have all those good lenses I'd also have said 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L. Don't go without the 135, too many possible wildlife opportunities, and what I call landscape "portraits".

 

 

If you are only going to scan 100 ISO film then take the 20D instead. Much more flexible and just as sharp for home digital printing. If I were going to Africa I'd be taking both but the film would be Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 for traditional printing purposes. Have a great trip.

[athinkle]

I own the Sigma 17-70, and I have owned the Canon 18-55 in the past. The Sigma is superior to the 18-55 in every single aspect. It's faster, sharper, focuses closer, and has a much better build quality. As I've stated before in other posts, the build is almost if not equal to the quality of Sigma's EX lenses. The zoom ring will start out stiff, but that's normal. It will loosen after some use, becoming very smooth and precise. By the way, I wouldn't worry about the large front element. The front element is larger than the rest of the barrel, so the overall size is still very compact. Granted, the lens will not work on a film body so you will have to decide whether or not that difference is a deal breaker. I don't usually buy APS-C size lenses either, but this lens is so small and versatile that I bit the bullet and purchased it. I haven't regretted the decision.

[terry_henry]

On a recent trip travelling around Central America, I chose to leave my Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, EF 85mm F1.8, EF 15mm Fisheye, EF 28mm F1.8 and EF70-210mm F3.5-4.5mm at home. Instead, I borrowed an EF18-55mm, bought a used EF 80-200mm F4-5.6 and took my EF 50mm 'MK1'. My reasoning was that I REALLY needed a lightweight kit and also, I wouldn't be that bothered if any of those lenses got stolen or broken. The lenses were fine and I got some great photos - the only thing I wished I had with me was a fast telephoto zoom with IS for animal shots in the jungle, but I don't own one, can't afford one and couldn't have carried one around for three months anyway. The 80-200mm is not that bad a lens considering it's dirt cheap and very small and light.

 

So - in your situation I would take the 18-55mm, 35mm F2 and buy an EF 80-200mm on eBay. You can always sell it when you get back for the same or more. With that kit you have a big zoom range and very little size or weight, along with the sharp and fast EF 35mm.

 

Have fun on your trip and tell your sister to keep up the good work.

 

Cheers,

 

Terry

[mars c]

From what I've read the lens thats good to bring to Africa is a long zoom. (in combination with a good wide lens, of coarse.)

 

 

Either the 70-300 IS USM or the 100-400 L IS USM. will be a good addition to your collection.IMO.

[jwhite3.0]

These are my favorite questions because we get to think about fun trips and equipment. For me, your 20D + 35mm + 135mm and rent/borrow locally a 1.4X TC for your 135mm. Or, if you think you'd be in a safe environment, rent locally a Canon 24-105mm F4L IS as your walk-around lens. As far as I know most places just want the lens back as it left the shop so no problems with international travels with it. Of course, if you break it then you buy it which is the same as you breaking your own lens and replacing it. For 2-3 weeks rental of a 1.4X TC + 24-105mm will run $400 and maybe less.

 

If you go on a Safari bring the 135mm + 1.4X TC. 135mm alone is hardly reach and you are not getting extra reach on a 20D. Your frame of view with a 135mm on a 20D is that of a 200mm. My ideal reach for a safari and keeping lightweight is a 300mm F4 or 400mm F5.6. Not so low profile but an American in any country is no longer low profile.

 

Can't wait to see your pics

[charles_lipton]

I don't normally agree much with Mars but I do here... If you want to keep your lenses to a minimum I'd go with the 100-400mm L zoom.

 

I have the 5D, 24-105mm and will rent the 100-400mm L for an Alaska cruise in a few weeks. I am hoping Canon updates this lens maybe to a fixed f/4 with newer IS and twist rather than push/pull .. then I'll buy..

 

Why not rent first then see what you length lens you use more often.. then buy?

 

Just another one of those.......opinions

[jwhite3.0]

I agree with Charles, rent then buy or just rent nice glass for this trip as you are doing documentary work.

 

Also, tap your friends for equipment. If a friend of mine said he was going to Africa to document the plight of AIDS he can borrow anything I have. Equipment can always be replaced but opportunities can be once in a lifetime.

 

How sure are you that you will be going on a Safari and if really sure the 100-400mm IS as previously suggested is a good option as a rental for the trip. As for the backup film camera, does your sister have one already? If so, keep yours at home and bring extra film if it is not found where she is at.

 

Current ideas: Your 20D + 35f2.0 + 135mm f2.8 for your city/walk-around photography needs and rent a 100-400mm for your Safari.

 

My ideal two-week Africa trip set-up with the purpose of taking lots of pictures: 20D or better dSLR with battery pack + several to many 2GB CFs + 16-35mm f2.8L + 50mm 1.4 + 70-200mm F2.8L IS + 1.4X and 2X TCs. Since the only thing I own on that list is the 20D I am dreaming but I could rent all of that for only a small fortune rather than owning for a large fortune.

 

We all need to remember that Aaron is not going there to take pictures as his main objective so maybe just take everything you already own. Each day you head out the door decide on the one to two lenses that will be best suited for the day's activities. If you have time to shop for a 1.4 or 2X TC for your 135mm then that would be good enough. You have plenty of equipment already for walking around the city. Instead of buying the Sigma how about renting or buying a telephoto longer than your 135mm? I hear the 200mm f2.8 (used for $500-600) is a nice lens and probably ok with Canon's TCs.

 

Sorry, getting carried away, your question is one of my favorites to answer

[jwhite3.0]

Sorry, I was thinking of the 135 f2, the 2.8 softfocus is not compatible with Canon teleconverters.

[pbizarro]

I don't think you need new lenses. You already have a collection of nice and fast primes. With two cameras, this is more than enough. One camera with a wide-angle, one camera with a tele, that is all you beed for documentary/travel/reportage.

 

If you do plan to go on safari, then you need a telephoto, something on the 300-400mm range, depending on how close your vehicle is to the animals. One X-300mm zoom with IS on your 20D is enough, if you do not want to spend too much.

 

My recommendation would be to buy a compact camera with IS, something like the 16:9 sensors from Panasonic (LX1, or LX2), or the Powershot SD800IS (lovely and quick little camera).

[mars c]

If I were you, I'll bring a P&S, 20d body and two zooms, one normal and one tele.

 

Bringing too many things on a trip is not advisable , IMO, you might just loose something in the proccess.

 

Not to mention that you dont need large aperture when shooting landscape or animals on a bright day.

 

Bringing zooms instead of primes is more practical.

 

Dont forget your tripod.

[yakim_peled1]

You miss both in the wide end and tele end. For the former I'd recommend the 10-22 USM. For the latter I'd recommend the 100-400 IS but as you said you want to be "as inconspicuous as possible" I'd recommend the 70-300 IS instead. As a light and inconspicuous kit these two + 50/1.8 or 35/2 will fulfill all your needs.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[vandit]

You have 3 separate needs:

 

1. Photographing the people your sister works with - here, my gut reaction would be to use a P&S as I think that would be a bit more discreet. Paolo's recommendation of a LX1 are spot-on. Here are some examples of what you can do with it:

http://www.photosafariindia.com/galleries/darjeeling/thumbs.html

 

2. General photography: a lot depends on your eye and what you do with it. The 17-70 is indeed a very good walkabout lens. Personally, I am more of a wideangle person, rather than a tele guy for general photography, so my arsenal consists of a 10-20 and a 28-75. This is very hard for someone to answer for someone else

 

3. Safari - get a long lens. The longest you can afford. I spent 4 months visiting different game parks in Africa in 2002, and used a 100-400 and often wished for longer. I spent 6 weeks in S Africa last year with a 500/4 + 2x TC and 1.3 crop body, and I often wished for longer. You can work with anything that is 300mm or more, but the longer reach you have, the more options you have.

 

The ideal combo would be the 17-70 and a 100-400 (or, at a budget, the Sigma 170-500). Buy the tele used and sell it when you return, if need be - will be cheaper than a rental. Paying $400 to rent a $1000 lens for 2-3 weeks would seriously chap my a$$.

 

Another good set would be the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Sigma 50-150/2.8, and a 2x TC.

 

But these are what *I* would use. On the whole, I am inclined to agree with Paolo that you seem to have enough lenses - figure out what your own shooting tastes are and take the appropriate lenses.

 

Vandit

[lovcom_photo]

The thing with travel is to bring a kit that:

 

1. Will be light.

2. Will minimize lens changes for less hassle & cleaner sensor.

3. Will allow the capture with high quality lenses.

4. Minimize need for a tripod, and flash.

 

Bring a Canon 16-35L or a 17-40L.

 

Bring a Canon 100-400L with a 1.4x or 2.0x tele-converter. This is an absolute most for safari's. Or bring a 300mm or 400mm prime with a tele-converter to save space.

 

Bring a wide fast prime around 24, or 28mm.

 

Don't forget polarizers for all your lenses!

 

I think with just the three lenses above, all, if not 99% of all your needs will be met. Little need for tripod...it's just one more thing to drag around. And besides, you'll more then like be shooting out of a parked vehicle or on the roof of the vehicle...I've never been on a safari, save for several trips to San Diego's Wild Animal Park. However it is safe to say you'll need the longest lens you can afford, and with tele-converter too...I hear the the 1.4x provides better image quality then the 2.0x, but this is not from first hand knowledge....I feel the need to disclose this ;-)

[aaronp]

Everyone, thanks so much for your thoughts and input. The safari is not for sure, I'm guessing about a 25% chance it'll happen, so a long telephoto is the least of my worries right now. And even if the safari does happen, I think I would be happier having a kit that lets me capture the people rather than lugging around a long lense to take pictures of animals I've already seen lots of pictures of. At least that's the way I feel about it now, it might be different actually sitting in land rover and seeing a herd of elephants cross the road.

And the whole P&S idea: it had never crossed my mind. It's a really good idea though, and the LX1 seems like a really good camera. The LX2 seems even better, from advance specs. I'm going to have to mull over this for a few days.

So, the options are: (1)20D and two or three primes plus film body for backup, (2)20D plus a prime or two and the Sigma lens plus film body, (3)20D plus two or three primes plus P&S, (4)20D plus a prime or two and Sigma lens plus P&S. They all have their pros and cons. I hate decisions.

[aaronp]

PS - Vandit, I was astonished at your black and whites that you took with the LX1. You have a lot of talent and a great eye.

[lovcom_photo]

Aaron, agreed, Vandit's work is very good, great compositions. But don't confuse great compositions with quality captures. For your very valuable vacation, why trust your memories to a P&S? Sure the P&S can give you great compositions, as Vandit has proven, but what about noise, possible enlargments? image quality after cropping? Low light performance? Are there some images you hope to frame? That one might consider art? Issues of resolution, pixelation, digital artifacts during interpolation, etc.

[aaronp]

Well, the Panasonic LX1 has 8.2mp and the LX2 has over 10, so image size shouldn't be a concern (granted, that is in widescreen mode). Noise does seem to be a concern with the LX1, even at ISO 400, but Panasonic claims that the noise is much better controlled in the new model (they included an ISO 3200 setting for goodness sake), though that remains to be seen. And it is fully manual, with image stabilization, a zeiss lens, and raw capture. Seems shutter lag and increased depth of field are the main downsides (and the ~$500 less to spend on lenses for my 20D). But the non-intrusiveness of a P&S is really appealing. I guess I should ask my sis what her thoughts are on me following her around with my 20D verses a P&S.

[lb-]

"But don't confuse great compositions with quality captures."

 

yes, god forbid someone should focus on composition over pixel peeping.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I am hoping Canon updates this lens maybe to a fixed f/4 with newer IS and twist rather

than push/pull .. then I'll buy..</i><P>

 

Better save your pennies and doing weight training. If Canon "updates" the 100-400 to a

fixed f4, it will be roughly the

same size (VERY big, > 7 pounds) as the Nikon 200-400/4 VR, and will likely cost more than

the Nikon's $5,000, and also suffer by comparison optically because of the longer zoom

range.

[mark_chappell]

<I>god forbid someone should focus on composition over pixel peeping.</i><P>

 

Yes, and to make such a statement to an audience largely comprised of gearheads....

<I><B>the horror!</i></b>

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas, as usual, you missed the point.

 

All things considered equal....if the same photographer makes the same composition with two different cameras, one providing much better image quality then the other, then it seems more then reasonable to desire the use of the better camera.

 

I think this is very simple. Sorry my words were lost to you.

 

And if you, yourself don't agree with me, then why would you spend so much $$ on your DSLR? To follow your logic, perhaps you'd be better off just spending $150 on a 4mp P&S, yea?!?

 

Perhaps now you get my point?

[lb-]

dan I've been missing the point for a long long time and I'm quite sure nothing you have to say is going to help.

 

but thanks for trying.

 

peep away friend!

[aaronp]

Mark, I really appreciate your very pertinent contribution to my post. Thank you.