Travel Lenses

[sirfish]

Hi All,

I'm heading off to Belgium, Holland, and Germany for a two week trip

next week. Still trying to decide on my lens lineup for normal

vacation shots. I'm bringing the Rebel XT as the body and leaning

toward the 17-40L and a 50mm 1.8.

 

But I'm still debating on bringing my 70-200mm f4, or my sigma 24-70

2.8. I don't like the AF perf of the sigma, but the photos are still

nice. Just thinking that with all the indoors shots in pubs and

breweries, the 17mm range will be needed, but so will a bigger

aperture ;) Hmm...maybe the 100mm Macro too.

 

It's my first time traveling for a long time on 1.6x camera, so just

wondering what other folks are dragging around in their bags. Also

have a 100-300 3.5/4.6 and 18-55 3.5/5.6 to choose from, but don't

see them being an option.

 

Thanks Keith

[steve santikarn]

I would take 17-40, 70-200 f4 because they are your best lenses, and throw in 50 mm f 1.8 also because it is light and fast and covers the gap between the 2 lenses nicely.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I agree. I have the 17-40 (among others) and on my 20D I'd say it's essential. I haven't found it too slow; with the 20D, or your XT, you can crank up the ISO and still get pretty good results. I got <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/switzerland2005/0403Barinterior.jpg" target="_blank">a shot on my trip to Switzerland last summer in a dimly-lit bar at ISO 3200</a>, and after cleaning up the noise, it made a great 4x6" and would do well even printed larger than that. Not bad at all for 3200.</p>

 

<p>If the size and weight of the 70-200 wouldn't be a problem, take that one, too. For me, the 24-70 duplicates the 17-40 too much, yet doesn't go long enough. The 50/1.8 is small and light and so you can probably fit it in your kit along with the rest. That gives you a good travel kit. Yes, I'd leave the 100-300 and 18-55 at home.</p>

 

<p>As for me, my travel kit with a film body was the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM if I was travelling light, and if I had a bit more room, I'd take either the 100-300 (back when I had it) or the 50/1.4 with me. Now that I'm using the 1.6-crop 20D, my travel kit is the 17-40 and the 28-135. Neither one alone does the job, but together, they make a versatile general-purpose kit.</p>

[mike_broderick]

Unless you never feel the urge to shoot wide, I'd say the 17-40 would be the least you'd need, and it's a none-too-wide field of view. If it were me, I'd be wanting one of the 10-XX or 12-XX supderduperwide zooms instead.

 

You don't discuss for us much whether this is a family trip, or primarily a photography trip. If I were going to Europe and photography was not a prime purpose of the trip, I'd probably be content with your 17-40 and 24-70 on a 1.6 crop body. 70-200/4 would be wonderful for architectural details and the like, but I don't know that I'd bother with the weight and the attention it draws on a trip that wasn't primarily photographic. On the other hand, I'd seriously consider bringing a tabletop tripod, or even one of those ultralight ones.

 

I doubt you'd want to add lenses, but I find the Canon 135/2.8 soft focus lens to be a nice thing to stick in my pocket if I want some telephoto capability, but don't want to carry something that is heavy or attention-getting. I've frequently been content shooting landscapes and some closeups with just a 16-35 zoom, 50mm macro, and the 135/2.8 on a full-frame body.

[jim_larson1]

I always bring ALL my lenses on vacation. . .but they don't all leave the hotel room each day.

 

My current "day bag" has a 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and one flash unit.

 

For day trips in the country. . .the flash stays home and the 702-00/4L comes with me. For "pubs" or churches. . .I would be inclined to add another fast prime (either a 35/2 or 24/2.8) and leave the flash unit home.

 

You definately need something longer than 70mm with you. . .but not every day.

 

Don't forget batteries and a way to back up the CF cards. Don't forget the travel converter. I "think" the XT charger will take 240V if you have a plug adaptor. I use a computer for saving images (and burn CD's as well)

[pbizarro]

While travelling, the simpler the better. In my case, I tend to carry two fast prime lenses, typically a 28/85 or 35/85 combination. I just like the simplicity of it.

 

Of course lots of people also carry f/2.8 zooms to cover the 24/28-200 range. In your case, I would take the 24-70 zoom, and the 70-200 zoom, unlesse you want to buy more (prime) lenses.

[wbowman]

Hi - my standard travel kit for travel has been the a Digital Rebel + 17-40L. I covers a

good, medium range that works for me for 80% or more of standard vacation photos. I

also generally have a 50/1.8 in the bag but I don't ever seem to use it. In the cities of

Europe I'm always looking for wide instead of long. The 17-40L and 50 combo on a film or

full-frame camera would cover more than 90% of what I like to shoot. That being said, I've

never had a real telephoto lens so I never really notice pictures that would be taken with

one!

 

The big down-side to that L lens is weight. I started out with the kit 18-55 and found it

light and easy to carry. The quality was just OK. I now see better technical quality from my

photos with the L lens, but my shoulder pays the price after a day of walking around!<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

17-40/4 + 50/1.8 + 100/2.8 is a great travel kit. Personally I'd leave the 70-200/4 at home. As it is white, it attracts a lot of unwanted attention.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[robin_sibson1]

I have done plenty of photography in the countries you are visiting (no big deal since I live in the UK). They are not entirely concreted over, but nevertheless it is probably fair to assume you will be doing a lot of urban work. The 17~40 on a 1.6-factor camera is a fine lens, but as others have pointed out you may find it a bit limiting at the long end, and 50/1.8 doesn't really get you much further (although you might want it for speed - end-of-February in NW Europe is still a touch gloomy). However, 70~200 may well be over-kill, and it could be well worth taking the Sigma. Where you will surely feel limited is at the wide end. Canon 10~22 and the Sigma would be just about ideal; treat yourself. I now use the 10~22 and Canon 24~105 as my walk-around kit on a 20D, which is a near-perfect combination.

 

If you like pubs and breweries, be sure to visit what is now called De Bekeerde Suster, 6-8 Kloveniersburgwal, in Amsterdam. The amazing copper brew kettle sits in the middle of the bar area. Last time I was there (Nov 2004) they were not actively brewing, as the previous owners did (when it was called the Brouwhuis Maximiliaan, after the Holy Roman Emperor who built the city wall), but were talking about re-starting. In any event, it is worth a visit and you can get a good glass of beer and a decent not-too-expensive meal there. Look at

 

http://www.adrianbell.co.uk/pubs/amsterdam/

 

for details of this and other places.

 

In Brussels, visit the ORIGINAL Leon's (it's now a chain/franchise) on Rue des Bouchers - bit touristy but worth a look, you could even eat some mussels there. While you are in Belgium, try to get to Leuven (Louvain) and Antwerp.

[dirk_dom]

I live in Antwerp / Belgium.

 

At least in Belgium towns you'll see lots of ultrawide vista's (The Cathedral of Antwerp, the Grote Markt in Brussels, Bruges, Ghent,...

 

I think the 17/40 isn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera. When I walk downtown Antwerp, I have a 20-35 mm on a 35mm camera, and I can't do without a 14mm to shoot churches. For architecture detail I use a 70 - 210. And to complete it, I have a 28 - 105.

 

But of course you can have a lot of fun with your 17 - 40.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about white 70 - 200 lenses, there are lots & lots of tourists everywhere, shooting with all kinds of camera's. I took night shots in Antwerp with a 600 mm several times and never got mugged.

 

Also in Amsterdam you can get great shots with ultrawide lenses.

 

Be sure to visit Antwerp: The Cathedral's tower is considered world heritage, and the night life is great.

 

Dirk.

[delwyn_ching]

When I travel, I always bring:

 

17-40L, 50 f1.4, 70-200 f4 and my 580ex flash, but depends where I think I may go, I don't bring everything. It seems though, I bring the 17-40 and 50 f1.4 most of the time and 70-200 if I'm going to take nature/landscape shots.

[ted_marcus1]

I carry two lenses with my Rebel XT: Tokina 12-24 and Canon 28-135IS. They cover all the range I need (though not as conveniently as I'd like) and fit in a relatively compact camera bag. I've found that having more than two lenses (and an appropriately larger bag) is more of a liability than an asset for travel.

 

Although many people recommend a 50mm lens, I really don't see much point to it on a 1.6 crop camera unless you're taking a lot of portraits. It's a very usable length for a film or full-frame camera, but it's much less useful when cropped. I also don't have much need for a longer lens than 135mm. It's equivalent to just over 210mm on film, which is plenty long for travel (though it wouldn't be long enough for wildlife or birds).

[disneyry]

Depends on what you're doing and where you're going but I like the 17-40L & 28-135 IS. Good range and everything fits into a small bag.

[sirfish]

Hmm, hadn't really thought about the 135mm SF. But I do have that lens as well as the 35-135mm 3.5/4.5. Older lenses I haven't used in quite a while.

 

This trip isn't a photo trip per se, but a beer trip, with plenty of photo ops ;) It's centered around the Zythos Bier Festival in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. With lots of trips to world class breweries and pubs in between.