Gear to bring to India

[cnhoff]

Hi,

 

last time i went backpacking in India for 3 months, i had a EOS 30 and a 28-200

lens with me, very comfortable. I will go to India again this spring for another

6 weeks.

 

Now i have a 30D, 17-55 IS, 70-200 f/4 and a Tokina 12-24.

 

Would you bring the Tokina or leave it at home? I know, you can't answer this

100% because i have to know what i like to shoot with, but i have had the Tokina

only for some time and don't really have so much experience with it.

 

Thanks

 

Chris

[bob_sunley]

No one can answer that question except you, so why ask in the first place?

I'd bring a couple of F bodies, 50 rolls of film and a few lenses.

[steve_dawson1]

If it were me I would definitely take it. If I were you I would review the photos from your last trip and see what proportion used the wide end of that zoom (which at its widest is narrower than your Tokina). Also cast your mind back and see if you recall numerous occasions where you wished for a wider angle of view.

[steve_dawson1]

Sorry didn't notice you had a 17-55. But what I said still goes: of photos you missed on your previous trip how many would the 17-55 have made possible, and how many would have required the Tokina?

[bnyc]

I say leave it. How useful will it really be? You've travelled with just one lens before, so

I assume you are aware that you can get away with less than you think you need. The

17-55 is an ideal travel lens, though perhaps too short on the tele end. But it will be

"good enough" most of the time, and one extra lens covers your tele needs. How many

times will you really want to shoot wider than 27mm equivalent? How much will it cost

you in terms of slowing you down to change lenses? How much space and weight will

you give up for a handful of shots and how much better will they really be with the wider

view? Ultimately it's up to you, but I'd personally leave it at home. Heck, I'd consider

leaving the 70-200 at home too, but it is probably worth taking.

[cnhoff]

Yes Peter, that is exactly, what i was thinking.

 

For explanation: i am no newbie ( in photography and traveling in India), but i am a newbie with this lens. I have had a lot of joy with it on a recent short trip to Paris, but that was mainly because it was new and i tried some "weird" perspective stuff with it. I have also used it for some landscape shots: great results. There is no question, i want focal lenghts starting from a decent wideangle to a tele (full frame 28-200 minimum).

 

But i cannot estimate how useful it will be on this trip compared to the effort it takes to carry it everywhere.

 

The dilemma is, that trips like these are the "highlights" of my photographic activities and for those it makes sense to use ALL meaningfull equipment i have worked for so hard alongside my studies. But on the other side i don't want to constantly think: why did i take it with me, it is a "royal pain in the butt" ;)

[david_henderson]

I've photographed in India and had nothing wider than a 50mm for my 6x6 and 67 systems- which are no wider than your 17mm capability. I didn't feel in any way restricted by lack of a wider lens. I could always get far enough away from my subjects to cope well. But only you know whether you will be actively looking to make cropped panoramas and photographs with the sort of perspective available with a very wide lens. Presumably thats why you bought the lens- I mean the relatively small increase in angle of view isn't in itself likely to be crucial for most subjects. So you've seen India more than most already- is it an opportunity for those sorts of images or not? And if it is are you content to ignore the opportunity? Were the shots you took in Paris very different from what you could achieve with the other short zoom?

 

I understand the "travel light" mantra but for me I'd rather believe I had the tools at my disposal to make the most of a trip than save a pound or two in the bag. If you are the sort of person who'd feel deeply frustrated by inability to take the sort of photographs you want when the opportunity occurs then you might want to behave differently from the person who can shrug and be content to make the most of what they've got.

[patrick_p]

I just got back from India a few weeks ago and only brought my 18-200 VR with a 60mm macro. I left my 12-24 at home and didn't really miss it. I only really use it in cities and for landscapes. It might have been nice to have from time to time but not worth carrying around... in my opinion.

[donald_weston1]

Patrick - just a couple of quick questions, how much did you use the 60mm Macro, as the 18-200VR focuses fairly close? Was the 200mm[=300mm] enough of a telephoto for you? Considering a trip and wondering about other lenses, such as a 16mm instead of a 10-20mm, 50mm 1.4, and 70-300mmVR. size and weight are considerations. Thanks, Don

[RickDB]

Just back from a 3 week organized tour of northern India - I took a Canon 10-22mm lens (on 40D) which I found invaluable for interiors of palaces and forts. It is also great for taking candid shots of people - they don't realize that they are included in the wide field of view.

 

If you are primarily interested in landscapes, then stitching pictures to give a panorama is a good alternative to an ultra wide angle lens.

Enjoy your trip...Rick

[patrick_p]

I have to admit I rarely took the 60mm out of the bag even though I had it with me all the time. I used it for some portraits and a few detail shots of food and whatever. Could I have lived without it, yes! A 50mm f/1.4 would have been better as I could have used it as a low light lens. I find 200mm [300mm] to be plenty for my needs. However this is a personal things and I don't do much wildlife photography.

<br><br>

I haven't posted my India shots yet but plan to by the end of the month. <br>

<a href="http://www.patrickperon.com">Patrick Peron Travel Photography</a>

[patrick_p]

Oh, and I didn't really feel I needed anything wider than 18mm so was glad I didn't bring my 12-24. Again bring it if you'll regret not having it.

[nathan_wong3]

I do a lot of travel photography and find that constantly changing lenses is a real pain. In fact once my camera is out I don't even put the lens cap on (I use a UV filter for protection though!) as I don't like to waste time, I see something, I shoot. I used to waste time changing lenses, putting caps on and off etc that sometimes (especially in India) by the time you see something interesting happeneing, then spend time arming yourself with the 'perfect' lens, the shot has gone! Just stick on a lens that gives you the most versitile focal range and one you are used to, with a second lens to compliment it (either through speed or focal length). I would suggest the 17-55 and the 70-200 for when you need a bit more range which is important for India as you can't always walk closer to the subject there. I am fairly sure once you are there you will be more intrigued by what you see to be thinking "12mm or 17mm? Is 17mm wide enough for this shot? Maybe I should change lenses?" (giggle) - just take the shot :)

[nathan_wong3]

I might add that I would also be concerned with what bag you are taking. Get something that is weather proof, and also holds your camera where you can keep a close eye on it. The lowepro toploader AW series are great as they come with a chest harness so the whole bag sits in front of you, allowing you to wear a rucksack on your back, as well as allowing you to always see your gear so pickpockets can't sneakily unzip a bag on your back (they are very good at that). "I'll use my 70-200... hey where is it?"

[glenn_losack]

favorite places to photograph in india?????????

been there many times

what say you

[Ian Taylor]

Go minimal. Zoom and couple of fast primes.