Taking XTi to Italy, what other lens(es) needed/suggested?

[chiefkeefe]

My wife and I are going to Italy for a 10 day vacation this Spring and I'll be

taking the XTi (unless I do something dumb like buy an XSi before then and give

her the XTi; which could result in her killing me in my sleep before we leave ,

but I digress...). We plan to take the 10-22 EF-S and the 17-55 EF-S. I've been

reading posts here for several months now (hence the purchase of these 2

lenses) and I can't decide if I should also purchase:

 

 

1) The Sigma 30mm 1.4 prime for low light indoor shots (I'm pretty sure that

there will be many situations on the trip where this lens would come in handy).

I'm leery of the problems reported about this lens by some and certainly don't

want to have to deal with the hassle of sending it in for repair/calibration

right after the purchase. I don't want to miss shots though in "no flash

allowed" areas or have images washed out by the on camera flash with one of the

other two I have already.

 

 

2) A longer lens to complement the 2 or 3 mentioned above. Though expensive for

an amateur couple, the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100-400 IS are under

consideration. I can't see that this lens (whichever one selected) would be

brought out very often on this trip, but I'd ultimately like to have a lens

with some reach to it.

 

 

It's highly likely that financial considerations will dictate that only one of

the two options listed above will be acted upon prior to this trip (see

concerns above about waking up alive and actually taking the trip). Therefore,

to the pros on this board that travel and any amatuers as well, what would

y'all suggest? Option 1? Option 2? Both? Why?

 

 

Thanks in advance for any and all feedback.

 

PK

[bob_osullivan]

Save a few bucks the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is only about $550 and has great image quality in a small/light package. Also a 50 1.8 or 35 F2.

[alan_green4]

70-200 f4 IS. yes. indeed. dawn in tuscany as the sunlight cuts across fog-shrouded vineyards -- compressed at 200mm into a phenomenal shot... oh, yes. that's the ticket

 

given the choice between (possibly) missing (a few) shots because i don't have the sigma (the quality of which is a crap shoot) and being sure i miss gobs of great (once-in-a-lifetime) shots because i don't have a long lens -- well, let me see -- i'd take the 70-200

 

you have the 17-55 (you won't be disappointed). if push comes to shove shoot at really slow speeds and pan. it doesn't have to be hard-sharp to be interesting:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6722900

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6722899

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6722898

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6722895

[wgpinc]

I think for traveling I would seriously consider the new 18-55mm IS lens. I think it makes a neat lightweight package with the XTi. I'm using one on a 20D. Match that up with either the 28mm 1.8 or the 35mm 2.0 plus the 85mm 1.8 and you may have it covered. You have your wide covered with the 10-22mm. Depends a lot on how much you want to carry. I'd probably go light. Here is a sample of the 20D 18-55mm IS combination. <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6916363-md.jpg"></center>

[alan_green4]

oh, here. i shot this with the 17-55 at night. only light is a nearby streetlight and whatever ambient light there was (downtown seattle). shot wide open at 1/40th (i think), high ISO on a 40d

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6798440&size=lg

[m_barbu1]

If you can find something wider than 30mm, and fast, get it.

[markonestudios]

You have the wide end pretty much covered, so I'd say get the 70-300 IS the 50 f/1.8 and a tripod.

<p>Wide angle lenses inherently have great depth of field and stand up to low shutter speed pretty well. Both the 17-55 and 10-22 have received good reviews and should stand you in good stead. Also, the XTi performs well even at higher ISOs, so you should be covered for low-light shooting.

<p>As a personal peeve, I really wish Canon would make their 70-200s in black. White is waaay too conspicuous! Ok, rant over.

<P>Enjoy your trip :)

[markonestudios]

PS You've got some nice shots, Alan :)

[geoffm]

The 17-55 has f/2.8 *and* IS - what more do you need? You may not be able to shoot midnight sports, but you've got all those dim interiors well-covered. The 70-300 is a great travel lens, and so would be the 70-200. The pros and cons of each of these have been done to death!

Leave the 100-400 until you go to Africa!

[amol]

I'm with Bob and Mark. Get a 70-300 IS. You will have a great set of lenses, that covers a nice range.

 

Usually, low-light, "no flash" situations will be in museums, taking a picture of static objects. That means the IS on the 17-55 will be just fine. And IS on the 70-300 will also work for close-up details. For moving objects the f/2.8 on the 17-55 will suffice

 

You already on one of the best EF-S lenses (17-55). I wouldn't waste money on the 18-55 IS, even though it is reportedly a good lens.

[www.loganjarrard.com]

Have you considered the canon 24-105 f4 IS? It's a great all around lens and would give you some more length. Sharp at f4.

<A HREF="http://www.loganjarrard.com/"> MY SITE </A>

[William Michael]

It is unclear to me if the two EF-S lens mentioned (10 to 22 and 17 to 55) have been purchased, or are to be purchased.

 

If not, as a travel kit to Italy, consider the EF-S 10 to 22 and EF 24 to 105F4L. In this regard (for the trip), I believe the sacrifice of 1 stop is worth the extra length for your main zoom lens.

 

Obviously the lens`s uses later, will figure in the purchase decision.

 

In regard to a wide and fast prime 30mm is not wide enough IMO for ` for low light indoor shots`: 24F1.4L is nearer the mark, but, in some instances 24mm will be too long. Italy, indoors, is more cramped than spacious.

 

That said, if the 17 to 55 HAS been purchased, then 17mm to 24mm at f2.8 and using IS will convert a lot more images of indoor architecture, than the 24F1.4L, and the 24mm then becomes an expensive addition.

 

If your intention is to shoot moving subjects in low light (and or in small spaces), then that is a different kettle of fish, however: and a fast prime is needed, but just note 30mm is not that wide (for a trip to Italy, on an APS-C body).

 

If you want a fast lens, then be sure you know what it is you intend to photograph with it..

 

As to the 70 to 200F4L IS: if you pull this lens out of the bag you most likely intend to use 200mm or close to that FL: consider the 200mmF2.8L, it is lighter and faster. (don`t know about price comparison).

 

Summary: if you have purchased the 10 to 22 and the 17 to 55IS, then I think the internal low light (architecture) is more than covered with good shutter technique, getting a fast wide for this purpose is just wasting money.

 

If you want a fast prime for stopping motion, then you must evaluate, primarily, in what shooting arena the motion is to take place, the street at night? inside? and then select a FL suitable for those scenarios.

 

Remember that it is usually easier to get closer, but you can not back up any further, when your back is against a wall.

 

If you really want length, then the 200mmF2.8 (or a 135F2L and perhaps a x1.4MkII) would be my option, with whatever the main zoom is, you choose.

 

If you want length and convenience, then the EF24 to 105LF4IS is impressive as a one lens walk around solution (if the 17 to 55 has not been bought).

 

But you lose the 17 to 24 at F2.8 and IS for the interior architecture . . . how good is your shutter technique and a pocket pod, with the 10 to 22? This is not as silly a suggestion as it might first seem.

 

WW

[rainer_t]

Assuming you already own the 10-22 and the 17-55 IS, I would add the 70-200/4L IS or the 70-300/4-5.6 IS ... that is because 55mm is a bit short as the longest lens.

 

The 30/1.4 is a nice lens, but for indoor shots in museeums or churches, the 17-55 IS will serve you as well. But on the other side ... you can get the 70-300 IS plus the 30/1.4 for the price of the 70-200/4L IS.

 

My personal experience (usually traveling with the 10-22, a Tamron 17-50/2.8 a 70-210/3.5-4.5 and the 30/1.4) is ... the 30/1.4 is the least used lens. But ymmv.

[mark u]

I'm guessing that your trip will be city focussed and entail some combination of e.g. Venice, Florence, Rome, Pompeii.

 

I think it unlikely that the 30mm f/1.4 will really suit you for this trip: the speed helps freeze subject movement or provide narrow depth of field: you need a clear idea of where such features would be useful to justify it, unless you already have e.g. experience of night time street photography.

 

I do think you will find that a good table top tripod will be useful for those occasions when IS really isn't sufficient (or available with your 10-22) for capturing dark interiors in their full glory. Braced against a pew or pillar, it will allow some lower ISO shots at narrow apertures. Shots that last some seconds can also make moving people "disappear". I own a Leica version with its ballhead, and it really is excellent for this kind of shooting, as well as being pocketable when folded (a large coat pocket) - there is a Manfrotto/Bogen that is similar. A larger tripod - even as compact as say a Velbon Luxi SF - is no longer as easily hidden and may cause you grief when visiting some places. A wired remote avoids the flashing countdown that is the attention drawing giveaway of using the self timer.

 

So far as longer lenses are concerned, I would be tempted to travel without. A 100-400 might be useful for a safari, but you really won't want to be carrying that around. Even a 70-200 f/4 can start to seem like a burden if it is getting at best sparing use. Travel light and you are much more likely to make the effort to seek out the more interesting point of view or subject on foot. I think that will gain you many more interesting shots than you will lose through not having a long tom. With that in mind, if you feel you really must take something I would place a high premium on small and light with acceptable performance stopped down to f/8 - but I wouldn't bother. I think you have made a very good choice of lenses already.

[chiefkeefe]

Thanks to all for the feedback thus far. Rome, Venice, Florence and Tuscany (~2 days in each) are the locations. So, mostly city shooting.

 

 

Yes, I do have the 10-22 EF-S (for landscapes/wide city shots) and the 17-55 EF-S F/2.8 IS as my "walkaround" lens already.

 

 

I think I'll pass on the Sigma 30mm after seeing these replies. Now I just need to decide which long lens to get (just to address some of the comments, I do have a compact tripod that I'm taking and I certainly wouldn't carry this longer lens around the entire time). I really want the 70-200 F/4 IS, but agreed that a big honkin' white lens really can stick out and draw unwanted attention. I'm still open to going this route though if it provides better IQ over the 70-300 IS. I guess I just need to go research reviews/posts comparing these 2 lenses and see if ~2x the price, attention grabbing white and a few more grams in weight (about 20% more) push me to the 70-300 over the 70-200. There's really not that much differnce in weight between the two and I'm already carrying around the 17-55 (which is actually a little heftier than the 70-300).

 

 

Thanks again to all that have replied. I think I've got it narrowed down and just need to make a decision. I can wait all the way up until early May to pull the trigger. Is there any good reason to wait until then?

 

PK

[phule]

The 70-300 IS is a really nice lens, especially for the money. Were I in your shoes I would go that route over the 70-200. But that's just me :)

[ben_quinn1]

the 50mmf/1.8 is a no brainer at $70, and on your 1.6 x sensor is ok for portraits indoors in low light in restuarants etc.

[m_barbu1]

I bought the EF 50mm f/1.8 II upon reading such suggestions on photo.net. It's the equivalent of 80mm on an XTi, which makes it a (short) telephoto lens. Be sure you understand the ramifications of this, before you buy it. I ended up selling mine, because the focal length is useless to me. I prefer a longer focal length for portraits, and there's not much else it's good for IMO. It also doesn't focus as fast as other lenses due to the lack of USM. So, it's not really as much of a no-brainer as you might think.

[phule]

It's just possible that other people aren't using the lens for the same application as you, M Barbu. Your photographic needs are not necessarily the same as everyone else.

[chiefkeefe]

Another variable that changes things significantly; I do plan after this trip to use this longer lens for some wildlife shots (birds mostly) back home. I really should have mentioned this sooner. This was the reason originally for including the 100-400 IS lens. I don't think I have any more questions at this point. I just need to make up my mind about how much $ I'm willing to spend.

 

Thanks again to all.

 

PK

[djphoto]

Lighter is better. In fact, lighter is much, much better. First-timers to Europe are always surprised at how much walking will be required. When my wife and I went to Italy and Switzerland in 2005, I carried two 20Ds, a Sigma 14/f2.8, a 24-85/f3.5-4.5, a 35/f2, and a 70-300/f4-5.6 non-IS. I owned a 70-200/f2.8L-IS at the time, but thankfully did not take it because of the weight. I now have the 70-200/f4L, and it is a great lens, but for travel I would choose the 70-300-IS.

 

I used the Sigma a lot, but it was a heavy chunk of glass to carry.

 

My advice: the two lenses you have plus the 70-300-IS and maybe the 35/f2.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Your photographic needs are not necessarily the same as everyone else.</i></p><p>I agree wholeheartedly, Rob! As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was trying to convey, too! :-)</p>

[mark u]

For an expensive vacation trip it makes sense to have a setup you will use - you don't want to be tempting an Albanian chambermaid with exotic lenses left lying in your room. Consider what you might use when you get back home as a completely separate exercise, and buy what makes best sense for the photography you plan to do. If you want to shoot birds, then I'd be thinking of the 400 f/5.6 as a starting point. For pigeons in St Mark's Square you might feel a twelve bore was more appropriate - you won't want your birding lens.

[m_barbu1]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YVZ">Unless you convert it into a scope!</a> ;-)

[rlconzatti]

My wife and I went on a tour last year in Italy. I also have a xti, 98% of the time I had on the 18-55 and the other 2% a 70-300is. The only thing that I missed was a really wide lens which you have. As to taking a tripod don't unless you get to the "tourist" attractions before anyone else. Many times there were so many people that there was only standing room. I took a monopod which worked just dandy.

 

Rob