chris_o Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm off to Kashmir shortly, and still struggling with what to take - I've only just got converted to digital, so have had some heavy costs already... 40D17-35 /3.5-4.7 Tamron100mm /2.8 Macro Canon (Sony Cybershot p+s for emergency/convenience) Polarising filters and a 50mm 1.8 Canon? Obviously many of you would suggest more expensive lenses, but it's just not an option right now. I actually find the Tamron pretty decent (obviously it was better on my film bodies than on a crop digital, but ah well). I love my macro lens, and will use it as a portrait etc lens too, but on a crop body I realise it'll be a bit long for actual portraiture - do you think the 50mm is a must? I'm trying to keep it really light... ThanksChris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trebor_navilluso Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Yes I think you need the 50 for low light, nice bokeh and it's small enough. Use that for portraits. leave the 100 home. Let the 17-35 be your walk around lens for this trip. If you were looking to buy something (not too expensive) I'd recomend the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. It's razor sharp, fast focusing and small and light for under $300. For longer I carry a canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS $550. Also very small and light for what it does. I carry these with a 50 and maybe a 35 plus 430EX on a XTi for traveling light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken munn Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I had a trip to Rajahstan earlier this year. My 'standard' zoom is f2.8, and I was glad of it because quite a lot of the charm of architecture there is the interiors, and they are not brightly lit - the priority was to keep the sun out, not let it in. However, 50mm would be long for interior shots - perhaps you could look at a 20 or 28mm f2.8?. The longest lens I had (on a 40D) was 105mm but it was used very infrequently - I could have got by with just an ultra-wide zoom and a standard zoom, and not missed much that I wanted to photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Unless you are doing safari animal shots, a long zoom is not really necessary, but the top end on your Tamron is pretty short. The 50mm f/1.8 is even cheaper if you find a good used one (for a quick buy and a warranty try B&H, Adorama, etc), and it will be handy for indoor shots at the very good 1600 ISO or the still pretty good 3200. I lugged a 90mm Tamron macro all around Egypt and didn't use it once, but your style may vary, of course, especially if it's the only long lens you have along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_myers Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'd never leave my 100/2.8 macro at home. But, that's just me. I think the 50/1.8 is a great idea, especially if you like to shoot a lot of people pics. I like the 50/1.4 better personally, but he 50/1.8 is a very good value. Be sure to use a lens hood with it, to help eliminate any flare. Canon 35/2, 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 might be alternatives to consider, but that depends on you. A polarizer can be helpful, especially in high sun. A UV filter might be helpful cutting through hazes, and occasionally for protection purposes in difficult shooting situations . I keep UVs in the camera bag most of the time (I'm not a believer in leaving them on a lens all the time, a lens hood does a better job protecting the lens, plus can really improve images, IMHO) 17mm isn't very wide, but might be all you need. Plus, any wider will add a lot of cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_c11 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 My "standard" travel lens is the Sigma 30mm F1.4. It's versatile, fast, and produces some really nice images. On a recent trip to Italy, I found it was good enough for 99% of all shots (and certainly helped lighten my load). However, I recently picked up a Canon 70-200mm F4 L IS that is starting to spend more time on my body than the Sigma. I've found that the extra reach allows me to get pictures of people and architecture that I wouldn't even come close to getting with the shorter lens. The 70-200 definitely adds some bulk to my travel, but I find it worthwhile because of this. If you want to stay light, you can get away with a 30mm or 50mm lens. But if you like to capture architectural details or snap un-posed pictures of people, the extra reach offered by your 100mm (or something even longer) is something you may not be able to live without... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I have thee lenses when I travel with my 40D and together they go from 10mm to 300mm. If I had to leave one lens at home it would be the long focal length (70-300 IS DO). I would not go without my 10-22mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tscheung Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 My travel kit in dayback: 5D, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS and 50 f1.8 (back up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_o Posted June 17, 2008 Author Share Posted June 17, 2008 Thanks for all your input. Looks like I'll take 40D+ 19-35mm Tamron + 50mm 1.8 Canon + 100mm 2.8 Macro Canon... Thats about as light as I can keep it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I think, in the words of the old guardian-- "you have chosen wisely" Thinking it over again, I recall that in the mid-20th century our longest lens was often a 135mm and somehow we did fine. A 160mm lens would have been considered extravagant, and that's the equivalent on your 40D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayhay Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Doing the Milford track in November and agonising over the same thing. The heavier long lens will be left I feel. Will make do with my 11 to 18mm and 18 to 55mm. Will check my pack weight and make a last sec decision on my 100mm canon. Regards Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obakesan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Chris O just came back from Rajastan. I took just two lenses on a 10D Tokina 12-24 and EF 100-300. I felt that the 100-300 would be too long and in the main it was. We went to a tiger park in ranthambore where the tiger came within 12 meters of the jeep. I've missed my good old EF35-70 which came with my EOS 630 so many years ago. I think that this lens and the 12-24 would make a good travelling pair (given that its a little over 100mm on the APS camera). The 12-24 is a brick in comparison and weighs as much as the bloody camera! Back in film times I preferred just a 24mm and a 50mm, so I'd like a plastic EOS full frame body and these two for light weight. If they made a 350D with a full frame sensor I'd be all over it. Some snapshots here for comparison / reference to your style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obakesan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Ohh ... and don't leave your compact behind either. There's just some places you can't really take anything else with you. Well, unless you like attracting attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 If they made a 350D with a full frame sensor I'd be all over it. 5D is very close to what you need for FF and it has instant rebate now. 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