Travelling light: system recommendations please!

[damon_macleod]

I’m an aspiring photographer in the “thank God this MA is almost over, it’s time to do some travelling” stage of life,

and I’m about to invest in my first dslr system. I’ve managed to avoid the consumerism bug, and I’m pretty sure that

a Rebel XSi will take care of most of my needs at this stage. Lenses are the real question.

 

I’ll be travelling in East Africa, and hope to spend a decent amount of time on Safari, but the truth is, I might end up

anywhere in the world, shooting whatever there is to see. Here’s the trouble: I’ll be travelling very light—no more than

one massive backpack, and certainly no tripod or bulky camera accessories. My main considerations, then, are

versatility and bulk reduction, which seem to be difficult goals to reconcile.

 

I was initially considering an 18-200mm lens, and with a little comparison shopping, I’ve priced out a $1200 package

for both body and lens. Unfortunately, I’ve also found a package that includes 18-55mm, 55-250mm and 75-300mm

lenses, plus body, for $1240.

 

Hence the conundrum. I suspect that I will not want to carry around 3 bulky lenses with me wherever I go for a year

(or more.) That said, $40 for an extra lens seems like an offer I can’t refuse.

 

What are your experiences? Will I never forgive myself for giving up the extra 100mm of zoom, or will I curse myself

for dragging along 3 lenses, when 1 would have done the trick? And is the XSi really the best tool for the job

(considering that I’m certainly no professional, but seem to have a good eye, and might like to be some day)? Or

would I be better served by an old 20 or 30D?

[scott_ferris]

Hi Damon,

 

I have, and still do, travel a lot, my early kit and still full on stuff is the three 2.8 zooms. My light weight

one small bag for everything is a 16-35. Don't know how this helps but it is what I use. I have found I can shoot

70% of the pictures I want with that one lens, the rest just adds weight complexity and security issues.

 

Don't get a huge rucksack, it is pointless, anything you want anywhere you can buy for nearly nothing, clothes,

toiletries, adapters etc etc. I travel cheap, and I see so many people travel heavy, you just don't need to. Last

year I did a quick circumnavigation, 3 months, and I did it with camera, 17" laptop, lens, chargers, all my

clothes, papers, everything, in one carry on back pack.

 

Take care and have fun, oh and number one piece of advice from all the Americans I meet along the way, if anybody

asks, you are Canadian. Scott.

[tdigi]

For this very reason I decided on adding either a Panasonic Lx3 or a Canon G10. Not to replace my DSLR but for the

times I don't want to carry all my gear or I just want to go light.

 

As to your question maybe consider what you would be shooting. If you like landscapes an ultra wide would be nice ( 10-

XX range ) . you may want a very fast lens like a 50 1.4 ( I would suggest you have at least 1 prime ). But for travel I

think an 18-200 would make a pretty nice lens, from what I have seen the image quality is close to the 3 lens setup you

have picked out. ( by the way I would just take 1 tele and probably the 55-250 )

 

Maybe the 18-200 and a 50 1.4. or if you want to up your image quality a Tamron 17-50 2.8 ( $400 ) and a 55-250 would

make a nice combo as well.

[JDMvW]

Money is, of course, always the issue. The XSi should be fine and it's probably better to get a new one than to

buy someone else's problems. You will, however, need to work out some scheme for archiving your pictures as you

go. Take along at least some kind of backup camera, perhaps a point and shoot like one of the PowerShots. Another

possibility is to buy a used Canon EOS film camera, many of them are very inexpensive and will take EF lenses

(though <b>not</b> EF-S).

<p>

The great Moby Dicks of the Canon world, the great white lenses, are certainly the best that Canon has to offer,

but if you are like most graduating Masters people, I'm supposing that budget is a real issue, especially if you

are paying for all that airfare, etc.

 

Perhaps the most portable and certainly the cheapest solution is to simply get the two Canon "kit" lenses-- the

18-55mm IS and the 55-250mm IS. These are, however, EF-S lenses and will not work with a film Canon EOS camera.

These two lenses are supposed to be pretty decent optically, are very light weight, and the 18-255mm. range would

be adequate for safari shots on a 15x22mm sensor camera like the XSi. The EF 75-300mm is a non-IS cheapie that is

very affordable, but is worse precisely in the 250-300mm range where it does not overlap with the 55-250. Only if

you are really strapped for $ should you get this one, and not <i>WITH</i> the EF-S 55-250mm lens. It will,

however work

on a 35mm camera.

<p>

Look at the 18-200mm, see if it is portable enough for you, but from what I see in the reviews, the kit lens

solution may be better. The 18-200mm, too, is EF-S.

[nhut-nguyen]

The 75-300 is not a good lens and it doesn't have IS, get it if it's only $40 more. If you want to travel light just bring the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Bring extra batteries and SD cards. If you want a little more reach, you can get the XSi + 18-55 IS kit and the 70-300 IS ($480).

[jason_sprenger1]

For hand-held photography, the 17-85/f4-5.6 has a very nice range, light to carry and IS. The 17-55/f2.8 IS offers a stop or two more speed at the expense of a bit of focal length. Either of these two offer a lot for an EOS with a APS-C sized sensor if only one lens can be used.

 

In Africa, taking along a longer lens is advised. Without a tripod or vehicle mount and traveling light, the 70-300/f4-5.6 IS or 70-300/f4.5-5.6 DO IS would serve as well as anything. The latter is more compact than the former but about as heavy or heavier.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Yes I think the XSi is the best tool for the job. It's lighter than any of the 10-50D cameras.

 

My travel setup: XTi, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 10-20, Canon 55-250 IS or Canon 85/1.8

 

I bought the 55-250 as a travel lens. Sharp and light. One the one hand it's nice to have 250 mm, but on the other hand there's nothing like a nice small fast prime such as 85/1.8. The 55-250 is too slow at the short end for my tastes, and bokeh and close focus performance is pretty mediocre. That's why I'm now ditching the 55-250 for the 85/1.8. I used to carry Tamron 90/2.8 macro, but AF is pretty slow with that one.

 

I love ultrawide - I wouldn't think of going without my beloved Sigma 10-20. I think Canon 10-22 is lighter. At the time I bought it the Sigma seemed like a better buy, but the price difference has since shrunk a lot.

 

Normal lens. I love my Tamron 17-50/2.8, but the IS kit lens certainly looks very good. Light and sharp, that's what you want. f/2.8 has its advantages, but the 17-50 mm range is not a lens where you can achieve a lot of selective focus. I think the kit lens may be a good buy for you.

 

I'd pass on the 18-200 and the 75-300. As for wildlife, maybe you can rent a big lens locally for the safari? Some folks tell me that they get you so close to the wildlife that 100 mm is enough. Others say that 400 mm is the minimum. Remember if you want bokeh you need aperture, and aperture is heavy. I have carried my 200/2.8 with teleconverter on short trips, but it is heavy. It is also expensive and therefore needs to be baby-sat in the daypack. Ugh. Remember digital photos are easily cropped.

[eric_washburn]

I'm going to suggest some equipment that goes beyond your budget, but if you can accumulate the funds I think you'll find that these lenses will suit you for a long time, and they will also work with a full-frame digital camera. Consider the 17-40 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4. As you may know, the latter is available with and without IS; your interests and funds will help you choose between the two. For your next purchase, perhaps a moderately expensive wildlife lens, either the 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6. The former has IS (you can find older models without it); the latter does not. Both are probably a little sharper than the 100-400 zoom (also with IS); while not as versatile as that zoom, if you already have the 70-200, you won't lose much, though you'll be changing lenses more often. Eventually you will probably want longer reach, and the 1.4 teleconverter is a good choice, though you will lose AF on the 400.

[dave_l.]

I use Nikon cameras, but I will share some thoughts anyways because I'm going to very shortly be traveling for 5

months in much the same way you are: one backpack and limited camera equipment.

 

In the end, I have two pieces of advice for you:

 

1. Keep it simple. Most people are suggesting an 18-55 + 55-250 or an 18-200. I don't know these specific lenses,

but this is a great range to start out with and is probably all you need right now.

 

2. Do NOT make your big trip the first time you use any of this equipment, especially if this is your first SLR. There

is a learning curve with all of this. If you do not spend significant time using your equipment before your trip, you risk

ruining once in a lifetime shots and you would have been better off just taking a good point and shoot camera like

you're used to. Practice, practice, practice.

[tim gray]

I've never done a HUGE trip like the ones some people are mentioning, but I have travelled with camera gear and would

recommend traveling as light as possible. A big gigantic lens can be a real pain in the butt. Better off missing a shot

because you didn't have your 200mm lens on you than missing a shot because you left your camera and 18-200mm lens

in the room.

 

For this reason, I moved to rangefinders. I can fit a camera body with a 50 mounted and a 28 in a very small bag (I think

its the LowePro Sliplock Pouch 50). I'm sure I could fit my 15mm in there too if I wanted. Makes a big difference when

walking around a city all day.

 

I'm not saying you should get a rangefinder. I would just recommend not carrying a huge kit with a bunch of lenses or

one huge do all lens. The 24-105 IS lens is a very nice lens and would probably get you 90% of the shots you want. Or

the 17-55 IS lens mentioned above.

 

Of course, ignore all of this if you have very specific needs in mind, liking birding, etc., that require big heavy lenses.

[rainer_t]

May be that's a case for the Tamron 18-270/3.5-6.3 VC.

[brad_farwell]

I have a 30d, the 17-85 IS (IQ seems good to me), and a 50/1.4 and my kit fits in one of those little tamron bags that's probably 8x4x5, including two extra batteries, four extra cards, card reader, cable, charger, manual, and a little strip of CTO gel to tape over the flash. It's a really tight fit with the 50/1.4 (great for low light or portraiture, but you probably don't need it) but take that out and throw in a tiny folding tripod, and you've got all you need to travel around with in a package the size of a couple john grisham novels.

 

If you're going on safari to Africa, you might want a longer lens (you should at least have a lens shade), but if you want to be ready for anything and travel really light, this kit will totally do it for you. It's never too heavy or bulky to carry around, and I've never hit a situation that I couldn't at least kludge together a solution for. It's not a realistic setup for dedicated pro use, but it's fabulous for when you have priorities (like ease of travel, meeting folks, etc.) outside of just picture-taking.

[brad_farwell]

gah...

 

Sorry, tamron = tamrac. I think it's the "601 Expo 1" model, though I can't really tell from the shot on b/h's website...

[tudor_apmadoc]

I travel alot taking photos.... My most recent stuff from New Zealand is at

http://www.apmadoc.net/Photos/Tudors_Gallery/Pacific/New%20Zealand/index.html

 

 

I carry 3 lenses with me

16-35MM F2.8 L USM

24-105 F4 L IS USM - this is the lens I keep on my camera by default

70-200 F2.8 L IS USM

 

I've found that for "most" situaitons these 3 fit my needs - there have been a few times where I wish I had a 400mm

lens, but that's rare.

 

I have a UV filter on each lens. When doing outdoor work, I always keep a circular polarizer on the lens I'm shooting

with. I keep a ND4 and ND2 specifically for shooting things like waterfalls

 

I also keep a 580EX flash with me - I always us that outdoors when I'm taking pics of people during the brightest

parts of the day.

 

I have a small backpack bag - a LowePro 200 that everything fits in.

 

Have just starting using a GorillaPod, and have had a lot of sucess with it, very light and flexible, though no subtitute

for a true tripod.

[tdigi]

Tudor, did you mean a Lowpro slingshot 200? I have a similar setup and i was considering that or the 300.

[tudor_apmadoc]

It's a Micro Trekker 200. At the time, I remember looking at the SlingShot and didn't think it would hold everything I needed.

[brad_farwell]

@ Tudor- no offense, but that kit seems both too big to carry with you if you're student-style backpacking around, and waaaay outside the price range of someone who is buying a digital rebel.

[pbizarro]

I am going on a tangent here, and I will suggest the Pentax K20D plus their pancake lenses. The Pentax is probably the best mid-range DSLR you can buy now, and Pentax lenses are second to none. A few years ago, I used to have the manual Nikon FM3 and a pancake lens, perfect travel kit. The Pentax comes very close to that approach. For that matter, so does Olympus.

 

A normal zoom will cover most of the range you want. The problem will be if you want to photograph animals from a distance. You will need at least 300mm, so the 70-300 zoom with IS seems like a good idea. Also a good idea is to take a compact; in your case, and given the budget, I will not suggest a digicam with RAW, since they are expensive. What I will suggest is a digicam with superzoom, something like the Canon SX10 or Panasonic FZ28.

 

Speaking of Panasonic, check their new micro 4/3 camera, the G1, it is getting very good reviews, and it is light and small for travelling.

[lightsmith1]

For Africa especially the 100-400mm zoom is a good compromise in terms of IQ and weight and versatility. But the rest of the time I expect it will see little use. An alternative to consider is the 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. This combination provides a picture angle equivalent to the 100-400mm on a full frame camera like the 5D.

 

A good second lens is the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom that is great on your Rebel for people, landscapes, and city scenes. Add a small flash, a shutter release cable, and a small travel tripod like the 19oz. Cullmann 1002 (weight includes the ball head) which sells for only $55, and you can cover just about anything. The flash is particularly useful for indoor photography as you can bounce light off a wall or ceiling and get shots that would not otherwise be possible.

 

Two lenses and a small teleconverter are quite manageable. If you were not going to Africa and wanting to photograph wildlife for a safe distance the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 would be my first pick over the 70-200 which is twice the size and twice the weight.

 

There are lenses like the Tamron 28-300 but you sacrifice both image quality and durability with the latter being especially important as you do not want a lens to pack it in when it gets exposed to dust or moisture.

[ed_yoo]

Given your budget of $1200 and space constraint it's a bit tough for you to get every focal length and good quality images. I

would look into buying good quality used lenses on ebay/photo.net/craigslist to make your dollar go further. i'd personally opt for

better glass rather than covering every focal length. here's my 2 cents:

 

$700 XSI + 18-55 IS kit lens. good starting point and then you can add a telephoto zoom or ultra wide.

$500: used canon 70-200/4L non-IS or Tokina 12-24/4.

 

You'll eventually want to upgrade the kit lens, but it's such a great value... you might as well get it. I own both the 70-200 and

tokina 12-24. I think they are great lenses with high quality optics, and will serve you well as part of a long term investment in

good glass that you will not want to upgrade for a long time.

 

I'd also recommend one of John Shaw's photo books. He does a great job explaining exposure/metering and how to compose

photos much better than any other book I've read.

[ilkka]

Why not a small DSLR with a decent quality standard kit zoom and one longer fixed focal length lens for the occasional animals etc? 135 or 200 for example. In a crop body that comes up to quite a decent focal length.

[mike dixon]

<i>Will I never forgive myself for giving up the extra 100mm of zoom, or will I curse myself for dragging along 3

lenses, when 1 would have done the trick?</i><P>

Within a week, you will be cursing yourself every minute that you are carrying your pack for bringing along too

much gear. And no matter how many lenses you bring, you are going to miss a lot of shots. You need to accept

from the beginning that many of your experiences will simply have to be preserved as memories, not photos.<P>

I usually travel with just a 28mm/f1.8 and a 50/f1.4 on a 5D. If you want a wider range than that, I'd recommend

something like the 17-85/f4-5.6 IS for general shooting and a 35/f2 for lower light work. Forget the big zooms.

[henrik_lauridsen]

An XSi with a 18-55 kit zoom is a good place to start, it is certainly light. However, you should take a look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as a substitute for the kit zoom. It costs more, and is heavier, but also a much better lens. Or, stick with the kit zoom and add a 50mm f/1.8 to your bag for low light situations. It is both very light and inexpensive.

 

I agree with a lot of the other respondents - forget the big zooms/lenses. For safaris you will most likely need 300 - 400mm at least, and they don't come cheap nor light. If you don't want to give up a "big" zoom, consider getting a 135mm f/2.8 manual lens (m42 mount), a 2x teleconverter and a M42-EOS adaptor. That will be reasonably cheap on Ebay, and not overly heavy. With the converter and crop factor it will give you a 432mm equivalent at f/5.6, which should do well in broad daylight.

[tom_burke3]

Good luck with the trip - I'm envious.

 

I'll go along with the 'keep it light' brigade, so I'm not going to recommend any of the f2.8 zooms - they're all too much

money for you. (Perhaps in a few years....) The combination pair (18-55 & 55-200) will probably produce slightly better

optical quality than the 18-200, but there won't be much in it.

 

One other suggestion: a single small, fast prime lens. On the XSi the 50mm f1.8 is a bit long which is a shame as it's

the lightest, cheapest & easiest to source (great portrait lens, though). But the 35mm f2 would be ideal as a 'standard-

equivalent' on the APS-C body, or the 28mm f2.8 would be wider, possibly cheaper but also slower. If you can squeeze

one of these into your budget, do so.

[mike_hitchen]

Here is my experience of I travelled for 2 years in Asia including backcountry walking and a 4-week hike up to

Everest basecamp. I carried a Canon EOS 1000 (film camera - early 90's) plus 28-80 and 70-300 (I think) and about

20 films so if you think along those lines then you will have an idea of what is possible. I can't think of any time I

missed a photo. Full pack weight about 35-40 pounds. But bear in mind that digital cameras are heavier than film

cameras (espceially when you throw IS into the mix).

 

If you intend to do mainly trains, planes and automobiles then why worry about weight. You could get one of those

ingenious suitcases that also has a backpack harness and wheels! Weight is important if you are moving hotel every

2 days for 6 months or backpacking wilderness (though in this case I took what I needed and left surplus clothes etc

in the hotel sotre room) .

 

My first advice is go cheaper on the camera and more expensive on the lenses wherever possible - most digital

bodies are fine pieces of engineering and it is the lenses that most govern quality.

There will be many situations where you want to shoot low light and available light (campfire meals, insides of

churches/temples etc) and so I would go with a constant f2.8 short zoom. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 is superb by all

accounts but is a heavy beast and may not want it round your neck when also carrying a backpack: the Tamron 17-

50 f2.8 is as Ariel suggests is a nice camera, and lighter/cheaper than the Canon equivalent but does not have IS

(and anyway, IS is less important on wide angle shots than on telephoto).

Again following Ariel's suggestion the Canon 55-250 is a respected lens and would cover the telephoto.

 

A serious question is: film or digital? From your post about being an 'aspiring photographer' I presume you have a

film set-up so this is not as absurd as it sounds - going back to the first questions I put, if you are going to genuine

wilderness then how will you recharge your batteries? If you are gong somewhere cold, then this can drain your

batteries really quickly. But if you are mainly hotel-based this will not be an issue (but charger = more weight). If

your film camera turns into full-mechanical mode if the battery dies then you will "never" be without a camera.

 

What about storage/backup? Yes, carrying film is more bulky than CF/SD cards but I would seriously suggest

investing in something like the Epson P-3000/P-5000 or the Jobo GigaVu multimedia storage. I chose the Epson

because I could view the pictures in the evening and erlive a great day and also learn from mistakes I made (may be

important if you are new to digital). Or you can get devices without viewer capability much cheaper but you have to

wait to get home to see the pictures. But again these devices can chew up batteries expecially when viewing - I

found that I was recharging my Epson every other day but that was because I spent heaps of time viewing photos

and weeding out the bad ones. (Charger = more wieght and bulk)

Once film is recorded it is recorded. Digital devices can break down and lose all your pictures.

 

Maybe you are still happy using film and this would not be a huge shock to you. You are usd to film and how it

works. With digital you will need to learn how the camera records things but it is much more forgiving of errors and

you can edit them in Photoshop or similar. Camera film is available anywhere (I don't know if CF cards are as I have

not travelled with a digital camera). And carrying 2-3 chargers can be frustrating as well.

So do not get carried away thinking that digital is the answers to a photographer's problems. It has its own issues for

the lightweight traveller.

 

So for bulk, film gear wins out. For weight, film gear wins out (if you include the battery chargers plus digital storage

devices). But would I go back to film? Almost cetainly no - though I would do some research first if I was going back

to somewhere like Everest basecamp where power could be an issue.

 

You say you don't want to carry a tripod. I would say this is a mistake. Get something for those long exposures -

and if you are not backpacking then the wieght will be less important. There are three options - I carried a cheap

splindly little tripod that weighed barely a pound or so (it was a more of a tabletop tripod that extended to almost full

height) and it was useless in anything other than a light breeze but I got some nice pictures from inside buildings. I

sometimes kept it collapsed and swung the head round to 90degrees so I could use the tripod legs like a rifle stock

to brace against my shoulder for a bit more stability. Another alternative is the inventive GorillaPod which can wrap

around any convenient tree or lamppost. Finally there is probably the most versatile - a monopod. Manfrotto do some

that can double as a walking stick and it can strap to the outside of your backpack. (I would also get the head that

allows up/down movement. I think it is Manfrotto catalogue number 234rc ).

 

I hope this helps and I think of anything else I will add it in.