Travelling light: system recommendations please!

[lukeap69]

I just came back for Istanbul for a 4 day trip. I brought 4 lenses with me but I find that I used Tamron 17-50 2.8 most of the time and then 70-300 IS. I suggest this combination also to you. Also, if you can add 430EX for any situation where you cannot get good shutter speed and good light.

[david_manning1]

Damon,

 

I'm going to commit heresy, but this is what I would recommend, much along the lines of what Mike Dixon said.

 

Take three primes. I use Nikon, but I'm positive Canon has the equivalent. Take a 24mm 2.8, a 35mm f2, and an 85mm 1.4. Bring

three 8gb memory cards. Bring two charged batteries. Bring a polarizer that fits the 24 and the 35. Bring your battery charger. Bring a

lens brush/cleaner.

 

Keep the 35mm on your camera as your normal, walk-around lens...you'll find that 80% of your shots will be in that focal range. Zoom

with your feet. Get closer. The 24mm will do great panoramics...it was Galen Rowell's favorite focal length (prime user too, wary of

weight and storage). It will also do great interiors. For something REALLY interesting people-wise, or details, put on the 85. It's a great

low-light lens, as they all are. The polarizing filter will bring color to your landscapes, and your two wider lenses will be the same filter

size. You won't need it on the 85.

 

Shoot the largest, finest jpegs your camera body will allow. You'll easily get 1000 shots or more on each card, and they'll be BIG shots

that can be blown up large. Put scotch tape over the contact-end of the cards (where the holes are). Remove the tape before you put

the card in. When done shooting, put the exposed card in a ziploc baggy in your shaving kit. You'll know they're used...there is no tape

on them, and they're in your shaving kit. Keep your glass clean...there is no excuse for dirty lenses. Well...very few good ones.

 

You'll have to charge batteries at some point. If you keep two fully charged, you can shoot for probably several days until you get the

opportunity to recharge. Turn off the automatic instant chimping mode...it wastes more batteries than shooting does. Small prime

lenses also take less juice to drive (focus) then big zooms.

 

I wouldn't worry about the ultra-long telephotos personally. You can take pictures of all those African animals in the zoo. Watch with

your eyes when you see them in the wild. Buy a book of animals instead. The people, villages, and personal experiences are what you

won't be able to duplicate. That's why you bring the light, fast primes...get in close and mix it up.

 

What I've just described is the light, fast hybrid approach to adventure travel photography. You'll shoot very much like film shooting,

with the advantages of no big bag of film or developing problems, and better overall image quality (hey, I'm a film guy, but digital rocks

for lower- or available-light). The advantage of NOT being a photojournalist is that you probably won't need to change your lens every

five seconds, so you can eliminate big, heavy (and expensive) zooms. You really won't need a laptop or extra storage, because that's

what the memory cards are for. For extended shooting, buy more memory cards or mail/FedEx the exposed home.

 

You'll hear lots of gasps about this advice, but unless you're doing an NGS assignment, the point of your travel is to LIVE your

experiences, not miss them as you fiddle with photographic support equipment. Spend your evenings around the fire listening to stories

about the Serengetti while tasting South African wines...NOT downloading, indexing, fine-tuning, emailing, archiving, and searching for a

power outlet. Trust me...it's freeing.

[david_manning1]

...I meant Mike Hitchen, too. Good advice there.

[doug_nelson3]

An EF 24mm f2.8 will crop to about a 38 on the crop-sensor body, making for a pretty useful focal length and very compact carry. As a traveller, compactness is my overriding concern, leaning me very heavily toward the Pentax K20D and 21mm DA lens. A 35mm will, as David says, crop to a 50 and a 50 crops to an excellent fast short tele. I would not consider a big zoom, in size or in focal length range. Canon's 10-22 is about the biggest zoom I'd want to carry.

[david_manning1]

I've got full-frame on the brain, since I've been shooting alot with my F6 and film.

 

I'd still say 85 1.4, but I'd add equivalent lenses for the 24 and 35. I know on a crop Nikon, the 24mm was a 35-equivalent,

which was very useful (my walk-around digital focal length). I'm not sure what Canon has for wider primes. Maybe the

answer for crop-sensor cameras is a Tokina 12-24, and then the 85 1.4...you'd get wide equivalents from 17mm up to

35mm, which cover both of my personal favorite focal lengths, as I espoused previously. So now, you'd be down to two

lenses instead of three, but the zoom is slower and heavier. I much-prefer existing-light, so fast primes are better for me.

[mike_hitchen]

I agree, David. A polariser is essential for great landscapes.

 

And I don't think the primes is a bad suggestion - it is is just a bit 'retro'. Primes can really do a great job. They were OK for 100 years and don't suddenly become bad just because zooms are easier to buy. The only think zooms give you is versatility.

I have just bought a Canon 50mm 1.8 and it is a great lens for stupidly little money and I have started to appreciate again what you suggest - it makes me think more about the photograph and how important positioning is instead of firing off 200 shots while sooming in and out, in and out reckoning there must be a good one in there somewhere.

The 'problem' for consumers nowadays is that zooms are pretty good quality and sometimes cheaper than primes, but for the same price, primes win out on image quality. Unless the lion is within 30 feet, even a zoom won't get a huge amount of detail so why get hung up about it. And anyway, with the better quality you get from a prime lens, you can crop and blow up more than you could using an entry-level zoom. You can always get the 3 primes and a teleconverter to improve your coverage. And primes have less to go wrong with them.

By the way, have you thought about buying second hand? Try websites of national store chains (eg B+H) . I bet there are some great value primes out there and you may get 3-6 months warranty thrown in.

 

How a bit of 'non-photography' advice: leave your camera in you room some days. (WTF?!) You can't (or don't need to) photograph "everything"; think of the photos as a something to prompt and enhance memories not as a trophy you haev to show everyone (remember that old Kodak strapline "we sell memories") and do not think your experience will be wasted just because you couldn't get the right photograph.

Some months into my travelling I realised that there were parts of it I only remember seeing through the viewfinder. Or thinking "damn I wish I had bought my camera", or " hell, I just missed that shot". And I forgot to experience the place for what it was. So have specific days you want to go photographing things and on the other days enjoy the place for why you went there.

Before I went somewhere I used to browse the postcard stalls and buy good ones - I then didn't need to waste time getting the photo myself if someone had already done a good job of it.

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

As a climber/skier/hiker I face the same dilema. I went with one of the exact sets you were thinking about: Xsi, and the two "kit" lens set of 18-55 and 55-250. I got the 18-55 thinking I might replace it, but was so impressed with it (and it's light weight) that I decided to try the tele since it was so cheap. I now carry it in place of my 70-300 DO (which was the smallest in that range before). They are not perfect lenses, but for the price/weight ratio can't be beat. I also got a 10-22, which I love, but I don't carry on longer days in the mountains, making due with panoramas.

 

If I was going on a big trip I couldn't do without a tripod, since I like to do low light sunrise & evening shots and use low iso. I got a silk ultralight that I took to 14,000 ft. on a climb of Denali that works great.

 

I also agree with Mike about position vrs. big teles. My best lion shots on safari were taken quite close to the animals and my old 70-210 worked great. He also has a good point about not getting hung up about capturing everything. Give yourself time to just soak up the atmosphere without the camera getting in the way.

 

I envy you the trip. I went to Kenya 20 years ago to climb Mt. Kenya. The climb was cool (I ended up soloing theIice window rt. when my partner got altitude sickness) but my best memories are from a low budget Safari to the Masai Mara (camping out), and various bus rides. I got some good shots, but some of the best moments couldn't be captured, and I didn't try.

[User_1891539]

I'll jump in with both feet. Why not a good wide-angle zoom, either the Canon 10-22 OR the excellent Tokina 12-24, and the

excellent (and cheap) 50 f1.8. Leave the long telephotos and heavy zooms behind.

 

Problem solved. Light, cheap, high quality.

[bs]

I travel a lot and I've been through a lot of combinations. These days I've reverted to a RF body with 25/2.8, 50/2, 90/2 as basic kit along

with film, small filter wallet, flash, batts, gorilla pod and a pocket digicam packed in a small unobtrusive black bag. This has sufficed for

most all situations I've encountered and the fact that I can pretty effortlessly have some, all or none of it with me works out well. Ilford

HP5 pushes well to 1600 when necessary and Fuji 800 NPZ has proven fast enough for most of my needs in color. If I need to go even

smaller I go with a 35/75 combination.

 

I got weary of the constant battery charging and file handling when on the road. I found it easier to just FedEx the film home if it got to

be too much to lug around.

 

The Leica stuff is great, but pricey even when bought used. The Zeiss stuff is great value and mid price point and the VC lenses are

great values. A used Leica M6TTL body and any lens combination mentioned could be used for the trip and resold at little or no loss on

your return. Use one of the compact long zooming IS equipped digicams for the tele shots when needed.

 

Whatever you choose to do equipment wise it will work out fine. As said by others here...immerse yourself in the experience, limit your

time in the viewfinder. Enjoy your travels.

[ian_parsons2]

Now that I have got over my ego buying camera phase... I would look at the panasonic g1 for a travel camera. The review at Luminous landscape was excellent and although the styling is a bit naff, for travel I think it would be perfect.

[ilkka]

"I would look at the panasonic g1 for a travel camera."

 

That is actually a very good suggestion.

[john_n._wall]

There are two questions being asked here, and the answer to one conflicts with the answer to the other.

 

One is, what is the best kit for travel when traveling light. The other is, what gear for Africa, and, in Africa, for safari.

 

I agree for general travel photography when traveling light take one body and prime lenses, perhaps (in film or FX terms) a 24, a 50, and an 85. Or maybe just the 24 and the 85. Or maybe a short zoom, maybe 24-85, but make it fast and light as possible. I have shot all over Europe, Japan, Mexico, and the USA with the 24/85 kit and got shots I really like.

 

You just have to understand that whatever kit you carry you will miss some shots. My advice is forget the ones that you can't take and concentrate on making the best shots you can with the gear you take. If the gear you take is heavy and hard to use, you won't use it and you will spend more time frustrated than enjoying your photography.

 

The second question is about kit for Africa and safari. That is a different matter all together. I've never done it but my understanding that safari photographers take long, long lenses and heavy tripods, car-mount tripods, lots of gear. This is where the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm lenses pay off for the pros.

 

The challenge is that the animals you want to photograph will not come in close for you to shoot with short lenses. Or, you really don't want to get close enough to wild game to get good shots with short lenses. There are books on the subject that deserve to be carefully studied. Google the subject to see what advice you can find.

 

Not sure how to solve your dilemma, but I'm not at all sure that slow zooms in the 200mm range are going to give you the length you need for this kind of photography.

[dogbert]

XSi is a great travel camera. I do a lot of travel and this is the one I always take.

 

Best budget two lens combination by far is the EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS and EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS. They are small, light and share the same 58 mm filter size. Make sure you get the IS versions of both these lenses. The non-IS versions are to be avoided. You won't miss not having a 75-300 zoom because it is soft at 300mm and has no IS which makes it hard to use anyway. If it only adds $40 to the package, get it and sell it, but make sure you the other lenses are the IS versions.

 

The best high end combo for the XSi is the EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 lens and the EF 24-105 f4L. After mucking around with a lot of different combos this is the one I settled on. It does, however, add a lot of weight and cost and to tell you the truth not a whole lot more than my budget recommendation.

 

Of couse for light weight and high quality you could always go the Mike Dixon route, but some find zooms more convenient even if they do add weight and cost and probably slightly worsen IQ.

[RaymondC]

I would get the Xsi because its new and that it is more portable.

 

For the lenses, those 3 you mentioned the last 2 lenses are v similar and overlaps. If its that package and I had 3 lenses at home, I would take the 1st and then choose the 2nd or the 3rd. For me personally I would take the 2nd and leave the 3rd at home because it is long enof and more portable.

 

Althou the 18-200mm is a one lens thing, saves you a lot of hassle, no need to swap lenses.

 

If you are beginning out and want it simple etc... for your travel and for my travel I just use a 18-200mm, if it is windy etc .. you don't need to change lenses or if it is wet. Basically I would get the 18-200mm that should be good enough. If you really into landscapes maybe a 10-22 or 12-24 etc etc... but you won't use it as much as the 18-200mm. Get a polariser filter.

[kezia]

I agree with John Wall - those stunning safari close-ups you see in National Geographic aren't taken at with 200 mm kit lenses and the professional longer lenses need serious stabilising equipment. You could end up very disappointed with your results. I would take the 18-55 IS kit lens, it really isn't bad.

 

If you want one really sharp prime have you considered the Canon 60 mm f2.8 macro? It's an EF-S lens, so light and small, and quite versatile for portraits, more detailed shots of buildings, flowers, bugs, or even landscapes. I find any of the longer zooms (end even sometimes the 18-55) are quite vulnerable to getting knocked by passersby or doorframes so even though light aren't as comfortable to carry as one might think.

[ken schwarz]

There's a lot to be said for a one-lens solution when traveling. Not only is it lighter, but it's easier to keep secure, too. You don't need to worry about dust getting inside the camera during lens changes if you never change the lens. And, you never miss a shot or hold up your traveling companions with lens changes, either. The 18-200 covers a lot of range. Frankly, if you are keen for more telephoto reach for animals in the wild, I think you will cross the threshold into much more expense and hassle to make it worth it. An extra 100mm at the long end is nice, but I wouldn't bother unless I were ready to go all-out and then I'd want at least the 100-400mm zoom with IS to do it. Don't forget to bring good quality binoculars with you. A fine 8x32 pair would go great with the single lens solution. Have a great trip!

[craighagan]

I'd seriously consider an 18-200 mm lens, and extra flash cards. You may well want to look into

what lens/camera rental opportunities you'll have for going on safari. If you can rent the big

guns, that saves you both the cost of buying them and lugging them with you for the entire trip.

[john_spiers]

The 18-200 is the perfect compromise for your needs.

 

FORGET ALL ABOUT CARRYING ANY F2.8 ZOOMS! There is absolutely no way you are going to lug them around for any

length of time without cursing the weight and ending up with a very sore back and shoulders.

[clgriffin]

<p>A search of this forum or Photography on the net will give innumerable topics that cover this subject.</p>

<p>I spent four months on the road in Europe in 2007 with an XTi, a 10-22mm, 17-85mm IS and 70-300 IS Canon lenses. I rarely used the 10-22, but when I did it was great. The 17-85mm was the workhorse doing 90 percent of the 8600 images I shot, including a couple of good images shot at 0.3 Sec, handheld, in a cavern with prehistoric paintings. The 70-300 was used more than the 10-22 and having IS was very helpful.<br>

I carried a Sony laptop, and a couple of USB pocket hard drives. All of the gear, plus battery chargers and electrical adapters would fit snugly in a Domke Reporter's satchel bag. I bought disks along the way to backup the hard drives and I mailed the disks home to one of my kids. When they reported via email that the disks arrived and they could see the pix, I would make space for more in my hard drives.</p>

<p>Had I been by myself, I would have used a rolling backpack small enough to carryon as someone else suggested and bought a little daypack once I was there for when I just wanted to walk around.  I ended up purchasing a 50mm 1.4  and a polarizing filter for use in Museums where many interesting things were encased in glass, and I should have left the 10-22 at home.<br>

If you think Africa is going to be one of your destinations, I strongly suggest that you get a 100-400mm IS zoom and an extender rather than rely on the reach of a 70-300. A monopod will be very useful with that lens and extender combination and can be used as a walking stick or something with which to ward off snakes.</p>

[ru55el.com]

<p>East Africa? Egypt to Mozambique? Via Sudan and Somalia? Wanna shoot some pirates?<br>

As you intend backpacking I'd travel light and as inconspicuously as possible. A couple of primes, lots of CF cards and batteries.<br>

Have fun.</p>

[gita_widowati]

<p>Damon,<br>

for light travelling camera, canon 450D plus EF 24-105mm/4 L IS USM & EF 50mm/1.8 in Lowepro micro trekker 200 will serve you the best. Also, dont forget to bring an extra SD card.</p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>This one is easy: Tamron 18-270 VC or Canon 18-200 IS, whichever is lightest, and Canon 35/2. Problem solved.</p>

[damon_macleod]

<p >Sincere thanks for all of your advice. David and Mike, I’m intrigued by your prime lens solution, and it should still be in my price range. Actually, after a few more weeks of research, I’m thinking of coughing up some extra dollars for the Nikon 90D. As for glass, I’m wondering if I can’t get away with the 24mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 (since the 1.4 is a little too steep for me.) I’ll be sacrificing a true wide angle, but I hope I’ll be able to live with that. I was thinking of a 50mm 1.8 as well, but with the crop factor I’m wondering how useful it would be. I might wait for this lens until I can afford a full frame camera. </p>