traveling light

[notso bad]

<p>What would you take on a vacation to Paris? I want to travel light and was initially planning to take the 17-55/2.8 with my crop sensor camera (20D - if I get it fixed, or a new 50d) The other option is to go with the 24-105, though I would lose a little speed in exchange for reach. I suppose I could bring the kit lens (18-55) as backup, or consider buying the 10-22. I need to travel light, so I will leave the tele lens at home. And yes, I realize that the 24-105 and 17-55 is a bit of a redundant collection. I have thought about selling the 24-105 since the 17-55 is usually parked on the camera, with the 70-200/4 coming along at times, but I have held onto it since I thought it might come in handy for travel.</p>

<p>Your experiences and opinions appreciated.</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>I've had this exact dilemma. I found I took too much. For my Paris trip, I found low-light shooting capability and greater speed were more useful than lens reach flexibility. I sort of like the challenge of shooting with a single lens--be it zoom or prime. It makes me think about being a better photographer and not toying with my equipment constantly. Also, faster lens lets you leave the flash and its batteries in the hotel room often which further lightens the load. One lens means fewer filters, smaller bag. <br>

Enjoy the trip. Let us know what you decide!</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>No question in my mind, the 17-55 is the best choice for lightweight travel with an APS camera. The 10-22 would be my next lens to go with it, but traveling with one lens is a real luxury. Wear comfortable shoes and loose-fitting trousers--these are most important in Paris!</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Really light would be a either a 28/2.8 or a 35/2.</p>

<p>(Or a G10.)</p>

<p>That said if you're not picky you could take a superzoom. (18-270 VC comes to mind.)</p>

<p>If you are picky just take the 17-55/2.8 IS 'cause aparte from being a tad big it's perfect. If you're slightly less picky or really mean to travel light but versatile I'd say the kit lens with IS is pretty o.k.</p>

<p>Depending on your style you might want to take a longer lens too like a 135/2, a 200/2.8 or a nice zoom like the 70-300/IS or one of the superb 70-200's. On the other hand you might want to take the inside of the Notre Dame in one shot and than a 10-22 would be handy.</p>

<p>That was a bad answer all in all.</p>

<p>So to wrap it up: if this is a once in a lifetime than take the 17-55/2.8 IS and maybe one other lens you really can't do without. If you intend to go to Paris more often than I'd say challenge yourself and bring a lens you wouldn't normally take but which would give you the quality/versatilty/weight ration you prefer right now.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>I've done paris with nothing more then a 35mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.4 on a single Nikon FE. Get something you're comfortable with is the most important. You don't need much reach when photographing in paris, in fact, the closer you get, the better the results.</p>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>I have done professional travel photography work in Europe with one lens only, a 35 f1.4</p>

<p>People are getting too used to zoom lenses, AF, AE, AWB, etc. and forgetting the real art of photography.</p>

[teethgator]

<p>Notso,<br>

This is what I do. I have a 20D then I take the following. 50mm 1.4 prime,17-85mm, 70-300mmIS, 10-22mm. Small travel tripod. When I get to the hotel I decide each day what I am going to take.And leave the rest behind in the safe. I never take more than 2 lenses. I now use a think tank light holster to carry the extra lens. So if I know I going to see some churches I take the 50mm for the low light and maybe the 70-300. Most of the time just the 17-85. I try to come back in the late afternoon , and grab my tripod knowing I want to take twighlight shots. The rest of the time the tripod stays in the room. Going light means you will have try to guess where you are going and guess what you want to shot. I like candid shots of people so I use the 70-300 a lot. Unless I want to bring 1 other lens on the thinktank like the 17-85 or 55 in your case I just have to accept missing some lenses. Truth is you will find plenty to shot with the lens you choose. BTW if I didn't have a safe and was forced to take 1 or 2 leses it would be the 17-85(55) first and then 70-300. I still would be bring some type of support/table tripod or bean bag for night shots since I love the look. Have a great trip and bring an extra battery </p>

[kenn_lau]

<p>I shoot with a 50D and brought along my EF-S 10-22mm/f3.5-4.5 USM, EF 24-105mm/f4L IS USM and EF 50mm/f1.8 lenses to Paris. The 10-22mm was the most used (75% of the time), followed by 24-105mm (22%) and 50mm (3%). I found the UWA to be useful in most situations, especially landscapes/markets where the ability to shoot in tight spaces was an advantage accorded by the 10-22mm. If you're a fan of street photography, the 24-105mm with its longer reach is almost indispensable and would be my preferred choice. <br>

If you're a big museum fan, you should check if they allow photographs indoors. I can't remember precisely, but there were more than a few museums that prohibted photography indoors. Musee Picasso is one of them. IMO, you should travel light because not all museums will allow you to walk into them with backpacks/rucksacks larger than a certain size. Musee de Louvre allows you to shoot without flash and carry your backpacks (that must be scanned upon entry points). <br>

That's all I can recall.</p>

[notso bad]

<p>Thanks for all your experiences. We will not be hitting too many museums, since we are travelling with small children, but we will go to the bigger tourist locations (parks, eiffel tower, verailles, notre dame, etc.) I will be taking family travel pics, architecture, architecture details, etc. I bought the 17-55 on top of the 24-105 because I learned just how much more 17 mm reveals than 24mm. Plus I love to shoot people at 2.8 instead of 4 for the shallower DOF.<br>

I might actually consider buying the 10-22 and taking that with the 24-105, but I am not sure I will spend that much -- i am still deciding if I fix my 20D (canon has is right now) or buy the 50d. If I do buy a new body, then I think I will just take the 17-55 (and possibly the kit lens as backup) I also have an old 28-105 that is light that I could take for extra reach, but I need to check to see if it is fogged.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I just got back from Paris. I shot 80% of shots with my Tamron 17-50/2.8, 15% with my Sigma 10-20, and 5% with my Canon 55-250 IS.</p>

<p>I'd bring the 17-55 and I'd leave the rest at home. Bon boyage.</p>

 

[JeffOwen]

<p>I use my 17-85 IS on my 40D and have been looking enviously at the 17-55 f2.8 IS for speed and IQ but the weight of the two are 475gm vs 645gm respectively. I need to cut down my weight not add to it so I have been looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, no IS :( , which comes in at 430gm and I believe is better IQ than the Canon 17-85. I don't know how it compares with the Canon 17-55.<br>

My favourite lens is the Canon 10-22 and if I had to cut my carry weight down to an absolute minimum I would take this lens and the 50 mm f1.8.</p>

[notso bad]

<p>Thanks, everybody. I feel more confident about going with only the 17-55.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>One lens - EF-S 17-55<br>

Two lenses EF-S 10-22 and EF 24-105 f4 L<br>

You will want wider than 24 mm on an APS-C dslr in Paris.</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Another option: Canon 17-40, is around 500 grams, fairly compact, L-build. You lose a little reach, might work, depending on your focal length preference.</p>