NYC trip, and I don't know what lens to bring/buy

[rowan_manto]

<p>Come may my photography class and I will be going to New York City, and I have no idea what lens to bring (or possibly even buy) as I would like to just have one lens due to walking around all day and I don't want to lug my large lens case around.<br>

I have a 50mm f1.8 and a standard 18-55mm, for each of them I have a wide angle converter.<br>

I am just an amuater so I would prefer not to spend too much money on a new lens. but if there is a lens that will be great for this trip and I can use for general urbanscape/street photography I might buy.<br>

any help is much appreciated</p>

[morthcam]

<p>Throw away the wide angle converter.</p>

<p>Sounds like you have what you need -- 18-55 should cover most of your needs (no lens can cover all of them). Don't obsess over equipment like everyone one else here does, take that lens and make pictures with it. You don't need another lens.</p>

[jdebever]

<p>As Math says..<br>

and if you'r out there and find you realy _need_ some lens, your in the best place, with Adorama and B&H on walking distance :-)<br>

Make sure to visit both..<br>

j.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>What body?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's got to be an APS-C body if you have the 18-55mm 'kit' lens.</p>

<p>I agree that your present kit will do. Although wide angle might be nice for some architectural photography, 18-55 will do for most things. The 50mm f/1.8 will be your low light lens as well as maybe some 'short telephoto' portrait work, although your 18-55 will do fine for that except that it won't give the shallow depth of field that you can get with the 50mm wide open.</p>

<p>If you have been happy with the adapter, bring it along for some fun shots. Even high quality 'fisheye' effects wear thin pretty quickly though, so don't overdo it. ;)</p>

[christian_irgens]

<p>I must admit that in the one-lens-only category I find the EF-S 15-85 hard to beat. It has a meaningful wide-angle capability (24 mm equivalent; great for NYC urban architecture) and the long end (135 mm; all right, 136 mm to be exact) is quite workable. Sharpness is quite good, distortion is acceptable, and the lens is quite well built. Additionally it has USM focusing. You have to decide whether the lens is within your budget; you can of course sell the kit lens to reduce the net outlay. The super zooms of course give you a longer range, but they all seem to start at 18 mm (28.8 mm equivalent), so you give up three very useful millimeters at the sort end.</p>

<p>The pixel peepers will of course tell you to buy L lenses (of which I seem to currently have about an even dozen). But most of us live in the real world where we have to justify our purchases (and that applies particularly to us professionals; I bought equipment a lot more freely when I worked in finance. Hey, a Hasselblad 500ELM and a Zeiss Tele Tessar 500 mm, no problem!)</p>

<p>Finally, what you currently have is pretty darn good stuff. The 50/1.8 is great; the kit zoom is very, very good for the money. I don't remember how the first (non IS) kit zoom distorted, but the IS version has a good bit of barrel distortion at the very wide end. When I used it as a walk around lens in the city I was a bit unhappy with my own inability to see the distortion in the viewfinder and correct for it by changing my framing.</p>

<p>In conclusion; it is not the tools that make the craftsman. A better tool can give you technically better pictures; but if the picture isn't good to start with, what does it matter? Henri Cartier Bresson, one of the greatest photographers ever, almost always shot with what we today would consider a low contrast, limited resolution 50 mm lens. But look at those pictures! And remember, that was film, no instant feedback!</p>

<p>I hope this hasn't added to your confusion.</p>

<p>Happy shooting!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>In my opinion the best small "Do Everything" lens is a G-Series Powershot. In daylight they can do everything but blur the background and are not as good at 400 or higher ISO. They fit in jacket pockets, zoom over a pretty good range, and have a swivel screen. </p>

<p>The lens that I recommend is the less expensive Tamron 17-50 2.8 with *no* VC. I use my Tamron quite a lot. It is very sharp and a good size and allows for blurred backgrounds. </p>

<p>That said, while I like these better than the 18-55 kit lens, they are hundreds of dollars. Your current setup will work pretty well. </p>

[dan_south]

Your 18-55 should work for most things. If you were to add something - but it's not necessary - consider a small,

lightweight telephoto zoom such as a 70-300 for tight shots. It would be great if the telephoto has IS. Don't bring a

huge beast like a 70-200 f/2.8. It's heavy and will call attention to itself. Keep it light, quick, and simple. The city

moves fast, and you'll miss the action if you're fooling around with a big bag of gear OR if your gear screams "Hey,

I'm trying to take your photo!"

 

The suggestion to bring along a small point and shoot "do everything" camera is a good one, i.e. something you can

pull out of your pocket for quick and/or inconspicuous shots.

 

Have fun!

[hjoseph7]

<p>"I have a 50mm f1.8 and a standard 18-55mm, for each of them I have a wide angle converter."</p>

<p><br />These are pretty good choices. I don't own the 18-55mm but I did hear some pretty good reviews about it. Not sure about the wide angle converter Yikes ! The only problem is that the 3.5/5.6 maximum aperture might cause you to contantly boost the ISO in low light situations. This might not be an issue on the more modern Canon cameras .</p>

<p><br />Personally for Travel I prefer these lenses: Canon 28-105mm f3.5/4, this lens is light, compact has great range, takes great pictures, limited Macro mode, prone to flare, not really wide angle especially on cropped camera, relatively fast, a little soft at longer focal lengths, and it's cheap(about $250).</p>

<p>Canon 35mm f2.0, this lens is ultra-compact, fast good in low light situations, tack sharp, equivalent of a normal 50mm lens on a cropped camera, noisy, flimsy build, but moderately cheap(about $300).</p>

<p><br />Canon 50mm f1.4 great for low-light and portraits(with a cropped camera) , much better build and bokeh than 50mm f1.8, less contrast than f1.8, very sharp, looks good, equivalent of 80mm on a cropped camera, takes great pictures, relatively cheap at about $350.</p>

<p>Canon 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 great for taking pictures of sky-scrapers and panoramas, very sharp, contrasty, does not flare up, relatively compact except for the HUGE lens-hood, takes a 77mm filter, moderately expensive @ $850.</p>

<p>Canon 24mm f3.5 TE lens, great for architecture especially tall buildings, extremely sharp and contrasty, optically one of the best lenses Canon has ever made, lacks auto focus, at f3.5 not exactly fast, EXTREMELY expensive @ $1800, fixed, lacks range, I would not take this lens to NYC without a body guard.</p>

<p><br />Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS: if there was one lens I guess I would take with me on travel this would be it. relatively fast at f2.8, plus it gives you 3 stops of IS, relatively light if this is the only lens in your bag, tack sharp, good in low light, moderately compact, pretty good range, but you will definately miss some close ups and head-and-shoulder shots with this lens, f2.8 remains throughout the range, 17mm gives is the equivalent of 24mm on FF which makes it a true wide angle, attracts dust without UV filter, not weather resistant, Very Expensive @$1000+ minus the hood, so far I don't own one, the price just does not justify IHMO !</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Rowan,</p>

<p>You don't say, but I'm going to guess that you are relatively new to this. If so, I agree with several of the others: don't buy anything. I'd just add "unless the instructor tells you to".</p>

<p>If you have the IS version of the 18-55, it gets consistently good reviews. Moreover, if you are new to this, it will probably be a long time before equipment is more of a limitation than what you have learned. I'd keep the 18-55 mounted and carry the 50--it's very light--in case you need something faster. If the 18-55 is too slow and you have to boost ISO, you will get some noise. So what? this is a class trip, not a shoot for an exhibition. you can clean up the noise later. More important, finding with experience what you want to do that your current gear won't let you do is the only rational way to decide on new equipment.</p>

<p>If you know that 18-55 is not long enough for some things you want to do, then I would recommend the EF-S 55-250. It's dirt cheap and serviceable as a starter lens. But if you don't know that you need something longer, I would not buy it.</p>

<p>And as someone said, you have two of the best discount stores in the US right there in case you do find you need something.</p>

<p>Have fun.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Relax and take the 18-55.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>If you have to get a lens try for the 18-250mm Tamron. It may no longer be available new, but a used one will do. Everything from wide angle to telephoto in one lens. Everyone thinks of New York as a wide angle type town but you'd be surprised the number of times you need a telephoto for street shots, building details, or just plain photographing things that aren't close to you. Also, the telephoto provides that anonymity factor- you won't have Robert DeNiro in your face saying "Are you photographing me?"</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>I shoot in NYC fairly often and I find that wide is usually more useful than long, so the your 18-55 will be just fine. The photo below was shot at 28mm with a crop sensor camera.</p>

<p>Even if you're not buying anything, don't miss a visit to B&H. It's really amazing.<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/jsp/area_map.jsp">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/jsp/area_map.jsp</a></p>

<p> Have fun!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ridinhome]

<p><strong>Rowan</strong> - this is slightly OT but if you're coming to NYC I'd encourage you to avoid shooting in Times Square or the more touristy spots. Good places to shoot are Union Square, the Highline and if you can make it out there, Williamsburg in Brooklyn.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Agree with most.</p>

<p>A <em>few</em> times square shots are fine -> although at the moment, I think the 42nd street subway station holds more appeal for me than the neon sitting above it. Buy I agree. . you definately want to get out of the tourist trap areas.</p>

<p>The 18-55/IS is fine. Frankly, I rarely need longer in the tight confines of a city, unless I am out on the waterfront. Wide is far more useful. If you want a useful "toy" for the trip. . the 10-22 is a fine choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I would simply like to add that there is no "good" or "bad" part of New York for photography. Almost every block has visually interesting attributes; I have no idea why people want to send you to Brooklyn. It's not that Brooklyn isn't photogenic - it IS - but if you're only in NYC for a short time, I'd stick with Manhattan.</p>

<p>I watched Kelby's 'A Day With Jay Maisel' videos recently. Maisel shoots in Times Square (among other locations). If it's good enough for Jay it should be good enough for the rest of us. If you want to go to the High Line, at least wait until spring so you don't freeze.</p>

[pmind]

<p>Rowan, your 18-55mm & 50mm together can produce great results. I shoot in the city regularly and use (mostly) a 24-105mm & 50mm (f/1.4 or f/1.2) on a full frame camera, and find that I usually don't have any problem getting the shots that I want. My advice for shooting on the street would be to use the 50mm exclusively for awhile, at least until you get used to the pace of life and can suspend time long enough to see shots developing. Also, don't be afraid to shoot from the hip if you have too, sometimes there is no time to do anything except react. Check out the guide in the learning section of Photo.net. Good luck and post your results.</p>