superzoom + super wide angle as a travel combo?

[john_lee48]

<p>i've been using the following lens combo to backpack for a while:<br>

tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non-VR version)<br>

canon 55-250mm (IS)<br>

canon 50mm f1.8</p>

<p>the main limitations I've found with the tamron as my mainstay walk-around lens are: <br>

- shooting landscapes at the wide end, i find myself often wanting a wider field of view, without going through the trouble of shooting a pano and stitching. <br>

- shooting in crowd environments (e.g. markets), 50mm is often too short and i need to switch lenses for portrait shots. </p>

<p>to address these two issues, I'm considering buying a super wide-angle and pairing it with a decent superzoom. </p>

<p>however, as the article below points out the increased field of view may not be in itself a reason to buy a super wide-angle, since at wider than 17mm objects in 'standard' landscape compositions will be very small. Rather, the creative goal is perspective distortion with an emphasised foreground. Would people agree? <br>

<a href="../equipment/tokina/11-16/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/</a></p>

<p>Having played with a Sigma 8-16mm, i can see the merit in this argument. The other lens i'm considering is the Tokina 11-16mm.<br>

If one accepts the argument about the sort of compositions you'd use a super wide-angle lens for, then the constant f2.8 aperture of the tokina becomes significant for the shallower depth of field and greater flexibility to shoot without a tripod. </p>

<p>as for the superzoom, the tamron 18-270mm seems to get good reviews. The feature I expect I'd miss most from the 17-50 is again the constant f2.8 aperture, for the same reasons. </p>

<p>Glad to know what people think. Overall I've found my existing combo to cover most situations with the occasional hustle of changing lenses, so I'd have to pretty certain to justify spending $1400 changing it. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_lee48]

<p>the other super wide-angle on the board is the canon 10-22mm USM</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 is another alternative. Slower, but cheaper</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I've used a similar combo before, taking just the 50D w/ the tamron 18-270, and a UWA in a belt case when I didn't want to carry a bag. I loved the ease and range, plus (since I had no camera bag) the camera was always at hand, and didn't bang into historical doorframes. The ability to go superwide was a dealmaker, and the 18-270s ability to grab a bird on a tree branch from across the yard was quite nice. I miss the fact I have to use a MUCH larger combo on the 5s.<br>

However, the argument that <em>"the constant f2.8 aperture of the tokina becomes significant for the shallower depth of field and greater flexibility to shoot without a tripod." </em>is largely irrelevant in practice, unless you have an <em>extremely</em> high degree of creative control, by that, I mean posing and positioning precisely your subjects, and yourself, precisely. by 8' subject distance --<em>even @f2.8</em> -- your DOF is well over 150' @11mm (!) -- restraining yourself to close focus subjects is not always an option...<br>

The low light handling of f2.8 vs f3.5-4.5 at the wide end is also largely irrelevant in practice, as you are already capable of shooting down to 1/15 easily handheld. Giving up f2.8 into the middle of the zoom range is a bit harder.... Certainly the tokina is a great lens, but if you are budgetarily constrained, a cheaper UWA like the tamron 10-24, or Sigma 10-20 may be a good option to consider. --certainly, the advantages from the tokina are incremental at best.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I travel with S10-20, T17-50 non-VC, and C55-250.</p>

<p>I'd get the ultrawide first. See how it goes. If the other two lenses are really too heavy and cumbersome then I suppose you could switch them out for a superzoom. I wouldn't, but that's just me. I had a 28-300 superzoom years ago on my film rebel. Been there done that.</p>

<p>Another option is C15-85.</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>I own a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, but I often carry only the Canon 10-22mm and 55-250mm IS. Obviously, the so-called "normal" focal lengths are not well represented with this setup, but I find that most of my shooting is in the 15-20mm and 60-135mm range. If some manufacturer were to issue a 15-135mm lens, I would be all over that in a heartbeat.</p>

[john_lee48]

<p>thanks. It's not that my current two lenses are heavy or bulky (they were chosen because they're not) or that i mind changing them, but i find myself doing this in the middle of active situations often enough that i’ve considered a superzoom.</p>

<p>at the end of the day though I prize IQ and sharpness. And I expect that being used to constant f2.8, i'll feel restricted by the smaller apertures on the 18-270. With the 55-250 I often found myself underexposing shots to get a fast enough shutter speed, even with IS or a tripod. </p>

<p>but since i shoot in confined spaces or try to get in whole buildings fairly often, i'm pretty set on the UWA. </p>

<p>i'm looking at the sigma 10-20, just mindful of quality control (i had to return the first tamron 17-50 they sent me for focusing issues). But the canon 10-22 seems a lot of money to sink into a lens that won't work with anything but canon ef-s bodies. <br>

any comments on the sigma 10-20 versus the 8-16? and the tamron and tokina equivalents (12-24)? </p>

<p>by the way Marcus, isn't is the case that depth of field is hardly affected by focal length? <br>

<a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm">http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm</a></p>

 

[Marvin]

<p>I've been happy with the 18-270mm Tamron.</p>

[ben_pike]

<p>I took the S 8-16 and Canon 70-300L on holiday, left the 15-85 at home. I'll admit I did take the 28mm too, however this combination really got me thinking about the merits of a super zoom for holiday. I am vaguely considering swapping the 15-85 for a 18-270, but not sure yet.... The trick with the 8-16 is to be sure you have foreground interest.</p>