What lenses would you take?

[mbkissel]

<p>I would take the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. The 50 would be really hard to leave behind.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My choice would be a 5D MkIII and a 24-70 f2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't own a ff digital, but if I was limited to just one body and lens, I'd have to agree.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>If you take me with you, I'll carry the rest of your lenses and you won't have to decide. ;-)</p>

<p>I'd actually lean towards a lightweight kit... 16-35, 50, 100. If you had a 70-200 f/4, I'd trade that for the macro.</p>

[dan_south]

For a trip like this I think I would prefer the 24-105 over the 24-70, but you need to use what you have.

 

Take:

 

16-35

 

24-70

 

50 for areas where you don't want to look conspicuous

 

70-200 (although I would prefer the f/4 IS)

 

100 macro

 

Leave:

 

300 (too big)

 

TS-E17 (too much distortion for structures, difficult to obtain the best results hand held)

[dogbert]

<p>I'd take either a EF-S 10-22, or 17-40, my 24-105 f4L, a fisheye, and either a 55-250 or 70-300 DO telezoom. For bodies I would take a 60D and a 5D. This all fits into a Tamrac adventure 9 backpack which is not to big for travel and suitable for carry on even in smallish planes.<br>

My walkabout setup for most days would be the 10-22 and 24-105 f4L with the 60D. This gives effective ff coverage from 16 mm to 170 mm and is light enough to carry all day.<br>

I am happy with the results I get up to print sizes of 13x19.<br>

You gear is way to heavy for travel IMO opinion. And I would find you minimalist option a bit limiting.</p>

 

[Marcus Ian]

I think i'd go w/ the 16-35 + 50/1.4 + 70-200. If that was too much weight, I'd swap out the 70-200 w/ the 100. IMO, the 24-70 is kind of extraneous in this situation. Sure, it's a great 'all purpose' guy, but isn't really necessary here (the 16-35 covers the wide end, plus some, the 50 covers middle, and the 70-200 (or 100) covers the long end.) and so isn't hardly worth it's weight..

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Sarah Fox wrote: <em>"Scott, all your lenses are heavy! If I were you, I'd lend them to me and borrow my f/4 optics for your trip!"</em><br>

<br>

+1. For travel, and balancing flexibility with other kinds of utility, you would likely fine me carrying my f/4 version of the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200.<br>

<br>

YMMV.<br>

<br>

Dan</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I wouldn't call the 16-35 f/2.8L II USM 'heavy'. I don't know if this is Scott's version, but it's not a "heavy lens" by any standard. Some of the other lenses listed are very substantial, but not this one.</p>

[RickDB]

<blockquote>

<p>If you could go to an interesting place (to you) for a month, what one body and one lens would you take?<br>

5D2 / EF 24-105L</p>

</blockquote>

[hakhtar]

<p>Scott,<br>

I think the choice of a lens depends on the environment where it is likely to be used. </p>

 

<p>India is a vast country with its mountains, landscapes, rivers and historic buildings etc – sea, high rise buildings and night-life though enjoyable, are not its natural features, not at least from the point of capturing the characteristic of the country. Also, generally there is plenty of light, including in the mornings and evenings, though the atmosphere in the cities might be dull because of the hanging CO!</p>

 

<p>Within this context  300mm f2.8 IS for long distance shots and 24-70mm f2.8 for other purposes are likely to be sufficient – there is so much to see and capture in India that macro work is less likely unless one specialises in it and same goes for the fisheye!  The historic buildings hardly need a correctable lens!</p>

 

<p>Husain<br>

<a href="http://www.husain2.webspace.virginmedia.com">www.husain2.webspace.virginmedia.com</a></p>

[dan_south]

Actually, if the question is "What lenses would you take?" per the subject line, my personal answer would be:

 

24-105 f/4L IS

 

70-200 f/4L IS

 

100 f/2.8L II macro

 

16-35 f/2.8L II

 

STM 40 for discreet shots

 

Maybe a 45mm TS, but I don't own one at the moment.

[dave_thomas8]

<p>Wow - there might be as many answers to this question as there are photographers. Being a hobbyist, albeit a serious one, and not really into wildlife photos, I would start around a nice mid-range zoom. I have an EOS40D and have pretty much settled on a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if I'm only taking one lens. That would loosely translate to the 24-70 for full frame. However, I also own one of those and they are large, heavy, expensive to replace and conspicuous; four things I find unattractive for travel. As a second, a wide-of-normal really fast lens would be nice for indoors.</p>

<p>I suppose if I were doing a totally "photographic mission" I would take more gear. Before i owned the 17-50, I went to London for a week, traveling with my wife and three additional family members. I find my shooting is inversely proportional the the size of the travel party! :) Anyway, before I went I picked up the Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, dirt cheap (relatively), compact and light weight. I took only that; the only time I felt frustrated was in some indoor situations where something faster would have been nice. If I could roll time back knowing what I know now, I might have put the 24-85 money toward the 17-50, which is also more compact than the 24-70. (But that wouldn't help with full frame.) If I had to start over with buying new stuff and full frame, I would probably go toward a 24-105 (also lighter and a bit smaller than the 24-70). And mayhaps a fast wide angle - 35mm 1.4? (what the hey, if a miracle occurs and I can spring for full frame, I can probably finagle that!) Of late I find myself eyeing that 40mm pancake that just released -- I doubt I need it, but it's certainly minimally conspicuous and at the price, "you can't afford not to have it!" :)</p>

<p>If the mission is totally photographic, I guess many would want everything but the kitchen sink, but myself, especially in far away places, I prefer to be as unencumbered as possible. Having less gear means fewer decisions, less physical stress and fewer things to keep an eye on, all the better to concentrate on taking pictures. But that's me, sort of a minimalist!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You need a 70-200mm f4 instead of the f2.8 monster. But as you don't have one I'd take the 24-70, 50/1.4 and the 100 macro. Or leave the 24-70 and take the 16-35mm instead, but I think the 24-70 is a better lens for the ranges it overlaps with the 16-35.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I went in 2010 and took two bodies, a 7D and a 60D. Three lenses, 10-22mm EFS, 15-85mm IS EFS and Sigma 150-500mm OS, plus Gitzo traveler, Gitzo monopod, and a laptop and a couple of external pocket hard drives. The bulk of my shots were with the 60D, as were all my video, and the 15-85. On the 7D I swapped between the 10-22 and the Sigma, depending on whether I shot large monuments like the Taj or wildlife. I always carry a tripod, it seems, and never use it. I did use the monopod, especially with the big Sigma.<br>

In your case, I certainly think for full frame you need the 16-35, your 24-70 and the 70-200 with TCs and or extension tubes. I highly recommend a second body. India can be a dust storm, a typhoon, super hot, super cold, humid and extra dry depending on when and where you go. A monkey could take a liking for your camera. Lots of hazards, so it can't hurt to have a backup.</p>

[will_sohn]

<p>16-35 and a 50<br>

i have a similar kit to you, but when I went to the Philippines, I only took a 50 1.2 and got some amazing shots. When I was at the beach, I felt like I could use a wider field of view so I regretted not taking my 16-35 but a wide zoom and a fast prime is what you need, especially in southeast asia</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>On my last trip to Thailand, i take a 5d+ canon 17-35f2.8L my tokina AT-X F2.6-2.8 28-70mm and my canon 80-200 f2.8L my most used lens was the 28-70 folowed by the 17-35 but i cannot remember using the 80-200<br>

i didnot take my 50 f1.4 usm as its vignetting is so bad on my 5D that at f1.4 at around 3stops when you pull the corners up in lightroome you can see that the the corners have been pulled<br>

I am i bit gutted as it was my most used lens on APS-C<br>

i did miss my tamron 90mm f2.5 macro lens, it manual focus but the AD2 to eos adapter has confirmation bleep that works well <br>

I think the resan i not use the 80-200 is it is a bit long at the 80mm end for a walk around lens<br>

What id like but it not exist is a FF 4X zoom say 50-200mm f4L<br>

i am looking out for the very old and not very common 50-200 f3.5-f4.5L for a travel lens</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>That stuff will feel like an anchor after 4 days IMO. Way too much.</p>

[ben_steinberger]

<p>I think it all depends on your means of what you can and feel comfortable carrying. <br>

I just returned from a 6 month trip to six South American countries and I brought a Nikon D3 and 24-120 f/4. The body was bulky yes but gave me the shooting power I needed and the midrange zoom was perfect. It would have been nice to have an ultra wide and a very fast (1.4 or 1.8) prime lens (35 or 50) with me but just traveling with a backpack it was not feasible.<br>

If you can afford to carry the weight and the bulk I would bring whatever you can fit!<br>

Scott- If I had your bag of lenses and was going to India for a month, I would bring the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200. I dont shoot much macro, the 70-200 is a nice portrait lens and you have a full range from 16-200mm.</p>

[ben_steinberger]

<p>I think it all depends on your means of what you can and feel comfortable carrying. <br>

I just returned from a 6 month trip to six South American countries and I brought a Nikon D3 and 24-120 f/4. The body was bulky yes but gave me the shooting power I needed and the midrange zoom was perfect. It would have been nice to have an ultra wide and a very fast (1.4 or 1.8) prime lens (35 or 50) with me but just traveling with a backpack it was not feasible.<br>

If you can afford to carry the weight and the bulk I would bring whatever you can fit!<br>

Scott- If I had your bag of lenses and was going to India for a month, I would bring the 16-35, the 24-70 and the 70-200. I dont shoot much macro, the 70-200 is a nice portrait lens and you have a full range from 16-200mm.</p>

[jason]

<p>i suggest you Google "Yanidel" and see what can be done basically with one lens and 1 camera! some of the best shots i have ever seen of India, as well as the world tour. i would carry a back-up body and i would use a normal and wide prime plus a small tele. A compact P/S digital a MUST!<br>

You may of course be a new superman, so all that weight, will be a testing ground for a weight lifter and fitness reality show.<br>

Go and enjoy! i did photojournalism with lots less..</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>The ONE lens that I take on all assignments, wedding, Italy, etc. is the Tamron 18-270mm. If other lenses are necessary, I usually bring along the rectangular fisheye zoom, Sigma 8-16mm. And the 3rd lens would be the 70-200mm f/2.8. Totting three lenses is definitely a physical task for most any assignment.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I have a 3 week, 4 country overland shoot starting tomorrow. Taking 2 x bodies, 3 primes, 1 zoom.<br>

For personal stuff I go one body, 35L/135L.</p>