Lens for travel to Iceland and norway

[kian_ed]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

i have a canon rebel Xsi (450D) with the normal kit lens and last year i had bought 50mm f2.8 for portraits.<br>

Now i will be travelling to norway and iceland and wish to have a lens for landscape photography as well as taking close pictures of kids .i just want to buy 1 lens keeping in mind that may be in future i may upgrade my camera body to the best one while keeping my lenses.<br>

After going through the lenses ,i came across Canon 70-200mm f4.I am okay with the budget,but considering my camera has a crop body.so will this be a good lens which i can carry on a daily basis while on sight seeings and day tours?<br>

Then there is 17-55 mm f 2.8.<br>

So i am a little confused.Please suggest 1 lens for nature and daliy photography at home,which i should have and then i dont need to buy for another 2-3 years.</p>

<p>Many Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Your question is somewhat akin to asking whether you should buy a large spade or a hand trowel for gardening. They are different tools and do different things. I own the IS version of the 70-200/4, and it is a marvelous lens. However, it's a bit too long to be useful for much of my landscape work, and that would be doubly true if I used it on a crop frame body. I've found it is a wonderful lens for candid portraiture, but you might find it a bit long (high magnification, tunnel-visioned) on your crop body.</p>

<p>You speak in terms of wanting to upgrade your camera body eventually to "the best one." You will find that the best one for one photographer is not the best one for another photographer. If you do not foresee a compelling reason to transition to a full frame camera, I would just buy crop frame lenses for now. They are lighter, smaller, and less expensive. If you want to carry just one single lens for a variety of situations, including landscape and portraiture, then that 17-55/2.8 lens might fit that bill a bit better. The 15-85 even more so. There are a number of options for crop lenses, and others will be more familiar with them than I am. But I would say that's a much more useful focal length range for you to consider.</p>

<p>That said, there is no reason to buy anything different if your kit lens is already performing well for you. If you have the IS (image stabilized) version of the 18-55, that's actually an amazingly good (albeit cheaply built) little lens.</p>

[kian_ed]

<p>At present i have the kit lens 18-55 mm.Somehow i dont feel like using it after using my new lens 50mm f1.4 USM.<br>

So im looking to replace my kit lens .So im just left with my 50mm lens :( <br>

i agree with you 70-200 would be too big for the crop body.<br>

Thanks for suggesting some crop lenses.i want a telephoto lens good for landscape,nature and ofcourse for capturing "running kids" :)</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>i agree with you 70-200 would be too big for the crop body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really don't understand this. If you need these focal lengths, it'll work just fine. The esthetics of how a lens looks on a particular body are meaningless. My son just purchased a Canon Rebel SLi, together with Canon EFS 24mm (pancake). We went for an outing last week and he was using my 70-200 f2.8 more than anything. </p>

<p>Here's a pic of his setup:</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>17-55 mm f 2.8 would be very nice, as would the 15-85mm. Either of these would fit the bill for you. If you have the latest STM 18-55mm IS that is actually a pretty decent lens and I wouldn't rush to replace it. You could get a 70-200mm, but a standard zoom like you have, or as suggested above, would probably be more useful for general photography. </p>

[kian_ed]

<p>I think i have the older 18-55mm so i am planning to replace with new one.How about 24-105 f4 IS over<br>

15-85mm?I also plan to buy a full frame later in future.Please advise.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>15-85 is probably the best choice for a "universal" lens on a crop sensor body. But with regards to traveling to Iceland and Norway - personally, I wouldn't want to be without something wider even than 15mm. Like the Canon 10-18 or 10-22, or third-party equivalents thereof.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Kian, I think you're confusing "length" for "size." By "length," we mean "focal length." The focal length of the lens determines its magnification. Your 50mm lens has a focal length of 50mm. Your 18-55 lens has a variable focal length, ranging from 18-55 mm. The shorter the focal length, the wider angle it is. A focal length of approx. 30mm would give you a "normal" field of view on a crop body (vs. a focal length of 50mm on a full frame body).</p>

<p>With this in mind, a 24-105 lens is a very nice lens, but mostly for a full frame body. On a crop body like yours, it will give you from "barely" wide angle (hardly at all) to somewhat telephoto. It's probably not a very useful one-lens solution for you. It will certainly not be as wide angle as the 18mm you already enjoy. I own both a full frame body, a crop body, and the 24-105 lens, and I think I am correct in saying I have never used the 24-105 lens on my crop body. </p>

<p>I suspect you want some wide angle capability. If so, your lens should probably be in the 15 to 18mm range on the short end. Although a 17-40/4L would probably satisfy this need (being a bit lacking on the long end), your better bet would probably be one of Canon's crop lenses, designated "EF-S." They are smaller, lighter, less expensive, and probably better for what you're doing. There are also third party crop lenses, e.g. from Tamron, Sigma, etc. I think there is a Tamron 17'ish to 55'ish lens that everyone likes quite a lot. Perhaps someone will tell you what it is.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>If you enjoy your trips to Norway and Iceland as much as I did then you are in for a great time! My own experience there was much like the rest of my photography - that I used my mid-range zoom for most (maybe 65%) of shots, a 70-300 telephoto for maybe 25% and the 17-40 wide angle for maybe 10% of the time.<br /> <br /> For your APS-C sized camera the equivalent lens to my mid-range zoom (canon EF 24-105 f4 L) is probably the Canon ef-s 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS or the Canon ef-s 17-55 2.8. The problem with these two lenses is that you already have the 18-55 kit lens, which is quite a decent lens, so replacing it with one of those options is a lot of money for perhaps not much gain.<br /> <br /> The next option is possibly to keep the kit lens and add a telephoto. Either the 70-200 f4 which is a very fine lens, or possibly either the (non-L) Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 or its Tamron equivalent the 4-5.6 VC. Both of these are very good though not quite up to the excellent 70-200 f4.<br /> The 70-200 or 70-300 lenses, used at the shorter end, can be good for pictures of your kids too. Enjoy your trip!</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Here is a vote for the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS lens. Great image quality, image stabilization and an incredible bargain right now with the substantial instant rebate. Lighter than the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS EF-S lens I currently use and less expensive. It is very versatile covering a very useful range and is great for landscape, people and events and travel pics. Good luck! </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>The ultimate would be the 24mm tilt shift and few filters, most importantly ND grads, and maybe a Singh-Ray Color Combo or Color Intensifier. Worth it after you make the investment to get to such a beautiful place.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>I am a big fan of super wides. I used a 10-22mm on a crop sensor body on a couple of trips and I loved it. I have now moved to the 16-35mm on an FF body, which has the same zoom range.</p>

<p>I used the 17-40 on a trip in 2011, and it wasn't wide enough for my liking. For this reason the 15-85 or 17-55 are better bets (the 15-85 covers a more useful range since it's wider, and I love wide).</p>

<p>I survived two long holidays with the 10-22mm and didn't feel any lack (oh, except at 10mm the 10-22mm will cast a huge dark blob shadow when using the built-in flash). The 10-18mm STM is probably a better bet due to its IS.</p>

<p>The 10-18mm STM and the 50mm together are probably good enough. Use the 10-18mm for 70% to 80% of the trip, and the 50mm as a "poor man's telephoto" - after all it is 80mm equivalent on crop sensor which is telephoto enough.</p>

[kian_ed]

<p>Thank you all for your responses.I am planning to choose between Sigma 17-50m or canon 17-55 after going to the shop and having hands on experience.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Here's a great tool for side-by-side lens IQ comparison:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=763&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=729&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0</p>

[colin carron]

<p>If you want a wider shot than the lenses you have then stitching a sequence of shots can be a good solution. The technique isn't difficult and doesn't need a tripod unless you are very particular. But if you plan to use a stitched shot then you should read up the technique and practise it before you go.</p>

[kian_ed]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>Thank you so much for your responses.Will probably go for 10-18mm :-)</p>

[DickArnold]

I use a Canon 18-135 stm for walkaround. It is the kit lens for the 7d2 which I have. I have sharper lenses but this

gives you a short tele and a moderate wide angle in one lens. It will make decent prints or show fine on a digital

projecter. This turns out to be the most convenient for just plain tourist use. It runs around

$500 US. You will miss a lot if you go with a longer lens.

[mark_schafer1]

<p>While i'm not familiar with a lot of Canon and third party choices these days, i play more on the high end side of things, Otus, Canon L, blah blah, i always like to recommend the Canon 24-105 f4, it's a kit lens that's been around for some time, but i love the IS (great for video), it's sharp, has a nice focal range. I was in Iceland a couple of weeks ago for a shoot, used this one quite a bit, durable, flexible, nice for dramatic wide angle front-far separation, etc. and it can be sourced on eBay for reasonable cost. To me, with all the digital newish advancements, it's all about the glass. That's sticking around for generations, i got my 24-105 with the Canon 5D II, now using it on a 5DS, checked and cleaned by CPS twice and despite having the 24-70 II i still prefer this one for it's longer reach and more pleasing image when people are involved and its versatility for landscapes. I don't like anything wider and feel 24mm is the max on a full frame...</p>