FF travel lens

orly_andico · August 17, 2015

My wife and I just got back from our Germany holiday, and I brought three lenses (16-35/4L IS, 35/1.4, 135/2) defying the recommendations from this forum.

900km of driving and 40GB of images later, what I found was - the 35/1.4 is a gimmick lens. When traveling, f/1.4 is useless. In fact there were many occasions when using the 16-35 at 35mm when there was too little DOF even when stopped down to f/8 (I'm thinking a premium P&S would actually be more useful!) meanwhile the 135mm had some use for the castles when we couldn't get close enough. But we probably used it 5% of the time. Methinks a 70-200 would be a bit more useful but the one we have is f/2.8 and way too heavy, I'm glad we didn't bring it for a possible 5% to 10% use.

16mm is very useful, hence I don't believe any 24-70 or 24-105 zoom would meet my needs.

In summary.. I think the ideal travel range at least for me, on FF, would be something like 16-85. I'm fairly sure such a beast doesn't exist though..

ruben leal · August 17, 2015

Do you have a statistic of how many photos you took in the 16-23mm range?

My first SLR camera had a 50mm prime lens, and after several years I got my first Canon Rebel with the then standard kit lens, which was wide enough for most situations... a 35-80mm zoom lens! When I upgraded to an Elan with a 28-135mm lens, 28mm felt like a special purpose wide angle. Maybe that's the reason I find my current 24-105mm wide enough for most of my images, while I reserve the 16-35 for special purposes, even when I'm carry it (I don't like the distortion associated to close range photography for normal images, then I will do whatever possible to use a longer focal length from a larger distance, leaving the 16-24mm range for situation where isn't feasible to use the feet-zoom).

orly_andico · August 17, 2015

Probably half of the images were at 16mm and the other half at 28-35mm. I get what you say about the massive distortion at 16mm when the camera is tilted. I suddenly had a brain wave about why the TS-E 17mm exists!

Ken Katz · August 17, 2015

I find a 70-200F4 to be a very useful lens to have since it can isolate and simplify a composition and is useful for both cityscapes and landscapes. I would not describe an f1.4 lens as a gimmick, since for many having a lens that lets in 8x the light of an f4 lens and provides significant isolation when shot wide open is a useful tool to have.

Marcus Ian · August 17, 2015

How you shoot is, of course, how you shoot, and of course no amount of rational thought on our parts is going to make our thoughts make sense for you. As you pointed out, you ignored our advice, and, it seems, were somewhat dissatisfied with the results.

Regarding your final selection... I find it mystifying. It seems you would have been much better off w/ a 16-35, a 24-70 or 24-105, and a 70-200/4. It likely would have cost the same or less, and I think you'd have gotten a much wider realm of shots. and a much more satisfying result.

Instead, you took a single special purpose zoom (UWA 16-35), a 35/1.4 (I'm having trouble understanding why, as 35mm is already covered by the zoom), and a 135mm.

In essence, you covered 16-35mm, and 135mm. with zero coverage between 35 and 135! You obviously wanted to take a lot of pictures in that range (as evidenced by the number of shaots at or near your max FL), but could not due to the lens selection.

But your conclusions also do not seem to make any sense to me. Specifically that a 24-70/24-105 wouldn't make sense to you. A 16-85 does not exist (and likely will not in the short/medium term - and, even when it does, will be severely optically handicapped), but replacing the 35/1.4 w/ a 24-105 or 24-70 seems like it would make a LOT of sense. Replacing the 135 w/ a 70-200/4 IS also seems common sense to me. And purchasing such a lens used, using it for the trip, then selling it again would likely have yielded near zero cost - and not forced you to carry the f2.8 copy you already own.

Ah well, hind sight is 20/20 right?

david_henderson · August 18, 2015

I agree with Marcus Ian, both in his puzzlement about what you actually took, and in his opinions of what would work better as a travel combo. The thing about travel is that unless your photography is specialist, you often don't know what's coming along. So having a good range of coverage and no major gaps is IMO very important. I also like having significant overlap in coverage so I don't have to change lenses so often.

Dieter Schaefer · August 18, 2015

Regarding your final selection... I find it mystifying

</blockquote>

I don't - in fact, that's a three lens combo I can find quite versatile when traveling (with a 150/2.8 instead of the 135/2 but that's a quite minor difference).

It seems you would have been much better off w/ 16-35, a 24-70 or 24-105, and a 70-200/4 ... you often don't know what's coming along. So having a good range of coverage and no major gaps is IMO very important

</blockquote>

That's certainly a more versatile kit - and herein lies the issue. When taking the aforementioned 16-35/35/135 set, one essentially takes a set of special-use lenses and needs to be aware of the limitations as well as their potentials - only then does it make sense as a travel kit. Expecting that set to be as universal and flexible as the 3-zoom combo will lead to disappointment.

The 35/1.4 will certainly not feel like a gimmick to me - using a 35mm as a walk-around on camera (as the OP stated in a previous thread) works if that's the way you see the world - but can certainly be a lot more limiting than mounting a 24-70 or 24-105 - if one wants to be prepared for everything. It's a matter of personal preference - I wouldn't trade my 35 for a 24-70 as the latter doesn't provide additional value for me. But for travel to most European countries, the lens I'd have mounted most of the time would be the 16-35 anyway. And I fully expect that the medium-range tele (be it 85/100/135/150) wouldn't see all too much use - so taking one prime vs a 70-200 doesn't affect the final outcome much.

I have both options at my disposal - and decide based on mood, intent, travel destination, and whatever other factors might be of importance. So it could be 16-35/24-85/70-200 for one trip and 16-35/35/150 for another. Or a mixture thereof. Or an 85 substituting. Or a 24 being added. Or a different set 15/21/40/90 altogether. Making the choice beforehand is what can cause issues once at location - but I at least try to approach this by focusing on the shots I can make instead of worrying about the ones I might be missing or can't take.

Robin Smith · August 18, 2015

Well yes there is little point in carrying any duplicate focal length in general. People like to do this because they often have spent the big money on them. You would have been much better off with a 50/1.8 - much, much smaller and lighter and still fast should you need it. It is also important to remember that there are millions of potential photos, madness lies in trying to take them all. So make what you can with the lenses at your disposal.

james_elwing · August 18, 2015

A 135 f2 is a very interesting lens. It makes images just within the 'normal' range of viewing angles with an extraordinary depth of focus, therefore unique. 750g is a bit heavy for touring maybe, but I can understand someone wanting to drag it around.

orly_andico · August 18, 2015

Well, from my past experience with a 10-22 on APS-C (equivalent to 16-35) and a 17-40 on APS-C, I knew going in that 16-35 was a focal length I would really, really, really use. And it seems that Dieter has the same attitude.

I read about a person who traveled Europe with the 35/1.4 and 135/2 only. I can see that working, if the main purpose of your trip is making photos. The 35 can do most everything the 16-35 can... if you have enough space to walk away. For indoor wide photos of those amazing cathedral ceilings though, the only thing that would beat the 16-35 at 16mm is either the 11-24 or (better) the 17 TS-E. The 35 simply doesn't have the wide angle to take in an entire cathedral ceiling (or most of it, or the entire roof of the Golden Room in Augsburg). And you can't walk away.

As for the long end, I can see that a 70-200 would be more useful than the 135 (partially to fill the gap from 35 to 135, e.g. the 70-135mm range) but the longer end isn't that useful. Sure, 200mm is better than 135mm when taking a photo of Neuschwanstein from Schwangau, but almost the same effect can be achieved with a slight crop. The 6D has a lot of pixels, and the 70-200/4L is still larger and heavier than the 135/2.

The reason I think the 35/1.4 was a gimmick was because, when traveling you'll almost never use f/1.4 - that's almost solely for portraits. For dark interiors, you can't use f/1.4 anyway because the DOF is too narrow. You are stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for the DOF, and in that case the 16-35 does exactly the same thing as the 35/1.4 (in fact it's probably optically better and has IS - which is quite useful for those dark church interiors).

In retrospect, the 16-35 alone would work for me. I can't do with a 24-70 or 24-105 because 24mm isn't wide enough.

What would really be a killer app would be a 2-axis inclinometer in the camera, and a way to record the tilt in the EXIF. Then some post-processing software to correct perspective based on the angle. That would give some of the benefits of the TS-E lens, without the inconvenience of manual focus. Hey, there's an idea!

dcstep · August 18, 2015

If you wanted to narrow it down to one, full-frame lens for travel, I'd vote for a 24-105/f4. It goes from truly wide-angle to portrait length and has reasonable speed for today's bodies with great high-ISO performance.

That said, for my own mediterranean trip, starting at the end of this month, I'll also pack my 15/f2.8 fisheye and my 70-200/f4. Those will be further supported by my 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. It all fits easily into a shoulder bag. I use the fisheye as a rectilinear ultra-wide lens by de-fishing its output in Raw conversion. I might use it less than 5% of the time, but it's incomparable at getting those big-sky shots or extreme DOF, when the subjects present themselves.

I'll probably use the 70-200mm less than 10% of the time, but sometimes the extra focal length is just right. Even though my "extra" lenses may only be used in a small percentage of my shots, I take them because they may allow a very special shot that I couldn't get without them. Try putting together a vanity book of your trip. The more perspectives that you have, the more interesting the book will be.

Did you get any pix that you want to frame at 20"x30" or more? I hope you did. For me, that's the whole point of carrying a full-frame kit. If you're not going to print them or sell them, then a lighter kit, like mirrorless or high-end compact is the way to go, IMO.

Dieter Schaefer · August 18, 2015

the 16-35 alone would work for me. I can't do with a 24-70 or 24-105 because 24mm isn't wide enough.

</blockquote>

Same here. Or even wider - but there isn't any image-stabilized one or one without a bulging front-element precluding the use of standard filters.

(better) the 17 TS-E

</blockquote>

with the caveat that the lens requires use of a tripod - and there are many places were you can't bring one.

when traveling you'll almost never use f/1.4

</blockquote>

Maybe not always f/1.4 - but I can find plenty of uses for the f/1.4-f/2 range. Last time I was in Germany I only brought a 35/1.4 - because I knew I wouldn't be doing much photography; turned out to be an excellent choice on my part (with a few occasions were I wished I had brought a 85mm too).

john_r._fulton_jr. · August 18, 2015

Most who shoot with a 16mm FF? The pictures could be improved if cropped to 24mm equivalent. I won't even comment on the 35mm f1.4 being a "gimmick lens". (still chuckling over that insight)

dcstep · August 18, 2015

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=498523">John R. Fulton Jr.</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>

Most who shoot with a 16mm FF? The pictures could be improved if cropped to 24mm equivalent. I won't even comment on the 35mm f1.4 being a "gimmick lens". (still chuckling over that insight)

</blockquote>

Speak for yourself John. I find ultra-wide perspectives very effective, with the right subjects. I'm Jonesing for the new 11-24mm rectilinear. I'll probably borrow one from CPS this fall and also borrow the excellent 14mm for comparison.

orly_andico · August 19, 2015

to clarify - i find the 35/1.4 not useful for general travel, where you want deep DOF, when you also have the 16-35.

i certainly don't think the 35/1.4 is useless, and i'm definitely keeping mine - it's just not useful when you don't need f/1.4 - f/2.8 and you already have another slower lens covering the same FL.

john_r._fulton_jr. · August 19, 2015

Orlando--understood. Thanks for clarification.

I still stand by my comment that most 16mm pictures could be improved if cropped to 24mm.

dcstep · August 19, 2015

John, I really think there's something wrong with your eyes:

Not all subjects look great at utra-wide angles, but some just scream for an ultra-wide.

Marcus Ian · August 19, 2015

I personally agree with the sentiment that the 16-35 is an excellent focal range to travel in Europe. While a 24-xxx may be more suitable traveling in areas with wide open vistas, and plenty of room, when you are shooting in castle and cathedral interiors, tight urban alleys, and and medieval width streets and passageways, it's nearly impossible to get compositional freedom w/ a 24mm FOV. While for general use, it is definitely a special purpose zoom, for European travel it is virtually mandatory.

I think that I'd actually prefer something a bit wider as well, though I think 12mm would be wide enough ;)

mark_pierlot · August 21, 2015

For dark interiors, you can't use f/1.4 anyway because the DOF is too narrow.

</blockquote>

I'm mystified by this comment. I always use my 85/1.2 L II at my daughter's piano recitals, which almost always take place in dimly lit churches, and often find myself at or near f/1.2 (since I can't use flash). The depth of field, while shallow, certainly doesn't ruin the shots, most of which are very good. (I'm not shooting close to my subject, which of course helps.)

Now say you're in a cathedral, museum, or art gallery, where photography is permitted but use of flashes or tripods is not. Do you use a fast lens to photograph some of those beautiful works and artifacts, or do you desist because you're afraid that the DOF will be too shallow? In the first case, you'll have photographs, and in the second, you obviously won't.

Our dearly "departed" JDM von Weinberg once posted a very fine shot he took of a sculpture in a poorly lit cathedral (probably) in Italy. He used a Nikkor 55/1.2 wide open. Now you could retort that he was limited by the slow speed of the film he was using, and that nowadays he could have just raised the ISO to get the shot. But in poor light you'd already be at a relatively high ISO. For example, at my daughter's recitals I'm at ISO 1600 or 3200 at f/1.2 or 1.4. So with an f/2.8 lens, you'd need to bump the ISO 2.5 stops over what you'd need at f/1.2. That's a half stop over ISO 6400 (compared with what you'd need at f/1.2 at 1600) and a half-stop over 12800 (compared to f/1.2 at 3200). Obviously, you could shoot at these very high ISO's, but I'd prefer to get cleaner images with albeit shallower depths of field.

So I think that fast primes are hardly "gimmicks." Many photographers have uses for them, whether creative or determined by lighting conditions.

orly_andico · August 21, 2015

When you're at your daughter's recital, your daughter is the subject, so it's OK if everything else gets blurred out by the f/1.4. Ditto for taking a photo of a statue.

But if you want to take a photo of an entire church aisle, or an altar, f/1.4 will give you very limited DOF. It is better than having no photo? yes. But the 16-35 with it's IS will give you deeper DOF even at a much slower shutter speed. Obviously this solution won't work for a piano recital due to motion blur, but for my specific use case, IS trumps f/1.4 (frankly even f/4 has too-narrow DOF, so I often ended up with f/8, and 1/8 second).

girishmenon · August 23, 2015

900km of driving and 40GB of images later, what I found was - the 35/1.4 is a gimmick lens. When traveling, f/1.4 is useless.

</blockquote>

That really depends on what you're shooting. The 35 1.4 is awesome in low light, even at night for making environmental portraits indoors or on the streets. It's also fantastic for wide angle landscapes especially if you have strong foregrounds. You would need to stop down for more DOF though.

I know someone who photographed the entire catwalk at a fashion show using this lens at f/1.4 on a 5dm3. He had his focus point set on the model's chest and this ensured that the face was in focus. Distance from your subject also affects DOF.

orly_andico · August 23, 2015

.. environmental portraits was also what I had in mind. But guess what.. when traveling, you don't do very much of those. And when you take portraits at f/1.4, nothing of the background is recognizable (I tried). And background context is kinda important when traveling.

As for the fashion show.. well that's not quite the same thing as travel.

For landscapes, sure you can use it - stopped down quite a bit. Since I also have the 16-35 f/4 (which is amazingly sharp wide-open), the 35 f/1.4 is redundant for this use case.

Again, when I say the 35/1.4 is a gimmick for travel, this is in the context of my personal experience traveling and also carrying the 16-35/4. Because (1) when traveling you'll often be stopped down a lot; (2) the 16-35/4 is very, very sharp wide open so is perfectly usable at f/4 when you need it (but most of my photos were at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway)

ryanjoseph · August 24, 2015

I always travel with two lenses. A 24-105 and a 100-400. I find that between these two lenses I get 99 percent of my needs covered. If I could only take one, it would probably be the 24-105.

Sign In

FF travel lens

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in