orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>My wife and I are planning an epic (Castle) Road trip in Germany in a couple months. I need to decide what travel lens to use.</p><p>We have a 6D body and a 28mm f/1.8 prime. Normally I would say that's all the lens one could possibly need (moderate wide angle, very fast). But.... I have a 10-22 EF-S and the 16mm equivalent is quite addictive! I love this focal length range...</p><p>sadly the 10-22 won't fit on the 6D.</p><p>I could bring the 10-22, but that would mean packing another body. From past experience, nothing ruins a nice vacation faster than heavy camera gear dangling like an albatross around one's neck.</p><p>I carried a 17-40L around Europe a few years ago, and it was an OK lens. Back then I used a crop-sensor body, so the 17-40L was boring. And not fast enough at the long end to produce nice bokeh (the 28/1.8 does much better). I could live with another 17-40 (sold the last one) as they are relatively cheap.</p><p>However..... there's the new 16-35/4L IS. Objectively pretty darn perfect, except (1) it weighs as much as the 16-35/2.8L; and (2) it is more expensive - not prohibitively so, but I can get a used 17-40 for less than half the price (used 16-35/4 are rare and the savings is not worth it versus buying new).</p><p>Another downside of both the 17-40 and 16-35 is that they weigh a bit too much for my taste (the 17-40 + 40D a few years ago was a real pain in the neck). However I don't want to bring a crop sensor body and the 10-22 because the high ISO of the 6D is so useful.. (and the 28/1.8 is not that useful on a crop body). And.. the smartphone integration on the 6D is perfect for travel selfies...</p><p>Any thoughts on this?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>.. incidentally i cannot consider a 4/3 or fixed-lens compact. None of them go as wide as 16mm, and they have terrible high ISO compared to the 6D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_avis2 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I don't think you will get a small and light full-frame lens wider than 24mm. Unless you go to the extreme of an 8mm fisheye lens (which gives a circle in the middle of the frame).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gduffy Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>Orlando,<br> The 17-40L f4.0 only weighs 4 oz more than the 10-22. That would be my choice.<br> Gary</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry_grim Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I used the 17-40 with a 40D...it was OK, maybe not the best. But now I have a 6D and it is much more appropriate although I often carry just the 24 2.8 IS lens which is great when I don't need the bulk of more gear and want to travel light and compact. Although the 17-40 is very good with the 6D, I would prefer the 16-35, but for me, but I am confident with the 17-40 and see no strong reason to upgrade to the 16-35. If I could afford it and did not have a wide zoom, I would get the 16-35. I would not let the weight of the 16-35 discourage me. It would seem that only you can decide if you can afford or don't mind, the extra cost of the 16-35. BTW, my son just bought a new crop body for a trip to Africa, as he wanted an upgraded body from his aging XT1. He did not want to change to full frame or another system because he loves his 10-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosvanEekelen Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I understand your dilemma. I still use the old EF 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM (non L) lens. Partly because I'm not such a wide angle fan and also because I can't/won't afford a new lens right now. Perhaps it's a compromise you can live with. Small, light and of reasonable quality. If I'm not mistaken there is no lens correction profile in Lightroom but there is one in Canon's DPP since recently. The lens has since long been discontinued, lots of offers on ebay for around USD 200; actually a higher price than I had expected.</p> <p>Then there also is the Samyang 14 mm lens, ultrawide and affordable.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I have for quite a while thought about how I could make good use of a Sigma 20mm F/1.8. I have not used one, so I have no comment other than to offer it as a suggestion to you - maybe that lens is a consideration as you don't seem adverse to using a Prime Lens.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I'm not a Canon user, but if you're willing to compromise a bit on the widest angles, things can quickly become much smaller, like the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 (manual focus, but at these wide angles that's not a huge concern). It is not particolarly cheap, but it does quite reasonable in tests and it's really tiny.<br /> If you really want much wider, a larger but quite affordable option would also be the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (also manual focus, but extremely wide) that Jos mentioned.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>There is not really anything that fits the bill. The closest are the 20mm Voigtlander f3.5 - nice build but optically rather disappointing, but it is tiny, and the 18mm Zeiss Distagon ZE - good but expensive and only a little lighter than the 16-35 f4IS (although it is a lot smaller). There is also the Samyang 14mm - very cheap, and good resolution, but totally manual and packed with distortions (may be worrying for buildings). It's not a heavy lens, but it is not tiny either. You could hold out for an Olympus OM 18mm f4 and use it through an adapter, but they are way too expensive secondhand and, in my opinion, you are better off with the Zeiss for a couple of hundred more. The most practical solution is indeed the new Canon 16-35 f4, but it is a large lens (although not really very heavy).</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I forgot.. I also have a Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 which I thought would be my cheap wide-angle. However... 20mm is not as wide as 16mm (equivalent), there's no Full-Time-Manual or USM drive (the focusing sounds like Ratchet & Clank) and there's no lens correction profile either.<br> So I guess it's down to the 16-35/4 or the 17-40/4 if I'm on a budget.<br> Another thing.. Aside from the UWA zoom and the 28/1.8 (which is pretty small) I'm wondering if I should also bring a telezoom. My long Canons are the 70-200/2.8 and a couple of long (180mm+) primes of which only the zoom is appropriate but which is quite heavy (to put it mildly).<br> I've only brought the 70-200mm on one trip and it proved fairly useless (but that was on a crop body) so am wondering if I should take on the additional massive bulk.<br> Also I love the 10-22! maybe I should just bring the 550D for it... zero cost. The only challenge is the high ISO is compromised and I've gotten addicted to the clean sensor on the 6D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>"sadly the 10-22 won't fit on the 6D."<br /><br /><br> I'm a Nikon user and not familiar with specific Canon gear but I can't imagine the 10-22 won't physically mount on the 6D. Are you saying the 10-22 is a crop sensor lens and won't cover the full frame sensor on the 6D? If that's the case, doesn't the 6D automatically switch over the crop sensor mode like a Nikon FX (full frame) camera will automatically switch to DX (crop sensor) when a DX lens is mounted? Obviously you would not get the advantage of using all the pixels of the full sensor but you could use the lens you have on the camera you have.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>The dedicated crop-sensor lenses have a flange at the back which physically prevents them from mounting on a full frame body.</p> <p>Some people hack off this flange but it results in the mirror striking the rear of the lens at certain focal lengths (the wide ones).</p> <p>I suspect Nikons work because their flange registration distance is (much) larger than Canon EF, so there's room for the mirror to clear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 If you want USM on a Canon FF, then your lighter weight options are the 17-40L 16-35F4IS, and 20-35EF. I used to own a 20-35EF, and it was a good lens in its time but I don't know how it would stack up to today's high resolution sensors (only used it on film and 6mp DSLR). I still have a 17-40, but it is somewhat soft in the extreme corners at 17mm, but much better at 20mm and beyond. I find a midrange telephoto quite useful for travel, so you may want to consider a 70-200F4LIS, which is simply an excellent lens, or perhaps a 70-300IS (EF or L, depending on your budget and weight tolerance). Apparently, the Tamron 70-300VR is optically similar to the Canon EF lens, and has their version of a ring type USM motor. All this really comes down to your choice of what to carry and how much $$ you are willing to spend. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <blockquote> <p>70-200/2.8</p> </blockquote> <p>You should have got the 70-200mm f4 IS. </p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Orlando -- thanks. Didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>Robin, I tried the 70-200/4L IS before buying the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. The f/4 versions don't knock out the background as much as I'd like.</p> <p>Kenneth, as I already have the 70-200/2.8 non IS, I wouldn't buy the f/4 version or any of the 70-300's. The problem really is weight. If I bring that big white lens, maybe I should bring two bodies, since swapping lenses is a hassle, and with two cameras my wife and I can have one each. So 70-200 on the 6D (alternate with the 28/1.8), and 10-22 on the 550D.. zero $$ to spend!</p> <p>One side benefit of bring the 550D.. I don't need to carry a dedicated flash. Why Canon left the pop-up flash off the 6D beggars belief.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Katz Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The 70-200 F4s weigh about 1/2 of the f2.8 versions as do any of the non "L" 70-300 lenses. At the end of the day its your back, neck, shoulder and wallet that is impacted by these choices. The other brand of FF DSLRs have pop-up flashes on all but their top of the line pro camera, so the Canon's decision with the 5D and 6D series seems odd. One of the compact (2 AA cell) EX flashes is a good solution vs taking a full sized speedlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRCrowe Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>I recently bought the Tamron 15-30 2.8 Di VC USD zoom and am really impressed with the sharpness and VC. It is not a lightweight but it would be great for those indoor church and cathedral shots, or hand held high ISO night shots.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>+1 for the Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f2.8. Make sure you get a decent copy and you will need to correct the funky distorion in post depending on the scene (eg. lots of horizontal lines). I own a 17-40L and never even use it if I want wide angle. Where 14mm is a pain is when you can not get close enough to the subject hence the zoom.</p> <p>If you haven't browsed the photography-on-the-net forum they have a lens sample archive. From those images, if you were going to take a lot of architectural photos, the 17 TS, the 24 TS and the Zeiss 21mm seem to render images incredibly sharp, good contrast, etc. Those are all spendy and manual focus (like the Samyang).</p> <p>If you are worried about theft, the Samyang will be the least of your worries - often well under $300 used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_vitello1 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>Somehow the extreme compact Rebel SL1 always fails to get mentioned in regards to a very compact travel body.I bought one and love the darn thing so much the 60D with 15 - 85mmUSM stays at home most of the time.The Canon 10 - 18mm STM makes a great companion with this body along with many of the numerous EF-S compact zooms.Not a lot of money and no big deal if damaged or lost on a trip.Just my opinion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 <p>Just read up on the Tamron 15-30. The B&H price ($1200) is actually higher than the local price in Singapore for the Canon 16-35/4L IS (about $970). And while the Tamron is f/2.8, has FTM and a USM drive equivalent, it won't have in-camera vignetting and CA correction. And it's a Tamron. And it is larger than the 16-35/2.8L II (let alone the f/4 version).</p> <p>I'm not really after ultimate image quality, so the manual focus and T/S lenses are overkill. I do care about convenience, so I don't want manual focus. As for the 10-18 STM, I realise it has been getting a lot of mileage (claimed better performance than the 10-22, and cheaper) but the build quality leaves something to be desired. Anyway seems it's down to a used 17-40 or a new 16-35. I'm leaning toward the latter, because IS is useful, it's slightly wider, and I'm a specs geek. Or just keep the darn 10-22 and save some money.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 <p>If, as you say, you aren't after ultimate image quality, but still want a functional AF lens, there is an alternative that may be an option for you if you are willing to think outside the box. Many Sigma and Tamron 'digital only' lenses will mount on your 6D, function fully, be extremely lightweight, and give you a range that is otherwise not available. For example a Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5 mounts and works on your 6D (no clearance issues), and it's image circle covers the entire (full) frame from ~ 14mm -> 24mm. Such a range would pair nicely w/ a 28/1.8, and not weigh much more. They can be had for ~$350+. There are others which have the same kind of limitation, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of which begin to vignette where and when. Something to consider.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'm not sure this is lighter or cheaper, but... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-11-24mm-f-4L-USM-Lens.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 <p>I forgot to mention the Sigma 12-24mm. This is a fair priced, rather cool lens with pretty good distortion characteristics and until the Canon 11-24mm came along the only rectilinear lens that could go so wide. Those who have it seem to like it. I would consider this too. It's about $800 in the US. It's much lighter than the Canon 11-24 (what isn't?).</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 <p>The Canon 11-24 is totally out of the picture. I'm not spending that much..</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now