I hate the "vacation" lens thing…..but….

forsooth

I am looking for a new lens for my wife. She wants a compact lens that she can use that gives her something in the region of 18 mm-200 mm. We have just returned from a vacation and I was using two lenses, a Canon EF 16-35 mm and a Canon EF 70-200 mm IS MKII. I was changing lenses all the time which was a pain but we wanted to travel as light as possible. My wife decided that she didn't want to mess with changing lenses all the time although we have another Canon 70-200 mm Non IS MKI. We both use Canon 5D MK II's. I'd prefer to stick with Canon lenses but options now seem limited.

Any suggestions welcome.

forsooth :rolleyes

cab.in.boston

For a full-frame superzoom, I'd agree that your options are pretty limited. You can go with the Canon 28-300 for $2700, the Tamron 28-300 for $630, or limit your zoom range to something like the 28-135 or 24-105 lenses from Canon or Sigma. I'd recommend looking at the metadata from what you typically shoot on vacation and see if you really need that much of a range or if there is a smaller range of focal lengths that you tend to spend the majority of time in. Maybe use one of the 70-200s you already have and just supplement with a small, light prime in the 20-30mm range for the times you want to go wide? It doesn't alleviate the lens changing issue, but at least is lighter than carrying two largish zooms...

Pupator

I've gone through the same challenge since the only thing I photograph these days are family events and trips. I've switched bodies over the last 3 years from D600 to D7000 to NEX-3 and now NEX-6. With each new body I had to revisit this question and try out new options.

Do you know what I do now? I crop. Seriously. Going to Disney last year I took my NEX with only the 16mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.8 and a 60 f/2.8. Every day when we went out, I'd have the 35mm or 60mm on the camera and the 16mm in my pocket. I just focused each day on getting the types of pictures that the lens on my body did best (in an emergency I'd throw on the 16mm). Cameras today are so good and the resolution is so high, you can crop the heck out of a picture and still end up with a really great finished product. Since my interest is in taking pictures of the people (family) while at Disney, and not up-close artistic shots of the Disney decorations, that worked really well for me. I bet if she walked around on vacations with only a 35mm or 50mm and spent the energy on composition (and cropping later) rather than changing lenses or zooming in, she'd be pretty happy. I am.

Just something to consider.

aj986s

We love our 18-200 Canon lens, but sadly I don't think it'll work on a full-frame camera.

I also have a 28-135 which I like to use periodically. Its compact and lightweight, and very sharp. Though it doesn't have the range of 18-200 it can still be quite versatile. And the price is rather affordable.

ziggy53

For light travel, and considering the Canon line and compatible lenses and accessories, I prefer to use a crop 1.6x, xxD body series and then two lenses:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM

Currently, the Canon 70D looks like it would make a wonderful Canon travel body.

You could use a Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and avoid lens changes, but the drop in image quality and loss in light efficiency, especially at the long end, is more than I desire.

I suggest renting a system for one of your trips so that you can try any particular combination before committing to any purchase.

forsooth

cab.in.boston wrote: »

For a full-frame superzoom, I'd agree that your options are pretty limited. You can go with the Canon 28-300 for $2700, the Tamron 28-300 for $630, or limit your zoom range to something like the 28-135 or 24-105 lenses from Canon or Sigma. I'd recommend looking at the metadata from what you typically shoot on vacation and see if you really need that much of a range or if there is a smaller range of focal lengths that you tend to spend the majority of time in. Maybe use one of the 70-200s you already have and just supplement with a small, light prime in the 20-30mm range for the times you want to go wide? It doesn't alleviate the lens changing issue, but at least is lighter than carrying two largish zooms...

Hi Cab, Many thanks! The 28-300 is definitely not an option since we already have two 70-20mm lenses. Weight and price are both considerations. I don't know if I can convince her on the 28-135 but it is certainly a possibility. I know that Sigma won't be an option, we'd both prefer sticking with Canon lenses.
Your suggestion about just supplementing the 70-200 with a smaller wide angle is a definite possibility though…. but the problem is she has her eyes on my 16-35 mm! I'm sure all of us have these problems but today the first order of business its to restore marital order!

forsooth

Pupator wrote: »

I've gone through the same challenge since the only thing I photograph these days are family events and trips. I've switched bodies over the last 3 years from D600 to D7000 to NEX-3 and now NEX-6. With each new body I had to revisit this question and try out new options.

Do you know what I do now? I crop. Seriously. Going to Disney last year I took my NEX with only the 16mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.8 and a 60 f/2.8. Every day when we went out, I'd have the 35mm or 60mm on the camera and the 16mm in my pocket. I just focused each day on getting the types of pictures that the lens on my body did best (in an emergency I'd throw on the 16mm). Cameras today are so good and the resolution is so high, you can crop the heck out of a picture and still end up with a really great finished product. Since my interest is in taking pictures of the people (family) while at Disney, and not up-close artistic shots of the Disney decorations, that worked really well for me. I bet if she walked around on vacations with only a 35mm or 50mm and spent the energy on composition (and cropping later) rather than changing lenses or zooming in, she'd be pretty happy. I am.

Just something to consider.

Thanks Pupator! It looks as I won't get away with proposing any of your suggestions because back in the good old film days she used to be a Nikon shooter and had had a Nikon F3 with a small Tokina 70-210 lens that was perfect weight wise and covered all of the bases. I know that her having to carry a range of lenses won't fly. When traveling, the limit on the carry on luggage is usually 15 lbs and we scrape by each time with the one camera bag. We have had issues with that in the past. Thanks though!

forsooth

aj986s wrote: »

We love our 18-200 Canon lens, but sadly I don't think it'll work on a full-frame camera.

I also have a 28-135 which I like to use periodically. Its compact and lightweight, and very sharp. Though it doesn't have the range of 18-200 it can still be quite versatile. And the price is rather affordable.

Hi aj986s! The price on this lens is very good but as you say it won't work on the full frame 5D MK II and I had actually considered it but when I contacted the dealer they told me and tried to switch me to the 70-300 mm Canon. It's a pity, because if the 18-200 mm had worked I'd be off the hook!

forsooth

ziggy53 wrote: »

For light travel, and considering the Canon line and compatible lenses and accessories, I prefer to use a crop 1.6x, xxD body series and then two lenses:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM

Currently, the Canon 70D looks like it would make a wonderful Canon travel body.

You could use a Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and avoid lens changes, but the drop in image quality and loss in light efficiency, especially at the long end, is more than I desire.

I suggest renting a system for one of your trips so that you can try any particular combination before committing to any purchase.

Thanks ziggy! I agree completely with your assessment but she loves the 5D and for her to take a step down would not work I think. She likes quality in gear and image so that's a problem. I'll check to see if any of my mates has a Canon 70D or do as you say and rent one to try it out. I need to spend more time here because as a community you folks are always very helpful. When I come up with a solution I'll let you know. Many thanks!

NWPhil

forsooth wrote: »

I am looking for a new lens for my wife. She wants a compact lens that she can use that gives her something in the region of 18 mm-200 mm. We have just returned from a vacation and I was using two lenses, a Canon EF 16-35 mm and a Canon EF 70-200 mm IS MKII. I was changing lenses all the time which was a pain but we wanted to travel as light as possible. My wife decided that she didn't want to mess with changing lenses all the time although we have another Canon 70-200 mm Non IS MKI. We both use Canon 5D MK II's. I'd prefer to stick with Canon lenses but options now seem limited.

Any suggestions welcome.

forsooth

what about taking advantage of the folder and CF system? meaning, instead of changing lenses, or swapping memory cards, just create two folders to each of you in each camera. As they are exactly the same, and they can be set with personalized CF, I doubt there will be many situations you both need the same focal length at the same time; so easy to use either camera depending on your shot framing.
Sure not perfect, but if you want to travel light, and avoiding changing lenses the whole time, this could be a good compromise

ziggy53

forsooth wrote: »

... she loves the 5D and for her to take a step down would not work I think. She likes quality in gear and image so that's a problem. ...

Please keep in mind that today's cameras are all of very high image quality potential. Most of image quality variation comes from the lens used, with the best lenses either prime lenses or "L" series zooms (or equivalent). The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM and Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM are both extremely high quality optics and can produce images of extremely high quality.

The main differences between these and the lenses you already have are:

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is only going to attach to a Canon crop 1.6x body (like the Canon 70D), and the Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM will be one stop smaller than the f2.8L versions. You do have less DOF control, versus a FF body, but the trade off for portability without losing image quality is worth it, very much IMO.

I too use a Canon 5D Mark II, but I use it mostly for portraiture and formals, and some landscape and nature. For travel I use a 40D and the lenses previously indicated (17-55mm, f2.8IS and 70-200mm, f4L IS). I don't feel like I'm losing any image quality whatsoever, as long as I do "my" job as a photographer.

To make it easier to change lenses in the field, I use a camera "holster" bag. While it can, and does, hold both the 40D and 17-55mm attached, I often just keep the spare lens in the holster. I can unzip and remove the spare lens with one hand, and easily demount and mount with the other hand. It's just a lot easier to use a holster versus a traditional bag. A proper "photographer's vest" is easier still, but I prefer the holster for other reasons.

As to image quality on a Canon crop body: