Which Two Lenses For Traveling

SkipperJay

I am presently researching photographic tours of India and doing some long range planning. I am trying to assess which lenses I should bring along with my 40D.
Here are my choices: EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS,
EF 24-105 f/4L, EF 70-200 f/4L. I am primarily interested in street scenes, festivals, ceremonies, close-ups of people and market places. Some landscape.

I don't want to be weighed down with a lot of bulky lenses. Two would be my limit.

Which two lenses would you choose and why?

Also, I would appreciate any info. on organized photographic tours.

Much thanks,

Skipper Jay
--

ziggy53

Of your lenses I would be lost without the EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 70-200mm, f/4L USM. That would cover most shooting opportunities.

Since you are talking about India and tours I would also be strongly tempted to take the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 for vista landscapes and certain interiors.

If this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip those three lenses would give you a lot of versatility.

saurora

You didn't really mention exactly what your goals were in the way of captures but these are my choices. I would take the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS for the low-light capability, image stabilization, and wide angle for landscapes and groups of people. It's a popular choice for wedding photographers, so I'm sure it would do well for street shots too. I also would take the 70-200 f/4 known to be very sharp, light weight lens (compared to others versions) with good reach for more isolated shots and portraits. Funny, I don't have either of these 2 lenses, but I do have the other 2!!! The 10-22 is so light to carry around and that extra wide can be lots of fun. The 24-105 f/4L is a great, not too heavy, carry around lens with a nice range. Takes super shots. It's my most used lens as it is so versatile. Sure you don't want to take 3???

saurora

Ha! Looks like Ziggy and I were thinking alike at the same time!

rpcrowe

My ultimate travel duo...
My ultimate travel duo is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on two bodies.

These two lenses will cover just about any photographic situation with the exception of macro, long lens requirements such as wildlife and very wide angle shots. I have longer and shorter lenses with which I will occasionally supplement these two lenses. As an example, I am taking an additional 300mm f/4L IS lens and 1.4x TC on a trip to Alaska for wildlife shots. However, I will most often take only these two lenses in order to cut down on weight and make travel more simple.

I carry the 17-55mm around my neck and the 70-200mm in a holster case at my left hip wearing a hand strap. I am right handed and cross draw this camera. I use a screw-in lens hood and an OPTECH Hood Hat in lieu of a lens hood. It is quick and easy to get this camera/lens in operation.

nightspidy

I would take....

SkipperJay wrote:

I am presently researching photographic tours of India and doing some long range planning. I am trying to assess which lenses I should bring along with my 40D.
Here are my choices: EFS 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS,
EF 24-105 f/4L, EF 70-200 f/4L.
I don't want to be weighed down with a lot of bulky lenses. Two would be my limit.
--

This really depends on what your goals are in terms of shooting. On my last trip to arizona, utah, colorado & nevada I took a lot of lenses - 100mm macro, 10-20mm, 50mm, 24-70mm and my 70-200 2.8 with 1.4 extender. My main lenses were the 24-70mm & the 70-200mm; the 50mm and macro were only used a handful of times, but I would still bring them on another trip as I love taking flower & insect shots and the 50mm is just a great, fast little lens. I used the 10-20mm ONCE. I used my 24 & 70 for landscape shots, if needed.


If I were in your shoes, I would take the 17-55 for the low-light shots, street & people shots, etc and the 70-200 for the long range. I own the 2.8 version of this lens and it always comes with me on my vacation. My husband owns the 4 and he loves it-it is his most used lens. However, if this is a "once-in-a-life-time" kinda trip, I would bring your 24-105 as well. I would hate to be all that way and be thinking if only I brought that lens.....again it also depends on what your goals are for shooting.

Scott_Quier

Among others, I have:

• EF-S 10-22
• EF-S 17-55
• EF 24-105
• EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS

So, I think I have the background the talk to this question.

Of my kit, and if I were to limit to only 2 lenses, I think I would rent the 70-200 f/4L 'cause the 2.8 IS is sooo heavy (but you don't have to rent it as you already have access to it ) Then, I would also bring along the 17-55.

This would allow me to get the vistas and, if I really needed to, I could use the 17-55 at about 50mm to create multiple exposure panos (stitching them together when I got home).

All that being said, if I found I had room for a third lens, I think I would be very tempted to bring the 24-105. This makes a very good walking around lens - decently wide (even on the 1.6x crop camera) and has the reach that is sometimes desirable. This would allow you to leave the other two lenses in your room (in the safe ).

Moogle Pepper

I would say definitely the 17-55 and 70-200. I know and fully regret not carrying my 70-200 with me on my trip to California. :cry I wouldn't bring the 24-105 if you bring the 2 mentioned above, but by itself, the 24-105 is a great lens if for a travel lens in itself.


But why limit yourself to two lenses? Go with three and cut down after that!

Photoskipper

I brought the Tamron 11-18 and Sigma 18-200 with Rebel XT to Alaska 2 years ago and have no regret. The coverage was 18 all the way to 320 on the 1.6 X crop body. 18-200 was the most use lens.

Till I got the 5D, I use the 24-105 as walk about lens and 70-200 F2.8 for standby. So I have the coverage from 24 to 200 with some overlap at 70 -105 so that I don't need to change lens too often.

For package tour or non-photo tour, I prefer to have the 24-105 mounted most of the time and have the 17-40 as standby. 70 -200 may not be useful for quick snap shots. Furthermore the 70-200 seems a bit too bulky and heavy, it takes up too much space in the camera bag.

claudermilk

I agree with ziggy. Taking only two lenses, of your kit I'd choose the 17-55 & 70-200. I tend to run a bit heavier & have my four with me: 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 50/1.8. I'll take along what I expect to have opportunities to use each day. The 24-70 goes almost all the time.

Awais Yaqub

In india ultra wide will really shine !! a lot historic buildings and awsome detail work in interiors do take your 10-22

Happy traveling

Manfr3d

I would leave the 24-105mm/4.0 at home and take the other three.
Unthinkable to not have a fast lens and a ultra wide lens on such a
big photo trip! You can probably ommit the 70-200 and replace it
by a 85/1.8 for street scenes if you don't plan to do alot of landscape.
But 10-22 + 17-55 is a minimum imho.

saurora

If I could only take one lens, I would take the 24-105 F/4L, but I would also take a flash. In your case, if you're taking 2 lenses you might as well add the 10-22 as it is so light and super for crowds, markets, shooting up-close portraits with lots of background! Are you taking a flash? I've never been there, but wonder if the light during the day might be fairly harsh and a fill flash would be helpful for faces. Lucky you....sounds like a great adventure. Be sure to share when you get back.

Shima

I went to Japan and shot with the 24-105 on the body 98% of the time... I had my 70-200 with me, but usually found it too close for walk around. I now have the 17-55 and I am much more fond of it as a walk around lens due to the increased speed and wider angle. I'd still take the 70-200 with you just to keep on the safe side for when you find a situation needing more reach.

ChatKat

A cabinet full of lenses but...
I have done a number of trips with a bag full of lenses. I usually take the 24-105 and the 70-200 with the 50 1.2 in the bag.

This last trip I did not have the ability to take all of them. I did not want to change lenses and I was walking a lot. My husband shoots with a 20d and I have the 5d. We were blown away by the Tamron 28-300 VR. I had the 18-200 with my old 20 d and wasn't that impressed but the new 28-300 was so perfect for our shooting. Light, easy to carry, no lense changes and the images were just fine. I could always pixel peep and find a difference but thee images were great and the lens worth looking for. I never took my 50 out - I didn't need it.