Flight attendant looking for best travel lenses for 7D

I often travel all over the world for photography... The purists will laugh, but I've gone through customs and passport control and lines and security up the ying yang and travel fast and light with My Canon 7d and Tamron 18-270mm lens in a ThinkTank Holster 50 case... I also bring a loupe and sometimes a 1.4x extender. Of course, more CF cards, an extra battery, and charger.

My main post processing program is Lightroom 3, and I do have Photoshop but use it rarely.

Best,

Jim Patterson
http://JamesGordonPatterson.com

You could complement your 50mm with the 35mm f2 (56mm equivalent) to get a more normalish range; it's very sharp, small and light, has a fast aperture, and is relatively cheap (currently $320 on Amazon). The autofocus is fast but not lightning USM fast, it makes a slight buzzing sound instead of being USM silent, and there's no full time manual so you have to switch to manual focus if you need to fine tune. I think the 35mm f2 coupled with the high ISO abilities of your 7D could be very interesting in low light (streets, restaurants, bars) situations.

Carrying two or three non-L primes is lighter than carrying a couple of the better zooms; I have the 70-200 f4 and 10-22 and it's become a bit of a chore lugging them around, although I just purchased a Lowepro Flipside 300 to see if things improve when better balanced on my back... That bag opens from the side that goes against your back so it might be safer in certain countries / situations...

Primes are also much less intimidating to other people than zooms, particularly the 70-200...

Just another option!

JennaP said:

I know this was kind of answered before but I have read so much my head is spinning!! Right now I am traveling with my Canon G9 which I love and my new 7D. The only lenses I have for the 7D right now are the 28-135mm that came with the camera which I am not impressed with - the pictures are not very sharp and a 50mm f 1.8. I have been reading a lot about lenses and kind of decided on 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200 f/4 (going for lighter). And would love to get good Macro lens although G9 takes good Macro shots. What would you suggest I buy first, second, third? Or do you have better suggestion for travel lens kit? I am trying to keep it light since I pulled the muscle in my chest recently and now have a hiatal hernia!! Saw an article about lensbaby lenses - does anybody here use them?

Thanks for your help!

Jen

Click to expand...

Great Photos! So now I am so torn - I like the idea of the 15-85 - but would it do this well with this type of picture? UGGH what to do 17-55 or 15-85?

Wayne - after reading your post and researching the 15-85 it sounds like I could use this lens - it would definitely fit my outdoor photography - however would I still be able to get a decent indoor photo say inside a museum or chapel?

After reading the posts here I am definitely going to sell my 28-135 which I find is just not sharp at all - as soon as I get home I will post some pictures from that. Depending on what I was taking pictures of my point and shoot G9 took sharper photos which was really annoying to me. But then again I am new to DSLR so I am sure I probably suck with the camera and probably just as much to blame - as soon as my flying season is over the summer I am going to start taking classes.

I leave for Dublin tomorrow and kind of bummed that I haven't made the decision yet and purchased a lens so will be going with my 28-135 and my 50mm. I am planning on going to Howth which would really benefit from wide angle but hopefully my point and shoot will get me wider angles this trip.

So I am trying now to decide between the 15-85 or the 17-55 (hopefully before I leave for London on the 3rd). I am giving myself a headache trying to decide. After reading tons of posts it seems that the sharpness is basically the same, that the 15-85 is ideal for outdoor use and has less flare ups but 17-55 better for action shots in low light. Since I don't really - or haven't yet - taken action shots in low light - I don't know if the difference in price is worth it? My problem is do you think I would regret the 15-85 later on down the line when I am a better photographer?

Thanks everyone for their help with this...

Will put some pictures up once I get home from this trip before I leave for Dublin if I can.

JennaP said:

My problem is do you think I would regret the 15-85 later on down the line when I am a better photographer?

Thanks everyone for their help with this...

Click to expand...

Maybe take a bunch of the pressure off yourself and just commit to "gift" yourself 1-2 lenses a year, and in 2-4 years you will collect a nice asssortment of lenses, and likely get all the ones you want in 6.

Jenna -

I travel a lot and generally go with my 50D or 7D and one carefully chosen lens (depending on destination), plus a small p/s like you have. THis is due to a bad back as well as shoulder surgery. So I can sympathize with your desire to go as light as possible.

My overall lens of choice is the 24-105 L, which stays on my camera 95% of the time at home as well as for travel. For images with the 24-105 L, check my May 2010 and May 2007 galleries of Greece (by sites and islands), and Istanbul, as well as Paris 2009.

For Italy and countries where I know I will need wider due to monumental architecture and tight spaces, I love my 17-40 L, but for general travel it isn't long enough. Pictures with the 17-40 L in Italy are on my pbase gallery. Italy galleries (by city) for years 2003, 2005 and 2009.

I also have a highly under-rated , (IMHO) 17-85 IS . This lens is relatively inexpensive, very light weight and has a super focal length for most uses. . My copy is very sharp. You can check out images shot with it on my Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and St. Petersburg galleries on my pbase site below my name. I also took it to Egypt in 2007 and have a gallery for those shots as well.

As for as a bag... my favorite two bags that pack flat are not camera bags, but rather Prada black nylon purses, one a large satchel type with flap over central zipper compartment, and two bellows pockets. I put an old LowePro liner inside to pad the cameras when I'm walking around with them on a city type trip. For rougher places, like Greece and Egypt, I use an unconstructed Prada black nylon "lady type" backpack. Both Prada bags are lined and very tough, having made numerous trips abroad.

I wrap my camera and a small p/s in OpTech wraps for transit in my carryon bag and pack the Pradas in my checked luggage. This has worked very well for my purposes. FWIW, I also have a wonderful Billingham Hadley Pro bag which is well padded and easy access and low profile as it is the slimmest bag I've seen in the "genuine camera bag" line, and owned a lot of them !!!

I hope this will help you see what kinds of uses each of these lenses works for as well as for some "un-camera bag" type bags , which are much less conspicuous than the usual LowePro and Kata types. .

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

I was going to put pictures up on here that I have taken with the 7D so far and they are so bad with the 28-135 lens that I am too embarrassed to put them up. I just don't know if a lens will even help me (feeling sorry for myself right now - obviously) I am tempted to just sell the 7D and stick to my point and shoot. I am starting to wonder if I am just throwing more money into a camera I had no business buying.

Thanks everybody for your help though.

You could post a couple. You might get some helpful advice. Were they shot raw or jpg?

You are probably already well aware that the P&S and the DSLR are two different animals. If you are interested in photography as a long term hobby, don't get discouraged. Just keep learning. If, on the other hand, you just wanted better pictures, then the DSLR may not be your cup of tea. There is a lot more knowledge and work (post processing) involved to get the best out of the 7D.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/

Jenna - you are being too hard on yourself. And the 28-135 IS is not a crappy lens !

I've been using one for 10+ years before I acquired my other Canon lenses. In fact, it took all the images on my India gallery in 2005. It has been on many trips with me. So try this...

Put the camera on "P" (program) and the ISO on 400 and the White Balance on Auto,. Make sure the 28-135 IS is turned on. Go outside in decent light and shoot a few pictures. With the camera on P, if your subject is moving, use the main dial to choose a shutter speed high enough to stop the action... at least 1/125 - 1/160th second for someone walking. The camera will choose a proper f stop. Don't worry about getting the depth of field right yet. You can figure that out later. Just take some pictures.

When you look at them, if they are blurry, then you will need to choose a higher shutter speed. You should get some decently exposed pictures this way. You don't have to learn the entire camera all at once. But try to avoid "Auto", as it won't let you make any choices. The camera doesn't know if something is moving or still. You can make determinations like that if the camera is on P, but not Auto.

Give this a try before you decide to ditch the whole thing. You need to determine what you enjoy photographing before you buy any other lenses. The 28-135 IS will be fine for that, as it has a good focal range.

So don't give it up and quit being hard on yourself. None of us (or not many of us at least ) got it right every time the first time out with a new camera !!

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

Get the 15-85mm and pair it with a fast prime for low light shots.

I was in your shoes exactly a month and a half ago, I went with the 15-85mm because it just excels all around, it has reach and it produces great IQ, it's only short coming is its limited usefulness indoors without flash.

I just bought a 35mm f/1.4L to shoot in low light and I couldn't be happier. It's all about what you see yourself shooting, will you be mostly outdoors or indoors?

Eventually you will pick up more lenses, what's the point in compromising big time now? Get tools that excel in a couple of things instead of a jack of all trades.

Don't get me wrong the 17-55mm is a stellar range, but for my uses, its range is abysmal.

JennaP said:

After reading the posts here I am definitely going to sell my 28-135 which I find is just not sharp at all - as soon as I get home I will post some pictures from that. Depending on what I was taking pictures of my point and shoot G9 took sharper photos which was really annoying to me. But then again I am new to DSLR so I am sure I probably suck with the camera and probably just as much to blame - as soon as my flying season is over the summer I am going to start taking classes.

I leave for Dublin tomorrow and kind of bummed that I haven't made the decision yet and purchased a lens so will be going with my 28-135 and my 50mm. I am planning on going to Howth which would really benefit from wide angle but hopefully my point and shoot will get me wider angles this trip.

So I am trying now to decide between the 15-85 or the 17-55 (hopefully before I leave for London on the 3rd). I am giving myself a headache trying to decide. After reading tons of posts it seems that the sharpness is basically the same, that the 15-85 is ideal for outdoor use and has less flare ups but 17-55 better for action shots in low light. Since I don't really - or haven't yet - taken action shots in low light - I don't know if the difference in price is worth it? My problem is do you think I would regret the 15-85 later on down the line when I am a better photographer?

Thanks everyone for their help with this...

Click to expand...

I use the 15-85 IS USM on the 7D most of the time. Only time it comes off is when I am out taking wildlife shots and then I put the 70-300 IS USM on. Excellent all around lens.
--
EOS 7D
EF-S 15-85mm IS USM
EF 70-300mm IS USM

Sorry about the bad mouthing of the 17-55 MM lens...I said it wasn't sharp and that it was not IS....I was wrong. I had a 17-40 lens that was an L...unsharp and not IS. That is what I meant to say.

I know the 17-55 non L is a very fine lens.

BB:-(

JennaP said:

After reading the posts here I am definitely going to sell my 28-135 which I find is just not sharp at all - as soon as I get home I will post some pictures from that. Depending on what I was taking pictures of my point and shoot G9 took sharper photos which was really annoying to me. But then again I am new to DSLR so I am sure I probably suck with the camera and probably just as much to blame - as soon as my flying season is over the summer I am going to start taking classes.

I leave for Dublin tomorrow and kind of bummed that I haven't made the decision yet and purchased a lens so will be going with my 28-135 and my 50mm. I am planning on going to Howth which would really benefit from wide angle but hopefully my point and shoot will get me wider angles this trip.

So I am trying now to decide between the 15-85 or the 17-55 (hopefully before I leave for London on the 3rd). I am giving myself a headache trying to decide. After reading tons of posts it seems that the sharpness is basically the same, that the 15-85 is ideal for outdoor use and has less flare ups but 17-55 better for action shots in low light. Since I don't really - or haven't yet - taken action shots in low light - I don't know if the difference in price is worth it? My problem is do you think I would regret the 15-85 later on down the line when I am a better photographer?

Thanks everyone for their help with this...

Click to expand...

when you take shots inside museums and cathedrals do you always like a reasonable amount of DOF or do you sometime like or are at least willing to accept rather low DOF? Certainly f/2.8 let's you hand hold better than a slower lens, but is that enough DOF for you? otoh would the other lens have too much at times?

the talk of the G9 doing better hints that maybe you prefer more DOF though and wouldn't even use f/2.8???

JennaP said:

I was going to put pictures up on here that I have taken with the 7D so far and they are so bad with the 28-135 lens that I am too embarrassed to put them up. I just don't know if a lens will even help me (feeling sorry for myself right now - obviously) I am tempted to just sell the 7D and stick to my point and shoot. I am starting to wonder if I am just throwing more money into a camera I had no business buying.

Thanks everybody for your help though.

Click to expand...

--Come on back and we'll have ya shooting in no time..you need to configure everything on your camera, like bumping up the sharpness setting, focus modes etc...Don't give up, that lens isn't all that bad

'I am what I am and that's all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....

you may find the range going wide to 15 and that extends to 85 more useful. I have taken my 17-55 travelling and regretted not having that bit more "reach".

As for the F2.8, I would think that the IS on the 15-85 lens coupled to the good high ISO performance of the 7D would negate the need for F2.8. Come to think of it I hardly ever use the F2.8 setting, I have fast primes for that, but again not really needed when on trips.
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod

Jenna, I used to have the 28-135 IS and yes, right out of the camera the photos did not look great. What I did was up the contrast by a bit and then do unsharp mask or sharpen the pictures to my liking. I will not entirely scrap the lens given the optics are not the worst. It liked an aperture around 8ish as well much better. It is much cheaper than the 24-105, has more on the long end. It falls short on the wide angle, but even the 24 is not wide enough on the 7D. With this camera, you may want to consider the 15-85 IS if you are doing primarily city scapes and some portraits. It has a smaller aperture to begin with, which is its down side and the build is not L. Some may beg to differ here.
Just my 2c.

Regards.
Stefan
--
carpe diem, or just don't ..... but shoot, shoot, shoot

Jenna, first of all don't give up on yourself. The folks on here myself included will help you. Second, the 15-85 is a great all around lens. I have used now for about 3 months and have been very pleased with it. It is the equivalent of the 24-105 for the FF cameras. I have heard others comment that it is actually better on the crop cameras than the 24-105. I have not done a comparison so I cannot say this is accurate but take it for what it is worth. and as others have suggested start out by putting everything in automatic and then start experimenting from there. Hope you enjoy the hobby. all the best.

...you won't go wrong with the 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. It works very well with my 7D
--
Noogy
'Photography is my therapy.'
Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 400D, Canon D10, Lumix TZ5, Kodak V1253