George Spencer
Senior Member
I spent two weeks in Germany and three weeks in Greece. All I ever carried was a 6D with a 24-105 lens. Carry as little as you can. You will take more pictures and have more fun.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Lens selection help for Rome Trip
- Thread starter Raj2151
- Start date
poppyjk
Senior Member
The 24-105 is a very good all around lens and certainly recommend it for Rome.
There will be times you may want more FOV than a 24mm provides; like inside St. Pauls Cathedral, inside the Pantheon, inside the Colosseum, etc. The 16-35 f4 IS is dramatically superior to the 24-105 at 24 and 28mm both in resolution and distortion. The extra width out to 16mm will give you unmatched memories of dramatic and huge interiors. I have had the 17-40 and enjoyed it, but it is clearly outmatched by the 16-35 f4IS in every way.
I have the Sigma 35 f1.4 art and love it, but for Rome I would leave it home and take the 16-35 f4IS.
Of course, you can also panorama stitch which also takes some technique practice and time to process. Sometimes stitching is the only way to capture a scene.
I have an upcoming trip to Athens, Greek Isles, Istanbul and Cappadocia. My kit will be 5Dmk3, 16-35 f4IS, 24-105 f4IS, 70-300L f4-5.6 IS and a Sony RX-100. Most days I will take just the 16-35 and the 70-300(I like candid people shots and architectural details). If i'm feeling weak, I'll use only the 24-105 and make do. Planning some panorama stitching of the Hagia Sofia interior.
Strong opinions and preferences do not necessarily represent universal and eternal truth.
There will be times you may want more FOV than a 24mm provides; like inside St. Pauls Cathedral, inside the Pantheon, inside the Colosseum, etc. The 16-35 f4 IS is dramatically superior to the 24-105 at 24 and 28mm both in resolution and distortion. The extra width out to 16mm will give you unmatched memories of dramatic and huge interiors. I have had the 17-40 and enjoyed it, but it is clearly outmatched by the 16-35 f4IS in every way.
I have the Sigma 35 f1.4 art and love it, but for Rome I would leave it home and take the 16-35 f4IS.
Of course, you can also panorama stitch which also takes some technique practice and time to process. Sometimes stitching is the only way to capture a scene.
I have an upcoming trip to Athens, Greek Isles, Istanbul and Cappadocia. My kit will be 5Dmk3, 16-35 f4IS, 24-105 f4IS, 70-300L f4-5.6 IS and a Sony RX-100. Most days I will take just the 16-35 and the 70-300(I like candid people shots and architectural details). If i'm feeling weak, I'll use only the 24-105 and make do. Planning some panorama stitching of the Hagia Sofia interior.
Strong opinions and preferences do not necessarily represent universal and eternal truth.
Last edited:
Rock and Rollei
Senior Member
Think you mean St Peter's.
But yes, precisely; anyone who's been to these places (and they were largely the very spots I was thinking of, along with the Piazza Navona) knows that for such destinations, a 35mm f1.4 just doesn't give you any real-world advantage, whereas a proper wideangle does - and one with IS allows you to handhold at the same ISO as with the 35mm f1.4, but get a bit more DOF too.
As to the Hagia Sophia, tipods are strictly banned, so you'll have to do it handheld.
Rock and Rollei
Senior Member
Couldn't disagree more. It would ruin my trip.
FD
Leading Member
I've been in Bath UK (safe) and Paris (± safe) for City trips last months.
(Walking with with others (no photo-fans)
No idea what you expect from your images and what you want to do with it.
Printing them A2-A1 ?
For me it's very simple; no reflex but good Powershots like G7X and SX50.
Both doing RAW and a joy to use if you are with others (no photo-fans)
The G7X in the pocket and the SX50 in a very small cam bag.
July this year I'm visiting Lisboa and no way I'm using my DSRL's.
My Paris images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157650909953357/
My Bath images : https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157648608272900/
All can be printed to A2
My wife just came back from a Rome trip yesterday with her brother and sister
and being there is more important than carrying a heavy camera bag.
@Raj2151 Enjoy Rome and have a safe trip !
--
FD
(Walking with with others (no photo-fans)
No idea what you expect from your images and what you want to do with it.
Printing them A2-A1 ?
For me it's very simple; no reflex but good Powershots like G7X and SX50.
Both doing RAW and a joy to use if you are with others (no photo-fans)
The G7X in the pocket and the SX50 in a very small cam bag.
July this year I'm visiting Lisboa and no way I'm using my DSRL's.
My Paris images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157650909953357/
My Bath images : https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157648608272900/
All can be printed to A2
My wife just came back from a Rome trip yesterday with her brother and sister
and being there is more important than carrying a heavy camera bag.@Raj2151 Enjoy Rome and have a safe trip !
--
FD
Last edited:
EOSSpeedLite
Leading Member
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 450
YOU, must be the newbie if you think zooming with one's feet would not make up the 7-8mm difference.What dreadful advice. No fast prime needed these days on a modern DSLR, but if you think that 16mm or 17mm is "just" 7 or 8mm wider, you're the newbie. That difference is vast, and personally I think it's critical in Rome.
For me, the fun is getting the shot. That's no fun at all if you've left your wideangle behind because some joker told you not to bother taking it based on not understanding the difference 7 or 8mm makes on a wideangle...
Me, I would take 8-15, 12-24, 24-70 and 70-300 - and my Lensbaby - and I know I would use them all. I would be completely hamstrung with just a 24-105, and a pretty useless and very heavy (if rather nice) 35mm as well. Having shot quite a few times in Rome, I know I would deeply regret not having a real wideanagle,
YOU, must be the newbie if you think that a zoom can compete with a prime for sharpness, and other optic qualities at THAT focal range. Preferring a zoom over a fast optimized prime means you are too lazy to zoom with your feet.
YOU, must be the newbie if you take so much kit on a long travel trip.
A seasoned and experienced shooter does a lot with very little. Newbies need to take their entire kit plus the kitchen sink.
Peter Kwok
Senior Member
24-105L is all you need for Rome. For Venice, an ultra-wide will be very useful.
Few years ago, I went to Italy with a crop body, 10-22, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS. I used the 17-55 for 90% of the shots and rarely mounted the 10-22. With your FF body, the 24-105L IS is sufficient. The inside of the Vatican Museum is bright enough to shoot handheld, except for the Sistine Chapel where you are not supposed to take any photos. At most monuments in Rome, you have lots of room to back up. 24mm should be wide enough to take in the Colosseum from the inside.
If you are looking for a reason to get a new 16-35 f4, Rome is not it. Besides, the 16-35 is heavy compared to the 17-40L. Unless you love the ultra-wide perspective, don't bother to get a new lens. I used the 10-22 to shoot strangers at the crowed Spanish Steps.
Venice is a different story. With narrow streets and canals, it is made for ultra-wide. This is especially true where you can find gondolas as interesting foreground when shooting from bridges.
Please click here to see my photos of Italy
Few years ago, I went to Italy with a crop body, 10-22, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS. I used the 17-55 for 90% of the shots and rarely mounted the 10-22. With your FF body, the 24-105L IS is sufficient. The inside of the Vatican Museum is bright enough to shoot handheld, except for the Sistine Chapel where you are not supposed to take any photos. At most monuments in Rome, you have lots of room to back up. 24mm should be wide enough to take in the Colosseum from the inside.
If you are looking for a reason to get a new 16-35 f4, Rome is not it. Besides, the 16-35 is heavy compared to the 17-40L. Unless you love the ultra-wide perspective, don't bother to get a new lens. I used the 10-22 to shoot strangers at the crowed Spanish Steps.
Venice is a different story. With narrow streets and canals, it is made for ultra-wide. This is especially true where you can find gondolas as interesting foreground when shooting from bridges.
Please click here to see my photos of Italy
EOSSpeedLite
Leading Member
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 450
The 24-105L is a great travel lens, I agree.
But Italy requires that zoom, and one of these too: 50L prime or 35L prime, but not both. I prefer the 35L, as it is a much better lens.
For indoors, flashless shots, museums, pubs, Vatican, restuarants, food, cathedrals, separation of subject and background. For many of these instances, I used a 35L, set the body at Tv mode, 1/30s, and ISO of 1600 - 6400 depending, or Av mode, and adjust the ISO to keep the shutter speed no less than 1/30s depending. I could not be more pleased with the performance.
You can do entire Italy with just these 2 lenses.
When traveling, I cannot stress enough the importance of taking LESS not more. A decent photographer will find ways to fill in most gaps in lenses not taken.
One last thing: Bring a flash if you want to do environmental portraits, but no need for flash for museums, cathedrals, Vatican.
But Italy requires that zoom, and one of these too: 50L prime or 35L prime, but not both. I prefer the 35L, as it is a much better lens.
For indoors, flashless shots, museums, pubs, Vatican, restuarants, food, cathedrals, separation of subject and background. For many of these instances, I used a 35L, set the body at Tv mode, 1/30s, and ISO of 1600 - 6400 depending, or Av mode, and adjust the ISO to keep the shutter speed no less than 1/30s depending. I could not be more pleased with the performance.
You can do entire Italy with just these 2 lenses.
When traveling, I cannot stress enough the importance of taking LESS not more. A decent photographer will find ways to fill in most gaps in lenses not taken.
One last thing: Bring a flash if you want to do environmental portraits, but no need for flash for museums, cathedrals, Vatican.
Rock and Rollei
Senior Member
Utter nonsense based on complete ignorance. You've clearly never been to Rome to come up with that tosh.YOU, must be the newbie if you think zooming with one's feet would not make up the 7-8mm difference.What dreadful advice. No fast prime needed these days on a modern DSLR, but if you think that 16mm or 17mm is "just" 7 or 8mm wider, you're the newbie. That difference is vast, and personally I think it's critical in Rome.
For me, the fun is getting the shot. That's no fun at all if you've left your wideangle behind because some joker told you not to bother taking it based on not understanding the difference 7 or 8mm makes on a wideangle...
Me, I would take 8-15, 12-24, 24-70 and 70-300 - and my Lensbaby - and I know I would use them all. I would be completely hamstrung with just a 24-105, and a pretty useless and very heavy (if rather nice) 35mm as well. Having shot quite a few times in Rome, I know I would deeply regret not having a real wideanagle,
YOU, must be the newbie if you think that a zoom can compete with a prime for sharpness, and other optic qualities at THAT focal range. Preferring a zoom over a fast optimized prime means you are too lazy to zoom with your feet.
YOU, must be the newbie if you take so much kit on a long travel trip.
A seasoned and experienced shooter does a lot with very little. Newbies need to take their entire kit plus the kitchen sink.
How do you "zoom with your feet" through walls (or floors, for subjects like the interior of the dome of the pantheon)? Because that's the only way you can do it in the places we've been discussing. There simply isn't the room you need to walk backwards far enough. There is a HUGE difference in angle of view between 16mm and 24mm - approx. 107 degrees (on the diagonal) for the 16mm as against 84 for 24mm. The ONLY way is to use a wider lens - no realistic chance of stitching in these places because of the people. I'm sorry, but you've clearly no understanding of the possible subjects, and as such your advice is simply miles off target. What's the point having a little extra resolution when you can't actually get the shot? That's so typical of these forums, everything's always about trying to have the best possible number for anything, without taking into account the actual subject. The 16-35 is more than good enough, and will actually get the shot. It's not a case of being lazy, it's simply a case of the laws of physics at their most basic. And nothing wrong with primes, but the useful ones here would be the 14mm or the 17mm TS-E. But neither has IS, which is actually or more practical benefit...
I KNOW what's useful in Rome, I've been there many times and have more than three decades of experence of photography, and for me personally, what I've described is exactly what I need. I'm not suggesting everyone does, but I am saying that not taking as wide a lens as you possibly can will leave you incredibly unhappy, frustrated and annoyed in these places. Horses for courses, and the Roman course needs wide.
In an awful lot of touristy places in Italy you'll be about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit with officials if you start popping off a flash indoors anyway.
I wonder if he forgot to note the OP has a crop body? You probably could get by with 24mm at the wide end on FF but would probably miss out on some shots with 24mm on a crop sensor. And 35mm as a 'fast wide prime' isn't actually that wide on a crop.Utter nonsense based on complete ignorance. You've clearly never been to Rome to come up with that tosh.YOU, must be the newbie if you think zooming with one's feet would not make up the 7-8mm difference.What dreadful advice. No fast prime needed these days on a modern DSLR, but if you think that 16mm or 17mm is "just" 7 or 8mm wider, you're the newbie. That difference is vast, and personally I think it's critical in Rome.
For me, the fun is getting the shot. That's no fun at all if you've left your wideangle behind because some joker told you not to bother taking it based on not understanding the difference 7 or 8mm makes on a wideangle...
Me, I would take 8-15, 12-24, 24-70 and 70-300 - and my Lensbaby - and I know I would use them all. I would be completely hamstrung with just a 24-105, and a pretty useless and very heavy (if rather nice) 35mm as well. Having shot quite a few times in Rome, I know I would deeply regret not having a real wideanagle,
YOU, must be the newbie if you think that a zoom can compete with a prime for sharpness, and other optic qualities at THAT focal range. Preferring a zoom over a fast optimized prime means you are too lazy to zoom with your feet.
YOU, must be the newbie if you take so much kit on a long travel trip.
A seasoned and experienced shooter does a lot with very little. Newbies need to take their entire kit plus the kitchen sink.
How do you "zoom with your feet" through walls (or floors, for subjects like the interior of the dome of the pantheon)? Because that's the only way you can do it in the places we've been discussing. There simply isn't the room you need to walk backwards far enough. There is a HUGE difference in angle of view between 16mm and 24mm - approx. 107 degrees (on the diagonal) for the 16mm as against 84 for 24mm. The ONLY way is to use a wider lens - no realistic chance of stitching in these places because of the people. I'm sorry, but you've clearly no understanding of the possible subjects, and as such your advice is simply miles off target. What's the point having a little extra resolution when you can't actually get the shot? That's so typical of these forums, everything's always about trying to have the best possible number for anything, without taking into account the actual subject. The 16-35 is more than good enough, and will actually get the shot. It's not a case of being lazy, it's simply a case of the laws of physics at their most basic. And nothing wrong with primes, but the useful ones here would be the 14mm or the 17mm TS-E. But neither has IS, which is actually or more practical benefit...
I KNOW what's useful in Rome, I've been there many times and have more than three decades of experence of photography, and for me personally, what I've described is exactly what I need. I'm not suggesting everyone does, but I am saying that not taking as wide a lens as you possibly can will leave you incredibly unhappy, frustrated and annoyed in these places. Horses for courses, and the Roman course needs wide.
Quite agree that 'zooming with your feet' in Rome in high season is futile at best and downright impossible at worse. Assuming you can find the physical room to back up in some places, you're merely filling your foreground with heads and probably plenty of smartphones and tablets being thrust in the air. The one saving grace is in many places the most interesting pictures are of stuff above you.
Last edited:
poppyjk
Senior Member
I do not think it is lazy or 'newbie-ish' to not be able to back up through a wall or descend through the floor. Perspective counts, too -- e.g. when backing up trades a desirable foreground for the backs of some strangers heads. The 16-35 f4 IS makes a lot good of shots possible for me.YOU, must be the newbie if you think zooming with one's feet would not make up the 7-8mm difference.What dreadful advice. No fast prime needed these days on a modern DSLR, but if you think that 16mm or 17mm is "just" 7 or 8mm wider, you're the newbie. That difference is vast, and personally I think it's critical in Rome.
For me, the fun is getting the shot. That's no fun at all if you've left your wideangle behind because some joker told you not to bother taking it based on not understanding the difference 7 or 8mm makes on a wideangle...
Me, I would take 8-15, 12-24, 24-70 and 70-300 - and my Lensbaby - and I know I would use them all. I would be completely hamstrung with just a 24-105, and a pretty useless and very heavy (if rather nice) 35mm as well. Having shot quite a few times in Rome, I know I would deeply regret not having a real wideanagle,
YOU, must be the newbie if you think that a zoom can compete with a prime for sharpness, and other optic qualities at THAT focal range. Preferring a zoom over a fast optimized prime means you are too lazy to zoom with your feet.
Every choice has trade-offs. I have done whole trips with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art . Did I get every shot I wanted? No -- 80% yes. Sharpness and/or low aperture are not always the only things. I use the 24-105L a lot but it is mediocre at 24-28mm and 105mm, and I am using the best of 4 copies tested extensively of that lens.
So go ahead and do your thing. We are not all the same.
charlieY
Forum Enthusiast
2nd lens would be 35mm f2 IS.
stratobill
Senior Member
Do officials wear spacesuits there?
To OP, Rome has old narrow sections (Trastevere) but not as many as other European cities. Much of Rome is wide open as Peter Kwok has suggested. So maybe 24-105 would be sufficient. Unless you are on crop as someone suggested? Then 24 wouldn't be wide enough for me-.
But I usually travel with the 16-35 and the 24-105 because the former is stronger from 24-35 in addition to going wider. Often I just pick one for the day and leave the other in the hotel safe. I usually throw in the 40 pancake too.
Thank you all for your tips & great suggestions.
For this Rome Trip I decided to take 1 FF body Canon 6D + Canon 24-105 mm and one wide angle lens. I'm not mainly buying the 16-35 F4 IS lens for my Rome Trip. But I'm more into shooting Landscapes and my wide angle is my most used lens from my bag. I have been eyeing the 16-35mm f4 IS lens for a quite while now. I decided to buy it now due to the IS advantages it will have shooting in the museums in Rome.
For this Rome Trip I decided to take 1 FF body Canon 6D + Canon 24-105 mm and one wide angle lens. I'm not mainly buying the 16-35 F4 IS lens for my Rome Trip. But I'm more into shooting Landscapes and my wide angle is my most used lens from my bag. I have been eyeing the 16-35mm f4 IS lens for a quite while now. I decided to buy it now due to the IS advantages it will have shooting in the museums in Rome.
EOSSpeedLite
Leading Member
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 450
I speak from experience. On 2 occasions, I shot weddings in Rome, and in Siena. I was pro for 9 years.
You two obviously have no understand of primes, nor how to use them.
You speak from foolishness, and arrogance.
You two obviously have no understand of primes, nor how to use them.
You speak from foolishness, and arrogance.
Last edited:
Raj,
Good choice! I tested this lens out just the other day and I am still on the fence on whether or not to send the 17-40 back and get the 16-35 f/4 IS. I just picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II and it is amazing. The whole 'new' lineup from Canon - 24-70 IS, 24-70 II, 16-35 IS, 11-24, 70-200 II, 200-400 are ALL fantastic lenses.
Hope you enjoy your trip to Rome! I'll be going to Boston in two weeks for a little over a week and can't wait to use my new set up.
Good choice! I tested this lens out just the other day and I am still on the fence on whether or not to send the 17-40 back and get the 16-35 f/4 IS. I just picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II and it is amazing. The whole 'new' lineup from Canon - 24-70 IS, 24-70 II, 16-35 IS, 11-24, 70-200 II, 200-400 are ALL fantastic lenses.
Hope you enjoy your trip to Rome! I'll be going to Boston in two weeks for a little over a week and can't wait to use my new set up.
stratobill
Senior Member
Very good plan! That's exactly what I took to Europe last year. (Plus the 40 pancake).
Have fun!
poppyjk
Senior Member
When was this thread ever just about the issue of primes?
You had suggested the OP take the 24-105 and a 50 prime. Fine.
Some noted that 24mm is not wide enough to suit them for some shots like the interiors of St. Peters and the Pantheon even when backing up as far as possible. Sure there was talk of zooms, but that was just a way of getting the 14, 15, 16, 17mm desired along with some flexibility.
If you are satisfied with a 24mm shot of the Pantheon dome then fine. Other people have different preferences and you need to quietly respect that. And the Pantheon dome may be of no interest to you. Fine. If someone wants to carry a 16-35 with IS versus a 50mm prime as the second lens of a kit because of different subject matter objectives, so what?
I notice that you joined DPReview just a few months ago. Calling other competent photographers' preferences "ridiculous" because they differ from your preferences is really quite egotistical and not very welcome.
You had suggested the OP take the 24-105 and a 50 prime. Fine.
Some noted that 24mm is not wide enough to suit them for some shots like the interiors of St. Peters and the Pantheon even when backing up as far as possible. Sure there was talk of zooms, but that was just a way of getting the 14, 15, 16, 17mm desired along with some flexibility.
If you are satisfied with a 24mm shot of the Pantheon dome then fine. Other people have different preferences and you need to quietly respect that. And the Pantheon dome may be of no interest to you. Fine. If someone wants to carry a 16-35 with IS versus a 50mm prime as the second lens of a kit because of different subject matter objectives, so what?
I notice that you joined DPReview just a few months ago. Calling other competent photographers' preferences "ridiculous" because they differ from your preferences is really quite egotistical and not very welcome.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum