Anyone travel with only one lens?

[Peru_Photog]

Ok, I'm leaving the states for the UK for a two week visit. This is what I'm taking:

Two Bodies. My daughter will carry one of them for me.

16-35mm F2.8L on 1DM2 #1 (landscapes)

34mm F1.4L on 1DM2 #2 (museums, lowlight indoors, flashless)

24-70mm F2.8L in my back pack (general street and event)

For the type of shots I'll be taking, I won't need more reach then 70mm.

580ex SpeedLight in my back pack (fill flash and indoor/light challanged shots)

4 2gb CF cards

So I'm going to do it with three lenses.

--
********************************************
It's not just the photographer...it's the equipment too that CAN matter.

 

[bigmack]

1)Lightest and quick to use:70-300IS on a 20D plus an 18-55EFS on an XT,a 35/f2 in my pocket.18-55 shot at A-priority at f8 gives very good results.I occasionaly take the 17-40L in place of the 18-55.Not as convenient and not hugely better results after postprocessing.

2) One camera:20D with 28-135IS[my most used lens]

3) In the car:10-22 on XT ,28-135IS on 20D and 100-400IS on an older 10D + a 35/f2 and 100/f2.

 

[Robert Deutsch]

If I were to take one lens with my 20D, it would be the 17-40L. The second lens would be the Sigma 55-200DC, which is light enough and small enough that I could keep it in a pocket. Third would be the Sigma 15mm fisheye. It, too, is small and light, and f/2.8 combined with the wide angle provides good hand-holdability. Come to think of it, maybe the Sigma 15 would be second. In general, I think it's possible to get used to and to make use of almost any lens for travel or "walkabout" purposes. However, wide angles have what seems to me are some inherent advantages: they include more in the image (and if they're sharp you can crop to produce an effect similar to a telephoto); they force you to get close (more involving than the looking-through-binoculars effect of telephotos), and provide greater depth of field, making precise focusing less important.

Bob

 

[TheVopIP]

I guess no one bringing thier 70-200 f2.8 around, right? I guess it is always best left home.

This is where small tele prime shine, example; EF100 f2 + TC1.4

 

[fbx]

Is this lens sharp? I have read various places here that it is quite good in spite of its diminutive price. Do you have samples at both ends or know of any, and are there reviews anywhere trustworthy? Plan to use on 300D.

The second lens would be the Sigma 55-200DC, which is light enough
and small enough that I could keep it in a pocket. Third would be

 

[Freeman-Jo]

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

[nspur]

Tomorrow (June 23) I'm going to the Bordeaux wine area in France and taking just the 1DsII and 28-135 (plus 550EX flash), because I'm travelling light and it's for a lot of candids at the Vinexpo exhibition which is very crowded. Quality is secondary to who gets photographed.

I wish I had a 30mm 1.4 to take as well in a pocket, so I might take the 50 1.8.

--
Nick Spurrrier

 

[revio]

IF I ever will have to (or want to) travel with only one lens, I would consider two alternatives:

The EF-S 17-85IS
The Sigma 18-125mm/3,5-5,6 DC

Both are sharp, compact enough, and provides some wideangle if not much...so, given they are compromises, they seem to me the best compromises out there.

Fex the 18-125 is "prime lens" sharp at 50mm, according to Hasselblad's test crew, and "very sharp" from wide on up to around 100mm , to get a bit softer (but not bad) at 125mm.

The same test showed EF-S 17-85 to be very good too, and for the sake of some bad rumours about its supposed bad quality, they tested 2 samples; both were very good and nearly identical in performace.

Test I refer to was published by "FOTO" magazine (Sweden), in its newest edition, I think May 2005.

For those interested, the Sigma 18-50/2,8EX got out of that test judged as a "Top Class" and "High Value" lens.It is seldom a lens gets both those designations...but for a "cover all or almost all" things, the EX 18-50 is too limited in its range.

Maybe paired with a good 55-200 or something like that, it could make up a nice travel-kit...

--
Aim & Frame ;-)

 

[Felix_44]

I have a 350D and I always bring ONE BAG, this bag is hanging over my shoulder as I walk the street, visit museums, treck or hike. It's very convenient, and I always have what I need at no cost of quality. I rareky get tired or back pain from carrying this bag, but I did once after a 3 hrs walkabout in NYC last moth, but feet hurt more than my back

Bag contains:
10-22
28-105 II 3.5/4.5
70-200 4 L

If I had to choose one of those it would be 28-105 II 3.5/4.5, very small and light.

 

[Paul Grupp]

No big lenses? Well, if you don't need what big lenses can do for you, maybe so. Personally, I never travel without a 50 f1.4, 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 IS. I need each of these lenses, and what they do for me, and whether I'm shooting close to home, or traveling across the world is irrelevant -- if I'm taking pictures, I need the right stuff.

Don't get me wrong -- sometimes I'm NOT taking pictures seriously when I'm traveling -- I just need a camera for snapshots. That's what the little Canon Elphs are for!

--
Regards,
Paul
http://www.bangbangphoto.com

 

[Colin K. Work]

One lens is very tough - not becuase you can't get the pics you want, but because you THINK you can't get the pics - every shot becomes a "if only I'd bought ..."

Like many others, I shot for a long time with only a 50mm lens. Now I have lenses ranging from 14mm - 500mm (plus convertors), but sometimes wonder if I have lost some of my thinking/visualising ability along the way.

My travel kit is a 20D, 70-300 IS DO (great quality for its size and weight) and the old 24-85 USM. EF-s lenses are tempting, but not good value for me as they don't work on my workhorse 1DII - but I really would like something wider - I guess a 17-70 would be ideal

If I really could bring only one lens, it would have to be my 50mm - from past experience I KNOW I can be quite versatile with it.

In any case, if you are set on this course, I would strongly recommend spending a couple of weeks prior to travelling using nothing but your selected travel lens in order to get your eye atuned to its limitations and possibilities.

Cheers,

--
Colin K. Work
[email protected]
http://www.ckwphoto.com

 

[yltan]

In my recent holiday trip, I brought along EF-s 10-22, 24mm f2.8, 50 f1.8, 100 f2 with teleconverter.
I chickened out at the last minute and brought along a 80-200 f4.5-5.6 .

I found that I used the 10-22 about 50% of the time, the 24mm for about 40 % of the time and the 80-200 f4.5-5.6 about 10 % of the time. I took only one shot with the 100 f2 and never used the 50mm.

In another trip 6 months ago, I found that I only used the 17-40 f4L. I brought the 70-200 f4L but I never used it once.

I guess that primes are useful for me if they are relatively short but not when they are long - that is when I need to take special events such as indoor sports etc.

I think the next time I go on holiday, I will bring the 10-22, 24mm, and the 80-200 f4.5-5.6 and the 50mm ( for just in case ).

Alternatively I will substitude the 24mm with 17-40, drop the 50mm, and bring along a 35mm f2 for low light.

YL

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Is this lens sharp? I have read various places here that it is
quite good in spite of its diminutive price. Do you have samples
at both ends or know of any, and are there reviews anywhere
trustworthy? Plan to use on 300D.

I don't know of any formal professional reviews. I have some sample shots at http://www.pbase.com/phile/sigma_55200dc&page=all , but nothing really systematic. I first started thinking about this lens because of some excellent photos posted by lisafx. If you do a search for her postings, you'll find a lot of examples. There is, unfortunately, a fair amount of sample variability with this lens; it took me three tries before I got one I was satisfied with. (One of the lens comparisons is in the gallery above.) I would recommend buying it from a local dealer, so that you can do at least an in-store comparison of two or three samples.

Bob

 

[Robert Deutsch]

While it's possible to think of some situations where any particular lens could come in handy, these are my other lenses that I would not normally take with me when travelling, and the reasons for the omissions:

Canon 28-135IS: IS is nice, but the lens doesn't go wide enough on a 1.6x camera, and it's not as sharp as the 17-40L

Canon 100-400L IS: great lens, but too heavy and useful mostly for special situations like zoos, sports, horse shows, etc.

Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro: very sharp, but more of a special-purpose lens.

Canon 50 f/1.8: this lens has a lot of fans, and it's small enought that if yo can find a spare pocket it's worth taking along, but I haven't find it to be all that useful. The top end of the 17-40L and the low end of the 55-200DC just about cover the focal length, and bumping the ISO (with the 20D, I find ISO3200 quite acceptable) or finding support for the camera takes care of most low-light situations

Bob

 

[Paul De Bra]

I used to have only the kit lens (in a drawer) and the Sigma 18-125 (on the DRebel), and did everything with the 18-125. But it was a struggle in low light. Luckily, everywhere I went I was allowed to use a tripod (or not allowed to shoot any pictures).

Later I got the Canon 17-85IS (and the 50mm f1.8 and the Tamron 17-35), and I have been traveling with the 17-85IS, no tripod, and no trouble in low light. I have also experienced that more and more places no longer allow the use of tripods, and many also forbid the use of a flash.

--
Still learning to use the DRebel (only around 15.000 shots)
Public pictures at http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~debra/photos/

 

[wacojoe]

...because of range only - not quality. I took this lens to Ireland last month and it served me well more than the 50 1.4 and the 17-40L I also took. As I was on a garden tour the poor macro capabilities of the Sigma necessitated using the 17-40L in the gardens, and overall quality of that lens is better anyway, but the sigma was on my camera for walk around purposes. The 50 1.4 was useful in a glass factory where flash was prohibited, and at indoor dinners and such.

I bought a Delsey backpack that took those lenses plus a Speedlight 580, various chargers, assorted other accessories, and a 15" laptop for downloads. The damned rig weighed in at over 20lbs., so I understand the one lens minimalist concept quite well, but over-all enjoyed the added flexibility of the bigger outfit...but that's me.

 

[Jared Hunter]

I have the Sigma 18-125 and have no problems getting close. Here's an original JPG from the camera:
http://www.pbase.com/llens/image/45268515/original

This is a very small flower: (100% crop)
http://www.pbase.com/llens/image/43922951/original

Another 100% crop:
http://www.pbase.com/llens/image/43922952/original

Did the macro capabilities change with the 18-200?

...because of range only - not quality. I took this lens to Ireland
last month and it served me well more than the 50 1.4 and the
17-40L I also took. As I was on a garden tour the poor macro
capabilities of the Sigma necessitated using the 17-40L in the
gardens, and overall quality of that lens is better anyway, but the
sigma was on my camera for walk around purposes. The 50 1.4 was
useful in a glass factory where flash was prohibited, and at indoor
dinners and such.

I bought a Delsey backpack that took those lenses plus a Speedlight
580, various chargers, assorted other accessories, and a 15" laptop
for downloads. The damned rig weighed in at over 20lbs., so I
understand the one lens minimalist concept quite well, but over-all
enjoyed the added flexibility of the bigger outfit...but that's me.

 

[SvenJ]

Certainly it is quite a good combination for a walkabout lens and together the 350D and 17-85 IS are reasonable in weight.

I would certainly consider taking the combo as only lens on a holiday depending upon where I am going however I would prefer to add either a 50 1.4 or some other fast prime in as well for those low light situations ;-)

Take Care and enjoy

Sven

--

The good news: Computers allow us to work 100% faster. The bad news: They generate 300% more work.

 

[wacojoe]

The listed macro capabilities by Sigma of the 18-200 are 1:4.4, while that of the 18-125 are 1:5.3, so the 200 should be better than the 125 (or at least larger). I have never used a 18-125, and cannot compare by experience.

My 17-40L is said to be 1:4.0, yet I found it to be far more usable in macro than the Sigma. The difference could be my ineptness, of course.

 

[patsammi]

17-40 only and it's great! I didn't need telephoto at all.

--
Laughter is good medicine. That's where pictures come in.