A walkaround lens for my trip to Napal (17-50/2.8 vs 15-85)

I'm traveling to Napal/Thiland and i'm trying to decide on what gear should i take with me.

I currently own 500D , Tamron 17-50/2.8(nonVC), Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 70-300 IS.

As i know myself i'm trying to take as little as i can.

I thought of maybe buying a used canon 15-85 to have a further reach on my walkaround lens combined with a fast 50mm would be a better option then my tamron

What do you think?

I assumed you meant Nepal and Thailand. Where will you go? Do you plan to stay in Kathmandu or will you do some trekking? Similarly, will you stay in Bangkok or will you be in Phuket/Pattaya or some beaches?

Albert Ang wrote:

I assumed you meant Nepal and Thailand. Where will you go? Do you plan to stay in Kathmandu or will you do some trekking? Similarly, will you stay in Bangkok or will you be in Phuket/Pattaya or some beaches?

Yes, I'm sorry i meant Nepal and Thailand.

I'll be a month at Nepal - Few days to a week in Kathmandu and then some trekking (Annapurna/frozen lakes)

In Thailand i'll stay in Bangkok a few days and then some beaches.

I know the options i described are not the best there are photography wise but this trip is not about photography so i think it's more important have gear that is convenient (less is more)

If you can find a good copy, get a 15 -85, it's got a great range in 1 lens and good IQ. It's not great in low light so if you anticipate wanting some low light shots take the 50 to. I bought a 28 f/1.8 just for low light situations, the 50 is a little long on a crop.

arty H wrote:

Is there anything wrong with the 17-50? If you are not happy with it, the 15-85 is a one lens "solution." You may want a lens for low light, and the 35F2 will work much better for general use. The 50 gives the view of a short telephoto (~85) on a crop.

The Tamron is great, I have it for couple of years now and i'm happy with it but i've noticed that sometimes 50mm is just not enough
the 15mm would be great for landscapes when i trek and the extra mm on the far side could be of great help taking portraits (alto the DOF is better with the tamron)

That's why i seek advice i cant really decide

Sagimatan wrote:

I'm traveling to Napal/Thiland and i'm trying to decide on what gear should i take with me.

I currently own 500D , Tamron 17-50/2.8(nonVC), Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 70-300 IS.

As i know myself i'm trying to take as little as i can.

I thought of maybe buying a used canon 15-85 to have a further reach on my walkaround lens combined with a fast 50mm would be a better option then my tamron

What do you think?

I owned both of those lenses. The 15-85 is definitely preferable but the Tamron was a very good lens.

Definitely the increased range on both sides is nice, and the color is better, the Tamron had a bit of a yellow cast, though fixable in PP.

Does the Tamron focus well? If it does I would stick with that, and maybe take the 70-300, which is very light as i recall.

I have the 15-85 and also a Sigma 17-50.

When travelling I prefer the 15-85 plus a prime.. Usually a sigma 30 or canon 40.

the sigma is just not wide and long enough for my taste.  I always feel that I can't get the shot I want.

Sagimatan wrote:

I know the options i described are not the best there are photography wise but this trip is not about photography so i think it's more important have gear that is convenient (less is more)

In my opinion, you'll need both 17-50 and 70-300. 85mm is too short. Please get rid of the concept that you need only wide angle for landscape (see more explanation here: Focal-length-for-landscape ) You need telephoto because 1. the mountain is pretty far 2. Telephoto lens gives that nice compression effect.

I went to Kathmandu last year for charity work and would love to go there for holiday next time. One thing that I found abit surprising was the lack of electricity in the capital city - it was only on from 10pm to 8am.

Have fun