Only lens you really need on a FF for travel!

[CurtM]

This sucker is tiny, sharp, contrasty, cheap, light and 100% awesome!

It goes head to head IQ-wise with zoom lenses costing thousands. And it cost less than a high quality lens filter.

Throw it on a full frame as the only lens you will need as a travel lens. Throw it on a cropped and you got a lens close to 50 mm FF equivalent. Add its EF-S 24 mm cousin and you have the perfect 2 lens cropped travel kit.

Even if you travel with everything you have, throw this sucker in your kit.

I think it my favorite lens. Simple. Pure. No fuss.

I truly think i get my best pictures from this lens. It changes the whole "process" for me in a way that improves my photography.

Curt M

 

[ed rader]

haha! maybe you. I travel with the whole kit. that's what I bought it for.

 

[CurtM]

"Even if you travel with everything you have, throw this sucker in your kit."

:-D

Best regards,

Curt

 

[Graham Meale]

Travelling without my three zooms (standard, wide and tele) would be worse than not taking a change of underwear.

 

[ed rader]

my 24-70L II does 40mm much better. the only prime I always carry is a 15mm fisheye. now, it brings something extra to the table!

 

[CurtM]

I hear ya!

Having a recent case of rather bad swimmer's elbow (which btw lasts for ever before it improves), on a recent 2 week trip to Chamomix (skiing) I could not carry as much as usual. Previosly I would have taken the whole kit, or at least as much as I could carry and then some. Having difficulty (pain!) even pulling out my 5d with the 40mm attached, I limited my daily camera kit to that combo -- 5d4 and the 40mm. Ideal? No. But even without swimmers elbow who wants to ski the French Alps with 30 pounds of expensive equipment on their back? Not me! But I did find I could zoom ( walking), and take wide angle shots (combo of walking backwards and/or stitching). Wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. And I did find it made me think more about my shots -- which is important for me, because I am not a seasoned professional photographer, (or a "semi-professional", whatever the heck that title means :-D). Would I have liked my 70-200 on the top of the Agui du Midi? You betcha! Did I get some good shots from the top of Agui du Midi? I think so? Of course, I am biased. BTW, I didn't really miss my wide angle much.

Regarding underwear, I just bought more at the end of one week. Much easier than doing laundry.

CM

--
"An enthused-experienced-perpetually-novice-photographer who likes to travel, who is starting to question the full frame hype..."

 

[CurtM]

Canon 40 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 have the same DXOMark if that matters?

But it doesn't. Because one does not compare apples to watermelons.

No, it does not zoom like a 100-400, have the range of a 24-70, and is not as wide as a 16-35. I assume it is not weather sealed. It does not have IS.

I was simply saying that I (personally) find it to be an enjoyable tiny lens (that costs 1/10 of a 24-70 f/2.8 -- which is nice to know for perhaps newbies who are looking into a nice prime for their new camera), that has nice image quality (equal to the 24-70 f/2.8), that can be considered a reasonable single prime to use as a walk around -- especially travel.

Thanks and best regards,

CM

 

[Graham Meale]

No doubt I too will experience some debilitating conditions in the future. When I do, I'll probably just take my 24-105. Usually 90% or more of my shots are taken with it. I'd feel very restricted if I had only a fairly wide prime. Each to his own!

 

[CurtM]

24-105 has been my travel lens of choice when my elbows work, and will be again once they heal. Lovely lens.

CM

 

[Rock and Rollei]

Canon 40 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 have the same DXOMark if that matters?

But it doesn't. Because one does not compare apples to watermelons.

No, it does not zoom like a 100-400, have the range of a 24-70, and is not as wide as a 16-35. I assume it is not weather sealed. It does not have IS.

I was simply saying that I (personally) find it to be an enjoyable tiny lens (that costs 1/10 of a 24-70 f/2.8 -- which is nice to know for perhaps newbies who are looking into a nice prime for their new camera), that has nice image quality (equal to the 24-70 f/2.8), that can be considered a reasonable single prime to use as a walk around -- especially travel.

Thanks and best regards,

CM

 

[ed rader]

if it doesn't take a Lee Filter holder it isn't of much use to me. for snapshots I use my very capable iPhone. it's always with me and it has two lenses, and all my viral and copyrighted stuff was shot with my iPhone.

a small prime for those time you want to go light has always sounded compelling to me. I've owned a bunch of them over the years but never used them.

 

[Rock and Rollei]

if it doesn't take a Lee Filter holder it isn't of much use to me.

It does if you use a step-up ring.

 

[CurtM]

How do you like the EOS M for travel?

CM

 

[davel33]

I had the 40 STM for a while, its a fine lens but I like my 50 STM a bit better

--
"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 

[Rock and Rollei]

How do you like the EOS M for travel?

CM

 

[Peter1956]

Just out of interest I have a 40mm 2.8. Which is going to be sharper the 40mm at say 5.6 or my L series 24 105 at 40mm at same aperture.

many thanks

Peter

 

[RonBr]

I have to post my support here! I too have a variety of quality lenses to choose from, but occasionally I need to travel light & barely have room for my 6D. When I do, the 40mm is my goto choice. It captures quality images, and with "foot-zoom control" I can fit in a wide variety of framing choices. I've even used it vertically to stitch together a few images when I need that extra wide view.

A true little gem!

Ron.

 

[pchaplo]

If I had to choose one, the only one prime lens that I want on FF for travel is a 28mm ...oh and underwear lol

--
https://www.oilpics.com/

 

[nail33]

+1 for the 40mm pancake on FF for general snapshots.

 

[CurtM]

I like mine too. But I have the older 50 mm ii model. It is so small and light I always throw it in my bag. I do personally like the slightly wider 40mm for traveling in cities -- but that's just me. Of course I can absorb the extra few ounces and take both.

And for the record I do NOT travel with only a 40. I usually take a 17-40, 70-200 IS f/4, a 24-105, the 40 and 50 for my FF. Heck in the past I would also throw in my 70d with the 18-135, especially if skiing! But if I had to pick one prime lens with which to travel and still get pics, the 40 would be it. Even when I take it all...the 40 is on my camera most of the time it seems. 50 would be my second choice.

Best regards,

Curt

"An enthused-experienced-perpetually-novice-photographer who likes to travel, who is starting to question the full frame hype..."