Travel lens setup

[User5942872967]

So I’m finishing up 5 weeks in Europe. Originally I was going to bring the m50 but changed my mind r5. Usually I bring the m50 with 22mm and the 55-250. We traveled London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Dublin, Galway, Edinburgh before back to London.



we got to Cliff of moher and that had puffins but all I brought this time was 85 1.2 35 1.8 and 135 2.0. I also brought tc 1.4. The 135 with the tc wasn’t enough. I was a little bummed. But to be honest traveling 5 weeks I already had to pay for my camera bag. I can’t imagine carrying my 800 or 100-400 since they charge us anything over 10kg. The 35 as always out performs. The 135 was cool to use when I had enough space. The 135 was nice to use at Stonehenge since u can’t get close enough to get the blue rocks.



I head to Japan in two weeks. This is making me rethink. I bought a new lowepro bag just for this trip. Th hey finally got it right. I have all 3 of the aw series. This one fits my gear and isn’t that thick.



my son wants his own camera for Japan. He’s going to shoot the m50. I’m going to put the 22 on there and the kit zoom lens. I think it’s the 55-200. I’m definitely not going to bring the 85. I had to force myself to shoot with it and usually it was at night.



the number one surprise for me was the godox 350c. That is a must have and made night shooting and bright backlit backgrounds awesome. Best $100 I spent. I’m going to bring my extension to take the flash off the shoe.



I wondered how 24-105 f4 would have worked out. I love the 35 being a macro. I was able to get some stellar shots of Van Gogh textures. But when shooting the tower bridge with my kids I really wished I had a 26. Wonder if I should grab the 28-70 but that weight is probably an over kill. The 135 ability to turn into a 185 range was nice. Guess got to live with the fact the size of the 800 f11 makes it too hard to travel light. So heading to Japan this is what I am thinking :

no drone. Too many laws

35mm

r5

135

teleconverter 1.4

lowepro aw

would y’all switch the 135 for the 24-105? I’m thinking city and landscape will be most some portraits

thanks!

 

[Serhan2]

Keep it simple, eg take one zoom and a small prime. I used to carry 2 cameras (5D+40D) with zooms, primes on my backpack in Europe. I got smarter and stopped doing that. IN those years I attended to NG photo seminars. Most of NG travel photographers were taking photos with 24-70mm+70-200mm lenses, but you can get away with slower zooms with high ISO of current cameras. You will not what to expect to shoot when you travel, so primes are usually has limited uses eg 35mm might be useful for street/low light, 24-xx zoom will be useful for tight city/architectural shots.

These are from my dog walks around NYC with R5+24-240mm:

View: original size (external website)

Crop from the center:

 

[KENTGA]

I bought RP with 24-240 waiting for R5 with 24-105 f4. I've used the 24-105 a couple of times but the 24-240 stays on my R5 and it's not that heavy.

Kent

 

[PanErwin]

APS-C here, I'm thinking RF 16 mm, EF 40mm with adapter, and RF 100-400 that should be the main lens, for birds/wildlife.

So a minimal kit of 25 mm, 64 mm, 160-640 mm.

I used to take a pocket camera with a long zoom, then heavier 24-70 and 70-200 zooms, so it should be very different this time. And I don't think I'll have all 3 lenses in the bag all the time...

 

[MAC]

So I’m finishing up 5 weeks in Europe. Originally I was going to bring the m50 but changed my mind r5. Usually I bring the m50 with 22mm and the 55-250. We traveled London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Dublin, Galway, Edinburgh before back to London.

we got to Cliff of moher and that had puffins but all I brought this time was 85 1.2 35 1.8 and 135 2.0. I also brought tc 1.4. The 135 with the tc wasn’t enough. I was a little bummed. But to be honest traveling 5 weeks I already had to pay for my camera bag. I can’t imagine carrying my 800 or 100-400 since they charge us anything over 10kg. The 35 as always out performs. The 135 was cool to use when I had enough space. The 135 was nice to use at Stonehenge since u can’t get close enough to get the blue rocks.

I head to Japan in two weeks. This is making me rethink. I bought a new lowepro bag just for this trip. Th hey finally got it right. I have all 3 of the aw series. This one fits my gear and isn’t that thick.

my son wants his own camera for Japan. He’s going to shoot the m50. I’m going to put the 22 on there and the kit zoom lens. I think it’s the 55-200. I’m definitely not going to bring the 85. I had to force myself to shoot with it and usually it was at night.

the number one surprise for me was the godox 350c. That is a must have and made night shooting and bright backlit backgrounds awesome. Best $100 I spent. I’m going to bring my extension to take the flash off the shoe.

I wondered how 24-105 f4 would have worked out. I love the 35 being a macro. I was able to get some stellar shots of Van Gogh textures. But when shooting the tower bridge with my kids I really wished I had a 26. Wonder if I should grab the 28-70 but that weight is probably an over kill. The 135 ability to turn into a 185 range was nice. Guess got to live with the fact the size of the 800 f11 makes it too hard to travel light. So heading to Japan this is what I am thinking :

no drone. Too many laws

35mm

r5

135

teleconverter 1.4

lowepro aw

would y’all switch the 135 for the 24-105?

yes

I’m thinking city and landscape will be most some portraits

thanks!

add a 16 f2.8

 

[Twisted Pixel]

I just returned from a trip to Europe. I opted for the R5 with the 24-240 and the 14-35L. I was thinking of bringing more, but those two covered everything I needed. I had to trade a little more ISO at times, but the image stabilization on both is great, which helped to mitigate some of the more challenging lighting issues.

Mike

 

[User5942872967]

Has anyone tried to buy the 24-240 with canon loyalty?

 

[kopper]

These are from my dog walks around NYC with R5+24-240mm:

Obviously, you haven't heard that the 24-240 can't take sharp photos...

Wonderful captures and thanks for posting!

kopper

 

[MikeJ9116]

When I want the most capability in the smallest package possible it is the R8 with the RF 24-240mm attached. I would add the RF 16mm and RF 35mm f/1.8 and have a perfect travel kit, IMO. I have used the RF 24-240mm for several years and it just never disappoints me regarding the IQ it can deliver while providing such a wide focal length.

 

[Dr Hal]

I find that if I must travel light, I never go without the 35 1.8 and the 24-105 f4. If I could take only one lens, it would be the 224-105.

Hal

 

[MAC]

When I want the most capability in the smallest package possible it is the R8 with the RF 24-240mm attached. I would add the RF 16mm and RF 35mm f/1.8 and have a perfect travel kit, IMO. I have used the RF 24-240mm for several years and it just never disappoints me regarding the IQ it can deliver while providing such a wide focal length.

one could also swap out the 24-240 for the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 100-400

and also consider the 28 pancake in the mix

 

[MAC]

I find that if I must travel light, I never go without the 35 1.8 and the 24-105 f4. If I could take only one lens, it would be the 224-105.

Hal

agree

 

[MikeJ9116]

When I want the most capability in the smallest package possible it is the R8 with the RF 24-240mm attached. I would add the RF 16mm and RF 35mm f/1.8 and have a perfect travel kit, IMO. I have used the RF 24-240mm for several years and it just never disappoints me regarding the IQ it can deliver while providing such a wide focal length.

one could also swap out the 24-240 for the RF 24-105 F4L + RF 100-400

This would be a good option if the trip included spending a lot of time in natural areas and/or around wild life.

and also consider the 28 pancake in the mix

It could be added without much size/weight penalty. When considering what primes to carry it is really a matter of personal preference there isn't a wrong or right choice, IMO, because there are so many good primes these days. The RF primes are all pretty good for lenses in their price ranges. However, there are a lot of gaps in the RF lens catalog that need to be filled. Especially in the mid value range of lenses.

As a one lens solution through, the RF 24-240mm is arguably the best RF lens for this use case, IMO.

 

[MAC]

As a one lens solution through, the RF 24-240mm is arguably the best RF lens for this use case, IMO.

for outdoors

but the RF 24-105 F4L is better indoors

 

[MikeJ9116]

As a one lens solution through, the RF 24-240mm is arguably the best RF lens for this use case, IMO.

for outdoors

but the RF 24-105 F4L is better indoors

Not necessarily, IMO. The f stop table between the two lenses aren't that far apart for much of their common zoom range of 24-105mm. When used on a camera like the R6/2 or R8 the differences aren't all that stark in practical use. If the differences are, then one probably needs to be using a much brighter lens like a prime or a much larger, heavier and more expensive L zoom lens. In return for using a slightly narrower aperture, there is 135mm more reach with the 24-240mm. The f stop table for the 24-240mm is below. Since one would likely use the wider end of the range when shooting indoors the f stop penalty is minimal from 24-69mm between the two lenses.

24-26mm = f/4.0
27-43mm = f/4.5
44-69mm = f/5.0
70-104mm = f/5.6
105-240mm = f/6.3

 

[CameraCarl]

When I go to Japan this October, I'm traveling exclusively on public transportation, so I'm traveling light: one body and a 24-105. Sure, I'm going to miss 16mm (where I shot 7% of my images on my last Japan trip), but I figure that if I really must get a wide angle shot, I'll do a mini pano.

 

[chrisis]

As a one lens solution through, the RF 24-240mm is arguably the best RF lens for this use case, IMO.

for outdoors

but the RF 24-105 F4L is better indoors

Not necessarily, IMO. The f stop table between the two lenses aren't that far apart for much of their common zoom range of 24-105mm. When used on a camera like the R6/2 or R8 the differences aren't all that stark in practical use. If the differences are, then one probably needs to be using a much brighter lens like a prime or a much larger, heavier and more expensive L zoom lens. In return for using a slightly narrower aperture, there is 135mm more reach with the 24-240mm. The f stop table for the 24-240mm is below. Since one would likely use the wider end of the range when shooting indoors the f stop penalty is minimal from 24-69mm between the two lenses.

24-26mm = f/4.0
27-43mm = f/4.5
44-69mm = f/5.0
70-104mm = f/5.6
105-240mm = f/6.3

I strongly support the RF 24-240 as the ideal “walking around” lens. I, like a poste above, just returned from a 2 week trip to Italy and Southern France. My chosen kit was my R5, coupled with the RF 14-35 F4 L and the RF 24-240. This was simply the perfect combination. If i was walking around cities and towns (Assisi, Lucca, Pisa, Nice) then the only lens needed was the RF 24-240. If I was going indoors then i would bring along the 14-35.

The IQ on the 24-240 was perfectly good. Is my RF 24-105 L a “better” lens. Well, that depends. If you need the 105-250 range then no, it’s not. Is the IQ better in the 24-105 range. Yes, but frankly, for most shots it is hard to tell.

Chris

 

[User5942872967]

Thanks for everyone input. I have two 55-250 efs version one and 2. I might just grab the second version. I used to bring it everywhere but then when I got the 135 and realized I could use it with the 1.4 I started carrying that one instead. I liked using the 135 when I could to get that sharpness while also blowing out the background but I’m thinking iFIT travel I should probably go back to 55-250. My 35 stays on the body 70% and now with the godox 350 I’m enjoying shooting bright back lit without being so frustrated.

 

[Klaus dk]

If I had to travel with the R5 I'd bring the 24-240 and the 35/1.8, ... or go all in with the full arsenal, with weight and worries as the consequence.

But my usual travel camera is a belt-pouch/(coat-)pocketable Sony RX100 II. I wont buy the VII, but if it was important enough for me, I probably would for the longer reach and better AF.

 

[User5942872967]

I got my hands on the 24-240 and 100-400. Tbh I returned them both. He 24-240 just had too much overlap with my 24-105f4. I did like the reach of the 100-400 but I noticed it doesn’t fit in any of my camera bags unless leave it sideways taking up valuable room in my travel bag. I compared the pics from my 55-250 vs the 100-400 and to be honest it’s so close that I couldn’t see buying the 100-400. Maybe the latest 70-300 ef might be a better fit if I need the reach.

so far my trip coming up im

thinking the 35 rf, 55-250 efs and maybe the 28 1.8 ef.