Which lens to take ?

[canonfan]

I'm off soon to Sardinia and taking my 5D mk 11. There is a baggage restriction on weight and I want to ask if I need my wide angle ie: 17-40mm as well or can I get away with just my 24-105 ? Thanks

[RockNGoalStar]

Hi Jane,

I guess the answer to this question lies in what type of photographs you are going to be shooting mainly. have a think about that and post back and then I'm sure people can help you make the right choice

[Shadowman]

I'm off soon to Sardinia and taking my 5D mk 11. There is a baggage restriction on weight and I want to ask if I need my wide angle ie: 17-40mm as well or can I get away with just my 24-105 ? Thanks

Two things to consider but not the end to all would be the angle of view on both lenses at the smallest focal range. If they are similar then go with the 24-105. Also look at the aperture on both, if you are interested in night photography you want a lens with a large aperture.

[Colin Southern]

Personally, I'd run with the 24-105 -- if you come across a scene with a wider FoV you can always flick the camera to portrait orientation and fire off a few overlapping shots and stitch them together when you get home.

[tbob]

Chuck out all your personal toiletries and changes of underwear until you can make the weight restriction with both lenses. For great art you must suffer. Actually those around you will suffer more but would you really want friends/relatives who don't appreciate your creativity? I also find a great benefit in that I experience less crowding in popular tourist sites; especially by the second week of the trip

[canonfan]

Thanks guys - I think I will stick with the 24-105 f/4 L . 5kg allowance only of hand luggage is ridiculous !

[rpcrowe]

Get a photographer's vest. Hang your camera around your neck and place the extra lens and whatever accessories you need in the pockets of the vest. Carry your camera bag (if you even need one - I often don't) empty.

Airlines have not yet evolved to the point wherein they weigh the entire passenger and charge for the total weight of passenger and luggage.

A big fat guy like me would be in bad shape if they ever come around to doing just that but, it would not surprise me. But wouldn't it really be more fair if a frail skinny lady would be allowed to carry more gear that a big beefy guy? After all, it costs the airlines the same amount of fuel to fly a kilo of gear as it does flying a kilogram of person...

SAVING MORE WEIGHT...

And to really save weight, use synthetic material underclothes. Mine is by TEK Gear. I carry two T-shirts and two pairs of undershorts along with two pairs of socks. I wash one set every night as I take a shower and hang them in the shower to dry. They will be dry by evening when I wash the other set.

I have a couple of shirts and a pair of shorts and two pairs of light weight trousers which can also be laundered in the shower. I would bet that my entire carry wardrobe (I wear one set obviously) doesn't weigh more than a kilo or two...

However, my frugal packing is always more than compensated for by my wife who finds it necessary to carry the entire contents of her wardrobe on any trip she takes...

[Colin Southern]

Chuck out all your personal toiletries and changes of underwear until you can make the weight restriction with both lenses. For great art you must suffer. Actually those around you will suffer more but would you really want friends/relatives who don't appreciate your creativity? I also find a great benefit in that I experience less crowding in popular tourist sites; especially by the second week of the trip

This man deservers a beer!

[Colin Southern]

Airlines have not yet evolved to the point wherein they weigh the entire passenger and charge for the total weight of passenger and luggage.

It's actually getting to be a bit of a problem - for years many airlines were working on a standard passenger weight of 175 pounds, but these days it just doesn't hold true. I remember when our airforce nearly crashed a plane because of overloading - they were giving a few hundred army personnel a ride somewhere that - with all of their personal kit - actually weighed in at an average of around 250 pounds each - resulting in the plane being several THOUSAND pounds heavier than expected. Often folks aren't aware that although there might be a big enough safety margin when all is operating normally, having the aircraft over weight has a HUGE effect on single-engine performance (in case of emergency).

Just my 10c worth!

[Dave Humphries]

5kg allowance only of hand luggage is ridiculous !

Budget airline???

Now you know where the budget is

oh, and on a serious note; I was going to say just what Colin said (in his first post), so he beat me to it.

[rpcrowe]

One more comment... I flew to China on Air China and had a decent hand carry weight. However on the domestic Chinese flights I took, the hand carry allowance was also 5kg which prevented me from using a roll on Lowepro camera case which I had bought for the trip (and which weighed almost 5 kg. empty). When purchasing the roll-on case, I was only interested in the size since I had never had my carry-on bag weighed in the USA. I actually had too much gear to carry the case empty and put everything in my photo vest, Even a lens or a single body would have maxed out the weight of the roll-along case.

I carried a Lowepro Mini-Trekker for my hand carry gear which worked just fine and was slightly under 5 kilos. However, the domestic China airlines never weighed the Mini-Trekker. The five kilo restriction did, however, force me to be quite frugal in my selection of equipment which made the trip generally more pleasant.

[wommby]

Hi,

Reading all the above posts it strikes me as being rather funny because one way or another we all get our gear on board (myself included). Regardless of whether we wear jackets and fill them up, put stuff in our pockets or use lower weight bags and then fill them up, we all know we take as much as we can.

My point is, are the airlines that stupid that they think people don't get what they want onboard. It all adds to the weight of the plane but ultimately all they are trying to get is extra money for extra weight. If weight is there real concern for safety reason and not just money grabbing extras they need to look at a better system.

Just my 10 cents worth.
Deb

[Colin Southern]

Hi,
My point is, are the airlines that stupid that they think people don't get what they want onboard. It all adds to the weight of the plane but ultimately all they are trying to get is extra money for extra weight. If weight is there real concern for safety reason and not just money grabbing extras they need to look at a better system.

Hi Deb,

In all honesty - although they never say no to the extra $$$ - in this case I think it's probably more just a case of "that's just the way their systems work". Airlines are very systems oriented and they have a tendency to draw a line in the sand (no matter how silly) and then stick to it come hell or high water. It reminds me of the time when I was about to catch a flight on a commuter plane, but due to a gate change, ended up being routed through airport security. I had my Swiss Army knife in a pouch on my belt, and there was no way in hell they were going to let me on the aircraft with that there - ironically - even though I'd flown to that airport earlier that day - not only with the knife there - but I was also seated in the cockpit with both pilots for the entire journey!

In a further twist of irony, they subsequently changed the "law" and now my "deadly weapon that I could have used to "slash the throats of the crew - seize the aircraft - crash it in a bizarre suicide mission" is now permitted no questions asked.

As we used to say in the Air Force ... "there's no logical reason for it ... it's just the way we do it"!

[Donald]

Airlines have not yet evolved to the point wherein they weigh the entire passenger and charge for the total weight of passenger and luggage.

Except ..................

If you ever have the privilege to visit the Orkney islands off the north coast of Scotland (absolutely wonderful and magical) and decide to take a trip on the small (very small) inter-island plane service (which includes the shortest scheduled flight in the world - just under 120 seconds from Westray to Papa Westray), then you will be on the scales.

It's no so bad at Kirkwall, the main town and airport. That's properly set up. But on the small islands a set of bathroom scales is taken out of the shed that serves as the store for the fire tender and where passengers can stand if it's raining, laid out on the ground in the field and everybody lines up to stand on it and have their weight recorded. Very embarrassing.

On one flight I took, a box of frozen fish was tossed off as we were over-weight, much to the frustration of the fisherman, who had to take it back home until the next flight. I'm sure he looked at my ample girth with some annoyance.

[Colin Southern]

On one flight I took, a box of frozen fish was tossed off as we were over-weight

Unfortunately, an aircraft's performance is dictated (in part) by the actual weight, not a standardized weight.

I was talking to a float plane pilot once - apparantly he had a huge lady sitting right at the back which severely compromised the weight & balance - he said there's just no polite way to say "Ma'am, we need to move you towards the front because you're so fat that we can't take off with you sitting there"

[Donald]

"Ma'am, we need to move you towards the front because you're so fat that we can't take off with you sitting there"

Yep, the subtle approach always works best!