Lenses for Europe Cruise

[THaNaToZ]

I'm heading off to Europe shortly and will be spending a few days in Rome and then doing a cruise between Italy, France, and Spain...
I'm still finalizing itinerary so don't flame me too much for putting the cart before the horse but looking for some recommendations on lenses...
When I upgraded to a full-frame canon, I'm down a couple of lenses.
I have my 50mm 1.8, 100mm macro L, 135 f/2 L, and 24-70L II.
I was planning on picking up the 24-105 as my primary walk around lens and maybe a fisheye (although as much as I like the L glass, don't think I want to swing another 1K for the canon L version).
Rome will have an ancient rome tour one day and then a vatican tour. Still figuring out rest...

So if anyone has recommendations if they've done anything similar and what was your must have.
I didn't find i used my 55-250 mm all that much on prior vacations. it helped very rarely.

[wtlwdwgn]

I always believe in lighter is better when traveling. From your kit I'd add something wide and fast like a 20mm f/1.8. If you prefer a zoom I'd suggest something in the 17-35 range but the faster ones will be larger, heavier, and costlier. Just my $0.02.

[Manfred M]

I suspect that the 24-70mm lens is probably going to be your workhorse lens for your trip, for the typical travel shots. I know that when I travel it is the one I use most of the time. It is fast, so good for indoor work, perhaps not quite as wide angle as I would like, but dragging something wider along isn't always feasible.

I keep thinking about picking up an all-purpose lens (something like the 28-300mm) just to make my life easier. My wife shoots with a 18-200mm lens on her crop frame camera (unless she is planning to do some wildlife shooting) and I spent 2 months shooting mostly with a 14-140mm universal lens on my mFT camera while backpacking through South Asia last year. Not great for interior work, but it sure kept me compact.

[DanK]

the 24-105 you suggest is of course substantially overlapping with your 24-70 and optically not as good, but I find 24-105 to be a superb walk-around lens because the extra 35mm covers a great deal of what I do. I'd say that I have either that lens or my 100mm macro on the camera 80% of the time. However, it all depends on what you shoot.

[Black Pearl]

I'd stick with your 24-70mm and bung the (tiny) 50mm f1.8 in your pocket in case you want the extra stops or a lighter option for trips when you're touristing more than photographering.

[Donald]

I'd stick with your 24-70mm and bung the (tiny) 50mm f1.8 in your pocket in case you want the extra stops or a lighter option for trips when you're touristing more than photographering.

I'd go with that.

I think that nowadays (and I'm as guilty as anyone else) we convince ourselves we need the full range of lenses to cover every eventuality. However, if we only go with, for example, a 24-70mm, then we have the discipline of having to make it work. We find the shots that a 24-70 will be good for and we become more searching and creative in our picture-making. It's a good learning exercise.

[John 2]

I'm crop rather than full frame and my 18-55 mm is my workhorse. I guess that equates to your 24-70mm in practical terms and I can manage with that and travel light. I sometimes add a 14mm (interiors) and occasionally, a 55-200mm depending on where we are going and if the weather isn't too hot to wear something with deep pockets. I have a small camera bag for travel to store my gear but I don't carry it about with me. That stays in the hotel/cruise ship.

[chauncey]

The answer depends a great deal on ...your motives for taking pictures.
IMHO, if you're planning on prints, use that 135 prime.
Want more FOV, take numerous images and photomerge them.

[William W]

There’s no right answer, but there will be one answer for you, which you might change the next time. My answer (for me) is to travel light and with back up. The latest incarnation of my travel pack is: 5D Series Camera; 24 to 105/4L IS; 35/1.4L and Fuji x100s. Previously (recent with digital): 5D Series Camera; 24 to 70/2.8L; 35/1.4L; 15/2.8 Fish; Powershot SX40 HS – an before that I carried two DSLR Bodies.

I have visited that area of Europe twice recently and I purposely bought a 24 to 105/4 IS for the first visit, because I knew that for me, the IS on the 24 to 105 would be more beneficial than the F/2.8 on the 24 to 70. I am very fond of Architecture (including interior Architecture) and that’s where the IS is invaluable. Maybe see my comments here. I am not worried by the slight IQ difference between my 24 to 70 and 24 to 105 and for me too, the extra 35mm at the telephoto end is useful.

I have a 50/1.4, but I never used it traveling, always preferring a fast 35 prime for that purpose and in any case for my uses generally, a fast 35 Prime is superior to a fast 50 Prime.

A few of years ago I drove for 8 weeks in that area (with 24 to 105; 35; and 15Fish) and I did an analysis of what I used to make several thousand shots – about 87% were made with the zoom; and 13% with the 35/1.4 and fewer than 10 with the Fisheye. If you choose to buy a fisheye, the a second hand 15/2.8 would be a good choice, rather than spending heaps on the 8~15L

Even though one of my fascinations is Available Light Portraiture, I wouldn’t consider taking my 135/2 – with a little effort Foreground/Background differentiation can be attained with the 24 to 105. Also, personally, I would not like to be taking multiple images of a vast scene using my 135/2 to later have to merge them just because I wanted prints. For example these three images made with my 24 to 105/4 IS, (night time, outside and inside) all print to very good quality at 16 inches on the long side:


*

*


I am not a ‘Macro Photographer’, but I do have Macro Lenses: one of the attributes of the 24 to 105/4 IS, is its Minimum Focussing Distance and Magnification – (combined with the lens having IS) – that suits me perfectly for shooting detail at a close -up distance:

I do travel with a Battery Grip on my DSLR, not so much for the GRIP or the two battery capacity, but for the availability of using AA Cells. It’s only happened once. I rarely trave with a Speedlite, for either camera.

Bottom Line: If you consider that you have no need for IS, then your 24 to 70 F/2.8L MkII will more than suffice - it is a spectacular lens: if you need to get to 105, then just walk close or crop or both. Depending upon what Camera you have (mainly High ISO Capacity) I would even consider the 50/1.8 is becoming superfluous to needs. However one criterion from which I cannot release is "System Redundancy", so I would have another (reasonable quality) camera with me.

Have a great trip

WW

Images © WMW 1974~1996 / AJ Group Pty Ltd (AUS) 1997~2015

[dragon76]

I'm heading off to Europe shortly and will be spending a few days in Rome and then doing a cruise between Italy, France, and Spain...
I'm still finalizing itinerary so don't flame me too much for putting the cart before the horse but looking for some recommendations on lenses...
When I upgraded to a full-frame canon, I'm down a couple of lenses.
I have my 50mm 1.8, 100mm macro L, 135 f/2 L, and 24-70L II.
I was planning on picking up the 24-105 as my primary walk around lens and maybe a fisheye (although as much as I like the L glass, don't think I want to swing another 1K for the canon L version).
Rome will have an ancient rome tour one day and then a vatican tour. Still figuring out rest...

So if anyone has recommendations if they've done anything similar and what was your must have.
I didn't find i used my 55-250 mm all that much on prior vacations. it helped very rarely.

I spent 3 weeks in Europe a few years ago and I brought with me 24-70 & 14-24 and I mostly used 24-70 because after awhile It was a pain to keep on switching lenses. From that point on, for every over-seas trip, I only ever bring 1 body & 24-70 (sometimes with a 85 1.4). Lugging heavy camera pack is not ideal for travelling so I travel as light as possible. By the way, tour bus is always scheduled to take you to places during the worst light (usually around midday) and bring you back just before the good light hit. my 0.2c

Cheers


Dean

[davidedric]

More heated agreement. My m4/3 kit would be, in ff equivalent, 24-70 f2.8 for general walkabout, and 14-140 f3.5-5.6 for more range. Because the kit is light, I'd probably have two bodies - but I wouldn't fancy two ff cameras.

BTW I don't think Europe needs special lens - just turn everything sepia in post

Dave

[JimH]

I've been fortunate to be able to travel on many cruises around the world. I started with video only. moved to point and shoot and gradually evolved into travelling with an APS-C body and about four lenses (just in case). Being a RAW shooter I usually ended up with some (to me) memorable pics.

Having recently returned from a cruise around the yellow sea and knackered from lugging around all that weight, after PP I analysed what lens for what shot. Big shock. My trusty 17-55 2.8 was the star with a couple of telephoto pics and one WA.

I intend to undertake more cruises and I've finally bitten the bullet. I've PXd all my gear for a Sony RX 10 which weighs less than one of my old lenses and gives me 24-200mm and 2.8 all the way through. The smaller sensor may be a problem but we'll have to see.

One other thing. Trying to change lenses whilst standing in a group and listening to the guide is a bit interesting.

Bon voyage.

[Manfred M]

Ankit - while I, Dave and Jim have suggested other format cameras, one suggestion I would make regarding that path is to not even consider changing cameras unless you have LOTS of time to practice and get used to the new gear. Getting to know a new lens is not too bad, but a whole new system takes a fair bit of time. Doing so in situations like traveling to a new place is going to be extremely challenging, at least that was my experience.

I picked up my GX7 about 6 months prior to my South Asia trip and shot thousands of images before heading out. Even there, this proved to insufficient as I ran into situations that I did not have sufficient familiarity with the camera / lens and this resulted in more blown shots that I would have liked.

[rpcrowe]

I shoot with a pair of 1.6x Canon DSLR cameras (presently my cameras are the 7D although I have traveled through China with a 30D and 40D). I am quite happy with two lenses, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS. Many folks don't use longer focal lengths for travel but, I would not travel without a longer lens for isolating people and compressing distances.

Longer focal length for people...

173mm (276.8 equivalent)


100mm (160mm equivalent)


138mm (220.8 mm equivalent)


Long focal lengths compress distances..

70mm (112 mm equivalent)


85mm (136mm equivalent)


127mm (203.2mm equivalent)


I do, however often throw the older 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens in my kit as a redundancy or backup lens which "could" if needed fill in for either my 17-55mm or 70-200mm lens if either goes down. The image quality is reasonable and the lens is fairly light weight. The lens will stay in my hotel room.

I can shoot at ISO 640 or so with quite reasonable quality. This allows me to capture available light images using the 7D and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

1/400 @ f/5.6


1/125 @ f/5.6


1/125 @ f/5.6


One accessory that I would bring on any cruise is a CPL filter...

I will also carry a small hotshoe flash, the Canon 270EXii which I will bounce with a Demb Photojournalist FlipIt. This gives me some versatility indoors...

[THaNaToZ]

Thanks for the responses. One of the follow up questions that I have is I saw mention of a 35mm and a 20mm prime, what advantage would those have over either my current lens or the 24-105L that I'm thinking about getting as they are either covered in the range or just outside. I'm aware of prime usually having higher quality and maybe an extra stop here or there.

[Donald]

...what advantage would those have over either my current lens or the 24-105L that I'm thinking about getting ...

In my opinion, none whatsoever. For the sort of trip you're doing, the zooms are what you need. Yes, you get a couple of stops more speed, but, nowadays that thing about quality is pretty negligible, unless you're planning a real pro shoot and not something for your own pleasure.

The advantage of extra speed would be outweighed the restriction of a wide selection of focal lengths available to you with the zooms.

[William W]

Thanks for the responses. One of the follow up questions that I have is I saw mention of a 35mm and a 20mm prime . . .

I was one who mentioned Prime Lenses in my response. My reason for mentioning Prime Lenses was twofold:

> Firstly you specifically mentioned that you were considering buying a new (Fisheye) Zoom Lens and as an alternative I suggested that you consider a second hand Prime 15/2.8.

> Secondly you mentioned that you already have three Prime Lenses (50; 100; 135) and in my response I considered because you did not exclude taking one or more of those Prime Lenses, I explained why I consider none as suitable as taking fast 35 Prime Lens.

*

what advantage would those [a fast Prime] have over either my current lens or the 24-105L that I'm thinking about getting as they are either covered in the range or just outside. I'm aware of prime usually having higher quality and maybe an extra stop here or there.

I see 4 four main advantages of carrying a Prime Lens as well as a Zoom Lens.

The first two advantages are in respect of the extra stops (plural and definitive: not an extra stop and not maybe):

But those extra stops will be NO advantage to you, if you don’t intend to use them: and whether you use those extra stops or not will be mainly predicated on what types of Events and Subjects you like Photographing.

I do use those extra stops, and I use them often:

> 1. to afford me a Shutter Speed (at a reasonable ISO) that will arrest Subject Movement when shooting in Available Light

> 2. to afford me a very shallow Depth of Field


Ice Cream - Paris

and


Mimes - Paris

*

3. A third advantage is size and bulk:

Whether this is a consideration for you again is mainly dependent upon the types of Photography you will undertake on your holiday.

However I have attended some venues where Cameras and Photography were (supposedly) not permitted: but the Curating Staff turned a repetitive blind eye to all those with "smaller" cameras and Mobile Phones and my 5D (without grip and with a 35/2 on it) appeared to be "small enough" to be OK for me to use.

A small and fast 35 (e.g. 35/2) or a 40 Pancake or your 50/1.8, renders the DSLR Camera and Lens much less obtrusive and (perceived) less threatening. This is one of the reasons that I bought a Fuji x100s (APS-C Camera with 23mm F/2 Lens) and that camera "sort of replaces" my need to carry a fast 35 Prime with my 5D.

However using an APS-C Camera one cannot get anywhere near the same very shallow DoF as one can when using a 135 Format Camera with a fast Prime mounted on it, as you can see here by contrasting this image which was made with the Fuji to the "Ice Cream" shot above:


After The Concert, Subway - Vienna Austria

*

4. The fourth advantage is System Redundancy:

If I were travelling with a 5D Series and a 24 to 105 and a 35 Prime and the zoom perished, I could continue the whole holiday using only the 35 Prime.

WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996

[LePetomane]

I have the Fujifilm XT-1 and travel with two prime lenses, Zeiss Touit 12mm. f2.8 and 32mm f1.8. In the short amount of time I have had this system, these two lenses have served me well.

[cearense]

Last time I went on a cruise I just took the 24-105 f4...

I already had the 17-40 but I guess wanted to see what would be getting out of the confort zone...



But the truth is I wanted to have all my lenses with me...

[rpcrowe]

Actually, I might be quite comfortable with the 24-105 mm f/4L on a full frame camera. Not quite as long as I would like but, a pretty decent focal range. I am not an UWA lens advocate, so 24mm would be just fine. The increased ISO capability of many full frame cameras might make up for the slower f/4 aperture...