Canon lens combination suggestions for travel?

[woty87]

Hi, I own a Canon 70D + Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-5.3 which I use primarily for travel photography. While the Tamron lens is great for focal length versatility and only having to carry one lens, frankly, I have never been thrilled with the quality of images.

I am taking a trip to Iceland in the near future and I have committed to upgrading my image quality even though it will likely mean carrying two lenses. The problem is that I am having a hard time deciding on which two lenses to take with me. I definitely want wide angle capability(15mm) as I love taking landscape photos, but ideally I would like telephoto capability(300mm) for some wildlife. Is this just too much to hope for in a 2 lens lineup?

Does anyone have a favorite combination of Canon lenses they take when you travel?

thanks in advance for any help.

[Manfred M]

Hi, I own a Canon 70D + Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-5.3 which I use primarily for travel photography. While the Tamron lens is great for focal length versatility and only having to carry one lens, frankly, I have never been thrilled with the quality of images.

I am taking a trip to Iceland in the near future and I have committed to upgrading my image quality even though it will likely mean carrying two lenses. The problem is that I am having a hard time deciding on which two lenses to take with me. I definitely want wide angle capability(15mm) as I love taking landscape photos, but ideally I would like telephoto capability(300mm) for some wildlife. Is this just too much to hope for in a 2 lens lineup?

Does anyone have a favorite combination of Canon lenses they take when you travel?

thanks in advance for any help.

I can't say I remember seeing any wildlife other than birds on either of my trips to Iceland. There will definitely be sea mammals, but as we did not go on any whale watching tours, we didn't see any of those. Icelandic horses are not wild, but are quite photogenic, so a short telephoto lens would be useful.

For landscapes, I would suggest taking a good tripod and while a decent wide angle lens makes sense, something a bit longer would will be needed as well. I do most of my landscape work with longer focal length lenses, and given the relatively cool temperatures in Iceland, on the days it is not raining, you should have fairly clear shooting conditions. Given that it rained about half the time we were in Iceland, I suggest you also invest in a rain cover for your gear. There are great waterfalls to shoot to and with the mist and spray you should consider this even for those "nice" days. By the way, it can get very windy (and cold) as well.

A friend and I were looking at going again in the late summer (but it is not going to happen now, but might be on for next year) and I was looking at traveling with three lenses; a 14-24mm, a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, all with a full frame body.

[DanK]

I didn't take a serious camera when I went to Iceland. A huge mistake, although I had a good reason. However, when I shot primarily a crop camera, my walk around was an EF-S 15-85, which I think would be a reasonable option for Iceland. I generally paired it with a 70-200 f/4 IS, which I picked because it weighs half as much as the 2.8. There are good cheaper options in that focal length range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[William W]

. . . a Canon 70D + Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-5.3 which I use primarily for travel photography. . . Tamron lens is great for focal length versatility and only having to carry one lens, frankly, I have never been thrilled with the quality of images. . . . I have committed to upgrading my image quality . . . thanks in advance for any help.

Before you buy anything, I suggest that you first carefully delineate the details of the poor image quality and run those issues, with some sample images and EXIF, past the collective experiences of this forum.

WW

[William W]

Notwithstanding my previous:

. . . Does anyone have a favorite combination of Canon lenses they take when you travel?

Yes. I use Canon DSLRs.

For travelling and tourist type photography I use a 5D Series Body and the EF 24 to 105F/4 L IS USM.

I used to also carry a 35/1.4L and also second body (APS-C Format); the second body was mainly a back up camera, but did allow for a little more "reach" from 105mm; but when I bought my Fuji X100s, that nullified the need for me to carry a fast 35 Prime and also provided a smaller and lighter back-up camera.

On the odd occasion when I expect that I will need longer than 105mm (on a 5D Series) and that extra 'reach' could not be accommodated by cropping, I take the EF 135/2L and usually (only) the x2.0 Extender EF MkII.

IME, using the EF 135/2L + Extender (either x1.4 or x2.0) is a superior choice for telephoto work at 135/189/270 when weight and space are at a premium. In my Pro Wedding Kit, I typically carried the combination of 135/2 + x1.4 rather than carrying my 70 to 200/2.8L

My choice of 24 to 105 for the main working lens would roughly translate to a 17 ~ 75mm lens on your APS-C camera; but you indicate that you want a bit wider than that.

I suggest that you seriously consider the value of IS in your Main Working Lens.

Personally and for my basic technique I am never entirely comfortable using any Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lens; also a fast aperture is always nice to have up one’s sleeve; accordingly I would suggest the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM as you main working lens. I have used this lens and it is superior in all aspects. If it were not for the fact that it has an APS-C Bayonet Mount, I believe that it would be an L Series Lens.

However, as noted you want wider than 17mm and in this regard the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM has an high reputation and the images that I have viewed from this lens are very good to excellent quality (from a 7D and 7D MkII).

If, for the telephoto end, you want a zoom to (about) 300, then including discontinued models bought second hand, the (high quality) offerings are the five 70 to 200 L Series of lenses and the 70 to 300L. I have used all the 70 to 200 lenses and I think that the EF 70 to 200F/4 L IS USM is amazing for travelling and tourist photography. I think that you need to balance the actual need for 300mm and what you could achieve with a small crop of the shot at 200mm. Note that the EF 70 to 200F/4 L IS USM makes a very nice pairing with the 1.4 Extender EF MkII or MkIII.

But as already mentioned I would take my 135 and an extender rather than a zoom for the telephoto lens component of the kit. But a salient point is, I already have a 70 to 200 and a 135 and they were bought because I had uses for both – if you have no use for a 135 Prime then it is possibly quite silly for you to buy it just for your travelling and tourist photos.

WW

BTW I suggested the 15 to 85 and 70 to 200/4IS lenses without reading Dan's comments, so you can reckon our two lens recommendations as independent.

Addendum

Here is an example (full frame crop) of the 135/2 and the x2.0, made in low-level and soft light, using a 5DMkII, pulled at: F/4 [effective F/8] @ 1/1600s @ ISO3200. It prints 'very good' at 20" along the base.

[William W]

Additional thought, after reading Manfred's commentary about the weather: I have not been to Iceland, but I have shot in Antarctica and it is cold there.

I assume Iceland is cold too, the names suggest so.

Take several camera batteries and keep them warm. The armpit area is a good place to warm batteries up quickly if you have a voltage drop due to cold.

WW

[DanK]

It's not all that cold in Iceland in the spring and summer months. See http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/ic...hericeland.htm. However, my experience was like Manfred's: it can rain at any time.

Two other, nonphotographic suggestions: if you go during late spring or summer, consider taking one of the eye masks like those that airlines pass out. None of the places we stayed had blackout urtains, and it was light virtually all night. Also, while the main roads are good and drivers are generally polite and unaggressive, the roads deteriorate rapidly as you go off the main track, and the more remote roads are, let's say, not for the faint of heart:

[Manfred M]

Additional thought, after reading Manfred's commentary about the weather: I have not been to Iceland, but I have shot in Antarctica and it is cold there.

I assume Iceland is cold too, the names suggest so.

Take several camera batteries and keep them warm. The armpit area is a good place to warm batteries up quickly if you have a voltage drop due to cold.

WW

Bill - Iceland does have ice (glaciers), but being an island that is in a location where the warm water from the Gulf Stream has a significant impact on the local climate, given that the island is just below the Arctic Circle. In fact it passes through the Grimsey Island, which is just north of the main island. As well being an island, surrounded by ocean, the climate is maritime (wet).

All this means it doesn't get all that cold (or all that hot) there. While our trips were in the summer (once in early July and once in mid-August), we experienced temperatures that ranged from the high single digits (Celsius) to the low 20's C. In fact southern Canada gets a lot colder. I never ran into any battery life issues because it really wasn't all that cold, but the wind and rain would chill us right down.

[loosecanon]

It all depends on your budget and how much you want to carry weight and size wise.

With my crop camera 7D I use the 15mm - 85mm as a general purpose lens, the cheap 10mm-18mm will give you extra wide at much lower cost than the better but non stabilised 10mm-22mm. Again reasonably priced is the 70mm-300mm the non L version a new version has just been released. On a crop you use the central part of the image circle so quality is quite good.
These three lenses are all stabilised.

This forms my "light(ish) weight" kit, when I decide not to use the Tamron 16mm-300mm, which does, not surprisingly, have a lot of distortion, but much can be corrected in Lightroom.

The Tamron is handy when its difficult to change lenses - such as sandy or dusty environments or there is just no time to do so. The Canon EF-S 15-85 was introduced as the kit lens for the 7D, and is better than the 17-85 , and gives the 35mm equivalent of 24-135. The Canon EF-S 55-250 mark II has a good reputation but I have no experience of it.

[Mike Buckley]

On my trip to Iceland, my favorite photos were taken using all of my lenses mounted on a crop camera: a 12-24mm zoom and prime lenses at 35mm, 85mm, 180mm and 300mm. I wouldn't return without taking all of those lenses again.

As Manfred mentioned, you will see very few wild animals that are not birds. (I actually can't think of any that I saw.) Depending on the situation, you can use every one of the focal lengths I used on the horses and sheep, which are prevalent.

[rpcrowe]

What Bill suggested above is my standard travel kit. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. I carry these lenses mounted on 7D and 7D2 cameras and have never really needed anything more for travel.

I must admit that I am not a great fan of wide angle shooting. I own a Tokina ATX 12-24mm f/4 but after two trips, one to China and the other to Greece and Istanbul without using this lens to any great extent, I don't think I will bring it on any future trips... I find that for my style of shooting 17mm on a crop camera is plenty wide enough - even for landscapes. In fact, I am much more likely to shoot using the higher side of my 17-55mm lens or even my 70-200mm for landscapes.

I also own a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens which I absolutely love but, unless I had a specific use for this lens, such as wildlife, I would not include that lens in my travel kit. It is a bit too heavy. In fact, weight is the reason that I selected the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens instead of one of the heavier f/2.8L models. I can carry my two lenses and my pair of bodies at about the same weight as one body along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens...

The two lenses that I carry are quite expensive. At a lower price range, I would seriously consider the medium range Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS and the telephoto Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC as my pair. My f/2.8 medium range zoom is a great lens for low light work and I always carry a couple of hotshoe flashes. My first Canon lens was a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which I used on a Canon 10D crop camera... I found that the f/3.5-5.6 aperture range was severely limiting, more so than the 28mm wide angle focal length of that lens....

I will always carry hotshoe flashes on my travels because I shoot many of my outdoor images with fill flash. Of course, there are also times when I need bounce flash to capture some images.

[rpcrowe]

I have a suggestion for a lens that doesn't exist. If I could pray to the "Canon Gods", I would ask for this:

An EFS 50-100mm f/2.8 lens with IS and with a capability to accept a 2x Teleconverter. IMO, this could probably be made relatively light weight and would be a great combination with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens for travel - using either one or two camera bodies. Using the 2x converter, it could be turned into a 100-200mm f/4 IS lens.

I thought about how nice this would be as I was playing with a Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 SF lens. I originally purchased this lens for one hundred U.S. Dollars on eBay. I suspect that many folks were turned off by the SF (soft focus) designation; not realizing that the lens with the SF turned off is a pretty sharp glass, especially when used on a crop factor camera. I really liked the weight of this lens on my 7D Mark-2 body. I have not used it to any great degree since the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens came out right after I purchased the 135mm SF glass.

I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as a travel partner to my 17-55mm. The weight of this lens at 27 ounces is not at all bad. However, the 135mm SF is half that weight at about 13.5 ounces. I wonder if the lens that I suggested might not weigh considerably less than the 70-200 - even with the 2x TC.