Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hey folks,

I'm going on holiday in 6weeks and want to take 2 lenses with me. After a bunch of reading and drooling at pics i've decided to go for the Canon 70-200 f4 for longer reach shots, but i'm also considering replacing my 18-55kit lens (which is in the range I take 90% of my shots) - ideally with something better, maybe a little more reach and wider would be nice.

Sigma 17-70 seems to fit the bill from some bits of research, but I was wondering if anyone had any other recommendations? I don't want to spend >$700 and i don't mind searching for a good used copy.

TIA

Buy a Canon 18-200 used.

I've not read anything about this lens, is it anywhere near the quality of the 2? Perhaps wrongly, but I'd always assumed that once you have lens that covers such a broad reach of zoom it wouldn't be very competent.

agreed

I don't suggest taking two lenses with you. From personal and friend's experience, you're most likely going to stick with one lens when travelling. So if you want the range to 200mm, get the Canon 18-200. It's not L glass but it'll do the job. If you want better glass, a lot of good quality zooms available that better than the Sigma 17-70 that's less than $700. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC - $408 with $25 mail-in rebate at Aden. You'll appreciate the constant aperture.

I guess it depends on where you are travelling and the subjects you will encounter.
Obviously a rain forest eco tour would need different lenses than a grand European castle tour...
A standard tele is a no brainer for travelling. I found the 24-105 from Canon to be great for this (IQ is superb, great range of zoom, IS is nice, and F4 does the job). It takes some great photos and will cover probably 90% of your shots. IQ is a thing for me so I would NEVER consider taking the 18-200...the softness makes me wanna cry. If you are going to spend the money to travel the world, spend a little to get a lens that will capture those moments superbly. Used 24-105's can be found in the $700-800 range quite easily.
That being said, I found I definitely enjoy having a bit of range with me on most occasions so I bring a 70-200 on every trip.
In fact, unless you are on tight city streets, I think you could get away with a 70-200 for 70% of most trips...you would just have to walk a bit more to frame the shots. The Canon 70-200 F4 is a great value (image quality is nice on both the IS and non-IS versions, and they are very light weight which is great for travelling).
Being the gear whore that I am, I usually bring these two lenses, plus a specialty lens or two, depending on the subject matter (macro, super tele, portrait lens, etc)...but then weight becomes a factor...

Thanks for the replies.

I'm going to Costa Rica, so there will be some rainforest and national park stuff in there. It sounds as if there will be a ton of wildlife, which is the main reason im on the lookout for a used 70-200 f4. Whilst I understand about the 18-200 being much more travel friendly, I think i'd end up selling when I got back to get better quality lenses, which would somewhat defeat the purpose.

I was thinking the 70-200 (plus either extension tubes/closeup filter) for creepy crawlies/plantlife. Thanks for mentioning the 17-50 non-VC, i'll need to do more reading on that.

Also, on the 24-105 - I guess it wouldn't fit my budget/situation as I only wanna take 2 lenses and I'd definitely want something wider too. I'm not FF (T2i) so i'd feel a bit limited for landscape shots.

Costa Rica rainforest on a 1.6 crop?
I'd go with the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 150-500...

OK, thanks, more lenses to look into - my first instinct is that 150-500 will be way too big for me and i'd never use it when I get back, so probably not for me, but i'll take a look.

Maybe I should start a different thread, but im also wondering what lens everyone would choose to get the closeup filter for? Zoom or wide? I've only used a 50mm Sigma macro once, so very little experience of closeup work.

The one that has the longest minimum focus.

(This will tend to be the longer lenses).

OK, thanks for the input : >

I would go with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di as it is a great lens. Had it, but sold it to upgrade to 17-40L.

Well I'm assuming since you mentioned the 18-55 you have a crop body. I would look at the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS it's the cheaper cousin to the 24-105 L but still gives you very comparable quality and you can normally find these used for around $300-350. On a crop body that would be ~ 44-216, which is pretty decent coverage and gives you a flexible range for both near and far. In a worst case you have the 18-55 to cover the really wide/close shots.

Review of the 28-135 vs 24-105 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml
Review of the 28-135 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

+1
one lens and that one would be canon 18-200 $450 pocket the rest of the money and enjoy the trip

Well I'm assuming since you mentioned the 18-55 you have a crop body. I would look at the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS it's the cheaper cousin to the 24-105 L but still gives you very comparable quality and you can normally find these used for around $300-350. On a crop body that would be ~ 44-216, which is pretty decent coverage and gives you a flexible range for both near and far. In a worst case you have the 18-55 to cover the really wide/close shots.

As someone who owns a 28-135 and has used the 24-105... Comparable quality? Umm, no. It's an ok lens but it's not L quality.

24-105 f4L

I agree it's no L lens and I personally have not done a direct comparison but based on the screenshots in first review link I would say it's comparable based on price point the OP is looking at.

In the rainforest under the canopy there is not very much available light. You'll NEED fast lenses. Subjects in the trees will require long lenses. Both are heavy. Either you suck it up and carry heavy gear or you live with the compromise of the 28-135.

I was hiking in the Costa Rican ranforest with a 24-70 L f2.8, 10-22 EFS, and 70-200 f 4 and a monopod. It wasn't easy but I have had a few years to recover and I harbour no regret about the photos I would have missed if I hadn't been so lazy. Sometimes you have to suffer short term for something that lasts a lifetime.

+1

There's no such thing as travel gear to me beyond the gear I travel with. There's compromised gear that is easier to travel with because it's light and gear that you travel with because you want it for specific wants.

There is travel gear. It is designed for snapshot photography, don't expect it to give you breathtaking images, but it will give you some memories to look at. It's all good enough if you're a good photographer and can see the shot with any gear you'll bring it back. Only exception is specific types of photography requiring specific settings. I traveled a bit with an XSI and 17-85 and got some cool shots, most I could improve on upon becoming better at processing. Now I travel with specific tailored gear to what I shoot.

Basically, same thing as most already said here. Just buy a lens that will provide you with ability to shoot what you usually shoot.

Also - many of the Costa Rican tree frogs are pretty small. It is dark under the rainforest canopy. I even slogged around with a 100 mm f 2.8 macro in addition to the 3 other lenses. A 28-135 won't be good enough for them cute little critters or any toucans 40 feet high in the canopy. Note that flash cannot be used on rainforest critters not accustomed to bright light - you'll blind them.

If your primary reason to go to Costa Rica is for photography then the compromised choice won't cut it. If it is a vacation and you would like snapshot reminders of your trip then it will do fine to chronicle the many memories that occurred outside of the rain forest.
The 70-200 f4 is what I used - it is lighter than the f2.8 but it still wasn't fast enough under the canopy. But it was perfect for moneys visible out from under the canopy.

This is why we missed you Phil

It's been about six weeks, I wonder how the trip ended up...