On the road againâ€¦
Goin' places that I've never been.
Seein' things that I may never see againâ€¦
I have the opportunity to spend July and at least some of August traveling, and of course recording images with Canon cameras. Given the uniqueness of the opportunity Iâ€™m going to add a lens, and that requires a decision. Iâ€™m soliciting useful thinking on the matter. There are at least a few people here whose opinions I would value.
Two SLR cameras are going along on the trip:
A 5d would go along if Canon would unplug their keister and start selling some new products! As soon as the 5d3 is born I will get one and match it up with a 24-70 that I can either get now or later. But that match up canâ€™t happen in the next few weeks.
Lenses making the trip:
EF-S 60 (macro)
While landscape is not my main interest, there will be lots of it along this trip:
Depart Calaveras County, CA and head up the coast. I know there are lots of images along that coast. Work the west coast up to Seattle. Turn right at Everett and set out on U.S. Route 2, the northernmost U.S. east-west highway. This crosses the whole northern tier, goes through Glacier National Park, the big sky prairies of Montana and ND and MN into Duluth with good views of Lake Superior. The old Burlington Northern rail line parallels much of Rt. 2 so there will be trains to shoot at various scenic places. Then itâ€™s across the MI UP and into Mackinac. I want to go over to Mackinac Island and shoot the Mac bridge from there. Unfortunately, in July or August I probably wonâ€™t have the drama of fog, but itâ€™s a great bridge and night shots may be impressive. Then itâ€™s south down through MI and east through Ohio and then across the backroads of northern PA (Alleghenies) and into NJ where the trip ends â€“ letâ€™s say Cape May.
My real passion is candid portraits and â€œstreet photography,â€ such as it is in rural areas. So Iâ€™ll be spending time in the towns and getting images of the folk along the way.
As for the lenses. The 24-70 is a sure purchase at some point as Iâ€™ll make that a staple with the 5d3. For this trip, it doesnâ€™t seem to add much as the 15-85 covers that range. (And the 15-85 I have has been tweaked by Canon and is capable of really great IQ.) But the 24-70 quality would be a great addition for the film work on the 1V. Otherwise Iâ€™m doing film landscapes with the 50mm.
The 100-400 adds a lot of range, but, unlike the 24-70, it was not something I planned to buy and own. In April, I rented one and was very impressed with the ease of use and IQ overall. It seems like it may be useful on this trip for long shots at trains and with some seascapes and especially some of the flat plains areas where such a focal length can create interesting effects. Anyway, I believe if I owned a 100-400 it would be used enough to be worthwhile. So I seriously consider getting it now. (A Canon refurb is $1359, a good buy and around the same price as the 24-70.) And a word to the big spenders â€“ no, Iâ€™m not getting both! Oh, and the 24-105 is not a consideration; just donâ€™t like it.
Thanks if you have some thoughts on this. It may help my decision process. Also, if anyone has suggestions of must see places/things/people along that route, let me know. My time frame is wide open, and Iâ€™m willing to go far and wide for good stuff.
So, do you choose the 24-70 and add better quality and range with the film camera for this trip and already have it when Canon finally graces us with the 5d3?
Or do you choose the 100-400 and add a whole new dimension? If I get the 100-400 now I still get the 24-70 when the 5d3 eventually shows up so the â€œeither orâ€ is only for this trip.
Finally, this is all just personal stuff. Itâ€™s been a long time since I was being paid to take pictures, and I wonâ€™t be doing that for this trip.