A Walk Around Lens for a Trip

[Skywise]

I am going to be using a 7D also.  I have been looking at the Canon 17-55mm.  It doesn't have the same range as the 18-85 others have mentioned already, but that f2.8 is very attractive (not only for this trip, but for a great lens to add to my kit after).  Has anyone had experience traveling with this lens?  Did you miss that 15-17mm or 55-85mm range at all?

I've got a T4i and have made several trips to Las Vegas, Pennsylvania and Northern Florida with it.  I've got the 17-55, the 10-22 wide angle and the 70-300 EF.

The 70-300 almost always stays in the room unless I know beforehand I'm going to be shooting at things at some distance away.
The 17-55 was my standard walk around for awhile, especially in Vegas at night.  It's colors and sharpness are fantastic and the ability to take indoor shots without a flash is unsurpassed (but somewhat lessened with the newer cameras handling higher ISOs).  The cons are that it's heavy and somewhat large and it's zoom range never seems to be quite close enough.
A few years back I started walking around primarily with the 10-22.  It's lighter, smaller and the 22mm length was good enough for most portrait style shots I was looking for while the 10mm gave me the ability to take in much larger views and I found that combination more versatile. (If I wanted a close up shot I just moved close up.  But after going back and looking at some of the photos, I didn't think the lens brought out the detail of some of my scenes as well as the 17-55 did (shadowing seemed better, colors seemed to be better represented) and my last trip I went back to it as my default lens.  (Although both are in my camera bag).
Not saying the 10-22 is bad, it's great but the 17-55 edges it - especially if I'm going to shoot above 17mm.

[gn100]

My Pastor is planning a tour in 2014.

There's a lot of time between now and then, I'd hold off on purchases for a while yet.  Next, I'd think about buying a mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera and two lenses; in 6-12 months the tech will have improved quite a bit.  If you are concerned with gear weight now, your concern may be greater a year from now.  Don't let the burden of your gear reduce your enjoyment of the trip.

Good point. If the new mirrorless don't suit then the new Canon EOS100 is a nice small body, but realise that you often don't want to buy a complete new kit for one trip.

I think the 15-85 is probably the best one-lens solution. Otherwise combining the 11-16 with a 24-105 seems a good 2 lens situation for a crop sensor camera. Take a small light prime if low light shooting is important (the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art looks good).

[neuroanatomist]

Otherwise combining the 11-16 with a 24-105 seems a good 2 lens situation for a crop sensor camera.

It seems like it...but theory is likely different than practice.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose FF zoom - by definition, a general purpose zoom covers moderate wide angle through short telephoto in one lens.  In APS-C, that's a 15-85, 17-55, etc.  The 24-105 on APS-C is a normal-to-tele while the 11-16 is ultra wide - and the gap from 16mm to 24mm is significant, almost the whole wide range is missing (the 10-22 would be a better choice for that).  The real problem is that means a lot of lens changes, not a great solution. Having an ultrawide to supplement a true general purpose zoom does make sense.

[preppyak]

Otherwise combining the 11-16 with a 24-105 seems a good 2 lens situation for a crop sensor camera.

It seems like it...but theory is likely different than practice.  The 24-105L is a great general purpose FF zoom - by definition, a general purpose zoom covers moderate wide angle through short telephoto in one lens.  In APS-C, that's a 15-85, 17-55, etc.  The 24-105 on APS-C is a normal-to-tele while the 11-16 is ultra wide - and the gap from 16mm to 24mm is significant, almost the whole wide range is missing (the 10-22 would be a better choice for that).  The real problem is that means a lot of lens changes, not a great solution. Having an ultrawide to supplement a true general purpose zoom does make sense.

Yep. Unless you know you have specific needs for the Tokina's f/2.8 (night photography, basically), then the 10-22 would be a nice combo with the 24-105

[Old Sarge]

I appreciate all of the suggestions.  I had posted this Monday on another forum and it is interesting the different viewpoints from both forums.  Several there have suggested, as did Jasonsim in his reply, the 24-105L.  I must confess that this is a lens I have been considering before the subject of the trip came up.  However, he also suggested the 15-85 which has a lot of support here and, truthfully, on this trip I probably won't need more reach than available with an 85, or certainly a 105, on my 7D. 

Orangatun made an excellent suggestion about the mirrorless.  I wouldn't go that way right now (as a user of RF and SLR cameras for nearly sixty years I can't imagine a camera without a viewfinder) but I do have a long time to make a decision and the technology evolves rapidly.  I am going to do some more research on lenses in the 15-85 range.  So far I have been blessed where I don't get too tired carrying my current gear that fits in my Tenba messenger bag (and it is a little on the heavy side with my 70-200L 2.8 in there) but I will be 72 before the trip, Deo Volente.  Cutting to my Tokina and one other lens might work well.  And the Tokina might not be necessary although I like the speed for indoor shots where flash is prohibited (or just déclassé). 

Thanks for helping me organize my thoughts.  BTW, Jubal, I love my BR strap and doubt my old neck would hold the 7D with grip and 70-200 on a neck strap.  Thanks for your kind suggestion.  And sootzzs, thanks for offering to answer questions about traveling in Israel for me.  This will be my first trip to that area.  neuroanatomist, thanks for reminding me of the large gap between my 16mm and the 24 or the 24-105.  You are 100% right about it being more of a FF lens.

And keep suggestions coming, I'm always reading on here though I seldom write.

[bholliman]

I am going to be using a 7D also.  I have been looking at the Canon 17-55mm.  It doesn't have the same range as the 18-85 others have mentioned already, but that f2.8 is very attractive (not only for this trip, but for a great lens to add to my kit after).  Has anyone had experience traveling with this lens?  Did you miss that 15-17mm or 55-85mm range at all?

I've got the 17-55, the 10-22 wide angle and the 70-300 EF.  The 17-55 was my standard walk around for awhile, especially in Vegas at night.  It's colors and sharpness are fantastic and the ability to take indoor shots without a flash is unsurpassed (but somewhat lessened with the newer cameras handling higher ISOs).  The cons are that it's heavy and somewhat large and it's zoom range never seems to be quite close enough.
A few years back I started walking around primarily with the 10-22.  It's lighter, smaller and the 22mm length was good enough for most portrait style shots I was looking for while the 10mm gave me the ability to take in much larger views and I found that combination more versatile. (If I wanted a close up shot I just moved close up.  But after going back and looking at some of the photos, I didn't think the lens brought out the detail of some of my scenes as well as the 17-55 did (shadowing seemed better, colors seemed to be better represented) and my last trip I went back to it as my default lens.  (Although both are in my camera bag).
Not saying the 10-22 is bad, it's great but the 17-55 edges it - especially if I'm going to shoot above 17mm.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, certainly L quality glass.  I do not own one, but rented one for a few weeks and loved it on my 7D.

I recommended the 15-85 over it however due to focal range and price (the 15-85 is roughly $380 cheaper).  If you really need a 2.8 lens, the 17-55 is an excellent option.

[jd7]

As a 7D user (and 40D before that), I have to agree with the people who've already cautioned against the 24-105. I'm sure it's an excellent lens, but the question is whether it would be a good focal length range for you on APS-C.  For years I had a 24-70 2.8 (Sigma in my case) because I thought I'd move to a 35mm sensor camera "one day".  I was pretty happy with the IQ (and Canon was too expensive for me), but I just didn't find it a very useful focal length range.  I often wanted either wider or longer, so I carried a 10-20 f3.5 and 70-200 f4 as well ... and I found myself using the 24-70 less and less.  And I also found myself often using the 10-20 but wishing it was a little bit longer, or using the 24-70 and wishing it could go wider ... or doing a LOT of lens swapping.

Anyway, eventually I bought a second hand 17-55 f2.8 IS and haven't looked back.  For travel now, I usually choose one/some/all of 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f/4 and 28 f1.8 depending on exactly how light I want to travel, what I expect to be shooting and the conditions I expect to be shooting in (wish Canon would make a weather sealed 17-55, or even better would be a weather sealed 15-55+ f2.8 IS!).  Btw I was underwhelmed with the 28 f1.8 at first but I have to say it's growing on me.

In your case, I think the first question is whether you'll be happy with the IQ of a super-zoom and can live with the relatively small max aperture.  My brother has 18-200 and it's not bad in good light and excluding the ends of its range.  If you want better IQ, the 15-85 is worth considering (my sister really likes hers) but there is still the question of whether the max aperture is enough.  The 17-55 is obviously an option although the range is less, or perhaps the 15-85 plus something like the 28 f1.8 for the evenings/indoors (and when you want a more compact kit eg wandering around the streets)?  Or your Tokina, a 28 f1.8 (or similar, maybe 35 f2?), plus something longer?  For something longer, the 55-250 must be worth a considering if you're looking for small and light (I haven't use one so can't really comment). Or there is always the 70-200 f/4 - at least it's smaller than your 2.8!

Of course, so much depends on what you want to shoot / what focal lengths are important to you.  If 24-105 covers the focal lengths you want to use, I'm sure you'd be happy with it.

Lastly, the mirrorless idea (OM-D maybe??) has got to be worth thinking about. I'm sticking with my 7D for now (largely because I like to shoot action sometimes) but the size/weight of the mirrorless stuff makes it tempting!

Good luck with whatever you decide!

[Old Sarge]

As a 7D user (and 40D before that), I have to agree with the people who've already cautioned against the 24-105. I'm sure it's an excellent lens, but the question is whether it would be a good focal length range for you on APS-C.  For years I had a 24-70 2.8 (Sigma in my case) because I thought I'd move to a 35mm sensor camera "one day".  I was pretty happy with the IQ (and Canon was too expensive for me), but I just didn't find it a very useful focal length range.  I often wanted either wider or longer, so I carried a 10-20 f3.5 and 70-200 f4 as well ... and I found myself using the 24-70 less and less.  And I also found myself often using the 10-20 but wishing it was a little bit longer, or using the 24-70 and wishing it could go wider ... or doing a LOT of lens swapping.

I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

In your case, I think the first question is whether you'll be happy with the IQ of a super-zoom and can live with the relatively small max aperture.  My brother has 18-200 and it's not bad in good light and excluding the ends of its range.  If you want better IQ, the 15-85 is worth considering (my sister really likes hers) but there is still the question of whether the max aperture is enough.  The 17-55 is obviously an option although the range is less, or perhaps the 15-85 plus something like the 28 f1.8 for the evenings/indoors (and when you want a more compact kit eg wandering around the streets)?  Or your Tokina, a 28 f1.8 (or similar, maybe 35 f2?), plus something longer?  For something longer, the 55-250 must be worth a considering if you're looking for small and light (I haven't use one so can't really comment). Or there is always the 70-200 f/4 - at least it's smaller than your 2.8!

If I look at this trip realistically, which is hard for me, I doubt I will be needing any long lens for shooting.  The wide-angle end is probably more important.  Sootzzs might give more insight into that area since he has been there.  The super-zoom category has always concerned me in the IQ.  Most reviews mention good IQ between x and y but not on either end.  They usually have some sort of disclaimer that says, in effect, "this is a great lens, for what it is."  My 70-200 2.8L has probably spoiled me for IQ. 

Of course, so much depends on what you want to shoot / what focal lengths are important to you.  If 24-105 covers the focal lengths you want to use, I'm sure you'd be happy with it.

No doubt it is a good lens and would probably fit well in my kit but it probably isn't the best choice for this particular trip.

Lastly, the mirrorless idea (OM-D maybe??) has got to be worth thinking about. I'm sticking with my 7D for now (largely because I like to shoot action sometimes) but the size/weight of the mirrorless stuff makes it tempting!

Good luck with whatever you decide!

The size and weight of mirrorless is certainly a consideration but since I usually shoot wildlife, birds, great-grandkids (who may fit in the first category), and kids sports, they probably aren't my #1 consideration.  I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

Thanks for everyone's input. 

[RC]

Concur with all the others on the 15-85.   I had this lens when I was a crop only shooter, very sharp and well built lens.  Definitely pick up a lens hood since it does not come with one.  I would expect a lot of harsh light in Israel.   (You might even benefit from a 72mm CPL depending on what you plan to shoot and how much time your given being on a tour.)  Be aware, just moving off 15mm by a couple and you are already off f/3.5 and of course at 85mm you're at f/5.6.  The IS works excellent for a couple of stops so you should be just fine.  For those low light and after hour shots, I'd pack a small flash like the 430EX II which will cover the wide end of the 15-85. 

Good luck, enjoy, and stay safe. 

[neuroanatomist]

I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

I've never been an adherent of the 'I'm getting a FF camera someday so I won't but EF-S' school of thought. But the lens(es) you need for the camera you have today.  Particularly if the EF-S lenses are the top ones (17-55, 15-85, 10-22), where resale value is strong.  When I eventually sold my 10-22 and 17-55, I think I lost a combined total of ~$120 from what I paid new for them - pretty cheap 2-3 year rentals.

IMO, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  However, it is a little short for a travel lens whereas the 15-85 is better suited. If taking the 17-55, I'd be inclined to bring a longer lens, too.  I found the 100L Macro IS to be a great second lens for travel, since it does both tele and macro very well, and gives you f/2.8 across the board (with the 15-85, I'd consider a 430EX II or at minimum a 270EX II).

[AJ]

I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

I've never been an adherent of the 'I'm getting a FF camera someday so I won't but EF-S' school of thought. But the lens(es) you need for the camera you have today.  Particularly if the EF-S lenses are the top ones (17-55, 15-85, 10-22), where resale value is strong.  When I eventually sold my 10-22 and 17-55, I think I lost a combined total of ~$120 from what I paid new for them - pretty cheap 2-3 year rentals.

IMO, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  However, it is a little short for a travel lens whereas the 15-85 is better suited. If taking the 17-55, I'd be inclined to bring a longer lens, too.  I found the 100L Macro IS to be a great second lens for travel, since it does both tele and macro very well, and gives you f/2.8 across the board (with the 15-85, I'd consider a 430EX II or at minimum a 270EX II).

17-55 is a great zoom if you intend to do a lot of indoor shooting, with or without flash.  15-85 would be my pick for an outdoor walk-around lens.

17-55 is also very heavy.  I have one with my 7D.  I also have a drebel and Tamron 17-50/2.8.  This combo is much lighter, and does not lag far behind in image quality.

[StepBack]

My adult children visited Israel last year as part of the Israeli Birth Right visit. It's a two week tour staying in various locations being escorted by guides who are largely made up of IDF soldiers who have chosen to make this there gift back to the State of Israel once they complete their compulsory tour of duty. They used a phone camera. What they learned and what they took back with them in their hearts will be remembered long after the pictures figuratively fade. Sleeping in the desert and witnessing a falling star; speaking to Israeli farmers and towns people who are daily the target of missiles from Gaza not to mention the Holocaust Museum and the photos of nearly every person who died there being remembered with a picture as a view to the future. That the past led us thru this misery and the future of Israel is what is truly Zionism- that being a strong Jewish nation not a diaspora of Jews led to their graves. Never Again. I wish u well but what you and your congregation live and learn and memorialize in your tradition is the best "picture" you'll have.

[Old Sarge]

My adult children visited Israel last year as part of the Israeli Birth Right visit. It's a two week tour staying in various locations being escorted by guides who are largely made up of IDF soldiers who have chosen to make this there gift back to the State of Israel once they complete their compulsory tour of duty. They used a phone camera. What they learned and what they took back with them in their hearts will be remembered long after the pictures figuratively fade. Sleeping in the desert and witnessing a falling star; speaking to Israeli farmers and towns people who are daily the target of missiles from Gaza not to mention the Holocaust Museum and the photos of nearly every person who died there being remembered with a picture as a view to the future. That the past led us thru this misery and the future of Israel is what is truly Zionism- that being a strong Jewish nation not a diaspora of Jews led to their graves. Never Again. I wish u well but what you and your congregation live and learn and memorialize in your tradition is the best "picture" you'll have.

I have no doubt that is true.  But pictures may help my failing memory since this will probably be a one time event for me. 

[Skywise]

I also have a drebel and Tamron 17-50/2.8.

I used to have that Tamron lens that I sold with my xTi.  Do you notice that it has a slight tint to shots taken with it?  Photos I took with it looked really good but always seemed to look as if they were shot through a lightly shaded sunglass lens.