Lens suggestions

[Cosk]

I agree with the posts above - a tripod is critical, and use it for every landscape shot.  Below is what I brought on a trip to Patagonia and had a lot of success.   

Tripod:
Personally, I don't like to carry a massive tripod around on trips, so after trying dozens of combinations, the strongest smallest compromise I found is a combination of Manfrotto 209 legs ($25 on B&H) and a Giottos MH-1304 Pro II ball head ($20 on B&H).  It's small enough to fit in your pocket, is 100% metal and strong enough to hold an EOS body with a 70-200 f/4 IS lens as long as you don't have gusting wind.  Since it's short, you still need to find a rock to stand it on, but that won't be an issue in Iceland.  If there is gusting wind, throw a coat over your camera or prop your camera bag under the lens.

You're going to need a good landscape lens. 
I brought the 17-40 f/4L.  It is fantastically sharp, has terrific saturation and contrast and it's light... but it's slow... you're going to need that tripod.

You're going to need a good portrait lens...
for people, or close up shots of boats, or details of the colorful houses.  The 50mm 1.4/1.8 will work great... if there is room in your your budget, I actually used the 85mm 1.8 a bit more - you can stand back further and get great portraits of people without being in their face, but that's personal preference, but I wouldn't ever go on a trip without my 50 1.4. 

You're going to need a Puffin lens...
I've heard they don't move very fast and you can get close... the 70-200mm f/4 IS is still nice and light, has unbelievable image quality.   But that bird shot will nearly double your budget. 

You should still bring a point and shoot.  I love my S90/S95s.

And the entire kit, including the tripod, fits easily in a Domke F-803 or F-831 Satchel... and those lenses will produce photos that look better than what you see with your eye - you'll be very happy.   

[JR]

24/105mm f/4 IS and-or 70/200mm f/2.8 IS II

So, you would not recommend taking a wide angle lens on a trip to Iceland?   

Your suggestion is great for a FF camera (that's my 'light' travel kit with my 5DII), but 24mm on a 60D is equivalent to 38mm on FF, i.e. not wide angle.

+1.  I would only consider the 24-105 if it was the only lenses in the bag and if the 17-55mm would not be long enough.  If you plan to already have a 70-200 in the bad (F4 or F2., then I would not consider the 24-105, I would instead take the 17-55 hands down.

[AcinonyxJG]

Thanks for all of the replies, a few people have said about using a tripod, would a monopod be a good enough replacement?  I will buy a tripod, but the one I have decided on buying (Manfrotto 055CXPRO3) and the head comes to over £400, also, the monopod may be easier to carry around. 

Should I try and buy a 10-22mm lens (or similar) the 17-55(after selling kit lens)/15-85mm, f/1.4 50mm and one other (70-200mm or other)

Bearing in mind my budget won't be very high, so would the IS on the Canon 70-200mm be worth it, if I had a monopod/tripod, the one below it does not have IS but if a lot cheaper.

Would a few of you be able to provide a SHORT list of lenses that I could consider, but not too expensive, that would be good for the different situations and places (landscape, portraits, and a lot of wildlife) would glaciers be considered landscapes?

[thejoyofsobe]

If it's just a vacation you can always consider renting as well if you're not completely sure about investing in a lens for the long haul (i.e. more than just this vacation).

For landscapes on a crop body the EF-S 10-22mm is pretty much a must because of its wide angle and low distortion. Whether you buy or rent should depend on whether you'll be shooting landscapes a lot when not on vacation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nonac_eos/6533318925/in/pool-59136202@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiddiuk/2721169670/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/naunau/6147103294/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiddiuk/2369449673/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/3672688066/

A fast 50mm is good for portraits on a crop body as well as maintaining some versatility.
You could go the cheap route of the 50mm f/1.8 II or spend more for the 50mm f/1.4 USM.

For a "lot of wildlife" I would say you'd need something with a maximum focal length of 300mm or greater. This is  where you'd have to make choices that could get pricey and I personally would make based on what kind shooting when I'm not on vacation.

You could buy a 70-200mm (f/4 or f/2. (IS or no IS) and just rent a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter for the trip. That'd be good for longer everyday portrait work and event photography but not long enough for wildlife. The teleconverter you rent would give you that extra reach just for the trip.
The 70-300mm f/4-5.6L or the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L would be great for wildlife but won't be as well suited for longer everyday portrait work and event photography. The 70-300mm L being sharper, more compact, faster focusing and better IS vs the 100-400mm L bazooka whose value is that extra 100mm on the long end.
As this is your first DSLR I'd recommend trying these options out in stores or renting before purchase. I think the decision should be based on what kind of photography you see yourself doing more when you're not on holiday in Iceland.

[AcinonyxJG]

Thanks thejoyofsobe, my only worry of the teleconverters is that I once read that they double the aperture? (f/4 would become f/8) I do want to try out some of the different lenses, so will have to try and go a shop at some point.  Renting is a good idea, I'll probably have to strongly consider this, as it is extremely unlikely that I'll get any of the lenses recommended to me.

I think that I might be doing similar photography at home, but probably not as many landscapes, macro aswell, but that won't be done in Iceland, so no worries about which lens for that yet, I'll be doing Wildlife and portrait photos aswell at home.  Regarding portraits and indoor photography, how strongly would you recommend an external flash?

Would anyone be able to give me a short list of lenses that I might be able to buy/rent (but without too high prices)?

[AcinonyxJG]

Ho does this short list sound?  Providing it is possible to get the lenses, either by buying or renting

10-22mm
17-55mm/50mm f/1.4/15-85mm
70-300mm

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My recommendation for a first high quality lens is the 17-55mm IS, or the 15-85mm IS.  The 24-105mm L is wonderful on a crop as well as FF, but it can put you in a bind if you need a wider angle and cannot move way back, so you will want something like the 10-22mm to go with it.

For a reasonable price, the 15-85mm EF-s is my favorite.

[bigblue1ca]

I have a 60D and out of the lenses you are looking at I have the 10-22, 70-200 (2.8 IS II), and a 50 1.4.  When I'm going on vacation and interested in capturing landscapes the first lens I pack is the 10-22.  It's great for landscapes and also for indoor shots of buildings/ceilings/tight spaces.  For portraits you can't go wrong with the 50 1.4, since I see you are new to dslr, make sure you practice with it before you go to make sure you get used to working with a shallow DOF, that lens wide open a couple of inches either way can make a big difference.  If you can get all three, I heard the optics of the 70-200 F4 come close to the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is saying a lot and for a lot less $$$.  If you are mainly going to be shooting outside in good light and don't need the IS, the 70-200 F4 is a good choice.  However, I recently went on vacation in the Caribbean and I left my 70-200 behind at home and didn't miss it.  My choices in order to get for a trip would be the 10-22, then 50, then 70-200.  My comments are in respect to your second choice, as I'm assuming you'll either keep your kit lens or upgrade a 17-55 or 15-85.

[neuroanatomist]

No, a monopod isn't a substitute for a tripod (and you'll need a tripod).  How tall are you?  I ask because for the gear you're considering, the Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 would work well, if it's tall enough for you without the center column extended. I have one, works great for a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400mm.

Depending on your budget, the combination of 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4 IS would be excellent.  In order of preference, I'd drop IS on the 70-200/4, then the 10-22, and last swap out the 17-55 for the 15-85.

Ho does this short list sound?  Providing it is possible to get the lenses, either by buying or renting

10-22mm
17-55mm/50mm f/1.4/15-85mm
70-300mm

Assuming that list fits your budget, including rental, that sounds ideal.  No need for both the standard soon, I would go with the 17-55. For the 70-300, I would definitely recommend the L version; get the 70-200/4 non-IS over the 70-300 non-L.

[DanoPhoto]

for the teleconverters, the aperature is not doubled, like the focal length is.  the aperature is decreased 1 stop for the 1.4X (f4.0 becomes f5.6) and 2 stops for the 2x (f4.0 becomes f8.0).  so, i guess it is doubled in this case.
 
another thing to consider about using TC's is that once the aperature goes beyond f5.6, the autofocus on (most/all) APS-C bodies will not function.  all manual focus.

[AcinonyxJG]

neuroanatomist: I am 6'2" right now, but I am probably going to get taller, as I'm only 14 at the moment, the tripod I found is a Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 it looks really good and extends to a good height, also, with a ball head it sounds almost perfect, but if I don't manage to get it for Iceland, I could try a gorillapod.

Thanks for all of the other information, I will see if I can find three or four lenses, definately the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (Non IS), and then I can decide on one others, I still can't decide, I am thinking not so much towards the 50mm f/1.4, and maybe go for the 17-55mm or 15-85mm because of the range in focal lengths, but is it worth it? as 50mm is quite well fitting between the 70-200 and 10-22mm, and a lot cheaper.  I would have the kit lens, just in case, but I could still sell it, and maybe consider one of the other standard zoom lenses.

Would I need a good 'general' lens?  Not sure whether or not I could afford it (15-85mm?)  I could always hire it, not very expensive at all

Thanks, James

[AcinonyxJG]

I made this short list, to hire mainly and possibly buy afterwards, if I like them, would any of you recommend a 300mm or 400mm max focal length or prime lens?  I would like one possibly for wildlife, but being a school trip (for geography) I don't think I would have time to do much (if any) wildlife photography, so not sure if I should spend the money for hiring a lens, and also the extra weight.   I WILL try and get a tripod (Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 tripod with Manfrotto MH054M0-Q2 ball head.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Possibly Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[neuroanatomist]

neuroanatomist: I am 6'2" right now, but I am probably going to get taller, as I'm only 14 at the moment, the tripod I found is a Manfrotto 055CXPRO3

Agreed - you'll need the extra height of the 055 series.

50mm is quite well fitting between the 70-200 and 10-22mm, and a lot cheaper.  I would have the kit lens, just in case, but I could still sell it, and maybe consider one of the other standard zoom lenses.

I think if you go that route, you'll be disappointed with the quality of the images from the kit lens compared to the other lenses.  Perhaps not, since the 18-55mm kit lens actually isn't too bad when you shoot from a tripod at f/6.3 or so.  But as a walkaround lens, it's not as good.

Would I need a good 'general' lens?

Personally, I think a good general purpose zoom is essential if the primary purpose of your trip is something other than photography.  If your only objective is taking pictures, you'll have all the time you need.  You can walk a fair distance to get the framing just right, you can change lenses as frequently as you need to, etc.  A good quality walkaround lens allows you to move quickly and take shots with less setup time, and means you don't have to carry a bunch of lenses all the time.

On a trip to China earlier this year, I took my 5DII and 5 lenses (plus a teleconverter), flash, tripod, etc.  I used each of the lenses at least some of the time, but much of the time I would go walking around with just one lens (24-105mm) or two lenses (24-105mm + 70-200/2.8 IS II).  That allowed me to enjoy the trip, do the other things I needed/wanted to do, and not be overburdened with a backpack full of gear the whole day.  On some occasions, I went out specifically to take pictures, and for those times, I took all the gear in a large pack with the tripod strapped on.

Canon EF-S 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Possibly Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

No real point in bringing both.  The IQ of the 15-85mm on the APS-C will be slightly better than the 24-105mm on the same camera.  The 10-22mm + 24-105mm makes a great combination, but with the 10-22mm you have only wide angle, and with the 24-105mm you have normal-to-telephoto.  That will mean more frequent lens switching than with the 15-85mm.

[briansquibb]

I would take:

17-40L for wide angle
24-105L for most walkabout/street/candid photos
70-200L or 70-300L (for that extra reach)

These are not that heavy, so suitable for traveling

[bycostello]

prime lens would seems too a specific tool for what seems a general purpose use..