last call for vacation lenses

[NWPhil]

I got tons of good answers before, but meanwhile I added the sayang 14mm to the pack. Now, is no question it has to come along, along with the 80-200 2.8L.
That leaves a big gap in between, and I have no choice to carry a third lens for my vacation in Nepal.
So in sum:
CONFIRMED
- Samyang 14mm 2.8
- Canon 80-200mm 2.8L

OPTIONS for a third lens:
- Canon TSE 24mm 3.5LII
- Canon 35mm 1.4L
- Canon 17-40mm 4L

I will be shooting mostly landscape, people, maybe some night shots, and few days in city environment.
Weight is not an issue.
What would be your choice and why?
Thanks
Phil

 

[Menace]

35L as you already have the wide and tele focal lengths covered - 1.4 will give you low light capability as well as a good walk around lens.

Happy shooting

 

[EYEONE]

I'd take a 5D3 and a 40mm f2.8 STM and call it a day. That's all I'm taking to Hawaii in March

 

[cliffwang]

I would pick 35mm as workaround lens.

 

[revup67]

Hmm..interesting choices. I think your choice of a TS-E 24 is rather sound. I'm just not certain I'd want a manual focus lens unless you've used this before. You may have a learning curve and could blow your shots if you have never owned one.

I would consider the Canon 16-35 2.8 L USM II. It's rather versatile, a faster lens than the 17-40, and light weight. It does curve out on the corners however due to it being a UWA. Take a good ND filter with you and a travel tripod for some excellent timed exposures. The photo below was at 18mm on a Canon 5D MKIII, tripod, f22, ISO 100 with a B&W 10 stop ND filter on the 16-35mm. There was much room behind me and this shot would not have been possible without that lens.

 

[Hillsilly]

A tough choice. My heart says 35mm as it is such a nice lens, but my head says 17-40mm as it covers a wide range of focal lengths that would be very handy on your trip. And then there's the tilt-shift. Not only does it have capabilities missing in all of the other lenses, but 24mm is an ideal focal length for many things you intend to do. Do you have Sherpas to carry your gear? If so, take the whole lot. If you're carrying everything yourself....eeny, meeny, miny, moe......I don't know. Maybe the 35mm?

 

[Random Orbits]

35L. Need AF for a lens that will be used a lot as a walk around lens, the focal length is right and it has low light capability, which the other two lenses already chosen do not have.

 

[bdunbar79]

If I went with one of your choices, 35L. If I make up my own choice, 24-105L. Covers more focal length for a vacation and is optically excellent.

 

[NWPhil]

Thank you all for your comments.
Seems that the 35mm is the winner, and indeed makes sense.
Had a chance to try the 16-35, and yes sharper in the corners than the 17-40, but now that I have the 14mm, my UWA needs are done (till the Canon 12/14-24 is out). Still 17-40, is a great range and light enough to carry around in outings without neck pain.
Three lens has to be the limit - otherwise the 15mm, TSE24 and even the tse90 would jump in.... LOL

thanks
Phil