Bring 120-300 OS or buy 55-250mm ?

[Imagination_landB]

So my problem is that if i bring my 120-300 with me to my europe trip, it adds a lot of weight in my luggage.
Sure I can manage to save the weight somwhere else but,
If I buy the 55-250 and bring this one instead, I would lose 45mm(less than that since the 300mm is more like 275) but I would lose image quality and a lot of light..but it's inexpensive and light. And I don't want to spend more than 200$ so..

Also I was questioning myself if it's not a little risky to bring a lens that big and expensive to a 1-2 month trip.. So if some of you have travelled with expensive gear can give me advices, I would be thankful.
Your toughts would be appreciated!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I certainly would not bring either as my only lens on a crop body. Perhaps a 15-85mm plus a fast prime. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, or maybe 135mm.

 

[Imagination_landB]

I certainly would not bring either as my only lens on a crop body. Perhaps a 15-85mm plus a fast prime. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, or maybe 135mm.

I have 24-70 VC , sigma 8-16 and 50mm. I will bring those 3.it's just that I dont really want to be focal limited because I'm affraid that 70mm wouldn't all situations.. I have a 1.4 and 2x extenders but third party(kenko and bower)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So my problem is that if i bring my 120-300 with me to my europe trip, it adds a lot of weight in my luggage.
Sure I can manage to save the weight somwhere else but,
If I buy the 55-250 and bring this one instead, I would lose 45mm(less than that since the 300mm is more like 275) but I would lose image quality and a lot of light..but it's inexpensive and light. And I don't want to spend more than 200$ so..

Also I was questioning myself if it's not a little risky to bring a lens that big and expensive to a 1-2 month trip.. So if some of you have travelled with expensive gear can give me advices, I would be thankful.
Your toughts would be appreciated!

Depends upon how you are traveling and what you are doing, that is kinda of a pain of a lens to lug all around. I have taken a 300 2.8 with me on trips, but lots of times I was using the 70-200 f/4 IS (or later 70-300 L instead or earlier the Canon 70-300 non-L instead or even earlier the 100-300L instead). If you want to have it around with you all the time while running all over and not just for special shots near the car here and there I would look into the 55-250 for sure. Maybe a tamron 70-300 VC.

 

[Policar]

The 55-250mm is totally usable and tiny, with decent IS. But it's a bit soft and there's a lot of falloff. The size is great.

The 70-300mm Canon and 70-300mm Tamron are larger but even better. I'd shoot the Tamron at f8 at 300mm, but otherwise it's usable everywhere. Great stabilization. It's a nice lens (and pretty big, but not that heavy).

They are all weak the longer they get and obviously they're meant for daylight photography only.

 

[TexPhoto]

Unless you are going specifically to shoot nature or sports, i would not take the big sig.

I would pick up a Canon 70-200 f4. New or used, with or without IS, get the one you can afford. A friend of mine just bought a used 70-200 f4 for $300, he is really happy with it.

 

[pwp]

OMG leave the 120-300 at home. It's a great lens, but oh what a brick. The number one golden rule of travel is to travel light. Some might say the 120-300 is a "killer lens" but the metaphor would turn around 180 degrees as a travel lens...the weight & bulk will kill your enjoyment of your trip. Not to mention your relationship with your travel partner, (non-photographer wife, husband, friend...)

The suggestion of the 70-200 f/4 is a very good one. Couple this with a nice light 17-40 f/4 and you've got a great travel combo.

Personally I've pared it right down for travel. Just a de-gripped 5D (choose your generation) with a 24-105 f/4is. It's a fascinating paradox that sometimes you need some kind of limitations in order to free your imagination.

After working daily with a very comprehensive choice of quality glass from 12mm to 600mm I've found it's good for my photography and my creative imagination to work with just the one lens when traveling. A good number of purists will take just a 35mm or 50mm prime. Simplify...

-PW

 

[Hillsilly]

Whoa...the Sigma weights 2.6kg? Are you out of your mind? You're going to carry that boat anchor everywhere you go for two months? Haven't you heard of carry-on weight limits? Unless you have a specific use in mind or aren't moving around much, I'd consider something else. Common sense says to take somethng smaller and lighter.

Also, not sure what your plans are, but if they involve typical tourist things 120-300 might not be a focal length that you'll use much. Whereas the 55-250 is a good supplement to a wider lens. I don't know about IQ of the 55-250. If you're concerned maybe consider a 50mm or 85mm? (Of course, if you're there to photograph wildlife, pleawse ignore everything I've said.)

On the other query, the chances of having gear stolen is low, but it does happen. Make sure your travel insurance covers it with minimal excess and then, apart from the inconvenience, its one less thing to lose sleep over. Look at ways to back up memory cards. I typically travel with a laptop and HDD for work anyway - but this adds to the weight. (When she's not looking, I drop the HDD in my wife's handbag for safe keeping.) And I try to upload favourite photos to smugmug whenever I can.

 

[Imagination_landB]

Haven't you heard of carry-on weight limits?

Haven't you read my post correctly?

 

[Hesbehindyou]

I've travelled with both the 55-250 and the Sigma 100-300 f4. I now take just the 55-250. Why?

- Gaining 55-99 is more valuable than the relatively subtle difference between 250-300, even with a standard zoom - particularly when with others one doesn't always want to change lenses.
- Weight
- Size
- Weight again
- 55-250 IQ is absolutely adequate
- Rarely needed the f4 of the 100-300
- IS on the 55-250 was useful
- 58mm circular polarisers are cheaper
- Weight and size again

Hope that helps.