I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

[JPAZ]

This is the kind of post for which there is no single best answer, but I am curious as to other opinions. I will be traveling through Central Asia. I am limited by weight restrictions and it will be quite hot so I am trying to limit my kit. Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40. While I may want to do some building interiors, I am not gonna carry my 14mm and the 100-400 is just too big and heavy for this trip. The 40 would be nice but redundant. My high iso shots have been OK, so I think that I can get by without a lens that fast. I have a Jobey that can squeeze into my bag, so that might be worthwhile.

My questions....anyone traveled through the 'stans before? Does my logic make sense to you? Would you do anything different? Maybe I just want some re-affirmation of my logic (or lack of) here. I tend to do "people" shots with some scenery. Thanks.

 

[M.ST]

I think you made I good choice.

My minimum equipment for travelling is 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II IS and a 2x TC for FF. APS-C body with 70-300 IS.

 

[ecka]

Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

That's all fine, but perhaps do what I did and buy an inexpensive tripod when you get there, even if just for the weight of your 17-40 Good for night shots and at times you might want to be in your own photo to prove you were there. You can easily leave the tripod with a relative or friend before going back. I bought a tripod for 20 bucks, left it at my cousin's and when I went back I used it again. *shrug*

 

[AlanF]

If you are not doing professional work and you are travelling light on vacation, take an SX50 and enjoy your trip without any worries.

 

[eml58]

Book an extra seat on your flights and take more gear.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[vscd]

I think a 24-70 2.8 with teleconverter should be enough. More wideangle can be done with stitching pictures, and 140mm (with 2x TC) should be enough for most uses. If you need more, you could take a 70-200f4 L IS with you. Maybe you have to specify more what you want to shoot. Landscapes only? Birds?

I travel with a 24-85, 14mm and 80-200L... this covers anything I want. my new Lens is the pencake... this is a nice add on instead of an Lenscap

 

[expatinasia]

Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

+1, I agree.

Sometimes people travel with way too much stuff. This is fine if you are being paid, or may be paid in the future through stock footage stills etc., but if you are going for a holiday then try to pack as little as possible. Believe me, you will enjoy it a lot more.

 

[tron]

Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

OP seems to have one camera so that would cause lens change more often. Still it remains an interesting combination...

 

[mrsfotografie]

OP, your list of lenses is quite sensible to me. For cultural travels my kit consists of:

5DMkII Gripless
24-105 f/4 L IS
17-40 f/4 L
Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC USD (contingency lens if I need longer focal lengths, optically capable but compact)
50 f/1.8 MkI or 35 f/2.0.

I don't bring a flash or tri-pod but do carry a 77mm polarising filter that I only occasionally use.

This fits in a Lowepro Fastpack 250 with room to spare for some stuff like a jacket, food or whatever in the top compartment: http://store.lowepro.com/backpacks/fastpack-250

This setup (or variations there of) has served me well on several travels in countries like Oman+UIE, Cyprus, India. Note that we travel a lot by car (I drive most of the time) and the pace is rather high so there is limited time between journey legs for extensive photography and things like lens changes let alone tri-pod use. The 24-105 is the workhorse here that I should have bought much earlier (I made due with a 28-135 IS for a long time).

Now if I were to revisit Costa Rica (Wildlife) I would definitely take the 7D and 100-400 and very likely another body for general photography, possibly the Sony Nex-6 with the 16-50mm kitlens and the 30 mm f/2.8 in E-mount.

 

[CanadianInvestor]

I agree with an earlier comment:

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

Do you have multiple bodies? Take a back-up one or a plain P&S.

Enjoy your travels.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

You could always bring just your 24-105mm, known to be the perfect travel L lens, and shoot everything to an average degree from wide to telephoto. =P Saves a lot of space, weight, and helps you enjoy the trip more like a previous response stated.

 

[Random Orbits]

Sounds good to me. If you were considering going to 2 lenses, then I would suggest leaving the 70-200 at home (unless you know you're going to an event that you know you'd use it). IS is made for interior shots, where you can trade longer shutter speeds for lower ISOs, so the 24-105 is a good choice.

 

[aj1575]

You should ask yourself, what are the subjects you like to photograph. From there you can derive the importance of a lens.

When I go out, my lightes kit is the 35mm f2 (on APS-C); If I'm out with the kids, I often take also the 70-200 f4IS with me, and when I know I will be indoors at some interesting place, I also take the EF-S 10-22 with me. Last year we did a 2 week cycling tour with camping; I wanted to go as light as possible, but the 35 would not have been felxible enough, so I brought my old 18-125 Sigma with me (no problem, the lightning was mostly good on the trip, and with good lightning most eqiupment makes good pictures).

So ask yourself what you like to do. My kit on a FF would be the 17-40 for indoors, cities and landscape, then the 70-200 for people and portraits, and finaly I would take a 50mm f1.4 with me. It always comes in handy, sometimes the light is bad, or if you go for a day trip where you like to be espacially light (and it fills the gap between the17-40mm and 70-200mm.

 

[rpiotr01]

Not central asia, but I traveled through Armenia about a month ago. Took the 17-40, 40 pancake and 100 2.0, and also had a gorillapod. I decided against the 70-200 f4 because it took up too much room in my pack and figured it would attract more attention than I wanted. The gorillapod was priceless for interiors of monasteries and group shots that I wanted to be in . If you anticipate there will be times when you can leave your main pack behind and walk around without it then the pancake makes sense, for me it was great for when I just didn't feel like carrying a lot of stuff.

 

[yablonsky]

Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

+1

 

[adhocphotographer]

Bring a coat with big pockets and shove a lens in there if you want an extra one (or two). Just an FYI!

 

[kentandersen]

I am traveling regulary and I bring with me the 24-105 all the time.

Even though it should be no problem to bring with you all of the gear you mention, on the place you will probably like to travel with just the camera and one lens on.

I am always traveling with my camera bag. Even though it is much heavyer than i am alowed to take with me, it is consider alowed to bring the expensive part of youre lugage with you in the cabin. If in doubt, I take the camera out of the bag and hold it at the check in counter, then the weight is normaly perfect. Afther the weight my camera get into the bag again. Becouse of that I just take all the equipment I can cary. I just hate to be on a great place, and missing the lens that is perfect for the motive. If I end up using all of it is another question. I do tend to not using all of it, and it stays at the hotel.

Still I mostly end up with the 24-105.

If I would choose from your lenses, I would take the 24-105, the 14mm and the 70-200. That will definently fill all my needs.

 

[JPAZ]

All interesting and thanks for everyone's thoughts. Today I am leaning towards the 24-105 + 17-40 + "Shorty 40" (for low light situations) in my Retrospective bag. I love my 70-200 but on past trips, based on EXIF on LR, rarely used it (this is my first trip with the 5D - my old kit was a crop with 15-85 + 10-22 + 70-200). I did use the WA zoom for interiors. I know that I'll miss whatever I leave home, but I've lugged a heavier kit in temps over 100F and it is no fun.

The Samyang 14 is a great thing but I don't know how often I'd feel the need over the WA zoom. I can always stitch in PP.

Maybe the ultimate answer is to bring a personal porter!

 

[ecka]

All interesting and thanks for everyone's thoughts. Today I am leaning towards the 24-105 + 17-40 + "Shorty 40" (for low light situations) in my Retrospective bag. I love my 70-200 but on past trips, based on EXIF on LR, rarely used it (this is my first trip with the 5D - my old kit was a crop with 15-85 + 10-22 + 70-200). I did use the WA zoom for interiors. I know that I'll miss whatever I leave home, but I've lugged a heavier kit in temps over 100F and it is no fun.

The Samyang 14 is a great thing but I don't know how often I'd feel the need over the WA zoom. I can always stitch in PP.

Maybe the ultimate answer is to bring a personal porter!

Well, when it comes to stitching and cropping, all you need is shorty-40, really . And if you don't print "billboards", you can easily crop an 85mm FoV out of it (that's like 1/4 of the frame ~ 5.5mp).