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

[7enderbender]

Interesting statement about the 40mm vs high ISO. I personally would never go on a trip like that without a fast lens. To me that's strictly a DOF issue and has nothing to do with low light capabilities.

If my goal was to capture mostly people and their places I'd take the 50 and the 24-105. If it's more about landscapes and interesting interiors I'd take the 50 and the 17-40.

From my set when I want to go small I usually bring a 50 and my 135.

 

[JPAZ]

Yeah, I get your thoughts about a fast lens, 7enderbender. I could bring my 50 1.4, but would not be using it wide open and the 40 is so small and light. Plus, I like the IQ out of the 40

 

[Rocky]

It all depends what you want to shoot and your shooting style. If you are not into distant street portrait. 5D and 24-105 will handle most of the situation. Now you are down to one lens. With IS and f4 the lens can handle low light also. If you think that you will do a lot of low light shooting, get the f1.8 or 1.4 50. If you need something wider than 24, just use stitching.

 

[sdsr]

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.

Since you're trying to keep weight down, it seems a bit odd to me to take two overlapping f/4 zooms. How often did you use the 17-40 wider than 24? If seldom, leave it behind. If you hardly ever use the 70-200 because you hardly ever go beyond 70mm (as opposed to because you seldom go beyond 105mm), what about taking 17-40 + 50mm prime?

 

[scottkinfw]

Bring a safari vest and offload your heavies into it to meet weight.

sek

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.

 

[JPAZ]

All good thoughts. I am basing this on my past use when I had a crop. The 10-22 was my "go-to" very often indoors, and this almost corresponds to the 17-40. My most used lens was the 15-85 (almost corresponds to the 24-105) and I sometimes used the 70-200. When I used my 15-85, however, it was at 70-85 a lot.

I am just trying to think through what my usage with FF will be. I figure the 17-40 will be used mostly indoors and the 24-105 most of the time (albeit with some cropping). I know I can "zoom with my feet" and crop in PP but just want to be ready for what I'll see. Sure, I could just bring the 14 and the 40, but I know I'll be wishing for the others....

Re: a vest.....I have been trekking in 110F with a bigger kit and my personal items on my back. I live in the desert. The temperatures where I'll be going will be quite warm. I'd rather not wear a vest or carry a backpack. Anyway, I'll continue to think about this.

 

[Efka76]

I traveled through Uzbekistan in July when heat was really enormous (+55 degrees C). In such trips try to take as less equipment as possible. All these options of taking 2-3 lenses theoretically seem fine, however after you spend 1 day in a heat with heavy bag you will curse yourself. During this New year eve i was in Rome and carried my 7d with kit lens 18-135 - at the end of the day i was really tired (my physical form is in a really good shape).

Also, take into consideration that these 'stans are poor countries and your expensive equipment could stolen or you could be robbed. Accordingly i suggest you to take 24-105 lens and maybe 40 (as this lens is very small? Leave everything (including tripod) at home.

It would be interesting to hear from you when you complete your journey.

 

[jcns]

given that you have a full sensor body I would suggest
24-70 or in your case 24-105
70-200
and a TC.

 

[Hannes]

I've travelled through much of Kyrgyz(stan) and my views would be not to bring so much kit. Walking around in the day in Bishkek with a 350D and a 18-125 sigma and during night time I was advised by my friend who was living out there not to bring it but rather a compact for safety reasons. This was walking through central Bishkek which is not too bad a place. Kyrgyzstan at least don't see many foreign visitors so you stick out like a sore thumb wherever you are, unless you happen to look suitably Russian though. In Naryn it was even more looks though I suppose at that point we were fully garbed up in mountaineering clothing and on the way back four weeks later still in the same clothes so I suppose we may have had a certain whiff about us.

My suggestion would be 24-105 and the 17-40mm plus a compact that fits in a pocket. All kit in a suitably non descript canvas bag or similar. We were never hassled by anyone apart from the police who checked our documents a couple of times (make sure you have your passport on you).

Astana (Kazak) is supposedly better and Dushanbe (Tajik) is worse than Bishkek.

There's fantastic opportunities for a bit of street shooting, especially in the markets with many colourful characters and great surroundings. If you find the 24 wide enough then skip the 17-40 but I'd probably bring it as the architecture in the Soviet republics is pretty spectacular and does certainly benefit from a wide angle to try and fit the massive scale in. Even with a wide angle you may well end up stitching panoramas

While you are out there I suggest you sample Kymyz, a slightly fizzy milk beverage that tastes a bit like cheese and contains about 5% alcohol. Best bought from the roadside out of a bucket, make sure your Hep A vaccinations are up to date though. Here's my friend trying some Charlie gives kymyz a go Another would be Maxim Shoro Maxim

The local vodka is pretty tasty and cheap as chips, often less than $3 for a bottle at a restaurant.

 

[LOALTD]

By my standards, that setup is really heavy! I'd take a 50mm f/1.4 and a 24mm f/2.8 IS.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

Since you're trying to keep weight down, it seems a bit odd to me to take two overlapping f/4 zooms. How often did you use the 17-40 wider than 24? If seldom, leave it behind. If you hardly ever use the 70-200 because you hardly ever go beyond 70mm (as opposed to because you seldom go beyond 105mm), what about taking 17-40 + 50mm prime?

The advantage of the 17-40 is that it is weather sealed and does wide as wel as 'normal', a real asset if changing lenses is a no-no (ie dusty or wet environment). This is why I carry both the 17-40 and 24-105. Depending on the conditions I often pick a lens and stick with it during the rest of the day.

 

[JPAZ]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15621.msg285517#msg285517

Basically what I did. Thx mrsfotografie.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

You have a weight and a space limit. I'd take the 17-40 and the 80-200 (if I knew how I'd use it)
add a 50mm f1.8 and a second body (best price performer out there is the Rebel T3 if you don't already
have the second body) You're not likely to run into a repair service in that part of the world. If you're
snobbish and wouldn't be caught dead with a Rebel, at least take a point & shoot for backup.

 

[JPAZ]

Thanks, all. Given the weight limit and the heat, I took the 17-40, 24-105 and 40. In the end, of the 2000 RAW I brought home, over 90% of my shots were with the 24-105 and 4 shots were with the 40. I used the 17-40 to get a few interiors and probably, in retrospect, could have done the whole trip with 1 lens. All depends on what you want. I am not the tripod-long-exposure kind of shooter (yet). But, I will bring a lot more on my next adventure (Denali)!

 

[RLPhoto]

I'd Take this again anytime.

17-40L
50mm 1.4
70-200 F/4L

 

[RGF]

Looks like you it mostly covered. Only suggestion is the 70-300L vs 70-200

 

[renlok]

For most of Asia I would take a 24-105L and my 35L

24-105 stays on most of the time and the 35L comes out in low light.

 

[JPAZ]

The big thing I learned is that compared to APS-c, I can crop a FF image from the 24-105 and still get what I want. Not he best phot, but here's what I mean......