Italy Trip Lens Advice - wide angle

[Brendon]

I will be taking my first trip to Italy late this summer and will be visiting Rome, Florance, Chique Terre, and Venice. I'm hoping to pack light and will be traveling with my 5Diii and 24-105L at a minimum. I'm looking for some advice on a wide angle lens choice for the trip.

I would like to be able to capture good pics inside churches and in the small to large squares as well as the grand vistas like inside the coliseum. I will not be traveling with a tripod so that will make panos much more difficult.

I currently have the Canon 16-35L ii but I'm curious if this is the right choice. I've been eyeing the sigma 15mm fisheye for some time and thought that this might be a better choice?

My experience with the 16-35 with indoor and architecture shots is that perspective usually causes slanted walls and other distractions. Would I really be much worse off with a fisheye?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

[briansquibb]

I will be taking my first trip to Italy late this summer and will be visiting Rome, Florance, Chique Terre, and Venice. I'm hoping to pack light and will be traveling with my 5Diii and 24-105L at a minimum. I'm looking for some advice on a wide angle lens choice for the trip.

I would like to be able to capture good pics inside churches and in the small to large squares as well as the grand vistas like inside the coliseum. I will not be traveling with a tripod so that will make panos much more difficult.

I currently have the Canon 16-35L ii but I'm curious if this is the right choice. I've been eyeing the sigma 15mm fisheye for some time and thought that this might be a better choice?

My experience with the 16-35 with indoor and architecture shots is that perspective usually causes slanted walls and other distractions. Would I really be much worse off with a fisheye?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

TSE-17 will do the job. Even on a cheap tripod (buy it there if need be)

 

[wickidwombat]

the 16-35 f2.8L ii can do sooo much more than just shoot landscapes and buildings, its a really fantasic and versitle lens, a fixed fish eye is going to limit your options a fair bit and everything is going to look the same
its not about how wide you go its about the shot composition.

 

[Random Orbits]

TSE-17 will do the job. Even on a cheap tripod (buy it there if need be)

+1. Like the pics on your Flickr site, and I think you could doing really well with a 17 or 24 TS-E. I find the 24mm focal length more versatile, but that is up to you and your shooting style.

 

[Rocky]

I will be taking my first trip to Italy late this summer and will be visiting Rome, Florance, Chique Terre, and Venice. I'm hoping to pack light and will be traveling with my 5Diii and 24-105L at a minimum. I'm looking for some advice on a wide angle lens choice for the trip.

I would like to be able to capture good pics inside churches and in the small to large squares as well as the grand vistas like inside the coliseum. I will not be traveling with a tripod so that will make panos much more difficult.

I currently have the Canon 16-35L ii but I'm curious if this is the right choice. I've been eyeing the sigma 15mm fisheye for some time and thought that this might be a better choice?

My experience with the 16-35 with indoor and architecture shots is that perspective usually causes slanted walls and other distractions. Would I really be much worse off with a fisheye?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

Practice your photo stiching with photo shop. It will do wonder. There are situations that no wide angle is wide enough. As for stitching, hold the camera in protrait position. and make sure that each frame will overlap by about 1/3 of the previous frame. That will give you more freedom when stitching. I know it is against instinct. After you have tried it you will understand why. As for perpective distortion, the photo shop will do a decent job also.
The stitching will also give you a much higher resolution picture.
I know the "purist" will not like my idea. But having a picture is better than NO picture.

 

[Hillsilly]

Last time I visited Italy, I had a 30D, 10-22, 50 and 70-200. Most of my photos were taken with the 10-22 and the 50mm. The 70-200 didn't come out of the bag too often.

24mm at the wide end is probably "ok". But if you've got a 16-35, I can't see why you wouldn't take it. You'll have plenty of opportunitites to use it at the wider end. Plus, it would be a good choice for indoor photos. I often used the 10-22 at the 10mm end and often wished it was wider. I don't have a fish-eye so can't comment on this.

While the 16-35 will produce "slanted walls" etc, if distracting, this can fixed later in software. But a tilt shift lens might produce a better result. (When you try to fix this via software, you lose part of the photo which makes framing difficult).

I took a good tripod with me on that trip. But I was travelling with a baby and didn't get a lot of chances to go out at night to use it. If I was doing the same trip now, I'd probably take a tripod again and try to get more dawn, dusk and evening shots. But I agree, you can get away without taking one and buy one if needed. Maybe take a gorillapod?

 

[pwp]

If you've already got the 16-35 then there's your lens. It's a fantastic piece of glass that may end up being glued to your 5D3 for most of your time in Italy. The fish would be a lot of fun, but would is generally very limited in when & where it is useful. Leave it at home.

But for travel the golden rule is keep it simple and keep it light. If you have the BG-E11 leave that at home too.

Security is worth thinking about. It's useful to look as anonymous as possible in unfamiliar places. I often put black tape over the Canon on the prism and also put it over the MkIII badge on the front, and carry an unattractive no-brand bag. I know photographers who work in very low security locations and countries and they routinely make their brand new cameras look like they're held together with Gaffa tape. It's an equipment equivalent of dressing down. This may not apply to your trip, rather it's just general travel information skimmed from the experience of people who have "been there".

PW

 

[Hillsilly]

Agree with the above about security. The good thing about Italy is that it is a tourist destination and given the number of tourists, the rate of crime is very low. While it is a concern, I wouldn't worry too much about it. In the places you're likely to visit, you'd look out of place if you didn't have a camera. And Italian's are very image conscious - members of the opposite will be very impressed that you have a shiny new 5Diii. Just use some common sense, keep your eye on everything and try not to leave your gear unattended at a cafe, on the street etc. If you're going to lose something, it will be because you've given an opportunistic thief the chance to grab it. Although, with the influx of refugees using it as the gateway into Europe and general economic downturn, maybe things are a changin'.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I remember being in Rome in 2004, and was in the Coliseum when an american woman was berating (rather loudly as it happens) a member of staff for the poor security around the venue. The thing that stood out for me so much were the words: "I only put my purse (europeans read handbag) down for a minute and turned my back on it to take a photo and it was gone. What kind of operation do you have here? It's outrageous!" While stopping short of saying she 'asked for it' by her carelessness, there are plenty of opportunists around. They do have security, but don't expect much sympathy if you put your camera bag down and walk away from it.

Just use the same common sense approach you would use anywhere. Don't leave your stuff unattended.

As far as wide angle lenses are concerned, I can't comment on TSE lenses as I have never used one. The 16 - 35 II is a great lens but does sometimes have pronounced distortion below 20mm which could play havok with the coliseum's pillars. If you want to go even wider you could get the Sigma 12 - 24 II: I have the original which is a good lens which would of course have issues with verticals, but you will get that with any UWA. The other suggestion of stitching multiple shots is a good one. Use your sharpest lens that has the least distortion to make the stitching seamless.

Enjoy Rome, it's a beautiful city. Enjoy La Dolce Vita

 

[BobSanderson]

Check out this link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-17mm-f-4-L-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx on the TSEs

Relative to crime, Rome is no different than any major city with the exception that throughout the entire city there are wonderful things to enjoy and shoot. I went with my wife (who is my scout and extra pair of eyes)) and still took all the same precautions I take in NYC or London but I dare say I was a tad more distracted. I carried the SlingShot 202 AW which I found discreet, comfortable and very functional for my kit.

I have a 17-40 and used it to get some great shots at the coliseum although the best ones were the panos I composed from those. I took a monopod and a tripod although carried the monopod more often. You will have a great time.

 

[t.linn]

TSE-17 will do the job. Even on a cheap tripod (buy it there if need be)

+1. Like the pics on your Flickr site, and I think you could doing really well with a 17 or 24 TS-E. I find the 24mm focal length more versatile, but that is up to you and your shooting style.

I have both the TS-E 17mm and the TS-E 24mm II. Both are awesome lenses. The TS-E 17mm is a beast but it is exactly the lens that came to mind when reading your question. Because the TS-E's are compatible with Canon's extenders, the 17mm TS-E can also serve as a 24mm tilt-shift when mated with Canon's 1.4x extender. You would lose a stop of light (a little more when compared to the actual TS-E 24 II) and some sharpness but IQ of the 17mm is so good to begin with that the results with the 1.4x extender are still very good.

The TS-E 24 II is lighter, even sharper than the 17mm, and can take an extender to serve as a 34mm tilt-shift but I find that this combo isn't quite as useful for architecture. Too many times, 24mm is just not wide enough—but that's me.

One other thing...you may need a tripod because there is not enough light to hand hold, just like any lens. But, assuming there is sufficient light, you don't necessarily need a tripod with a tilt-shift when all you are doing is shifting to avoid perspective distortion. It is when tilting that tripod use becomes mandatory because that is when you are making subtle adjustments to the plane of focus that would come undone with small changes in camera position.

 

[RLPhoto]

I did my entire rome trip with just a A1000 Canon IS P&S. Best decision ever... I could have fun.

I'd recommend a nice P&S. Possibly a rented G1x...

 

[Daniel Flather]

Fisheyes are fun and I love it, but its overuse gets boring. Your 16-35 would be a great choice.

 

[spinworkxroy]

My last trip to Italy or any part of europe for that matter, is that i used my UWA lens 95% of the time simply because everything in europe is HUGE in size...so wide angles work better most times..
I have a feeling if you brought the 16-35, you will be using it a lot more than the 24-105...but just bring both?

 

[1982chris911]

I will be taking my first trip to Italy late this summer and will be visiting Rome, Florance, Chique Terre, and Venice. I'm hoping to pack light and will be traveling with my 5Diii and 24-105L at a minimum. I'm looking for some advice on a wide angle lens choice for the trip.

I would like to be able to capture good pics inside churches and in the small to large squares as well as the grand vistas like inside the coliseum. I will not be traveling with a tripod so that will make panos much more difficult.

I currently have the Canon 16-35L ii but I'm curious if this is the right choice. I've been eyeing the sigma 15mm fisheye for some time and thought that this might be a better choice?

My experience with the 16-35 with indoor and architecture shots is that perspective usually causes slanted walls and other distractions. Would I really be much worse off with a fisheye?

Thanks in advance for the advice!

Tripod is a 100% must inside most churches if they let u use one and for most evening shots - I just did an Italy trip - here are some of my pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk1982/sets/72157629751680788/with/7402235152/
and https://plus.google.com/photos/110548244043172681974/albums/5741764685395616369

Still having about several hundred pictures to upload from that trip.

Lenses I used with the 5D MK III Sigma 12-24mm HSM II, Canon 17-40mm f4.0L 24-70mm 2.8L and 70-200mm f2.8 IS2 ...

If the distortion of the 16-35mm II is a problem get PTlens and correct in post. For the TS-E 17 you will def need a tripod for about very shot as it is quite time intense to set up and you need to be quite precise when setting up ... This is one of worst lenses for handheld shooting ...

 

[t.linn]

For the TS-E 17 you will def need a tripod for about very shot as it is quite time intense to set up and you need to be quite precise when setting up ... This is one of worst lenses for handheld shooting ...

As someone who owns and uses the 17 and 24, I can tell you that you are incorrect as it pertains to the OP's question. If you are, for example, in a field of flowers and are trying to alter the plane of focus to achieve what appears to be infinite focus from near foreground to background then, yes, you absolutely need a tripod and preferably a DSLR with live view to aid with focusing. This technique involves TILTING the lens.

If you are shooting architecture and simply want to avoid the obnoxious perspective distortion that comes with pointing an ultra wide angle lens up or down then no tripod is necessary. You simply hold the camera level, SHIFT the lens up or down, focus like you normally would (manually, of course) and press the shutter button. It is not an iterative process like tilting. The only reason you would need a tripod is lack of light, a situation which affects non tilt-shifts as well.

You can correct perspective distortion in software but this isn't an ideal work around. Correcting in software necessarily involves cropping away part of the original image. This can dramatically reduce a lens' effective angle of view making it very difficult to compose in the field. The more the lens is pointed up, the narrower the final angle of view becomes after correction. (IOW, your 17mm lens may provide you with a post-correction 35mm angle of view.) But you can always stitch multiple images together to compensate, right? If you've tried you know that it's not as easy as it sounds if the images being stitched contain severe perspective distortion. And I guarantee that the time you "save" by not having to turn a shift knob and manually focus is more than lost in front of the computer.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that everyone needs a tilt-shift but there are always misconceptions about them when a discussion like this one comes up. They are a unique tool particularly well suited to photographing architecture.

Another solution is to use the 16-35 and just leave the perspective distortion uncorrected. Trey Ratcliff does this all the time with his 14-24. It drives me crazy but there are many people that don't seem to notice or care.

 

[briansquibb]

For the TS-E 17 you will def need a tripod for about very shot as it is quite time intense to set up and you need to be quite precise when setting up ... This is one of worst lenses for handheld shooting ...

As someone who owns and uses the 17 and 24, I can tell you that you are incorrect as it pertains to the OP's question. If you are, for example, in a field of flowers and are trying to alter the plane of focus to achieve what appears to be infinite focus from near foreground to background then, yes, you absolutely need a tripod and preferably a DSLR with live view to aid with focusing. This technique involves TILTING the lens.

If you are shooting architecture and simply want to avoid the obnoxious perspective distortion that comes with pointing an ultra wide angle lens up or down then no tripod is necessary. You simply hold the camera level, SHIFT the lens up or down, focus like you normally would (manually, of course) and press the shutter button. It is not an iterative process like tilting. The only reason you would need a tripod is lack of light, a situation which affects non tilt-shifts as well.

You can correct perspective distortion in software but this isn't an ideal work around. Correcting in software necessarily involves cropping away part of the original image. This can dramatically reduce a lens' effective angle of view making it very difficult to compose in the field. The more the lens is pointed up, the narrower the final angle of view becomes after correction. (IOW, your 17mm lens may provide you with a post-correction 35mm angle of view.) But you can always stitch multiple images together to compensate, right? If you've tried you know that it's not as easy as it sounds if the images being stitched contain severe perspective distortion. And I guarantee that the time you "save" by not having to turn a shift knob and manually focus is more than lost in front of the computer.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that everyone needs a tilt-shift but there are always misconceptions about them when a discussion like this one comes up. They are a unique tool particularly well suited to photographing architecture.

Another solution is to use the 16-35 and just leave the perspective distortion uncorrected. Trey Ratcliff does this all the time with his 14-24. It drives me crazy but there are many people that don't seem to notice or care.

I use my TSE-24 as much as a standard (and very sharp) wa as I do with tilt shift. Means I didn't have to buy a standard 24mm

 

[KeeKay]

Hi, I just came home from Italia and this is what I got from 16-35 2.8L on a 5D Mark II.
I have most of my files in RAW+M, but haven't post processing any files yet, so this is a Medium file.....
That lense was very useful to me.
Have a nice trip.
8)

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Hi, I just came home from Italia and this is what I got from 16-35 2.8L on a 5D Mark II.
I have most of my files in RAW+M, but haven't post processing any files yet, so this is a Medium file.....
That lense was very useful to me.
Have a nice trip.
8)

Hell of a lot of distortion there that building looks a little slopey. Couldn't you have fixed that in Lightroom? 8) ;D

 

[KeeKay]

No problem.......
: