Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring

[sullivan06]

OP questions the IQ of pro-caliber 15-85 but will opt for a P&S instead???

-good point- I view it as a tradeoff between weight and quality. I'm willing to make the trade between a 150 gram P&S and a 820 gram (+ lens weight) 7d.

A lot of people are mentioned the 40mm, I'm not sure how much I would use it- maybe I should buy it just to try it out- its only $150.

 

[stefsan]

If you stick to your 7D I would take the 15-85 – it is a good all around lens with a very decent optical quality. To complement the focus range of the 15-85, I take my trusty 70-200L f4. It is light and has an outstanding optical quality.

 

[mrzero]

I plan on bringing only one lens for weight reasons. I'm almost considering just buying a canon point-and -shoot, just for weight reasons (heresy, I know).

Sometimes you just can't take a DSLR with big or multiple lenses. You shouldn't have to sacrifice the quality of your photos, though. That is why I bought a Powershot G1X. It is smaller than a DSLR, but the sensor is nearly APS-C sized. You can operate it one-handed like a true point and shoot, and the flip-out LCD is great for composing selfies and other travel shots. Throw in a gorillapod and get crazy.

The trade-off with the G1X is autofocus (which is a bit slow and can hunt sometimes in low light) and zoom range (28-112 mm 35 mm equivalent). It has no GPS. But if you want pretty landscapes and scenics, plus action shots in good daylight, I think you'll be very happy with it. The IQ is great. Get a good chest or hip bag for it, maybe a wrist strap instead of the neck strap, and you'll find yourself reaching for it all the time.

The cameras and lenses are just tools. Sometimes, the G1X is the right tool. I think it would work very well for this job.

 

[bholliman]

Earlier I recommended the 15-85mm lens to go with your 7D and still do.

If you want to go really light weight, a small point and shoot might be the way to go. I do some bicycle touring around home and normally just take my Canon S100 along to save weight and space. But, the scenery isn't all that great around here (lots of flat ground and endless corn fields). I'd take one of my DSLR's and a standard zoom if I were biking in a more scenic location.

We do a lot of long hikes in the National Parks on vacations and I always take a DSLR along then.

 

[unfocused]

Just a thought: next fall I am hiking to the bottom of the Grand Canyon (and, I hope, back up again). I've been seriously thinking about the new SL1. It weighs half as much as my 7D, but with no sacrifice in image quality. I'd still have to lug around the 15-85mm lens, but I'd be shaving almost a full lb. off the weight with the SL1.

I realize that it will only be out a few weeks by the time your trip rolls around, so you'll pay an early adopter's premium, but it is a way to shave weight without losing quality.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 7D plus any lens is big and heavy. The 15-85 is excellent. Its not a kit lens in the USA and Canada, but is in some parts of the world. If you want a supurb, fast zoom, the 17-55 is it.


There are plenty of small cameras that do a good job, and can be had for the price of a new lens., check out the suggestion others have made. (assuming they own one, and are not just reading the hype).


Here is a image taken with my 15-85 at high ISO on my 7D at a theater event. Its pretty tough to get a image in dim lighting, but the IS helped.


67mm 1/100 @ f/5.6 ISO 1000

 

[TheFlorist]

As a frequent trekker/backpacker in southern Europe, I never go out without my 7D, 17-55 and 10-22.

Though I never used the 15-85, the rave comments on this forum suggest it's on par with the 17-55, with added range.
5.6 should not be an issue : you'll stop down outdoors, and rely on IS in churches.

For a single lens setup, I'd be inclined to second the choice for the 15-85.
...Unless you believe you'll get your nose on the southern European walls.
You'll just be glad to fit a whole basilica within frame using a 10-22.

I would not recommend too much the 10-22 for nature : 10mm is so much wider than my brain is aware of.

I have been lucky to have a perfect match between my 7D and 10-22. Apart from stretched sides at 10mm mine is as sharp and colorful as I could wish, straight out of the box, on 7D and 450D.
If you can afford the purchase, a 10-22 is a great second lens to carry, being light and compact.

I find I rarely ever go longer than 100mm, even though I do lug the awesome 70-200 2.8 around.

Faced with the pictures I brought back, I never regretted carrying my cumbersome 7D.
A 10-22 ends where a P&S starts, so you get unique/different pictures.
Best of luck with your trip !

 

[AlanF]

My favourite combination is the 7D with the 15-85 - great lens with reasonable wide angle and telephoto. But, why not think outside of the box and use a 600g 24-1200mm zoom SX50 - see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14011.0.

 

[Botts]

Are you planning on taking only one lens? If so, the 10-22 might leave you wanting more reach over the course of a trip like that. I'd suggest the 15-85 from those you mention. It's a great lens, obviously wide zoom range, good MFD, and my heavily used refurb. copy has sharpness on a par with my 24-105L. I've not seen it bundled as an entry level lens... maybe you are thinking of the 18-55 kit lens. Downside of the 15-85 is it's 5.6 at the long end. Put a shorty 40 or fantastic 50 in your pack for lower light capability.

The 15-85mm was a common kit lens with the 7D. Certainly not an entry level though.

If you aren't planning on using your camera for a lot of handheld night shots, I'd certainly go with the 15-85mm, it has fabulous range, and is quite sharp. If you are ok with less range, and would benefit from a wider aperture, and marginally more sharpness consider the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

You can't go wrong with either. I think you'll feel extremely restricted if you only take an ultra-wide.

 

[sdsr]

Assuming you really do want to go as wide as 10mm, I would recommend against the Tamron you mention - I briefly owned one when I owned a Pentax K-5, and unless it performs much better in its Canon incarnation you can expect inconsistent exposures, poor contrast and grotesque purple fringing. (I returned it for a Sigma 8-16, which was better, but surely too wide and heavy for your purposes.) By all accounts the Canon is far superior, and if my father's copy is any indication, so is the Sigma.

(But if you really want light and compact, something completely different might make more sense - Sony RX100, say, or a micro 4/3 with a lens or three....)

 

[2n10]

One lens I would definitely go with the 15-85.

If you go P&S 24mm equivalent is the best you will get but it is plenty wide most of the time. I think you could do just fine with most of the P&S cameras on the market.

 

[AJ]

7D is a heavy camera. How about bringing a T4i

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I'd go with a good point and shoot, myself. Nothing spoils a hike or bike trip for me more than lugging a bunch of heavy photo gear along.

If you want to take full advantage of your 7D and super sharp zoom, you will also need to bring a sturdy tripod. Kinda defeats the purpose of leaving the car behind, if you ask me.

As an intermediate option, an 18 MP Rebel would be good. I've carried one on my motorcycle trips with the 18-50 stabilized kit lens. Daylight shots look fantastic and you can bring a lightweight tripod if you want to do some night shots.

 

[bholliman]

7D is a heavy camera. How about bringing a T4i

Or an SL1, even smaller and lighter.

 

[sullivan06]

7D is a heavy camera. How about bringing a T4i

Or an SL1, even smaller and lighter.

Good suggestions, but the next camera I buy is either going to be a P&S or a full frame (which brings up the debate between the 6d and the 5d mk iii)

sdsr- thanks for the advice about the Tamron's poor IQ.

-regarding a tripod, I've thought about simply bringing a Joby Gorillapod (or similar equivalent) and attaching that to the bike frame.