What lenses should I take to India?

[Frodosbigtoe]

Hello there folks! This is my first post so go easy on me, okay I'm heading to S.India at the end of Jan for six weeks and was just wondering if you think a 16-35mm f2.8 II and 50mm f1.4 are enough to capture most scenes(street, portraits, landscape etc...) Traveling light is a priority so can't really take a big tele and to be honest I don't really shoot over 100mm that often(not yet anyway). Also should 3 batteries get my 5D mkii through a whole day or two of heavy shooting as I'll be away from charging points quite often? Thanking you all kindly and happy to be here! Merry Christmas

 

[sanj]

Both great lens choices. I would add the 24-105 or the 70-200 if you could. 2 batteries are ENOUGH.
Have a super trip!

 

[sagittariansrock]

Sort of depends on where you are going, really
If you plan to go mostly to the coasts- then those lenses are more than enough
However, if you plan to go to Kerala, I'd take a wide prime to capture the beautiful colors
If you plan to go to the snake boat races, you'd need a fast wide prime, at that
Personally I'd take a 24 II and be fine for most situations (but then I don't own a FF so I'd still be lugging my zoom...)
There are also lots of winter birds in South India at this time, but then you don't favor a tele, so never mind...
Happy shooting

 

[RS2021]

I would lean toward a general purpose zoom like 24-105 L IS if you are shooting on a full frame. The 16-35 would be too wide as an all purpose zoom on FF.The wide end of 24-105 on the other hand is plenty wide for most travel situations unless your primary focus is wide vistas like the grand canyon. Even there, an argument can be made for teles.

Switching between multiple lenses and travelling light don't always go together...so if you own it, then go with 24-105L. And it also takes great portraits on the tele end wide open.

 

[jabbott]

I just got back from a month-long trip to India and Nepal and brought the following lenses with my 5D3:

- 17-40 f/4L
- 50 f/1.4
- 70-200 f/4L
- 2X extender

I found that I used the 17-40 about 85% of the time. I left my 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8Ls at home because they were simply too heavy to bring on the Nepal hike I was doing. I hardly missed them at all. There were a few times at night where having the 50 f/1.4 made a huge difference to have over the f/4 lenses, however less than 2% of my shots were using that lens. I traveled with two batteries and that was enough. I did use the 70-200 (sometimes with extender) while at Ranthambore National Park, and I wouldn't have been able to capture most of those shots if the longest lens I had was only 50mm. If you're not getting any wildlife shots or closeup portraits though, I think you could get by without a telephoto.

 

[verysimplejason]

If I'm going to India, I'll be bringing a UWA (16-35 or 17-40) + normal lens (50 or 40mm) + a portrait lens (85 or 100mm). You might consider a long lens only if you're going to the country side I guess. UWA because of the very nice landscapes, normal lens for street photography and a portrait lens to take picture of the interesting people you'll find almost everywhere. Good luck!

 

[waelelgendy]

If I would go for a 3 lens setup, they'll be: 24L II, 50L, 135L

If I would go for a 2 lens setup, they'll be: 24L II, 50L
or 35L, 135L

If I would go for a 1 lens setup, it'll be: 35L

3 batteries are more than enough.

For me, f/2.8 is too narrow for available light shots, and I don't believe you'll be needing the 16-24mm focal length that much during your trip. So, unless you don't own any fast wide primes, I suggest you better leave your 16-35L II at home

Have a nice trip, and we'll be waiting to see the photos when you're back!

 

[Frodosbigtoe]

Thanks to every one for your great replys. Given me a lot to think about. Has anyone ever used and extender with a 50mm 1.4? Could be a solution to having to lug a long tele around with me.

 

[Rat]

Thanks to every one for your great replys. Given me a lot to think about. Has anyone ever used and extender with a 50mm 1.4? Could be a solution to having to lug a long tele around with me.

The Canon extenders physically do not fit on the 50mm 1.4, I think. I've used a Soligor 1.7 extender with a 50mm 1.8II - let me rephrase that: I've tried to use an extender with the 50mm 1.8II. It hunts like Davy Crockett and only rarely achieves focus. No go as far as I'm concerned.

Also, +1 on the 24-105. That thing has versatility written all over it.

 

[sach100]

Thanks to every one for your great replys. Given me a lot to think about. Has anyone ever used and extender with a 50mm 1.4? Could be a solution to having to lug a long tele around with me.

The Canon extenders physically do not fit on the 50mm 1.4, I think. I've used a Soligor 1.7 extender with a 50mm 1.8II - let me rephrase that: I've tried to use an extender with the 50mm 1.8II. It hunts like Davy Crockett and only rarely achieves focus. No go as far as I'm concerned.

Also, +1 on the 24-105. That thing has versatility written all over it.

Another +1 on the 24 -105 + the 50mm 1.4 will be adequate unless you are specific about wide angle stuff for landscapes. The two lens combo will be light too.

 

[waelelgendy]

Thanks to every one for your great replys. Given me a lot to think about. Has anyone ever used and extender with a 50mm 1.4? Could be a solution to having to lug a long tele around with me.

Canon extenders won't fit with any Canon lens shorter than the 135L, due to the physical design of Canon extenders and lenses shorter than 135mm. You can use Kenko extenders, as their physical design makes them fitting with all Canon lenses. I never tried them on the 50mm f/1.4 lens before, as I don't own one, but they worked pretty fine on my 35L lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon extenders won't fit with any Canon lens shorter than the 135L, due to the physical design of Canon extenders and lenses shorter than 135mm.

Last time I checked, 70mm was shorter than 135mm, and the Canon extenders work with the 70-200mm L zooms. They also work with the MP-E 65mm and with the TS-E lenses from 90mm down to 17mm. Just sayin'.

 

[waelelgendy]

Canon extenders won't fit with any Canon lens shorter than the 135L, due to the physical design of Canon extenders and lenses shorter than 135mm.

Last time I checked, 70mm was shorter than 135mm, and the Canon extenders work with the 70-200mm L zooms. They also work with the MP-E 65mm and with the TS-E lenses from 90mm down to 17mm. Just sayin'.

lol, you're right! 70-200mm L zooms, and the 100-400mm L lens too! I didn't know that they work with the TS-E and MP-E 65mm lenses before, thanks for the info. "neuroanatomist"!

 

[wildclicks]

Hi
I am from India and travel a lot. I do not know what kind of photography you do. But Jan - Feb in south India will be pleasant not cold. There is likely to be slight haze in the air.. again depends on where you are going in S India. It would also be quite crowded. A 16-35 would be great in the country side or where you get space. 50mm is very useful. I personally love using a 70-200 f4 especially as 1. it is not heavy 2. great for portrait.3. low DOF for privacy in a crowded area. 4. great for the getting the extreme contrasts and colours you will see.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any help in india.

 

[EvilTed]

I've been to India 5 times and took a 12-24mm and 18-200mm with me (Nikon DX).
Most of the shots of temples were with the wide angle.

On FF Canon, I'd take the 16-35 and a 50 would be great too.
As you mention, you want to keep it light.

Enjoy!

ET

 

[tron]

I'd get at least a TS-E lens (17 or 24) a 35 1.4L and 135mm f/2 L.

 

[LostArk]

I'd get at least a TS-E lens (17 or 24) a 35 1.4L and 13mm 2L.

13mm 2L?

Now there's a lens I'd sell a kidney for!

 

[RS2021]

I'd get at least a TS-E lens (17 or 24) a 35 1.4L and 13mm 2L.

13mm 2L?

Now there's a lens I'd sell a kidney for!

I dunno what it is....but I want one

 

[RS2021]

"2L ...the final frontier... Where no L has gone before".

 

[tron]

OK OK I meant 135mm f/2 L But you knew that ... :-[