What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?

[fiend]

The TS-E 17 is better for tall buildings or for interior shots, but the TS-E 24 is more versatile for general landscapes and pano-stitching (especially if you have close foreground objects near the edges). It is harder to make 17mm panos interesting. Extenders can be used on them to give you more framing options but the TS-24 will be sharper and faster than the TS-E 17 + 1.4x. In your case, I can see the TS-E 17 being more useful for the trip, but how much would you use it after? Is it worth renting it for the trip or buying it and possibly selling it in the future?

Are you going to be bringing a tripod? If not, then I'd avoid the TS-Es for now. Shooting handheld with shift is easy enough, but to get the best results, you'll want to shoot at ISO 100 and take mulitple exposures to blend later, which will give you the most leeway when post-processing them later.

+1 on the fisheye. Defished or not, it would give you creative options in urban landscapes.

If I were you, I'd take the
fisheye
16-35
ts-e 17
50
135
1.4x for both the ts-e and 135
tripod

The 135 would be the least used, and the 16-35 and the 50 the most used.

I always bring my tripod for shots of landscape and architecture
I've used the old 24 TS-E and kind of liked it for shooting buildings in my own town when I tested it.
For landscape 17mm TS-E would be better aswell as for the indoor shooting.
But the 17TS-E is not as sharp as 24mm, especially not shifted (I've read..)

Today I'm used to make panos with my 70-200 handheld, but that's kind of hard to do with buildings that are quite near though
In Dubai I guess that there will be very large and nice buildings and sometimes not that much room or space.
Perhaps you can take several shots with the 24mm instead?
And if I visit a church or something I can use the 24mm for pano indoors aswell? Haven't tried it though so hard to say.

http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wpid4696-emma-julkonsert2012-12_3_4_5_6.jpg
This picture is taken with the old TS-24 (single shot. Its a local church here in Umeå, Sweden.

Renting the TS24 / TS17 would cost about $1000 for a month. If I buy it afterwards, the rent is free (I just pay for the lens as I've bought it right of the start).

Thanks for the input!

 

[tron]

The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.

 

[fiend]

The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.

I have my 5d mkII that I could use. Perhaps I should bring it alongside the 5d mkIII as a "backup" ?
Didn't want to carry to much weight/gear with me on the trip though

 

[pj1974]

I have travelled lots around the world, and taken thousands upon thousands of photos with my DSLRs in various situations. From several countries within Europe to SE Asia to many parts of Australia (where I grew up, now live and have returned after sevearl years abroad).

Convenience is important while on the go - I want to enjoy my time of walking, travelling, seeing sites, talking with people and yes, also photographing lots. But I would opt for a light & available body with a zoom in most cases than travel rather than feel like a 'fully laden pack horse' with a host of lenses, including too many primes!

In your case, I'd probably opt to buy a 24-105mm L, and use the 16-35mm time to time too. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II is a great lens, but very heavy to take along. I can see the new 35mm f/2 IS being a great option as a 'street photography' / low light option too.

I use a 7D as my travel camera, and the Canon 15-85mm is my main camera. So yes, it does depend on each individual's photography style, but I would expect that many photographers would find the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII the most handy combination (or the newer Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS as another travel option).

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L. A great, and very portable 2 lens travel solution - providing very high quality images. Though in some situations I'll (also) take and use my Sigma 8-16mm (love that ultrawide!) Of course one can use all 3 lenses as such if that is preferred.

When I was on holiday in Thailand some time ago, I used the 15-85mm about 80% of the time on my 7D.

Best wishes.

 

[tron]

The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.

I have my 5d mkII that I could use. Perhaps I should bring it alongside the 5d mkIII as a "backup" ?
Didn't want to carry to much weight/gear with me on the trip though

When I want minimum size/weight a carry a 5D2 with 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. But I try to combine lenses you already have. True 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 is a heavy combination. In that case a viable alternative is 5D3 with 16-35 50 135 and 1.4X.

 

[tron]

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.

A killer combination indeed, especially if combined with a 10-22 lens (I know you mentioned other brand you just reminded me of my beloved and stolen 10-22).
But the point is that OP has already a FF camera. I agree with you that in this case the 24-105 is the best all round lens(I do own and like it). I would complement it with the 16-35 and 135 (and leave behind all others) to avoid carrying the 70-200 2.8

 

[CarlTN]

Hi all Canon-shooters!

I'm about to do a sort of a travel dream in october. Will be traveling to these places:
- Dubai
- Sydney
- Great barrier reef (compact with under water housing)
- New Zeeland

I'm going to bring a Canon 5D mk3 aswell as my compact camera.
Now I'm thinking of what lenses I should bring and if there is any lens that I should get for a trip like this.

Currently I have:
- Sigma 15mm fish eye
- Canon 16-35/2.8
- Canon 35/1.4
- Canon 50/1.8
- Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II
- Canon 85/1.2
- Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro
- Canon 135/2
- Canon 1.4x extender

When I want abroad to shoot last time I brought my 16-35, 50 and 135mm. it's a little complicated to switch lenses all the time when the sun is about to set.
That's why I've thought of getting perhaps the 24-105/4 to bring instead of only primes.

Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.

What whould you bring on a trip like this?
I'm thankful for all input!

Best regards
Fredrik

Leave the Canon 35, 50, and 85 at home...take as many of the rest of the lenses as you can...and rent a 24-70...possibly also the 17mm T/S...and a second body.

 

[Danielle]

I'd suggest taking your pick of only 2 lenses and make the most of having the trip with the choices you have.

 

[CharlieB]

I'd be perfectly happy with a 5d3 and 24-105/4

I'd be happy with a 5d2 and 24-105/4 --- which is what I've got!

If I'm really going on an expedition... I bring one digital SLR, and its been a few Rebels and the 18-55 in the past (last expedition was in 2006). I bring a small flash that runs on 2 AA cells. And I bring a Leica M4 or M6 and 35/2.0 and a half brick of monochrome film.

Keep in mind, when I get out of town, and into a new locale, I don't really see the sights as much as try to mingle and meet the locals and share share stories with them as I click away. Your own needs are probably much different than mine......

Should also add, it all fits in a F1x Domke, along with about half my clothes and personal items, the rest being taken along in literally... saddlebags.

 

[Pi]

Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.

I used only the 24TSE, not the 17 - but for tall buildings, I do not like the results of TSE. You can easily simulate them with software, just to see what you will get. The buildings look too tall (well, they are) but very weird. I much more prefer to point the camera upward and make the "distortion" even worse. Why not your fisheye or your UWA instead for tall buildings?

 

[scottkinfw]

How about a second body, lest lens changing?

Hi all Canon-shooters!

I'm about to do a sort of a travel dream in october. Will be traveling to these places:
- Dubai
- Sydney
- Great barrier reef (compact with under water housing)
- New Zeeland

I'm going to bring a Canon 5D mk3 aswell as my compact camera.
Now I'm thinking of what lenses I should bring and if there is any lens that I should get for a trip like this.

Currently I have:
- Sigma 15mm fish eye
- Canon 16-35/2.8
- Canon 35/1.4
- Canon 50/1.8
- Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II
- Canon 85/1.2
- Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro
- Canon 135/2
- Canon 1.4x extender

When I want abroad to shoot last time I brought my 16-35, 50 and 135mm. it's a little complicated to switch lenses all the time when the sun is about to set.
That's why I've thought of getting perhaps the 24-105/4 to bring instead of only primes.

Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.

What whould you bring on a trip like this?
I'm thankful for all input!

Best regards
Fredrik

 

[scottkinfw]

Sort of off topic a bit, but check early with the carriers, there may be a weight limit for carry on luggage.

I almost got into trouble with that last year- had a safari vest and off loaded the heavy stuff into my vest. On the plane, I re-packed it into the bag. I wasn't going to check any camera gear.

In fact we had a 24 lb limit, and after all my camera and laptop stuff, I had only enough left for toiletries and two days of clothes.

Also, be sure your bag will fit into the smallest overhead that you will be flying on.

When you get all this figured out, your choices may already be made for you.

sek

 

[transpo1]

I would take my 5DIII, 16-35, and 50 1.4
That's it. Keep it simple and light and you'll be more relaxed.

In your case, I would suggest : 5DIII, 16-35, and 100L macro
That kit will not slow you down and give you plenty of good shots. Although I'd be severely tempted to tuck the 35 1.4 in the bag

I agree. Simple and relaxed is the name of the game while traveling. I rarely take the 24-105 off my 5D during a trip and if I do, it's for something with a bit more reach, such as a 70-200, when I want to grab animal pics at a zoo (Taronga Zoo in Sydney is awesome, by the way). That said, out of the lenses you have, I second the above --

5DIII, 16-35, 100L macro, 70-200 (if it fits and depending on interest) , and if you can squeeze in another prime, the 35 or 50 for very low light work or discreet street photography. At most.

 

[pj1974]

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.

A killer combination indeed, especially if combined with a 10-22 lens (I know you mentioned other brand you just reminded me of my beloved and stolen 10-22).
But the point is that OP has already a FF camera. I agree with you that in this case the 24-105 is the best all round lens(I do own and like it). I would complement it with the 16-35 and 135 (and leave behind all others) to avoid carrying the 70-200 2.8

Hi tron

Thanks for your post and quote of my earlier post.

Yes, I'm aware that the op has a FF, that's why I stated in my post - in his situation I would go with the 24-105mm L (twice mentioning that as a suitable lens). It's true I didn't explicitly make the connection / compare my 15-85mm on a 7D / APS-C with the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII (these being quite similar in usability as a go-to zoom lens).

I have used the Canon 10-22mm, and have own a Sigma 10-20mm since 2008 (my copy has v good sharpness & great contrast). Now I have the Sigma 8-16 which is superior in various ways (less CA, slightly sharper in centre - but more noticeably sharper in the corners). I have often stated on these CR forums and other places that there is a plethora of great UWA lens choices for APS-C DSLRs these days. And it's very hard to obtain equivalent full frame lenses (esp zooms) which can match the corner sharpness of the best APS-C UWAs.

I would recommend that fiend, the OP, buys a 24-105mm and goes with for most of his photos. Then uses the 16-35mm when he requires UWA photos. The 135mm L prime is not a bad addition, but it's not THAT much longer than the tele end of the 24-105mm L, of course the 135mm L prime is a few stops brighter - but having 3 lenses rather than 2 does mean less convenience.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[JPAZ]

My travel kit has devolved to 24-105 + 17- 40 + 70-200 + 1.4x. And, I am not always going to bring the 70-200 and 1.4 either. Depends on where I am going and why. When I go to Denali, I'll bring a lot more. But, I am happy walking around with just the 5Diii and 24-105 while having the 17-40 in my bag.

I may or may not bring the M with the 22 and the 40+adapter as my "stealthier primes" as well. But, with cropping and a camera that does well in hi-iso situations, you don't need as much as you'd think. I've learned this the hard way!

Sounds like an incredible trip.

I think the trip till be awesome! Do you use these lenses on a crop-camera or did I read that wrong?
For traveling the 17-40 and 70-200/4L would do just fine.Then you don't need a prime lense with 2.8 But since I shoot weddings etc then I have to use faster lenses.

Sorry I was not more specific. I have FF and recently an Eos M. On a recent trip, I carried the 24-105, 17-40 and the 40mm. I shoot a lot of people shots but some more typical tourist stuff as well. At the end of the trip I used the 40 for about 5 shots, the 17-40 for less than 10% and the 24-105 for about 2000 shots.

Recently, I found the Eos M (which is cropped) to be a nice small addition with the 40+adapter . Keep it simple. Changing lenses in the field can be an "interesting" experience. Keep it light be because it is not too much fun carrying a heavy kit, especially when it is hot.

 

[fiend]

There have been a lot of feedback and answers here during the night Thanks!
Will reply to them soon.

I just want to clarify on the topic that the goal with the trip is not to travel around like a tourist and take pictures of everything while I'm on the beach/hiking around like a tourist but to have the chance to take really good pictures for my portfolio to get new clients. That includes both real estate, travel companies, hotels, magazines etc aswell as selling these pictures to them.

To bring one lens to do it all and shoot everything "kind of OK" is not an option for me. I rather bring extra lenses and shoot optimal pictures

Best regards
Fredrik

 

[fiend]

I have travelled lots around the world, and taken thousands upon thousands of photos with my DSLRs in various situations. From several countries within Europe to SE Asia to many parts of Australia (where I grew up, now live and have returned after sevearl years abroad).

Convenience is important while on the go - I want to enjoy my time of walking, travelling, seeing sites, talking with people and yes, also photographing lots. But I would opt for a light & available body with a zoom in most cases than travel rather than feel like a 'fully laden pack horse' with a host of lenses, including too many primes!

In your case, I'd probably opt to buy a 24-105mm L, and use the 16-35mm time to time too. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II is a great lens, but very heavy to take along. I can see the new 35mm f/2 IS being a great option as a 'street photography' / low light option too.

I use a 7D as my travel camera, and the Canon 15-85mm is my main camera. So yes, it does depend on each individual's photography style, but I would expect that many photographers would find the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII the most handy combination (or the newer Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS as another travel option).

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L. A great, and very portable 2 lens travel solution - providing very high quality images. Though in some situations I'll (also) take and use my Sigma 8-16mm (love that ultrawide!) Of course one can use all 3 lenses as such if that is preferred.

When I was on holiday in Thailand some time ago, I used the 15-85mm about 80% of the time on my 7D.

Best wishes.

Thanks for the input
The thing is that I'm aiming mostly to shoot for new clients and for my portfolio and less vacation-shooting so I'm willing to bring some extra lenses if it makes my eventual clients more happy.

Yes, the 70-200 is quite heavy, but maybe 200mm will come in handy sometime? Its so sharp and have such nice reach the 135 is also very nice and a lot lighter. Equipped with 1.4" its quite long aswell. I'm shooting on FF so it's not as long as with the 7D though.

The 70-300 seems to have a nice range, but it's quite expensive aswell
I've looked at this before.. just trying to justify the cost.. hehe

/Fredrik

 

[fiend]

How about a second body, lest lens changing?

I'm thinking of that. To bring a 5D mkII aswell as backup camera

 

[fiend]

When I want minimum size/weight a carry a 5D2 with 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. But I try to combine lenses you already have. True 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 is a heavy combination. In that case a viable alternative is 5D3 with 16-35 50 135 and 1.4X.

16-35, 50, 135 was what I had with me when I traveled to Side Turkey last year to shoot
I could fit all those lenses in my Crumpler shoulder bag, so I'm aiming to bring some more with me in a backpack... I think.

Here are some of those pictures from Turkey
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/fler-bilder-fran-side-turkiet-2012/
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/bilder-fran-side-turkiet-2012/
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/alanya-turkiet-2012/

And also some pictures of me shooting

 

[fiend]

Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.

I used only the 24TSE, not the 17 - but for tall buildings, I do not like the results of TSE. You can easily simulate them with software, just to see what you will get. The buildings look too tall (well, they are) but very weird. I much more prefer to point the camera upward and make the "distortion" even worse. Why not your fisheye or your UWA instead for tall buildings?

Have you tried to use the shift and take panorama with the 24 TSE aswell?
I don't really like to much leaning buildings/landscapes but I don't like the extremely tall buildings either. Perhaps you can use the 24mm and instead taking some panoramic shots with it?

Fisheye could be a nice effect aswell! That's more of an effect-type of image.. instead of an client-image. But I like both types so I don't want to exclude any of them.