The perfect travel kit, does it exist?

[Brian500au]

Is the holy grail in a photographic travel kit out there somewhere?

I have done; and do travel a lot. I have driven, trekked, rode motorbikes, cycled, bussed and trained my way around 30+ countries in the world, and in all cases, I have had some type of photographic set up hanging from my back / neck.

In all my travels I have not been able to find the perfect combination of body and lens. I realise the perfect travel kit may also depend on the mode and type of travel. I am a very independent traveller. I like to catch public transport (bus and train), walk and normally carry minimum luggage (mostly back pack or one small case). I tend to stay in better quality hotels (3+ rating). In a lot of cases I will add on an adventure to a work trip (ie fly somewhere to work, and then take a week vacation to travel). I do not travel with the prime purpose to take photographs. I am a tourist who likes to capture the memories of my adventure. I never leave home without my camera in one form or another when travelling.

The situation was not as complex years ago. I had a trusty Canon A1 (50mm lens) and two rolls of film and that was all I took (could buy more film if I run out). Photography was expensive then – both buying film and processing the images. In the end you got what you took – no colour correction, no cropping and in most cases not sure of the result until after you got home. I bought my Canon A1 in 1980, and it lasted me with my travels until 2004 (and then I still sold it in perfect condition).
I started life in the digital era with a Canon 10D and the standard kit lens (28 – 135), but as my skills improved I thought I needed more advanced equipment. Hence over the years I have had combinations of 30D, 40D, 7D, 5D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIIn, 1DsMII, 1DMIII, and now a 1DMIV. I have used compacts (Canon S110) and various combinations of smart phones (Nokia, Iphone, Samsung).

With all that in mind I am still struggling to find the perfect travel kit. I have always used the attitude I may never have the chance to visit again, so that shot you take has to be a keeper. I have made errors over the years, and nothing is more disappointing than being in the right place with the wrong equipment.

You can see by the above list I am 1D spoilt. These bodies were built to take to war. Rain, hail, snow or water they just keep on keeping on. I have always been happy with them as a travel companion, except for the weight (both around my neck and in my back pack). Add an “L” lens or two, plus a 580EX flash to the package, and you can see the bulkiness and weight are starting to slow me down in my later years.

I am thinking about biting the bullet and investing in a small Canon SL1. I am doing this for the weight factor only – but I will still use the same “L” lens kit I normally travel with. I have reduced that to the 16-35 and the 24-70. I made a mistake by selling the 135L as this could extend to 190mm with the 1.4x extender.

In the end I think my perfect (general purpose) travel kit will look like this:

Canon SL1,
Samyang 14mm f2.8,
Canon 24-70 f2.8,
Canon 135mm f2 + Canon 1.4 extender,
Canon 270EX II flash,
small light weight monopod,
Canon s110, + smartphone.

What are your thoughts on my choices? Do you have the perfect travel kit you would recommend based on your own experiences?

[CAP]

Been thinking about this recently myself.
How about a Canon - M with it's standard zoom and an adapter for the EF lenses??????
You can have a nice little compact rig for light duty stuff that will fit in your pocket but can also whack some serious glass onto it whenever you want. Just a thought, but would look quite strange with a 300mm f2.8 attached.
I have a 5DmkIII with grip so getting close to the size and weight of your 1D and can relate to your comment about carrying it around for long periods. I have only just started looking into this myself and only got as far as the M, figured it's runing the same processor as my 5D so can't be too bad... yes/no.

[ricktas]

No such thing as a 'perfect travel kit'. Everyone's would be different. Some like to shoot the scenery (scapes), other like the people, whilst the next person wants to photograph the night-life. All each of us can do is get the gear for what we, individually, want to take photos of.

For me, my D800, a good wide angle lens, my filters and a tripod would see me happy.

[Rattus79]

One of those Sony jobs with the 24 meg full frame sensor and fixed 35mm f2 lenses would be fantastic for general travel shots. Wide enough to do scapes (and stitch if it isn't) and tight enough not to cause wa distortion. A shade on the expensive side tho.

[William W]

I have given a lot of thought to this over the years resulting in many changes starting in the 70's with 135 Format Film Body and three fast prime lenses (28, 56 and 135) . . .

I cannot advise you what to get but perhaps explaining what I use and why, showing some outcomes as examples, will provide you some quality food for your thought and planning:



Today I primarily use Canon 5D Series DSLR cameras.

My “travelling on holidays kit” is very simple: One 5D Series Body (usually 5DMkII) + EF24 to 105/4L + EF35/1.4L + EF15/2.8 Fisheye + PowerShot SX40HS (PowerShot is to be upgraded or replaced shortly I am considering the options).

Based on what I like to capture and the style in which I like to capture it these three lenses give me the most bang for the buck – I use the 15/2.8 minimally and sometimes leave it out.

I don’t really like using Flash for my private work and I don’t miss it at all. The 5D’s images can be cropped quite a bit, so the telephoto limit of 105mm does not bother me either.

The one lens I would not leave out even though it gets only about 25% to 35% of the use since I bought the zoom is the 35/1.4, because I like walking around; I like 35mm lens for street work and I like working at F/1.8 to F2.2. This was made at F/2.2:

“Street Mimes 06”

***

Prior to buying the 24 to 105/4L I used to use a dual format kit (APS-C and 135) and carry two DSLR bodies and two primes, the EF24/1.4 and EF85/1.8, providing me ‘equivalent’ fast: 24mm; 38mm; 85mm and 136mm.

Then I changed again I used the 16 to 35/2.8L and the 85/1.8 with dual format bodies – that was a nice travel kit, for me: I used the 16 to 35 on APS-C body as my general “walk around” – but it was never really long enough as an “holiday” walk around – so I was using the second camera with the 85/1.8 quite often and I was never really happy with carrying two DSLRs around, ALL the time.

With the progression of DSLRs in respect of the quality at higher ISO, the F/4 of the zoom is quite fast enough and for the interior stuff I like to shoot I can get to 24mm:



“Interior 23”

And the IS on the 24 to 105/4L is invaluable – this was shot at 1/5s hand held:

“Photographer 16”

However I do understand the value of the 135/2L and the x1.4EF Extender combination – I used that combination as a staple in my Wedding Kit with the 85/1.8, rather than carrying a 70 to 200/2.8L – but for me when on holidays and travelling although the 135/2L is a magnificent lens it would not be used enough (at F/2~F/3.5) to warrant carrying it about.

I can make do with the 105mm maximum length and just work a bit harder to juggle the Subject to Background distance to enhance the Subject Separation, if I need to do that:



“Italian Passion”

Or, as in this example, if 105mm is not long enough, I merely cropped half the frame in Post Production, to get in tighter:


“Photographer 05”

And the 24 to 105/4L is a more than reasonable for “close up” work:


“Window Shopping”

WW

[Tannin]

A well-chosen thread topic, Brian, and a well written post to start the ball rolling. Obviously, your perfect and my perfect and William's perfect will all be different. Thread title aside, no-one expects us all to agree on the One True Answer, and people are taking the thread, instead, as an invitation to write intelligent general summaries of their travel kit, all on the assumption that their own thoughts and experience might contain something useful for others (like Brian) to ponder. That seems like a sensible approach to me.

My travel kit is pretty much what appears in my sig below: yes, I take four DSLRs and a fair collection of lenses, plus three flashes and two tripods and two computers (always have a spare everything!) and twin car batteries and enough food and water to survive for three weeks in case I get stuck somewhere. If you wish, modify it by removing the 24/TS-E (which I hardly ever use) and the macro flash (ditto), and if pushed the 35/1.4. Then add an extra camera body - I really do prefer having a genuine spare to hand, and it does come in handy, notably on my last outback Queensland trip where my only normal zoom (the 24-105) packed it in and I did the last three weeks using 35mm, 50mm, and 60mm primes on various bodies to fill the gap between the ultra-wide zoom and the 100-400. (Outback means dust, severe dust very often, and changing lenses is to be avoided wherever possible.) (By the way, if my beautiful little 60mm EF/S macro fitted on full frame, I'd marry it! Really, really handy length if you have 1.0, 1.3 and 1.6 crop bodies. I suppose I should give in and get a 50/1.4, but that's another topic for another day.)

But the full Monte isn't going to be terribly relevant to most readers what do I actually use all the time? When covering miles, the 500/4 lives on the front seat next to me, attached to the 7D. That's the main bird lens. In the camera bag in the front passenger footwell goes the 5D II and 24-105 for general-purpose landscapes and the like, and on the seat beside the 7D is the 100-400 with a 1D IV (think 70-300 equivalent if you are used to APS-C). This does lots and lots of landscape work, and needs to be always ready for instant use with subjects of opportunity such as kangaroos, emus, birds in flight - anything for which the 500/4 is too clumsy and the 24-105 too short. Also in the bag on the floor beside the 24-105 is the old 50D, usually with an ultra-wide (either the 10-22 or the 10-17 fish) but sometimes with a 60mm or 100mm macro. Since I switched the main landscape body over to full frame, the 24-105 is effectively so wide that I can almost do without a dedicated ultra-wide, and there is an annoying gap between the end of the 24-105's range (on 135) and the start of the 100-400's range (on APS-H) which the 60 macro fills perfectly (on APS-C), so sometimes I do that. The only other absolute essentials are my polarising filters, a 1.4 converter, a lens cleaning cloth, and the car itself - I frequently stand on it for better compostions. Oh, and of course gumboots to protect against mud in winter and snakes in summer.

When on foot you can't possibly carry everything, and the best selection varies with the time and place, but typically the first thing that happens is the best camera (1D IV) goes on the best lens (500/4) and I decide whether to take the tripod or go hand-held. The longer I expect to be away and the further I expect to walk, the more likely I am to take the tripod. Yes, more likely - with a big heavy lens, you can't hand-hold it for long, and you certainly can't stop and wait motionless for the wildlife in a shooting-ready posture. I generally don't take the 100-400 (love to have it with me, hate carting it around!), and nearly always take the 5D II/24-105, mostly adding the 50D with an ultra-wide and/or a macro, quite often both. A 580EX II flash lives in one of the side pockets of the camera bag.

I deal with air travel by not doing it. Flat no. I love aeroplanes, grew up on them, but the post-September 11 idiocy with queues and security scans and schedules and delays and bad food and sitting next to the fat woman with the flu, and mega-buck parking fees and all the rest of it ... to hell with that, I'll drive there, thanks. I like driving. And I can take pictures while I do it. Add in a few tripods and things and the stuff you see below in my sig is what I take to do it with.

[MissionMan]

As someone said, everyone is different. Travel with kids under 5 and suddenly luggage space is a major issue and you won't have space for anything larger than the new compact series DSLR's. Carry around a toddler for an entire day and suddenly even a light camera seems like it weighs a ton. Every photographer is going to be different.

[Darey]

FWIW if I had to select just "ONE" travel camera it would be the Fuji X100s.

This fine piece of kit would cover most, if not all, of my needs.

[Glenda]

No such thing as a 'perfect' travel kit unfortunately. Weight becomes both the issue and the governor to what I take - both to carry all day and what airlines allow in cabin. Also think it's dependent on destination, obviously I'd want a long lens when visiting Africa and Alaska but not so important for what I'd want to photograph in NZ and Europe.

[bricat]

And don't forget the extra batteries, chargers, compact flash cards and back-up portable hard drives. Not being an experienced photographer nor o/s traveller for that matter, I travelled to the good old US of A recently plus did a cruise trip up to Alaska and the Rocky Mountain train tour. I had 7D, 15-85, 70-200 2.8, 2x extender and flash. Whale watching, bear watching and general 'street' photography this did enough for me but that 70-200. 2.8 IS certainly gets heavy in the backpack but was great for the whale watching. As I said not being an experienced photographer, the use of 'prime' lenses for me is still a fair way ahead of my abilities.(as is the rest of my kit) but certainly covered what I wanted. cheers Brian

[Brian500au]

Thank you everybody for the valued input, it has really given me food for thought.

William W thank you for the time taken to detail your reasons behind your choices. You have no idea how much your reply inspired me to take better photos. I read your post on Friday night and on Saturday I venture out into the Christmas markets of Cologne in Germany. I believe my result were some of the best I have done in years - and it was the inspiration of what you posted urged me on. Thank you again.

Tannin - I agree with your thought process 100% - but you have the luxury of taking the car. I have ridden a motorbike up the center and then across the top of Australia with a camera and lens strapped in padding in my tank bag. I departed my bike three times in the sand, pushed it through crocodile infested waters in NT, and rode in drenching rain through Nth Qld. I did not have the luxury of traveling with your kit (but I would have like to). Space is limited on a bike.

I will add a few extra bits to the argument though.

I am not interested in changing brands - not to say other brands don't have fantastic set ups, it is just I have invested both time and money in the canon brand over the years - both in lenses, and learning the 50+ menu options canon bodies have. I am just getting too long in the tooth to start over again.

I am also not interested in compromising in quality of the lenses. As stated I approach every opportunity as my only opportunity to take the shot - the kits needs to be reliable (and i need to be familiar with the equipment). I have already invested in quality lenses. The focal range needs to be covered and I already own a good range of "L" lenses.

Secondly in order to have the perfect travel kit you need to have it available and on hand when you travel. It does not have to be the entire arsenal you own, but I believe it should be 90% ready to walk out the door at anytime. You could be using it for other purposes but you know if you were hiking to Mt Everest base camp or sailing down the Nile in Egypt it would essentially be the same kit.

I also say the general travel kit. I stated I am a tourist who takes photos - I have not gone on a specific photography trip. Now if I did, I think it would be a different situation. If my prime purpose was to photograph lions in South Africa, or polar bears in Alaska, then I would hire the specialized equipment for that particular "expedition". Now if I was a tourist who spent a couple of days in Kruger National Park hoping to see a lion, then I would not need a specialized kit. In fact I have photographed lions with a P&S in a park next to Kruger - the pride was no more than 25 metres from our truck.

For those of you who say there is no (near) perfect photography travel kit - I disagree. I have traveled enough over the years to have my clothes packed in minutes. The only difference in back packing in Cambodia and trekking in the Himalayas, is I lose the sandals and throw in some good walking shoes and light weight down jacket. Everything else is exactly the same kit. I want to do the same with my photography kit

Given all the above I will admit there are some great suggestions in this thread. Over the weekend I went and tried out both the SL1 and the 6D. I like them both (a lot). In my original thread I listed what i thought could be the perfect kit, but I have revised it based on the below reasons (lets assume any brand equivalent - I have already stated my reasons for Canon):

Canon 6D - full frame which will mean I can use my 16-35 rather than purchase the 14mm I had planned if I used a 1.6x crop. Although heavier than the SL1 (which is insanely light) - it is lighter than my current 1DIV and still lighter than a 5 series.

Canon 16-35 f2.8 II (i own it already) and on a full frame will suffice me for inside temples and churches
Canon 24-70 f2.8 II (I own it already) and a great mid range focal length on full frame, (so sharp I could use it to peel an orange).
Canon 70-200 f4 IS - Now this is something I need to purchase, and the jury is out on this one. I have found I have never really missed this focal length when i travel on the 1.3x crop, but it may be a factor if I go full frame. Either way it is light and weighs less than the 135 + 1.4x I had originally planned. I have the 2.8 version but it is too heavy to travel with.

As it sits this kit weighs less than 3kg. If i drop the 70 - 200 lens, this kit would weigh around 2.2kg. Add a small flash and my P&S back up and I think I could cover 99% of my travels and not regret my decision.

Comments?

- - - Updated - - -

Been thinking about this recently myself.
How about a Canon - M with it's standard zoom and an adapter for the EF lenses??????
You can have a nice little compact rig for light duty stuff that will fit in your pocket but can also whack some serious glass onto it whenever you want. Just a thought, but would look quite strange with a 300mm f2.8 attached.
I have a 5DmkIII with grip so getting close to the size and weight of your 1D and can relate to your comment about carrying it around for long periods. I have only just started looking into this myself and only got as far as the M, figured it's runing the same processor as my 5D so can't be too bad... yes/no.

I have read a lot about the Canon M but I just feel I am not confident with the version 1 model. I know a lot of people are comparing the new mirror less generation of cameras with DSLR's but in my opinion the major brands of DSLR's just keep moving the goal posts. I really feel I would rather go with a SL1 and fit my standard canon lenses to it rather than buy a Canon M and an adapter. The SL1 is an outstanding little kit for the money (around $550 for the body only).

- - - Updated - - -

As someone said, everyone is different. Travel with kids under 5 and suddenly luggage space is a major issue and you won't have space for anything larger than the new compact series DSLR's. Carry around a toddler for an entire day and suddenly even a light camera seems like it weighs a ton. Every photographer is going to be different.

Cannot argue with you on this one

- - - Updated - - -

And don't forget the extra batteries, chargers, compact flash cards and back-up portable hard drives. Not being an experienced photographer nor o/s traveller for that matter, I travelled to the good old US of A recently plus did a cruise trip up to Alaska and the Rocky Mountain train tour. I had 7D, 15-85, 70-200 2.8, 2x extender and flash. Whale watching, bear watching and general 'street' photography this did enough for me but that 70-200. 2.8 IS certainly gets heavy in the backpack but was great for the whale watching. As I said not being an experienced photographer, the use of 'prime' lenses for me is still a fair way ahead of my abilities.(as is the rest of my kit) but certainly covered what I wanted. cheers Brian

As you suggested the other part of the equation is the accessories. Over the years I have tried many bags to carry by gear. In most cases the bag weighs the same if not more than my gear.

I love that 70-200 2.8 IS but I gave up travelling with it many years ago. I can't say I miss the focal length that much but I agree with you, if whale watching was on the agenda then this focal length is a must.

[William W]

Thanks for the feedback; and specifically thank you for the very kind compliments on my work.

I do understand the premise of your arguments regarding the choices that you have available apropos lenses and camera bodies.


My comments, specifically:

Canon 6D - full frame which will mean I can use my 16-35 rather than purchase the 14mm I had planned if I used a 1.6x crop. Although heavier than the SL1 (which is insanely light) - it is lighter than my current 1DIV and still lighter than a 5 series.

I think that your logic is very sound about the 6D.

I have a few 5D’s and two APS-C bodies and also an EOS Film Body - I don’t need another Canon DSLR body: but if I did want a “light weight” Canon DSLR (at this time) I would choose the 6D.

I have used one for a very short time and it is a very nice camera, indeed; and is great value for money. Indeed it would also serve as a very nice, and economical back up / additional body to your kit, anyway.

***

Canon 16-35 f2.8 II (i own it already) and on a full frame will suffice me for inside temples and churches

I carry the 15/2.8 and sometimes I de-fish it so to have an access to wider than 24mm.

I cannot at all argue that the 16 to 35/2.8 MkII is a very handy and one of my much used lenses. I have mentioned that I really liked having it as my travel kit (I do have the MkII though I didn’t specify that previously): I think the main reason why I do not use it when travelling now, is I have really “minimalised” my “travel kit”.

For very tight interior spots I will use the Fisheye and (maybe) de-fish or use the 24mm and shoot two frames and stitch them – and both are rare occurrences: I guess in some manner I could have “minimalised” what I choose to shoot too, that could be good or bad – maybe I am more focused on what I like or maybe I am more lazy and choosing not to see opportunities – in any case please note that I especially separate being “on holiday” to mean I shot exactly what I want and get enjoyment from – and not to make any money.

Again the IS of the 24 to 105 is valuable for the procedure of shooting a coupe of frames and stitching.

But you should go with what you feel: I suggest that if you “want” the 16 to 35 then take it, otherwise you will only think about all the shots you DID NOT make - if you don’t have it with you: that is very draining and also de-focusing for one.

Also, in 2009 I went for a short cruise holiday (only three days) and I did take the 16 to 35, because I knew that there would be a lot of interesting stuff inside the ship and the spaces inside would sometimes be very tight – so one can adapt lenses for particular situations (I guess that’s easier if the travel time is known to be short term) . . . Here taken at FL = 16mm:


“Piano Bar”


“Stare at the Stairs”

***

Canon 24-70 f2.8 II (I own it already) and a great mid range focal length on full frame, (so sharp I could use it to peel an orange).

AND

Canon 70-200 f4 IS - Now this is something I need to purchase, and the jury is out on this one. I have found I have never really missed this focal length when i travel on the 1.3x crop, but it may be a factor if I go full frame. [I have the 70 to 200 F/2.8 IS MkII listed in my gear at below my signoff]

This was the most thought about choice for me when I made my last reconfiguration which also involved a “Duplication Purchase”

I have a 24 to 70/2.8. And I also have a 70 to 200/2.8.

Both those lenses are very good copies and both are very sharp at F/2.8 – but I choose to buy the 24 to 105/4 IS specifically for travelling.

Why this was such a difficult choice for me was because I was thinking of buying the 70 to 200/4 IS (and thus duplicating the 70 to 200/2.8 that I already had).

The bottom line that I came to was, there was more flexibility in my total lens cache with the addition of a 24 to 105 and the IMAGE STABILIZATION across that range than duplicating the 70 to 200 Focal Length Range.

I reiterate, the duplicating a lens for "travelling" was not an easy choice, for me.

***

It seems to that you really value the SHARPNESS (and perhaps the F/2.8 LENS SPEED) of your 24 to 70/2.8 MkII – I am not going to argue that with you and I am not pushing you into thinking otherwise – but what I would say is keeping YOUR Priorities in mind:

Before you buy another 70 to 200 just think for a moment:

• how much you really will use 200mm
  
• how sharp and how fast is the 135/2 that you have already (rhetoric question obviously)
• do you want to use F/2 at 135mm
  
• could you crop 135mm to get the equivalent of 200mm when necessary
  

***

Afterthoughts:

1. I don’t think that you will consider this to be a viable solution for yourself, but, quite awhile ago I had an assignment to document a trek: the conditions were severe and there were limitations on the amount of gear which could be taken into the country. I chose to use the EF 35-350mm F/3.5-5.6L. I could push the B&W film to 3200ASA (even 6400 if necessary) so the Aperture limitation in this respect was not a problem.

What was useful was the fact that I never needed to change a lens and although the camera and lens combined was heavy, the “total kit” was quite light.
This lens is now replaced with the EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 L IS, which is much better optically and certainly has the benefits of Image Stabilization.

I did and have often still do consider buying this lens as my ultimate “one lens” travel kit.

I am still thinking on that one, but it is a big capital outlay and I would feel a tad arrogant toward my personal savings to spend that amount of money on a “luxury”, just to have the 300mm reach that I would use once every blue moon: but it is still a thought in the back of my mind – 28mm at the wide is “just doable” for me, but 24mm is nicer.

*

2. I have a Battery Grip on all of my bodies.

There are are many reasons: to easily shoot Portrait Orientation; to more easily shoot inverted or left handed; to have TWO batteries on board at all times, etc.

But when travelling - having the option of using AA Batteries, which can be bought easily everywhere in the world is a great advantage: I have only used it once, but it was worth it when I did use it.

***

All the best of good luck, with your choices – let us know what you choose to do: arguably whatever you do, there will be phase two in a couple of years’ time.

It is an evolution.



WW

[Tannin]

Brian, just one thought occurs to me (you have spent years refining your thinking on this, so most of the possible thoughts on this topic are ones you have already had) .... assuming you go with the 6D (which seems to me a very good idea) how much do you need that 16-24mm range? I used to think that ultra-wide was just something I positively had to have available all the time, and that was certainly true when my normal zoom (on APS-C) started at 18mm (roughly 28mm equivalent on 135) and even more so when I upgraded to the 24-105 (~38mm 135 equivalent). But since swapping a 40D for a 5D II a couple of years ago, little by little, I've been finding ways to get away with the 24mm wide end of the 24-135 and manage without the 10-22. The 24mm lens is equivalent to 15mm on APS-C or, in other words, just as wide (near enough as makes no difference) to your beloved 16-35/2.8 on that 100D you have been thinking about. Yep, you would miss the 16-35, no question. But with a 24-70/2.8 in your bag, you might not miss it all that much. That would leave you free to take something longer (70-200/4? 70-300L? 135/2?) and still have only two lenses.

(I'm sure that you have thought of this already, but no matter.)

- - - Updated - - -

Brian, just one thought occurs to me (you have spent years refining your thinking on this, so most of the possible thoughts on this topic are ones you have already had) .... assuming you go with the 6D (which seems to me a very good idea) how much do you need that 16-24mm range? I used to think that ultra-wide was just something I positively had to have available all the time, and that was certainly true when my normal zoom (on APS-C) started at 18mm (roughly 28mm equivalent on 135) and even more so when I upgraded to the 24-105 (~38mm 135 equivalent). But since swapping a 40D for a 5D II a couple of years ago, little by little, I've been finding ways to get away with the 24mm wide end of the 24-135 and manage without the 10-22. The 24mm lens is equivalent to 15mm on APS-C or, in other words, just as wide (near enough as makes no difference) to your beloved 16-35/2.8 on that 100D you have been thinking about. Yep, you would miss the 16-35, no question. But with a 24-70/2.8 in your bag, you might not miss it all that much. That would leave you free to take something longer (70-200/4? 70-300L? 135/2?) and still have only two lenses.

(I'm sure that you have thought of this already, but no matter.)

[William W]

. . . how much do you need that 16-24mm range? I used to think that ultra-wide was just something I positively had to have available all the time, and that was certainly true when my normal zoom (on APS-C) started at 18mm (roughly 28mm equivalent on 135) and even more so when I upgraded to the 24-105 (~38mm 135 equivalent). But since swapping a 40D for a 5D II a couple of years ago, little by little, I've been finding ways to get away with the 24mm wide end of the 24-135 and manage without the 10-22. . .

Bravo!

Yes!

This is indeed a very interesting thread and some of the commentary has indeed given me poise for thought.

This is yet another angle on my wondering if I am being lazy or simply enhancing my Photography by refining my shooting techniques.



WW

[Brian500au]

Gentlemen, great input in this thread. Tannin, you are right I have been struggling to find the perfect travel kit for years. At the moment I am based in Belgium for the next two years. We have just finished Autumn (and already had our first winter snow fall). I am really taking advantage of living here. Last month I caught a flight to Rome, trained to Milan, then flew to Paris. I concluded with a train trip back to Brussels.

This weekend passed I drove to the Christmas markets in Cologne, Germany.

As you can see I need a kit that I can use in cathedrals, museums, street candids, portrait (my wife), and yet still use to take both cityscape and landscape.

WW about six months ago I cleaned up my inventory of lenses. I owned both the 24-70 and the 24-105 for around 5 years. I made a decision to sell both and buy version II of the 24-70. No regrets. In fact after buying version II I sold both the 50L and the 24L. I pondered hard whether to part with the 135L, but in the end I realised I had the FL covered with the 70-200 F2.8 IS II and the aperture covered with my 85 F1.2 II.

Tannin I am coming around to your way of thinking with the 16-35. I had not used this lens much, but around the same time I did my clean out of lenses, I made a conscious decision to use this lens more. To tell you the truth I struggle with this lens as a walk about - but maybe that is just me, as I read many comments by some very experienced togs just how much they enjoy this FL. I have now returned to the 24-70 and did photograph inside a cathedral on the weekend without any regrets.

i need to make a quick decision on all this. Camera gear in Europe is around 1.5x the price of Australia. I will be back in OZ for 5 days over Christmas and then travelling in Cambodia for a week on the way home to Belgium. I want to order on line and ready to pick up to bring back with me. I think I will order the 6D tonight!!!

Once again thank you for your valued and insightful input gentlemen.

[fabian628]

Since the past two years ive decided to leave behind digital cameras when travelling, I now take my pentax 6x7 and two lenses (50mm equivalent, and 28mm equivalent). Also a small folding 6x6 camera that is fully manually just incase my pentax dies on holiday I still have a backup. I take a super compact table top tripod and shutter release.

Flexibility, versatility and what not is gone, but the joy of taking less, more though about photos on holidays is very rewarding when developing them back at home. I have 15 rolls of film waiting development from my recent trip to Japan, will be nice to see them finally

I am usually using the 50mm lens and the wide lens occasionally for landscape and other wide shots. Its heavy but its worth it for me!

------------
edit:
to make this relevant for the canon forum I did previously travel to Japan with a 1000D and 17-40 and 135mm. I found the combo was good but the 135 a bit long for street shots. I would probably have gone the 85mm f/1.8 if I had that lens. I think a wide angle zoom and a standard/ semi tele prime is a great combo anyway. Id say the sl1 would do very well with a couple of decent primes, maybe the just a 28mm f/1.8 lens and a 85mm depending on how you like your focal lengths

[rackham]

6D, 24-105mm f/4 & 50mm f/1.4. Recently added a 17-40mm f/4 to the stable and I imagine that will be getting a fair workout and a lot of travel miles.

If I'm expecting to see animals, I contemplate - and sometimes regret - carrying the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. My travel is typically adventure-ish, lots of walking and not a lot of luggage. That lens fast becomes a lot to carry for a handful of shots. Am a little torn on getting a 70-200mm f/4, it's half the weight and not unaffordable... I just wonder how much I'd miss the extra 200mm against how much I wouldn't miss the 800g.

(although then you could build an argument for taking the 60D as well... which quickly gets you to not having saved any weight or space at all.)

[Brian500au]

I did travel with a 100-400 for a short while but found it too heavy for how many times I used it. I am going to settle for a 70-200 + 1.4x tele as this will be lighter and give me the FL should I need it.

if I need longer I have a 300mm but only use this if I am travelling by car.

[AdamR]

My Iphone. Lots of drawbacks, but think of the other benefits it has for travelling. Email, maps, help,

[Tannin]

^ I agree. Those are very useful qualities. And, of course, if you use the Apple maps app for finding your way around, before too long you will certainly need help!