Travel lenses for Spain, Portugal and Paris: Canon options

[sufran]

We will have a car while in Spain and Portugal and public transport in Paris. And walking. I am mainly wondering whether I should buy the 24-105/4 for this trip and sell it when I get back to Oz? I have a 1d4 and a 5d2, and am thinking of taking the 1d4. I will definately take my 16-35/2.8 for wide angle.

However, rather than taking my 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 (which are quite heavy to carry around, and have very specific focal lengths, and in particular, the 70-200 while great for subject isolation, isn't really a general purpose lens), I am wondering if I should buy the 24-105/4 as a light weight general purpose lens for the trip? However, I don't want to go to the effort of buying and selling the lens if I will be disappointed with the lens's performance (especially in comparison to my usual lenses). However, I also know when I went to Japan with the two 2.8 lenses, I hardly used the 70-200 at all, because it was so heavy and cumbersome when I was walking everywhere, and its focal length also meant I missed context on close to the action shots.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[mongo]

Mongo agrees - too many to take - too much weight.
24mm is the minimum wide end needed.
For this reason, Mongo bought a used mint condition Tamron SP 24-135mm for travelling ($170). Gives great results - just a touch slow but this has never been a concern.
You might prefer the newer version of the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR. It has reasonable but mixed write-ups.
Using either of these two lenses with a full frame camera in various crop modes will artificially stretch the long end of the lens to near 200mm. So, the potential is a 24-200mm zoom lens which should be versatile, lighter and far more manageable.

Mongo finds that a lot of those heavy and expensive f2.8 lenses are of little use for travelling (and generally for that matter with few exception e.g. 300 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8). Mongo has virtually never used a travel lens wide open so why drag the f2.8 weight around with you for that purpose ?? Using them in a studio situation is a different matter and a different exercise - we should not confuse the two.

[ameerat42]

On the other hand, you have a car to drag it around in, so... perhaps... well, just saying...

[Brian500au]

Hi Safran

i am living and travelling in Europe now, and have a very similar kit as you have. After many years of travelling, I have been looking for the perfect travel kit. I was travelling with a 1DIV and the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 (2.8) but the weight and bulk of it all just tired me out. As Mongo rightly points out I was confusing what lenses I needed for studio work with that for convenience of travel.

i have recently settled on the following kit:

Canon 6D (full frame, light weight and incredible high ISO performance)
Canon 16-35II (a must for European architecture)
Canon 70-300L - this is a new addition to my kit that was suggested to me but initially dismissed as I am not keen on variable aperture zooms. This lens is lighter than the 70-200, longer zoom, smaller in physical size but excellent sharpness all through the range. In my opinion, I would say this could be the missing puzzle to my kit.
24-70F2.8II - I am having a hard time parting with lens due to the outstanding IQ, but I am thinking of replacing it with a sigma 50mm only due to weight.
Lowepro 202aw slingshot - the camera bag was a weight factor I had initially overlooked. I needed a bag that was comfortable to carry on a crowded subway in Paris or Hong Kong but still be large enough to pack the above kit. I also find this bag very convenient to move from back to front when removing the camera or changing lenses.

i hope the above helps. By the way I have owned the 24-105 but sold it for the 24-70 with no regrets.

Kel

[MissionMan]

Take your 5D2 and the 24-70 and pick the days you carry each lens based on what you intend seeing. I agree the 70-200 is a waste. If you were going to buy something you will keep, get the 50 1.4 as a light weight carry lens.

[JM Tran]

Why would you want to take the 1D4? I'd take the Mark 2, for wider full frame coverage and lighter.

Nothing wrong with buying the 24-105L or the Sigma variant which is reported to be better overall, then sell it later for a small loss.

Travel photography is not about taking lenses and trying to cover every focal length possible, it is about the ability to enjoy traveling as well as getting the shot whilst staying discrete and not be an easy target for petty crimes.

I always laugh at tourists who carry a 70-200 on holidays if theyre not getting paid for it, more laughing if they are toting 2 camera bodies at the same time.

[carrg1954]

I don't think there will be much use for a 70-200 2.8. the 5d is smaller, lighter. The 16-35 will serve you well.

[aalex]

For me, 5dm3 with 24-70 2.8II and 70-200 f4 IS is my ideal travel kit!
Since 16-35mm is a must for you, i would bring 70-200 although its heavy. I like 70-200 focal length.

[CarlR]

On my trip to Europe in June this year, my 14-24mm and 24-70mm were the most frequently used lenses. Whilst I brought my 70 - 200mm, it stayed in the main bag and was used on about 2 occasions over the 6 week period.

I had a 50mm fast prime with me as well, which got a bit of use as well.

[sufran]

Thanks everyone who has taken time to reply. I think I will go light with the lenses: taking a low light prime is a good idea also. It is a good point about a lightweight bag for gear. This time I am thinking of getting a shoulder bag (rather than a backpack), so it's easy to access and swap lenses. Re the query on the 1d4 vs 5d2, the 1D has more functional features than the 5d2. I also find that the 5d2 underexposes slightly in comparison to the 1d, which means I sometimes have to think shots more with the 5d. But, overall, I like the image quality of the 5d2. Thanks again.

[m841]

It's funny how I can always come back to AP after a break and find the info that I am after straight away!

Currently contemplating the kit for a 6 week Europe trip later in the year, and currently looking at the 40d, Sigma 17-70, 50 f1.8, and a 430 EX flash. Might possibly add the 70-300 lens as well, but given that a lot of my stuff will be landscape, I'm thinking that I wont need it.

My only debate at the moment though, is is an upgrade from the 40d to the 70d a worthwhile thing to do? Sure I'd love to go to a 6d, but I can't justify the body and lens replacement all in one go!

[Ahyao17]

For sheer weight argument, I would suggest the 40mm STM over the 50mm but IQ is probably not as good. But then again, it may just be good enough for travel photos.

[Warbler]

Low light ultra wides will be your friend in Europe. You won't be able to use a flash or a tripod inside the majority of those lovely old cathedrals and palaces, although the number of flashes that went off inside the Sistine Chapel when I was there was unbelievable. I'm going to disagree with the majority opinion on the 70-200 though and say that many of the locals are "over" tourists thrusting a camera in their faces, or want money to pose these days, so portraits of the locals are best done from afar. If you want a light-weight alternative to the 70-200, then one of the Tamron super-teles might be the go. Good call on the shoulder bag as well. Backpacks can be accessed from behind whilst you're distracted in front.

[sufran]

Thanks. Good point about the prime (although I don't have any wide-angle primes). My 50/1.2 is my widest primes; other than that it's a zoom, the 16-35/2.8. At this stage, I have really decided on light and trying to minimise lens changes. Though in light of what you have said about needing to be back away from people, I will see how well the 135/2 fits in the bag.