Travel lens recommend

[pacific]

I will be travelling to the Philippines at the end of February 2006. I will be travelling to Manila (city life), Boracy (beach resort area), and Baguio (more landscape). I currently only own one lens my Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM.

I am debating to spend about $2,000 I have set aside for one or more lens. I am kind of contemplating Canon EF 70-200MM f/2.8l (IS) and the 50/1.8 prime.

The thing I don't like about the EF 70-200 is am I going to want to lug it around all day, or do I want to go with a couple of Prime Lens or something else?

I speak enough Tagalog (been to the Philippines about 20 times) and know the dangers of carrying around some expensive equipment so will be careful.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I've read all the threads and am wondering what would you carry if you were in my situation.

[condyk]

The Canon 24-105 f4 IS L is the perfect travel walkaround lens which is why I am waiting for a copy. I've travelled all over the world and you know as well as I do that at transit points, anywhere were you have your baggage with you in hand, and when you're out and about site seeing, the last thing you need is excess weight. It makes travel a chore rather than a joy. Probably the last lens I would consider is a Canon 70-200 IS L. Totally impractical. I'd personally also carry my Tokina 12-24 f4 or similar length. Wide in cities is great. When I bought my 24-70 Sigma I though 24 would just about cut it, it doesn't. I think wider is essential. As a combo I think they're hard to beat.

Of course, while it lacks some of the qualities of the above options, your 17-85 IS is an attractive travel lens too.

[DavidEB]

135f2L -- nice complement to your 17-85 in terms of focal length, compact, easy to carry, doesn't attract crowd attention of the great white. Extra-ordinary lens, best in my bag.

Only drawback is lack of IS, but with an f2 lens it draws in so much light that might not be an issue.

Add the canon 1.4x T-con and you're good to 190 mm.

If you want to spend more after than, I'd suggest either the 50 f1.4 or the 100 macro, or get non-lens gear like a good tripod/ballhead, flash, polarizer filters, etc...

[JohnCollins]

Like with most things in life, there are tradoffs here. The tradeoff between carry weight and shots lost or not taken optimally. IMHO, the 70-200 IS USM is the perfect complement to your current lens and the two will handle 90% of the shooting situations you'll find yourself in and there's little overlap in focal length. But the 70-200 is a somewhat heavy lunker.

OTOH, the last lens I'd buy would be the 24-105 IS suggested unless I was going to sell my 17-85. Too much overlap in focal length. To be sure, if you had decided to travel as light as possible, and only wanted one lens, the 24-105 would be a contender. So is your current lens, however. Is the 17-24 range more important to you or the 85-105 range? You'll give one or the other up if you go with one lens.

Yes the 70-200 is a bit large. But I disagree that it is "totally impractical". It's a choice. You pays your money and you takes your choices, right?

I agree with CondyK that the 24-105 would be a nearly ideal walk arounder for a one lens setup. If you didn't have the 17-85, I'd jump on that in a New York minute. Given your 17-85, I wouldn't go that way, I'd stick with what you have, the 17-85. For me, I'd be willing to travel with the 17-85 and the 70-200 and a 580EX. You're going to a beautiful place far away, you're going to want to take a lot of photos and I think the weight tradeoff is well worth the photographic capability. YMMV.

John

Good luck with your choice.

[gramps]

One thing you should consider is how fast of a lens do you want/need. Indoors without a flash sure would make you think about something in the f2.8 range.

[nitsch]

I went travelling earlier this year and only took two of my lenses the 17-85 and the 70-300 DO. They made the perfect travelling set IMHO, lightweight, compact, discreet and decent optical quality. This was before the 24-105 had been released though, if it had been available then I may have been tempted by it for the better IQ over the 17-85, however I would probably then have needed a third lens to cover slightly wider than 24mm.

[jjonsalt]

I agree with DavidEB on the 135L and 1.4x TC, add a 15mm f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.4 and if there is still some of that $2000 left get a monopod.

[OregonRebel]

The 70 - 300 (either DO or not) would be a good companion for your 17 - 85. You probably want something inconspicuous looking to carry around somewhere like Manila (not one of the safest cities in the world). It might not be a bad idea to just use a 50 1.8 so your SLR looks like a point & shoot, at least while you're in Manila.

[EOSX]

First, be cautious of what you are carrying as something like a 70-200L will bring much unneeded attention to yourself from wrongdoers. It also depends on the area you are going into...is it economically depressed or is it more resort areas for Westerners? It's important not to "stick" out with expensive equipment.

With that being said, you already have a 17-85, which makes it a great general lens. My choice would be actually to carry the 70-200L with me. It's worth the extra weight for better photos. I have both and they work very well. Carry them in a medium photo backpack.

[bolantej]

I was jsut going to say "carry them in a backpack". that way, you can carry the heavier lens without callign too much attention to yourself and you can keep it hidden when you think it's necessary.

[LightRules]

I currently only own one lens my Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM...The thing I don't like about the EF 70-200 is am I going to want to lug it around all day, or do I want to go with a couple of Prime Lens or something else?...and know the dangers of carrying around some expensive equipment so will be careful.

The 17-85 is a great walk around. I'd strongly consider you look at the 70-200f4 or new 70-300IS to complement your "travel" set up. The latter might fit the bill more being more inconspicuous, having IS, and gives you almost 500mm FOV. Take along the cheapo 50 f1.8 as its fast and real lightweight and not a huge deal should it get wacked around or even lost. Have a nice trip.

[dave carriger]

I would agree that a 135 and 1.4 tc would give you some extra range in a small light package. I would spend the extra for a 50 1.4 if you don't already have the nifty fifty for a great low light lens.Good luck on on purchase and let us know what you decide.

[pacific]

Thanks everyone for great advice as always. How does this sound (a little more then $2k but close enough)
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 135mm f/2l
EF 1.4x extender
EF 100mm f/2.8 macro
Tokina Superwide angle AF20-35 f/2.8

total cost about $2,400

I really like the 70-200l but I tend to go to some fairly depressed areas (speaking the language a little bit generally keeps me out of trouble), but I think the 70-200L will just attract way too much attention.

[olz]

My travel gear are the Tokina 12-24 - as Condyk says great for the City, and the Tamron 28-75. And nomore. I've been travelling Asia as well as Russia, Mongolia and other not that wealthy places aswell. In my oppinion you are an target for thiefes with or without the camera.

I don't know how you travel? Do you backpack with a 60l rucksack or do you use large hardcases? I can only speak for bakcpacking and I wouldn't bring all the gear that you list! :D - travel lite.

How do you backup your pictures? If going to remote Islands and beaches without electricity you might have a problem. My sollution was this http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=667979

Personally i whould probably stick with the 17-85mm or perhaps something like the Tokina 12-24 and the Canon 24-105mm if you need the extra reach.

[pacific]

Olz, Great idea on backing up photos. I was trying to figure out the best way to do this and this is a great solution. Luckily, I will be using a friend's place in the Philippines as kind of my base camp. Depending on where I head off to, I can decide whether or not to lug the hardcase or just bring my backpack. You are sure right about being a target. What I always tell people is to be street smart and know where you are going. There are a lot of places in the U.S. I wouldn't go with or without a camera and I believe the same applies when you travel. I have spoken to people travelling to the Philippines who were robbed and when I ask them where they were and what they were doing, many times they were in places I wouldn't dare to go and wearing expensive jewelry, etc. I have been to the Philippines on many occassions and besides being harrased from time to time, I have never been robbed (double knock wood after saying that)

[EOSX]

You are right. It's not just the Phillipines or any other countries. There are many places in the USA that I would not go by myself or with expensive jewelry and equipment. Hope you have fun and have safe travels.

[DocFrankenstein]

I have no idea why you'd want 70-200

It's too short for wildlife and too long for people.

I'd go with some super wide angle zoom like 10-22 or 12-24 or whatever
50/1.4 as your longest lens

I'd also consider 35/2 or some 28 or 24... depending on how fast you want them to be and how much money you wanna spend.

They weigh almost nothing (except the zoom), are fast and the quality is stunning.

But you are not me of course.

[mebailey]

Thanks everyone for great advice as always. How does this sound (a little more then $2k but close enough)
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 135mm f/2l
EF 1.4x extender
EF 100mm f/2.8 macro
Tokina Superwide angle AF20-35 f/2.8

total cost about $2,400

I really like the 70-200l but I tend to go to some fairly depressed areas (speaking the language a little bit generally keeps me out of trouble), but I think the 70-200L will just attract way too much attention.

Thats alot of gear and $ to carry. I would get a 24-105 f4 L and a 580 EX and only take those. BTW, which body are you using?

[tim]

Remember you're going on a holiday not a photographic expedition, go have fun and take some snaps while you're there!

I use a wide lens almost exclusively while i'm on holiday - that was the main reason I got my Tokina 12-24. I'd very very rarely want a 70-200 variety lens, they're too big and heavy to drag everywhere. I sometimes take my 28-75 as well, it's good for people shots. If I could only take one lens with me it'd definitely be the 12-24, and I can get by with just the popup flash if I need to.

[ed rader]

The 17-85 is a great walk around. I'd strongly consider you look at the 70-200f4 or new 70-300IS to complement your "travel" set up. The latter might fit the bill more being more inconspicuous, having IS, and gives you almost 500mm FOV. Take along the cheapo 50 f1.8 as its fast and real lightweight and not a huge deal should it get wacked around or even lost. Have a nice trip.

this is the recommendation i most agree with. if your goal is to travel light and not to hassle with an assortment of lenses you could no doubt get by with just the 17-85, which i think is a perfect length.

if canon made a 17-85L f4 IS i'd be all over it :lol: .

the canon 70-200L f4 is super light and would be great for candids but you could get by without a long zoom.

primes? i'd take a fast short one for low light work -- my 50 1.4 which would also be great for portraits.

a long prime simply isn't versatile enough when packing a light kit....well not for me anyway :) .

ed rader

[pacific]

Thanks again for all the great suggestions and comments. I guess I really have to decide what I want to do and Tim's comment about going on "holiday" and not on expedition makes a lot of sense. I think I will purchase the Tokina 12-24 and the 50 1.4 and bring my 17-85 with me. I think that will suit my purposes well.

[tim]

I wouldn't bother with the 50mm F1.4 myself, but it depends on the type of photos you're after I guess. You could raise the ISO of another lens, or use a flash. For low light the 50mm F1.4 is great, especially at F2 and narrower.

[DocFrankenstein]

The Canon 24-105 f4 IS L is the perfect travel walkaround lens
The evils of consumerism compel you!

The only thing we know for sure is that the lens is the NEWEST in the canon lineup. It may give good optical quality, but it's only f/4 limiting it to bright light.

And it simply doesn't go wide enough if you're using 1.6 camera.

I wouldn't bother with the 50mm F1.4 myself, but it depends on the type of photos you're after I guess. You could raise the ISO of another lens, or use a flash. For low light the 50mm F1.4 is great, especially at F2 and narrower.
I'd have to agree.

On vacation, most of my low light shots would be taken on the street and inside. 50mm is just too long for inside shooting.

[MrChad]

I've gone on vacation with only my Drebel and an 18-125mm Sigma and my 420flash, and just enough gear to charge the things. No grip, no tele, no fancy filters....blah blah. Spare CF cards, some AA batteries, and spare Bp511's who needs big buck lenses that weight a ton.

I don't see why you would need any new gear? I'd take the 17-85mm IS and call it a day. Maybe a cheap 50mm but that's not needed either if you pack a flash IMO.

[dgcorner]

Coming originally from the Philippines, and having been to the places you mention I would suggest that:

1) Insure your kit - whatever set-up you have. Although the Philippines is the land os smiles, people (some that I know personally or through my cousin who happens to be in the ER of one of the major hospitals) have been shot or stabbed for far less, e.g., cell phones, sun glasses, etc.. Better to hand over your kit rather than end up in the hospital or 6 feet under.

As you've been to the Philippines quite often, you will know that it is best not to venture to the more unsavoury side of night life:D lugging your kit. That is just asking for trouble. Do keep to the tried and tested localities that have enough light and security;

2) Make sure your camera and lenses have adequate sealing -- the sand in Boracay is not only white, but powder fine and has gotten into the most unimaginable nooks and crannies of my last camera and lens. Suffice to say, I had them sent back to Canon for a thorough clean. It took a while because they had to disassemble the whole thing to get to the insides...

3) Skip Baguio and go to Banaue (2 more hours of travel) where you can find the world famous rice terraces, and better landscapes. Sad to say but Baguio has been de-forested and the only landscape you will see are the rusting tin roofs lined with smog... unless that is your cup of tea.

4) One new destination that is much talked about by family and friends is Bohol in the southern part. This place is well know for its "Chocolate Hills" and fantastic development that is competing with Boracay. It is worth the trip.;

Now, having said that, the Philippines is a wonderful place to go on holidays. The people are warm and friendly, and most speak decent, if not passable English. Like most places in the world, there are places that the locals avoid. It is best that you follow their lead. A little common sense goes a long way.

Have fun!!!

Cheers!

John

[ACDCROCKS]

I vote for the 70-200 IS and 85MM 1.8

[tim]

I vote for the 70-200 IS

I take it from that comment that you haven't travelled much... i'd never take a lens that big and heavy on holiday.

[dgcorner]

Gotta agree with Tim... lugging lenses that heavy can be a pain... not to mention calling so much attention to oneself.

[MrChad]

I take it from that comment that you haven't travelled much... i'd never take a lens that big and heavy on holiday.

Ditto, I'm not parting with my 75-300 IS for travel reasons the 70-200 is a great lens but just to big to carry on travel. The 24-70 is small enough that yes I'd concider it but for vacation tele shots the old trusty light IS will do wonders.

If you venture much to luminous I think the author prefers the 24-70 and 70-300 DO IS as his travel duo. He runs full frame but I couldn't see any reason not to use them on a 1.6x as well.

[ACDCROCKS]

Gotta agree with Tim... lugging lenses that heavy can be a pain... not to mention calling so much attention to oneself.

I traveled, walked through the woods, climing steep hills all day long. Yes it was a pain, but I wasn't saying...Gee, If I bought this lens or if bought this I could take this shot.... I got all the shots I wanted when I traveled/ travel. It's worth it, but, because the pic I didn't take the way I wanted it to, it would bug me, it bug me enough where I would walk all the way back, even 5 miles, I would walk back and take it...But instead I carry the right equipment that way I don't have to worry. The only thing I was worry about was making the wrong step, and falling down 50ft in to the creek ;) that and the"big foot" walking through the woods,following me as the daylight fades away making the move. Hearing branches crack behind me....freaky huh j/k....I know I know enough...thats why you carry an 8 gauge for things like that in the deep woods j/k


Creative but yet a wierd mind I have:rolleyes:

[Dante King]

Get the 70-300 DO, best travel lens I ever owned. Small and compact, its very unassuming with great reach. That paired with your 17-85 and you are set to cover any reasonable focal length. I would rather lug 2 lenses around than 3-4 or 5.

Good luck and have a great trip!

I do disagree with tim on one point, yes it is vacation, but I think vacations ARE photo expeditions! LOL :)

[FStopAndGo]

I vote for the 70-200 IS and 85MM 1.8

Perhaps it's best to recommend these lenses only if you've had experience with them, and travelled with them, and most of all have the camera body for them, not just 'future' bodies.

[tim]

I do disagree with tim on one point, yes it is vacation, but I think vacations ARE photo expeditions! LOL :)

OMG someone disagreed with me... I have released the homing pigeons which I have equipped with sandpaper on their feet, and i've trained them to land on anything that has a red ring around it ;)

[Skip Souza]

I find that my EF-S 17-85 IS and EF 70-300 DO IS make an excellent two lens travel kit. They take good quality photos and are compact for travel. The new 70-300 IS would do almost as well. It does not appear to be quite as good as the DO and it is a little less compact. By the same token it will not lighten your wallet as much as the DO.

[Skip Souza]

Easy Tim. No one has recommended the 50mm f/1.8 yet :-)

[tim]

Easy Tim. No one has recommended the 50mm f/1.8 yet :-)

I've convinced at least one person to upgrade from the 1.8 to the 1.4 already... and i'm sure I know another couple who will when they can afford it ;)

[Skip Souza]

'Atta boy. Conquering the world one person at a time. :-)
Like I said before, both times that I used my 1.8 I got great results. That is twice in a year. Of course I wasn't straining its' capabilities. The wifes 1.4 is simply fantastic.

[olz]

If I could only take one lens with me it'd definitely be the 12-24, and I can get by with just the popup flash if I need to.

I agree. Just remember to take off the lenshood. It makes an ugly shade with the Tokina 12-24mm, when using internal flash. :D

One thing I found travelling is that most people find "our" DSLR's old fashion and flock round other tourists that use an point and shoot camera! So just because we possess "expert" knowledge about expensive photo-equipment it's worth remembering that the majority don't. Paranoia about getting my stuff stolen has sometimes prevented me from enjoying what a holiday is all about. My point is that if you don't feel comfortable with bringing your expencive stuff, then mabey a cheaper camera and lens would do.

[condyk]

The evils of consumerism compel you!

The only thing we know for sure is that the lens is the NEWEST in the canon lineup. It may give good optical quality, but it's only f/4 limiting it to bright light.

And it simply doesn't go wide enough if you're using 1.6 camera.


No, lots of experience in lots of situations in lots of different countries compels me to travel as light yet functional as is pragmatic. Depending what time of year he goes light shouldn't normally be a big deal for an f4/IS lens unless he does a lot of indoor shooting. I did say I'd take my 12-24 too, so for city and beach style shooting, unless he was sniping bikini clad ladies at distance, I reckon my recommendation is still valid. But his last list seems equally pragmatic and is cheaper so why not? I wouldn't take the prime unless I felt it pretty well need it. I don't care if I miss a few shots tho'. We're all different. I'm more a traveller than a photographer.

[keenasmustard]

Just a little note on the traveling safe issue: a friend of mine who has done a lot of photography in dangerous regions strongly recommended me to get a bag which doesn't look like a camera bag. Obviously, this doesn't make a difference when you've actually got the camera out, but when in bustling places like airports and train stations, where theives are always on the lookout, you make yourself less of a target. He suggested either covering the camera brand names with a sew-on patch or buying a bag which will fit into a light non-descript backpack I already own. Some of the Lowepro backpacks look very "normal" in their shape- and less like a pro photographer's backpack.

Hope that helps.

[racingzone]

3) Skip Baguio and go to Banaue (2 more hours of travel) where you can find the world famous rice terraces, and better landscapes. Sad to say but Baguio has been de-forested and the only landscape you will see are the rusting tin roofs lined with smog... unless that is your cup of tea.


Very true, its busy if not more busy than Manila. Go to Sagada to the "Banaue Rice Terraces". Its all worth the extra 2 hours journey. With views like this.....

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5324/untitled8re1.th.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled8re1.jpg)

[Don28]

Hi Pacific

I will be travelling to the philippines shortly.

Just wondering what you went with in regards to cam equipment/lenses in the end. Any tips for me? Did you find your 17-85mm was sufficient enough? Did you end up buying another lens in the end?

Tnx!

[Olegis]

I'd go with some super wide angle zoom like 10-22 or 12-24 or whatever
50/1.4 as your longest lens

I'd also consider 35/2 or some 28 or 24... depending on how fast you want them to be and how much money you wanna spend.

They weigh almost nothing (except the zoom), are fast and the quality is stunning.

But you are not me of course.

I'm with Doc on this one - to much weight and bulk can kill your traveling experience (your and your partner/s). On my last trip to Santorini I took Sigma 10-20, Canon 24mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 - I ended up using the 24mm for nearly 90% of all my photography. The 50mm got some limited use and I took 3-4 pictures with the UWA. By the end of the trip I was going out only with the two primes, leaving the UWA locked in the hotel safe.

See some samples in my Santorini gallery (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/santorini).