One Lense Only!

[Case]

Hey all,

Despite my fear of being torn apart for a "which lense" question, I’m gonna give this ago.
I'm planning on buying a 10D in the new year, with the intent of spending a month "getting to know" my camera (i'm moving up from a G3) before embarking on a 3 1/2 week cycling trip through Cambodia.
Funds will obviously be stretched by this so I can initially only afford 1 "quality" lense. I've pretty much decided that I’d prefer to get 1 "L" than a range of standard lenses. Additionally, I'd like to get away with one lense only for my trip (less for my poor legs to drag along!).
I expect most of my shots to be landscapes, architectural shots (like the Angkor temples) and portraits of the locals.
The EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM seems to be good value (for an "L"), gets a good store on photozone.de, and will certainly give me the width for landscapes/temples; but how will this go for portraits, and will I find the limited range too....well: "limiting"? Any suggested alternatives? A friend with a canon film SLR has offered me a lense to borrow for the trip (I think it's 100-300mm) but like I said, one lense would make things much easier, especially when I would like to take my tripod with me.
Any help appreciated...

Cheers

Chris

[Belmondo]

The 100-300 is all but useless, especially for landscape photography.

The one lens I own that I couldn't live witout is the 24-70 f/2.8L. It's an extremely useful range, and the optics are sensational. It's also expensive.

Aside from the 24-70, and if I shot a lot of landscapes, I'd probably go with the 17-40L. For about half the price, it's a good choice. It has useful range, and the optics are very good.

Either way, you can't go wrong.

Tom

[AndrewEllinas]

In your situation, I'd go for two lenses, a 17-40 F4 L and a 50mm F1.8.

The 50mm will give you an effective focal length of 80mm (good for portraits) - it's cheap, light, small and produces sharp photos.

[Case]

AndrewEllinas wrote:
In your situation, I'd go for two lenses, a 17-40 F4 L and a 50mm F1.8.

The 50mm will give you an effective focal length of 80mm (good for portraits) - it's cheap, light, small and produces sharp photos.

Cheers Andrew....i hadn't thought about any primes but i'll have a look.

Thanks

Chris

[gsmx2]

I have to say that I think that Andrew's answer is "right on". Gives you considerably better low light options too.

Scott

[johneo]

My 1st thought was the 28-135IS which I have and think is a great lens (I read a report before I bought my 10D that said if you are getting only 1 lense, this is the one to get) ... BUT ... having it and the one "L" I have ... it is not in the class of "L".

I love my 17-40L but would think it would be limiting you if it were the only lens you had. I don't have the 24-70L but I'm sure it is a great lens and that would give you a bigger range but as mentioned, a "bit" more costly.

Andrews suggestion is an excellent one (17-40L & 50 f/1.8). I've got both and the 50 f1.8, while inexpensive and light does an excellent job.

[Belmondo]

Good points, everyone, but the title of the thread is "One Lense Only!" Admittedly the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, especially at the price, but that isn't what's being asked. It does raise a good point, however, and that is the issue of what constitutes the 'ideal' focal range for the average, everyday shooter? We all have our own preferences, but few of us have exactly the same wants and needs. For me, it's the 24-70,but for others, it's the 17-40 (with a 50mm chaser).

If 50mm is considered the 'nominal' focal range (i.e. the closest to what our eye sees), then the 17-40 probably makes a high degree of sense. Figuring in the 1.6X crop factor, the effective focal length is 27-64mm, which gives you a very slight telephoto, with decent wide angle.

[DonCoon]

But Case also said:

Additionally, I'd like to get away with one lense only for my trip (less for my poor legs to drag along!).

His legs certainly won't even notice the lightweight 50 f1.8.

So unless this is purely an academic exercise to find one lens, I'd agree -- 17-40 and 50 1.8. I have both and they're great

[Cordell]

This is the search for one lens, but the 50mm 1.8 is not even noticed when carried around. It's not like the other heavey weights. I would go for both of those.

[DaveG]

The "one lens" you might want to look at is the 24-85 f3.5-4.5. It'd be cheap and would cover you from (effectively) 35 mm to 135 mm. It's slow - no doubt - but no worse than the 17-40's f4, and it's a smaller lens which helps with the weight.

Yes there's no doubt that the L lens is optically better, but I have the 24-85 (as well as the 16-35 f2.8L) and the 24-85 is no dog.

With the savings you could look at a 50 in either the 1.4 or 1.8 range, which would give you speed for the more limited light situations you are going to run into.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I could NEVER live with the 17-40 as my only lens! :(

Yes I have this lens and love it,. but my god,. to be so limited to only the wide end? No thanks.

If it has to be L,. I agree with the 24-70mm,.. in fact to me that "range" is the ONLY choice of only one lens is to be used.

BUT this does depend on intended subject. If I was on safari in Afrrica with one lenses only it might be the 100-400 IS so consider the use.

Normally for the first "single" lens,. as others have said,. the 28-135 IS is my recomendation.

But if it is L or nothing,. from what you describe as the inteneded use,. I would think the 24-70 is a great choice.

Then of course there are the monster zooms... 35-350mm L and the Sigma 50-500mm EX,...

...but I don't think these are in your ballpark either where intended use is concerned.

P.S.,.. either way,. the $75.00 small as a can of tuna but lighter in weight 50mm f/1.8 is a no brainer :)

It is in fact lighter than a teleconverter! :)

[Case]

Thanks for all your responses...gives me something to think about anyway.
The 17-40 plus a prime does seem like a good option (and i'm pretty sure i can handle the extra weight in that case :)) But now i've got the 28-135IS and the 24-70L to think about, and of course just because the lenses are ideal for my trip doesn't mean i won't find them very limiting when i return (like CDS suggests)....oh well....decisions, decisions :)

Cheers people,

Chris

[Fried]

My preferred lens for street photo ist the 35mm f2.
I don't like the 24-70L because of its weight and cost.
I have the 28-135 which I use a lot as a walk about.
For the wide end I choose the Sigma 15-30, because it gives me a true wide angle (15mm on 10D = 24mm).
I have L's for the teles, 70-200 2.8L IS, one of the best zooms there is, and the 300mm f4 IS.

[kje_tve]

I have the Canon 17-40 f4. It is a fine lens, but if I only had this one I would feel a bit limited. The zoom range is rather small, and in many situations I much rather would prefer my larger 70-200 zoom. If I should have only one lens for startes I would check out the new Tamron 28-70 2.8 that offers value for money. Or perhaps some similar Canon types if you for some reason just want to use Canon lenes.

[GenEOS]

Canon 24-70 F2.8 L

I would have said 16-35 f2.8 L, but since you may need a little more focal length, the 24-70 is a much finer choice. You will need the 2.8 aperture. The f4 is just not good enough to really on without a back-up lens.

[intensesupernova]

GenEOS wrote:
Canon 24-70 F2.8 L

I would have said 16-35 f2.8 L, but since you may need a little more focal length, the 24-70 is a much finer choice. You will need the 2.8 aperture. The f4 is just not good enough to really on without a back-up lens.

I have the 16-35 f/2.8 L, and I love it, it rarely leaves my camera. Most of my shots are architecture and landscapes. As far as portraiture though, I'd recommend spending the extra $70 and getting a 50mm f/1.8 It's not the greatest lens, but it's worth its money.

[Longwatcher]

Might as well add my opinion,

For traveling light, the 28-135 IS is the best lens in my opinion.

For best quality with no regard to price or weight, the 24-70L would be my choice (I have the 28-70L, which is actually slightly lighter). Note though that weight is noticeably heavier then the 28-135 IS.

Both of these will give you an okay wide ability for landscapes and are in the portrait range of 50 or 85mm favored by most portrait photographers. The 28-135 will provide a little bit more range on the telephoto end though, along with IS which makes up for some (but not all) of the aperture difference.

One other take on the 28-135 versus 24-70. If you don't have the BG-ED3, the camera may feel a little bit off balance with the 24-70 mounted.

I do highly recommend one of the 50mm primes (f1.8 or f1.4) no matter which you get, but obviously it is a second lens.

My final note is if you don't have any lens, you will not notice the difference between the 28-135 and the 24-70, both can take sharp pictures, just the 24-70 will take very slightly better ones in terms of color. Also, if Dell (or somebody else) does the oops again and under sales it, get the 70-200/2.8L IS, that is THE lens to get, but it should never be the only lens you get (unless you only do telephoto stuff)

Just my opinion,

[sdommin]

Case wrote:
I'm planning on buying a 10D in the new year, with the intent of spending a month "getting to know" my camera (i'm moving up from a G3) before embarking on a 3 1/2 week cycling trip through Cambodia.

If I was going cycling for 3 1/2 weeks in Cambodia, I would seriously consider taking the G3 only! Walk around, or cycle around for awhile, and you'll know what I mean!

[DaveB]

I think Scott's right. Cycling, like backpacking and canoeing, means compromising on account of space and weight.

I spent two months out in the northwoods of Canada this summer will all my equipment in a small Pelican 1200 box.

It carried a G3, Teleconverter, Lensmate with polarizing filter attached, two extra batteries, Hoodman thingy, lenspen, extra CF card and remote control.

Plus I had room left over for a Ricoh GR1v with a 28mm wide angle so I could take Velvia and Provia slides.

I don't think I could carry a Digital Rebel and one lens in that space.

[Case]

Scott and Dave,

Taking the G3 is still an option, but it is more likely to be a financial decision than a weight decision :)
I intend to cycle with my camera gear and valuables/documents in a backpack with the rest of my gear in the panniers and handlebar bag....an SLR and 1 lense shouldn't pose too much of a problem, and i'll be training with this kind of loading as i lead up to my trip (i already use the backpack).
Thanks for your comments.

Cheers
Chris

[UK_Terry]

If it is to be "One lense Only" then it has to be the 28 - 135IS.

The range of the lense is good and the lense will get you that landscape, portrait and a decent close up if needed.

Quality not as good as an L but the quality of this lense is Very High, and you would only notice the difference if you had 2 identical shots one taken with an L and one taken non L.

Since all your photos will have been taken with One Lens then all your photos will have the same (high) quality.

The "IS" is fantastic and on your type of trip probably more use than an "L".

Only my opinion though, but it answers the question you asked "One Lense Only!"

[Andy_T]

Case wrote:
... but it is more likely to be a financial decision than a weight decision :)


In that case... what's your budget restriction?

Do take a look at the Tamron XR 28-75 f/2.8!

It's considerably less expensive than the 28-70L and currently receives great reviews ... check for the thread by JAF Doorhof. Plus, it's compact and light.

That way, there might be some *financial* space to include some more primes (e.g. Zenitar MF 16 mm Fisheye, Canon 1.8/50 and one of the longer Canon lenses)

Regards,
Andy

[msnow]

I just back from my vacation to Kauai, Hawaii. I brought my 16-35/f2.8L, 24-70/f2.8L and 28-135 IS for the trip but when I went out for hikes and exploration I only brought my 28-135. It had the quality and range I needed plus the weight was a factor. So my vote for "One Lense Only" would be the 28-135 IS.

[UK_Terry]

So "Case" what did you decide?

[nosquare2003]

Hi Chris

Since you are experienced with your G3, what focal length you frequently use?

I agree with CDS with the one lens selection. If I only bring a 17-40mm, I will miss the short tele part very much (in shooting landscape, people...)

[defordphoto]

msnow wrote:
I just back from my vacation to Kauai, Hawaii. I brought my 16-35/f2.8L, 24-70/f2.8L and 28-135 IS for the trip but when I went out for hikes and exploration I only brought my 28-135. It had the quality and range I needed plus the weight was a factor. So my vote for "One Lense Only" would be the 28-135 IS.

I'm with you all the way MSSnow. When I got out for photo-ops and don't bring my backpack, it's the 28-135 that gets attached. I oike bringing my 70-200L also, but if I can't, it's the 28-135 that gets the job as the 70-200 is just way to long.

And in spite of what you hear from the ultra-anal-measurebators, the 28-135 is a very fine lens. Yes, a little on the soft side, but not every freaking shot needs to be cut-yourself sharp. And in MANY cases people are really missing the mark by over-sharpening their digital photos. Soft can be your friend too. :)

Canon needs to get a 28-135L F2.8 on the market!

[UK_Terry]

RFMSports wrote:
Canon needs to get a 28-135L F2.8 on the market!

don't forget the "IS"

[Longwatcher]

A 28-135/2.8L IS would be an almost perfect lens, except I doubt they could keep the weight in the same range. Right now it weighs 540 grams. They could probably go up to 600 grams and still be light enough for packing around, but if it hits above 750, then it will start to weigh on you.

The 24-70 weighs in at 950 grams for comparison.

My light backback kit is:
D60, 50/1.4, 28-135 IS, and 75-300 IS,
which is way lighter then my standard lens kit of:
10Dw/BG-ED3, 16-35L, 50/1.4, 28-70L, 70-200/2.8L IS and extenders.

[geoff@rio]

Canon 50mm 1.8 ( incredibly light and ideal for use on a bike) but if you must have a zoom Canon 28-135mm IS (much heavier - see above)

[Case]

Thanks for all the responses people!
The decision will be made early in the new year, but i'm leaning towards the 28-135 IS. It's seems to come recomended by quite a few people, photozone.de gives it a "good" score, and although it's not as wide as i'd like it will give me a good range for a reasonable price. I can always add a small prime in there for little weight gain, but the zoom itself will be a good start.
Maybe i'll move up to some "L's" later :)
Now i've just got to find a 10D for sale in Oz...there seems to be a shortage here aswell.....

Cheers

Chris

[FotoPhreak]

Case,

Your from Australia are you?

Yeah I'm finding a major shortage of 10D's here as well.

With everyone's help from here I had finally made my decision to go with the 10D, and now look what's bloomin happened ... I can't get one.

So now I'm back to the age old debate about whether I should get the 300D?!?

As I really want a camera for Chrissie I think I will just get the 300D, then hopefully find some buyer willing to pay close to the original price so I can upgrade.

Anyway, unfortunately I don't have time to read through everypost again (btw, your post has been helpful for me in deciding on a lense as well) ... but I take it from your last post that the 28-135 is reasonably respectable?!?!

How does it hold up against L glass?

Anyway, thanks for starting the post.

BTW, if you find a supplier with any 10D's left please let me know.

Cheers!

[Case]

FotoPhreak wrote:
Case,

Your from Australia are you?

Yeah I'm finding a major shortage of 10D's here as well.


So now I'm back to the age old debate about whether I should get the 300D?!?

Anyway, unfortunately I don't have time to read through everypost again (btw, your post has been helpful for me in deciding on a lense as well) ... but I take it from your last post that the 28-135 is reasonably respectable?!?!

How does it hold up against L glass?

Cheers!


Yep, living in sunny melbourne :)
Apparently a few stores around town have 10d's in stock, but they're certainly not common at the moment...and i don't want the wait to be the deciding factor between the 10d and 300d. I'm happy to wait until mid-Jan before i purchase, so i've got a bit of time to hold out.
The 28-135 USM IS seems to be a nice compromise: reasonable quality, affordable (well, less than AU$1000 in aust.), nice range, and it has been recomended several times as a good travel lense. It's no L, but then again it doesn't cost like an L either
Check out www.photozone.de for lense rankings (it's under standard zooms about 1 page down the table), and there is also a user review of the lense in there somewhere...hope it helps.

Cheers

Chris

[nosquare2003]

If you buy the 28-135mm, don't forget the lens hood.

[MarkH]

case wrote:
Thanks for all the responses people!
The decision will be made early in the new year, but i'm leaning towards the 28-135 IS. It's seems to come recomended by quite a few people, photozone.de gives it a "good" score, and although it's not as wide as i'd like it will give me a good range for a reasonable price. I can always add a small prime in there for little weight gain, but the zoom itself will be a good start.
Maybe i'll move up to some "L's" later :)
Now i've just got to find a 10D for sale in Oz...there seems to be a shortage here aswell.....

Cheers

Chris


I started on my 10D with a 50 f1.8 + 28-135 IS.

I only occasionally use the 50, but it adds little to the weight or cost, so I don't mind having a lens that I don't use much.

Most of the time I have the 28-135 IS lens on the camera, I find the zoom range REALLY good. It is a decent mid range to telephoto zoom. Usually when I take the 28-135 off the camera it is to replace it with my 75-300 for more zoom, I don't often need wider. In my opinion the 28-135 makes a fantastic portrait lens, from wide view with background to a decent tight crop on the face, with a simple flick of the wrist.

If you want to take in a wide landscape scene that you can't fit in, take several shots. Use the M setting and set your aperture and shutter speed manually, also switch to manual focus. Take as many shots as you need, keeping the camera level and allowing some overlap between each shot. You can stitch these together after you get home.

Have you planned on storage for your pictures? I use a X's Drive II with 30GB HDD to transfer the pictures to. This gives me enough storage to easily do 3.5 weeks taking well over 100 pics a day, that should be more than enough.

[Case]

Hey MarkH,

Thanks for the comments....
I've looked at getting an Xdrive, but whether or not I can afford one before this trip remains to be seen :(
If i'm restricted to using my flash cards (i have 1Gig of cards) i'm just going to have to resort to shooting jpgs and filtering out the shots that i don't want each night. It's not ideal, but we'll just have to see how the finances go....now i've decided on the 28-135 IS over an L i may have a bit left over for something like the Xdrive.

Cheers

Chris

[Derek Smith]

Case,

Slightly to one side of your topic - but don't forget two things.

1. DUST - imagine picking up two large fertile dust bunnies on the first day and have them breed over the following 25 days. Don't forget your dust remover kit and check for bunnies regularly - you can do a fair bunny scan using the LED screen on full magnification, then scan across the image. Of course, this is also a very good reason for only having one lens - put it on and leave it on - it will minimise the chances of dust ingress.

2. STORAGE - 25 days of photographic opportunities at decent resolution will create a great stack of CF cards. Have you given any thought about how you will store your images? I would have to seriously restrict myself not to fill more than 50 CDROMS in that time. The 10D just begs to take photos, and before you know it the 512MB CF is full again. If you intend to ration your images you will miss the best - GUARANTEED.

Have a great holiday and lets see some of your precious moments on here.


Derek

[Derek Smith]

Case,

Just a thought, but how about when you return, you post a thread on - Do's and Don'ts of a cycling holiday photography.

I for one would very much like to hear what worked and what you would do differently next time.

Derek

[CoolToolGuy]

nosquare2003 wrote:
If you buy the 28-135mm, don't forget the lens hood.

If you are going to buy a hood for use on the 10D or the Drebel, consider going with the EW78C instead of the one that is called for. I have the 28-135, and I have the one specified for the lens. But with the crop factor, I don't think it is the best hood for this lens. There was a thread on this board recently that discussed the topic of hoods and the crop factor. It got quite off-topic (as many of them do), but I will soon be buying the EW78C hood to use on my 28-135. The EW78C is specified for the 35mm 1.4 lens. Since the wide end of the 28-135 approximates the angle of view of a 44mm lens, I think the EW78C will be a better hood. However, I have not yet tried it, so this is just a theory. I plan to get this hood in the next couple of weeks, so stay tuned.

Have Fun
Rick