Right lens for travel photography

[imago57]

Hello, I hope someone can help me. I do a lot of travelling and travel photography. I am excited about my photographs and I want to start marketing them for stock as well as travel related magazines. I own a brand new Canon D60 camera and I would like to buy a zoom lens to bring with me around the world. Often I will be in places where is not a good idea to start fooling around with multiple lenses, and a zoom like the Canon 28-200 USL will be the best for me, since it will allow me to take some landscape photography as well as to zoom in details when necessary. I haven't seen any review on this forum about the Canon 28-200 lens, and I read on other forums that it is a good consumer lens, but not good enough for commercial photography. Any opinion and suggestion about this will be greately appreciated.

[soumya63]

I am a prime Lens shooter, and use 20 f2.8, 50 f 1.8 and 300 f4L Canon primes. I am in the process of filling the big void between 50 and 300 with a 100 f2.8 macro or a 135 f2L. As a stop gap, I have borrowed a Canon 28-135IS from my friend and using it. Optically it is very good at Telephoto end. More over, Image Stabilization works very well for slow shutter speed hand held shots. In fact I am very impressed with this versatile glass. I would consider this if I am allowed to carry only a single lens for a quick shooting session. I also believe Image Stabilization can be a big benifit for you as you want to travel light.

[henkbos]

For light travel I would suggest something like 28-100 and a teleconvertor for the occasional teleshot.

[imago57]

soumya63 wrote:
I am a prime Lens shooter,


Thanks for your advise, although I was reading a few pages back a lot of very opinionated contributors dissing the 28-135 IS as having a great IS on terrible glass...do you disagree with that? Do you have any particular opinion about the 28-200? What about what someone else suggested of using a teleconverter? I was under the impression that teleconverters blur out the edges of the image and distort the colours.

[soumya63]

Frankly I do not see any good reason why to call 28-135IS a terrible piece of glass! A picture worth more than thousand words, so tonight I may upload couple of my recent tack sharp portraits with this lens. It really shines on the longer focal length 80 and upwards. In the 50mm range it is not so sharp like the 50mm f1.8, but then it is VERY unfair to compare a zoom with a prime. Even if you compare Canon's top notch 70-200L with 85, 100, 135 or 200 primes, in all cases the primes will shine. But when you consider the freedom from lugging 15 LB backpack full of glasses and gears, and the hassle of changing them, and also if you are willing to give away that extra sharpness, then there is nothing like a zoom lens.

I have not used 28-200 so can not comment about it. Canon, however, in its brochure describes it as the highest optical performer in its class.

Lastly, please note that a Canon Teleconverter can only be used with a Canon L series lens (as the tele converter glass protrudes inside the lens and L lenses has that extra space inbuilt).

PS: 28-135 is a wonderful lens and I am curious to know why anyone should call it a terrible glass.

[soumya63]

someone else suggested of using a teleconverter? I was under the impression that teleconverters blur out the edges of the image and distort the colours.

You are right. Teleconverter is a generic solution to increase the focal lemgth of any given lens. They tend to introduce more lens abberations and also reduces the effective aperture of the lens. So If you are using a 2X third party Teleconverter with Canon 28-200 f3.5-5.6, then at 200mm end your effective largest aperture will be 5.6X2=11.2 So you see it will be quite un usable for most of the situation except brightly sun lit scenery.

Now talking about lens abberation, people use to shun Canon 2X converter for its softness and we are talking 3rd party product! So forget about it :-)

[imago57]

soumya63 wrote:
Frankly I do not see any good reason why to call 28-135IS a terrible piece of glass!


Thanks for the clarification about the teleconverter. I have no personal opinion one way or the other about the 28-135IS, and I am waiting to see your samples. I guess it all comes down to having to play within my budget, but I really wish I could afford some of those L lenses everybody else seems to be talking about. In practical terms, though, I did handle a 70-200L while at the photopro in NYC and I thought "now way I can travel with this lens where I go". Too bad, since is a real fine piece of glass.

[soumya63]

imago57 wrote:
[quoteI am waiting to see your samples....

The first one is with 28-135 at 28mm f8

http://photogenesisca.tripod.com/temp/crw_4761.jpg

A close up to show the sharpness

http://photogenesisca.tripod.com/temp/crw_4761cropped.jpg


This one is shot at 65 mm, f 5.6 (wide open)

http://photogenesisca.tripod.com/temp/crw_4793.jpg

notice the fine details it can capture at tele end.
http://photogenesisca.tripod.com/temp/crw_4793cropped.jpg

In my opinion, this is indeed a fine all purpose zoom with a real effective IS.

[wlahc1]

you guys are forgetting a great new lense from canon the new 24-70 2.8 lens comming out this moth well it shoudl be out already, this would be the perfect lense for you. I dobut other would disagree, but that also depends on your budget also. Well i hope this helps
bob

[imago57]

sorry but I don't see an active link. Can you please doble check?
thanks

[imago57]

wlahc1 wrote:
you guys are forgetting a great new lense from canon the new 24-70 2.8 lens comming out this moth well it shoudl be out already, this would be the perfect lense for you. I dobut other would disagree, but that also depends on your budget also. Well i hope this helps
bob

With all due rispect, once I decided to spend that kind of money why shouldn't I get the 35-350L? I've only heard good thinks about it.

[reittila]

imago57 wrote:
wlahc1 wrote:
you guys are forgetting a great new lense from canon the new 24-70 2.8 lens comming out this moth well it shoudl be out already, this would be the perfect lense for you. I dobut other would disagree, but that also depends on your budget also. Well i hope this helps
bob

With all due rispect, once I decided to spend that kind of money why shouldn't I get the 35-350L? I've only heard good thinks about it.

D60 sensor size is 1.6 times smaller compared with 35mm film frame and because of that you might want to have a lens with wider angle than 35mm can give you. (Just a thought)

[imago57]

D60 sensor size is 1.6 times smaller compared with 35mm film frame and because of that you might want to have a lens with wider angle than 35mm can give you. (Just a thought)[/quote]


This is a very good point. It looks like I can't possibly get away with carrying just one lens, since I know that I make great use of zoom above up and above 200 mm and I am aware of the probable need of a wide angle lens (especially for landscapes, etc.).
But maybe a longer zoom (like a 35-350 or 70-200) and a prime wide angle (like a 20 mm) will be a better choice, since prime wide angle lenses tend to run smaller and lighter than long focal lenses. Am I making any sense here?

[imago57]

D60 sensor size is 1.6 times smaller compared with 35mm film frame and because of that you might want to have a lens with wider angle than 35mm can give you. (Just a thought)

Thank you for the suggestion, it was kind of bugging me for a while. I guess I just need to come to terms with the fact that I will not be able to get away with going out with just one lens after all. In this case maybe the best solution would be to take a long focal zoom (like the 35-350 mm or a 70-200 mm) together with a prime wide angle (like a 20 mm) for landscape etc. , since a prime wide angle is usually smaller and lighter to carry.
What do you think?

[Morden]

In this case maybe the best solution would be to take a long focal zoom (like the 35-350 mm or a 70-200 mm) together with a prime wide angle (like a 20 mm) for landscape etc. , since a prime wide angle is usually smaller and lighter to carry.
I currently posses only two lenses, the 28-135 mm IS and the 70-200 mm f2.8 L, and I am going for a decent wide angle (eith prime or zoom) next. A good wide angle zoom will fill the 'gap' in the ranges I can cover.
Of course, I would like to have more lenses at my disposal, but I have only recently started into the world of SLR, and these things cost money!

[Ken Fong]

Because of the D60's 1.6 magnification factor, I need to consider something "ultrawide" just to get "wide", so I am looking at the 16-35mm zoom, a bit pricey at just over $1200. My other existing lenses are a Canon 28-135 w/ISM and Sigma 70-200mm. I figure with a 1.4x or 2x converter, I should have the main ranges covered for travel. At the widest end I would have (16x1.6) 25mm, and if I left the Sigma at home, I could still get (135 x 1.6 x 2) 432mm on the Canon 28-135 with 2x converter. So that would be a total of 3 lens components to pack (16-35mm, 28-135, and a 2x converter.)

Also, if you need to save $, I read that it's okay to buy an 'inferior' ultrawide that has poor quality on the edges because this is cropped off anyway in a D60. However, if you ever plan to upgrade to a full-frame sensor camera (no 1.6x factor) in the near future, you should probably pay the extra money for a high quality wide angle now.

Hope this helps,
Ken