Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk
Thread started 26 Mar 2015 (Thursday) 10:51
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Have to travel light with one lens... advice?

 
jrm27
Senior Member
788 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Vail, Co
Mar 26, 2015 10:51 |  #1

Hello all,

In about a month I'll be leaving to hike across Spain for a couple weeks. I need to travel as light as possible as I have to carry everything for the entire trip on my back while hiking between 15 and 20 miles a day. This is probably a once in a lifetime trip for me so I want to bring my DSLR with me (6D). I've got a little point and shoot (s100), but I'd really rather have my DSLR for this experience.

So, with that in mind, I need help figuring out what one lens I should acquire/take. I'm imagining that my subjects will be a mix of the landscapes that I walk across, pictures of buildings/churches, pictures inside said buildings/churches, and random shots of people along the way. In a perfect world, I think my 24-70 could capture 90% of what I'd encounter (it did on my most recent trip to Africa... such a great lens). However, the 24-70 is just too dang heavy to have attached to my backpack strap all day. So, I'm thinking of a fast prime and letting my feet do the zooming as needed.

But, I'm also up for suggestions. I think for me, wider is better, and due to the various conditions I'll encounter something 2.8 or faster. Any thoughts?

-jon


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jrmelot/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
PhotosGuy
Moderator
PhotosGuy's Avatar
74,727 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Feb 2004
Middle of Michigan
Mar 26, 2015 11:03 |  #2

My best advice is to suck it up & take the 24-70.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1280 pixels on any side.

LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,680 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Mar 26, 2015 11:17 |  #3

The 6D has stellar low light performance. I don't think f/2.8 vs 4 is going to be mission critical on that body. I'd be inclined to keep the 24-70 and try to cut a little weight elsewhere. In Europe you won't have any problem finding supplies so you could easily go ultra minimalist with the rest of your kit.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
03062k3
Senior Member
03062k3's Avatar
314 posts
Joined May 2011
canada, eh?
Post has been edited over 2 years ago by 03062k3.
Mar 26, 2015 13:18 |  #4

how about the 24-105/4L? it is weights 30% less than the 24-70/2.8, gives more range on the long end, and has pretty good image quality. the f/4 is only one stop slower so should not be a problem for the 6D given its high iso capabilities. another plus is that it is decently affordable and easy to find on the used market.

alternatively, the 17-40/4L and 50/1.4 combination is smaller and slightly lighter combined than the 24-70/2.8 alone but then you will have to carry two lenses and swap between them.


primary: 6D || 17-40/4L || 24-105/4L || 40/2.8 pancake || 70-200/2.8L is
secondary and travel: eos m || ef-m 18-55/3.5-5.6 || ef-m 22/2 pancake || ef-m to ef/ef-s adapter
flashes: speedlite 430ex ii || speedlite 90ex

LOG IN TO REPLY
tabi_24
Member
Joined Feb 2013
Leesburg, FL
Mar 26, 2015 13:21 |  #5

03062k3 wrote in post #17492919external link
how about the 24-105/4L? it is weights 30% less than the 24-70/2.8, gives more range on the long end, and has pretty good image quality. the f/4 is only one stop slower so should not be a problem for the 6D given its high iso capabilities. another plus is that it is decently affordable and easy to find on the used market.

+1


http://www.foreverafte​rphotography.net (external link)
http://www.tabithaspho​tography.webs.com (external link)
Cameras: Canon 5D Mark ii, Canon 7D, Canon EOS Rebel T2i
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm, 50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f 2.8L IS, 24-105 L f4, Venus Optics Laowa 15mm f4

LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
"Dad was a meat cutter"
BlakeC's Avatar
Joined Jul 2014
West Michigan, USA
Mar 26, 2015 13:29 |  #6

For stuff like that, I bring my SL1 and 40mm pancake. THAT is super small and almost weightless! You could slap the 40 on your 6d and get around pretty well id think. Or, get a zoom and toss the 40mm in your pocket!


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Mar 26, 2015 13:51 |  #7

Typical conflicted question - "I want to travel really light, but want to take a heavy camera".

Maybe you should review your goals. There are fine small cameras available today that take excellent pictures.

The real issue here is perhaps whether you can be parted from your 6D.


Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm/2.8 Zeiss Planar (trying to sell it); Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
jrm27
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
788 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Vail, Co
Mar 26, 2015 14:01 as a reply to Archibald's post |  #8

A valid point. I recently took a trip where, though space was a commodity, it wasn't as much as it will be on this one. I took my 6D, a 5dmkii, and my s100 with the purposes of cost/benefit comparison of this upcoming trip. The s100 is small and takes RAW for editing once i get home, but I just really didn't like shooting with it. I've had it for a few years, so familiarity wasn't too much of an issue... it just wasn't as enjoyable, and th epicture quality when stacked up to the 6d/5dmkii was lacking. The 5dmkii felt too heavy, the 6d felt just right and it's my favorite body to shoot with. So, in theory, I can be parted with my 6D. However the experience and the resulting pictures that i got from the s100 weren't what I was hoping for (at which point I'll blame myself, not the tools). I'd love to buy a smaller lighter camera (heck, I think the eos-m would be great in this situation), however, budgets and long term usability are important to me with so many other expensive acquisitions for this trip. I'd have more use for another lens back home than another camera. Thanks for the input though. It is a very valid question.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jrmelot/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Tommydigi's Avatar
Joined May 2010
Chicago
Mar 26, 2015 14:05 |  #9

You may be better off with a 17-40 if you like wide. Its an inexpensive lens, its light and very good. I personally love it as a general zoom over a 24-XXX. Especially for travel. If you prefer a standard you can look at the 24-70 F4IS or 24-105.

You can always pack a small light prime like the pancake or 50 1.4 as a second option.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
jrm27
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
788 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Vail, Co
Mar 27, 2015 09:22 |  #10

These are all great responses everyone. Thanks. I've got access to a 24-105, and though I shoot sometimes with a 16-35, I've never shot with a 17-40. Maybe I'll find one to borrow and see how I like the f4. I am intrigued by the 40mm pancake. It sounds super light and it seems to be really really affordable, so if it were to break, it's not like losing the usage of a 24-70. Thanks for the ideas all. Please keep them coming!


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jrmelot/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
corndog ­ cabernet
Senior Member
corndog cabernet's Avatar
Joined May 2010
State of chaos
Mar 27, 2015 13:53 |  #11

No great alternative, is what I see.

The lens you have is a great travel lens, except for the weight and bulk.
A 24-70 f4L will save you about 1/2 lb and you'll lose a stop, and you'll have two lenses of the same focal range.
Any UWA zoom will lose you the portrait length.

Also, your 1 lens requirement doesn't allow for an alternate lens if the one on the camera gets damaged or quits working.

Personally, I would probably just carry the 24-70 you already have, with a 40 f2.8 backup, and deal with it.
If you're willing to give up some IQ and versatility, then start looking at a P&S you can live with.




LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
x_tan's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
Mar 27, 2015 16:44 |  #12

Just think a bit different: challenge yourself with just ONE prime lens for this trip; and you will be surprised how good come out.

Also get a very light weight travel carbon tripod - the most important item beyond "tourist shoot".

Happy Traveling :-)


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
corndog ­ cabernet
Senior Member
corndog cabernet's Avatar
Joined May 2010
State of chaos
Mar 27, 2015 17:08 |  #13

The OP described this trip as once in a lifetime.
I for one, wouldn't take but one prime lens on a trip like this. I might take two, maybe three however.

Though I'm a big fan (generally) of using a tripod, when hiking and for convenience an extra lens would trump the tripod easily.
It seems unlikely that since the OP is considering a single lens for weight (and maybe bulk) reasons, it is unlikely he'll want to carry a tripod.




LOG IN TO REPLY
jrm27
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
788 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Vail, Co
Mar 28, 2015 14:07 |  #14

x_tan wrote in post #17494604external link
Just think a bit different: challenge yourself with just ONE prime lens for this trip; and you will be surprised how good come out.

Also get a very light weight travel carbon tripod - the most important item beyond "tourist shoot".

Happy Traveling :-)


Thanks for the insight. Yes, I do like the idea of challenging myself to one lens. Way back in the day (film), I only had one lens and enjoyed shooting with it and not thinking about which lens to pull out of the bag. Interesting take... thanks.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #17494622external link
The OP described this trip as once in a lifetime.
I for one, wouldn't take but one prime lens on a trip like this. I might take two, maybe three however.

Though I'm a big fan (generally) of using a tripod, when hiking and for convenience an extra lens would trump the tripod easily.
It seems unlikely that since the OP is considering a single lens for weight (and maybe bulk) reasons, it is unlikely he'll want to carry a tripod.

Yes, "once in a lifetime trip" would generally have me packing multiple lenses. However, this trip is less about the photography and more about other things. So, I'd like the camera with me to help me remember the trip, but also because photography is one of my favorite things about travel. if it were a photo adventure, it'd be a different story all together. And yes, the weight and bulk will keep me from carrying a tripod. When traveling I usually at least bring my little Sirui tripod. But on this trip, there's just not the space. Plus, we'll be staying in common quarters with lots of folks. I'd rather not strap a tripod on my bag and broadcast that there may be photography gear inside.

Thanks for the insights! Please keep them coming. I'm intrigued by the idea of bringing just one prime. The 40mm sounds cool. If I can find the funds, the 35 f2 sounds like a good option too. If it all goes out the window, I know I can bring my 24-70 and be just fine.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jrmelot/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
elrey2375's Avatar
4,975 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2011
Mar 29, 2015 21:16 |  #15

why not rent a mirrorless camera? Or buy an EM5 and rent a couple of lenses.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/external link
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografiexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

6,892 views & 1 like for this thread
Have to travel light with one lens... advice?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00152 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.1s
Latest registered member is mrmoses
885 guests, 323 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016