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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Jul 2014 (Thursday) 07:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-105mm, Is the 105mm end enough for travel photo?

 
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,670 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3960
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Jul 25, 2014 12:26 |  #31

Hogloff wrote in post #17055249 (external link)
I think "HE" can answer better for himself rather than your interpretation.

Also, the following quote is what I was referring to which my response directly addressed.

Personally the 24-105L is a good walk around, but I wouldn't want it for travel. I'd rather have a compact for travel so I have less to fool with and can actually enjoy my vacation and not just constantly fumble with a big SLR and lens. I have my EOS-M for this.

Well, lets see, this is what he quoted...

komGR wrote in post #17052648 (external link)
Hi guys,
I am curious about Canon 24-105mm (mounted on 6D).
First, is the telephoto end of this lens enough for the travel photography or is it short? I know that 70-200mm would solve the problem, but I am just really lazy when it comes to changing the lenses and carrying another weight. I don't want to have that feeling of missing something, I mean if I can use the lens for 90% of time, that's enough for me. I found some poll here on this forum about best walkaround lens, where the 24-105 was a winner, but I am more interested about your expereinces with that 105mm end.
And second, in worst case scenario in which I am going to need that longer reach, i have old 450D, so the 24-105 on crop body becomes 38-168mm lens. How about this solution? Anyone has experience with this?

And here's what he said about it...

MalVeauX wrote in post #17053448 (external link)
You sound like someone who doesn't really want the benefits of a dSLR and simply wants an all-in-one solution. You don't want the bulk & weight. But you don't want to actually use the real feature of an SLR, which is the ability to interchange lenses.

Sell everything, get an SL1 with an 18-200 lens.
Or sell everything and just get a good zoom super P&S.


Personally the 24-105L is a good walk around, but I wouldn't want it for travel. I'd rather have a compact for travel so I have less to fool with and can actually enjoy my vacation and not just constantly fumble with a big SLR and lens. I have my EOS-M for this.

Very best,

I like to take good gear with me on my trips too, it's why I have a competent mirrorless kit now. Given that the TS says he doesn't like to change lenses though, I think he'd be more well suited with a good super-zoom/bridge camera. The Sony RX100m3 and RX10 come to mind.

But, if he want's to stick with using the gear he already owns, I think the 24-105L will do him just fine.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dave ­ Jenkins
Senior Member
Avatar
606 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2007
Location: The Beautiful Northwest Georgia Mountains!
     
Jul 25, 2014 19:43 |  #32

I had some correspondence recently with noted travel photographer Gerald Brimacombe http://www.geraldbrima​combe.com/ (external link). After experimenting with mirrorless systems to save weight, here's the conclusion he came to:

"I have made reductions in the amount of equipment I carry on a travel shoot. As a long-time Nikon user, I am currently using the full-frame Nikon D600 with the new and very sharp 24-120mm f4 Nikon zoom lens. I also just recently acquired the newly released 80-400mm f4.5/5.6 Nikon zoom, which is incredibly sharp and compact if somewhat on the heavier side. I will be going on a European shoot soon, but I will not be dragging the 80-400 along, restricting its use to more domestic driving trips. In past years, I have dragged longer, bigger lenses on major trips abroad, and typically would only use them maybe once or twice during the whole shoot. . . . . no more! I have learned to work within the range of the 24-120 with considerable success. Working with the very high resolving power of the D600, one can crop in a surprising amount to gain a longer lens result with little or no loss in quality. (And) I only carry one body!"

Of course, 105mm is not quite as long as 120mm, but I think Brimacombe's point is well taken. You can shoot most of what you will want to shoot within the range of 24-105mm, and when you occasionally need to get a little closer you can crop those 6D files quite a bit before quality loss becomes noticeable. After all, I had only a 20D when I went to Italy in 2005, and 16x20 prints from that eight megapixel sensor are just beautiful.


Dave Jenkins
<'}}}}><
My newest book: Backroads and Byways of Georgia. See it at amazon.com.
Travel and People: www.davidbjenkins.com
My award winning book: Rock City Barns: A Passing Era. 29,000 copies sold.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,207 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6286
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 25, 2014 19:58 |  #33

Dave Jenkins wrote in post #17056366 (external link)
I had some correspondence recently with noted travel photographer Gerald Brimacombe http://www.geraldbrima​combe.com/ (external link). After experimenting with mirrorless systems to save weight, here's the conclusion he came to:

"I have made reductions in the amount of equipment I carry on a travel shoot. As a long-time Nikon user, I am currently using the full-frame Nikon D600 with the new and very sharp 24-120mm f4 Nikon zoom lens. I also just recently acquired the newly released 80-400mm f4.5/5.6 Nikon zoom, which is incredibly sharp and compact if somewhat on the heavier side. I will be going on a European shoot soon, but I will not be dragging the 80-400 along, restricting its use to more domestic driving trips. In past years, I have dragged longer, bigger lenses on major trips abroad, and typically would only use them maybe once or twice during the whole shoot. . . . . no more! I have learned to work within the range of the 24-120 with considerable success. Working with the very high resolving power of the D600, one can crop in a surprising amount to gain a longer lens result with little or no loss in quality. (And) I only carry one body!"

Of course, 105mm is not quite as long as 120mm, but I think Brimacombe's point is well taken. You can shoot most of what you will want to shoot within the range of 24-105mm, and when you occasionally need to get a little closer you can crop those 6D files quite a bit before quality loss becomes noticeable. After all, I had only a 20D when I went to Italy in 2005, and 16x20 prints from that eight megapixel sensor are just beautiful.

I somewhat agree. 105 being the longest is pretty good for 98% of the time. For the other 2%, you can probably get away with a zoom like the canon/tamron 70-300 consumer lens. Small, decent reach, fairly light. Another possible option is a prime like the 40mm pancake. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea, but if you want to shed weight while retaining excellent optics, it's certainly a good all around lens. Get something longer if it calls for it.

I typically travel heavy because I can handle a certain amount of weight. A 24-70 + FF DSLR, can can typically wing all day. Shorter amount of time, I'de add another fast prime.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,066 posts
Gallery: 123 photos
Likes: 4325
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 25, 2014 20:15 |  #34

Dave Jenkins wrote in post #17056366 (external link)
I had some correspondence recently with noted travel photographer Gerald Brimacombe http://www.geraldbrima​combe.com/ (external link). After experimenting with mirrorless systems to save weight, here's the conclusion he came to:

"I have made reductions in the amount of equipment I carry on a travel shoot. As a long-time Nikon user, I am currently using the full-frame Nikon D600 with the new and very sharp 24-120mm f4 Nikon zoom lens. I also just recently acquired the newly released 80-400mm f4.5/5.6 Nikon zoom, which is incredibly sharp and compact if somewhat on the heavier side. I will be going on a European shoot soon, but I will not be dragging the 80-400 along, restricting its use to more domestic driving trips. In past years, I have dragged longer, bigger lenses on major trips abroad, and typically would only use them maybe once or twice during the whole shoot. . . . . no more! I have learned to work within the range of the 24-120 with considerable success. Working with the very high resolving power of the D600, one can crop in a surprising amount to gain a longer lens result with little or no loss in quality. (And) I only carry one body!"

Of course, 105mm is not quite as long as 120mm, but I think Brimacombe's point is well taken. You can shoot most of what you will want to shoot within the range of 24-105mm, and when you occasionally need to get a little closer you can crop those 6D files quite a bit before quality loss becomes noticeable. After all, I had only a 20D when I went to Italy in 2005, and 16x20 prints from that eight megapixel sensor are just beautiful.

Agree. 24-105 usually very good at 105. Crop a 6D image to APS-C and you get about 8MP so probably similar results as a 20D with around 170mm focal length. For me, taking 24-105 on a trip, it's more a question of can I live with the weaker wide end. Depends on personal choice and location, more often if trying to minimize equipment I'd take new 16-35 F4 IS and one or more of 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 200 2.8 prime.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clacson
Member
60 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Southern Finland
     
Jul 26, 2014 02:09 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #35

I was just two weeks in UK. I had the 6D with 24-105 with me, only shortcomings where in the Le Tour de France stages when you have to stay far from the route, then I missed my heavy 70-200 f/4L (should I have time to change the lens, I'll doubt).
Because I have an EOS M (the limits are known), I'll might buy the new EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 for it and use it when the 6D/24-105 is not enough and let the 70-200 go.
Ok, I like to have the 16-35 f/4L, too.

This was my two €cents.


| Canon EOS 6D | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM |
| Canon EOS M | EF-M 11-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, EOS EF-M adapter |
| Film Age: Canon EOS 33v, Canon EOS 5 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
michgirl
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 26, 2014 07:41 |  #36

MalVeauX wrote in post #17053448 (external link)
You sound like someone who doesn't really want the benefits of a dSLR and simply wants an all-in-one solution. You don't want the bulk & weight. But you don't want to actually use the real feature of an SLR, which is the ability to interchange lenses.

I have to disagree with this - the DSLR has MANY benefits, especially the full frame. Fantastic pictures with great color, detail and depth. The ability to shoot with complete control of settings, exposure, etc. is the ability to create beautiful and dramatic pictures.

I try to keep my set up as light as possible and usually only take one lens with me. It doesn't mean I would rather have a P&S, it means I love the capability of my camera and the ability to use just one lens to capture a variety of shots. I choose my lens beforehand, depending on where I am going and what I want to shoot.

The 24-105mm is great 'do everything lens' and is usually the one I choose when on vacation or taking candid photos. There is nothing wrong with a person only wanting to use one lens and doesn't mean they shouldn't own a DSLR.


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Jul 26, 2014 09:24 |  #37

I took the 24-105 and 70-200 to Nepal last year. I occasionally used the 70-200 around Kathmandu for street photography but didn't use it once when trekking. If anything, I would have killed for my new 16-35.


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,670 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3960
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
Jul 26, 2014 11:16 |  #38

michgirl wrote in post #17057080 (external link)
I have to disagree with this - the DSLR has MANY benefits, especially the full frame. Fantastic pictures with great color, detail and depth. The ability to shoot with complete control of settings, exposure, etc. is the ability to create beautiful and dramatic pictures.

I try to keep my set up as light as possible and usually only take one lens with me. It doesn't mean I would rather have a P&S, it means I love the capability of my camera and the ability to use just one lens to capture a variety of shots. I choose my lens beforehand, depending on where I am going and what I want to shoot.

The 24-105mm is great 'do everything lens' and is usually the one I choose when on vacation or taking candid photos. There is nothing wrong with a person only wanting to use one lens and doesn't mean they shouldn't own a DSLR.

When's the last time you used a bridge camera though? Or looked into the mirrorless market?

The gap isn't nearly as big as most people think. In good light a bridge camera can produce some excellent photos. Sensors in these cameras are getting as large as 1" (about the size of m43), which isn't that far off from APS-C. If I were traveling again though, I'd for sure only be bringing my mirrorless setup, mostly because of the ease of use/comfort of controls as you mentioned.


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-H1 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)www.LucasGPhoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
michgirl
Goldmember
1,308 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
     
Jul 26, 2014 18:47 |  #39

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17057417 (external link)
When's the last time you used a bridge camera though? Or looked into the mirrorless market?

The gap isn't nearly as big as most people think. In good light a bridge camera can produce some excellent photos. Sensors in these cameras are getting as large as 1" (about the size of m43), which isn't that far off from APS-C. If I were traveling again though, I'd for sure only be bringing my mirrorless setup, mostly because of the ease of use/comfort of controls as you mentioned.

I am very happy with what I already have. I was only responding to the post stating that the only reason to have a DSLR is to change the lens. That is not the only reason, I was pointing out, there are very many good reasons to own a DSLR.

I like my lens and my lens collection. They each have their place. Usually when I am going to use my camera, I already know the conditions and what I want to accomplish. This makes it much easier to choose my lens. And when unsure, I also bring my EOS M.


Robin
Canon 6d / EF Lens: 24mm-105mm / 40mm f/2.8 / 28mm f/1.8 / 50mm f/1.8 / 85mm 1.8
Canon T6i / EFs Lens: 24mm Pancake / 18-55mm STM / 18-135mm STM / 55-250mm STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kenwood33
Goldmember
2,609 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2005
     
Jul 26, 2014 18:57 |  #40

consider getting a 18-200 on your crop body, its cheap at <350 and you don't need to baby it when traveling.


Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Jul 26, 2014 20:13 |  #41

kenwood33 wrote in post #17058080 (external link)
consider getting a 18-200 on your crop body, its cheap at <350 and you don't need to baby it when traveling.

I think this is a good idea. Although I would also add something like the new 10-18mm and cover everything my FF could from 16-320mm!


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 26, 2014 20:37 |  #42

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17057417 (external link)
When's the last time you used a bridge camera though? Or looked into the mirrorless market?

The gap isn't nearly as big as most people think. In good light a bridge camera can produce some excellent photos. Sensors in these cameras are getting as large as 1" (about the size of m43), which isn't that far off from APS-C.

In fact the 1" sensor in the Sony RX10 and other cameras is 13.2mm x 8.8mm or around 16mm on the diagonal, nowhere near an inch.

As it happens, a few days ago I bought an RX10 for travel, but was under no illusion about the sensor size. I don't rely on shallow depth of field much in my shooting style for that kind of shooting, or I might have chosen a standard zoom for a DSLR instead. The EVF is horrid, as expected, but I can use it with my glasses, which is a big win when travelling as futzing with contact lenses is time-consuming.

I agree with michgirl that a DSLR+single zoom is a perfectly valid solution. I did consider it, and the bridge camera won because those trips for which photography is a minority component are also the ones where the camera will be left in cloaks for museums, concerts etc., and I don't want to be carrying and cloaking a heavy and expensive DSLR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kpritts
Senior Member
Avatar
329 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2010
     
Jul 27, 2014 15:55 as a reply to  @ melcat's post |  #43

The 24-105L was my first L lens years ago. After a lot of time (and $$$) building my lens collection I found that I was not using it as I preferred the 24-70 II for portraits when I used a zoom or sports sideline photos.

I tried it with the SL1 for travel lens because I really liked it but still found it an awkward balance in weight (for my tastes). I kept the SL1, sold the 24-105L and got an 18-135 STM for travel photography. For the SL1 I really like the combination in sharpness, light weight and overall ease of use.

Just my opinion. I have not used an 18-200 so I cannot speak on that. I really loved the 24-105L but in time other things filled the gaps in my collection so I really didn't use it. Only you can really decide what works for your situation. Good luck.


KDPritts Photography (http://kdpritts.com (external link))
Canon 1D Mark IV, 60D; Canon EF 16-35L II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 24-105L, 70-200 f2.8L II, 100 f2.8L macro, 100-400L, 300 f2.8L; Canon 1.4x III extender; Travel Kit: EOS M2, 11-22, 18-55, 22, 55-200.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1034
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 28, 2014 08:48 |  #44

I sometimes just travelled with my 50L ;)


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1034
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 28, 2014 08:50 |  #45

kpritts wrote in post #17059783 (external link)
The 24-105L was my first L lens years ago. After a lot of time (and $$$) building my lens collection I found that I was not using it as I preferred the 24-70 II for portraits when I used a zoom or sports sideline photos.

I tried it with the SL1 for travel lens because I really liked it but still found it an awkward balance in weight (for my tastes). I kept the SL1, sold the 24-105L and got an 18-135 STM for travel photography. For the SL1 I really like the combination in sharpness, light weight and overall ease of use.

Just my opinion. I have not used an 18-200 so I cannot speak on that. I really loved the 24-105L but in time other things filled the gaps in my collection so I really didn't use it. Only you can really decide what works for your situation. Good luck.

Holy cow you almost own every canon lens :eek:


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

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

5,992 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105mm, Is the 105mm end enough for travel photo?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mentalcare
1557 guests, 294 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.