What Lens(es) Would You Have To Take On This Trip?

After just purchasing a Canon 70D, an 18-55 IS STM, and a 55-250 IS STM, I plan to go to a Carribean Island soon. () There are so many things that I would like to photograph there.... the seascape, landscape, colorful buildings, wildlife and birds. I'm wondering if the 18-55 will do for the wider photos? I don't really want to spend any more money on equipment right now, but I don't want to regret not buying/bringing an appropriate lens either.

I am still learning, so my photos won't be magazine-worthy or anything but I would still like to get the best photos that I can. I definitely plan to do a lot of practicing down there.

So, I guess my questions is: do you think the 18-55 and the 55-250 will do me just fine? Or do you think I would be disappointed if I don't buy another lens for the trip? (I'm thinking the 15-85 or the 10-18 would be suitable to have.) What lens would you say is a must-have for this type of trip?

-Melissa

I think you have what is needed. I would practice ahead of the trip, and not while on the trip.
The only suugestion for additional gear is to buy a polarizing filter, and a tripod.

Sibil wrote in post #17250502
I think you have what is needed. I would practice ahead of the trip, and not while on the trip.
The only suugestion for additional gear is to buy a polarizing filter, and a tripod.

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, I have been trying my best to do some practicing before leaving. But, the weather really is not cooperating here lately. :/ (Also, I have enjoyed photographing for years, but always in "auto" on my 350D with the kit lens.)

I do have a tripod, which I plan to take, and I plan to get a polarizing filter.

The 10-18mm might be very nice to have for scenic shots!

Other than that, use what you've got. They are quite capable lenses.

Get lens hoods for all your lenses. You also might want to get a quality 67mm filter to use for scenic shots with the 10-18mm... a quality filter such as the B+W Kaësemann MRC costs close to $100 in that size, but is worth it for the best image quality, IMO.

If you were really, really serious about bird and wildlife photos, I'd recommend getting a longer and faster focusing lens such as the 100-400mm, but that's a lot of money and a larger lens to haul around, too. You might be able to rent one.

15-85 is much more convenient.. Less lens swapping and you probably won't need wider.

Although I have no experience with either of the two lenses you already have, they are highly regarded by other members of this forum. I recommend sticking with them. I would suggest, however, if you are considering other lenses, check out the ultra-wide 10-18EFS-STM, which also has a good reputation. An alternative might be the Rokinon 8mm fisheye. It is cheap but excellent. And with the right software, you can "defish" its images if you prefer. I have had good luck doing this with mine.

If you need to travel with only one lens, the 15-85, already suggested by others, would be a good choice.

You have absolutely everything you need. You've only just bought your equipment. The trip will be a great opportunity to practise with it. Don't buy another lens; your 18 mm is plenty wide enough for now, and your 55-250 will do a nice job with wildlife and birds. You need to get out there and start taking photographs before spending more money - so you'll know where to spend it. It would be overkill to buy another lens now.

When I started out, I shot with an 18-55 and 55-250 combination for almost a year before buying anything else. And when I eventually spent more money, I knew exactly what I wanted and why I wanted it. Take the time to learn what you enjoy photographing.

And enjoy your trip!

For my ten cents I would recommend a circular polarising filter for the lenses. They help enormously in removing distracting reflections from sea scapes and the like.

Thanks for your input, everyone.

amfoto1 wrote in post #17250516
Get lens hoods for all your lenses. You also might want to get a quality 67mm filter to use for scenic shots with the 10-18mm... a quality filter such as the B+W Kaësemann MRC costs close to $100 in that size, but is worth it for the best image quality, IMO.

Thanks for that info. When would you suggest I use the lens hood? For wider shots that include the sky or beach? Or for the majority of the time? (I realize that it's purpose is to block some of the light.)

Also, I realize that the filter would be for photographing the water... would a lens hood be used at the same time as the filter?

ceegee wrote in post #17250582
You have absolutely everything you need. You've only just bought your equipment. The trip will be a great opportunity to practise with it. Don't buy another lens; your 18 mm is plenty wide enough for now, and your 55-250 will do a nice job with wildlife and birds. You need to get out there and start taking photographs before spending more money - so you'll know where to spend it. It would be overkill to buy another lens now.

When I started out, I shot with an 18-55 and 55-250 combination for almost a year before buying anything else. And when I eventually spent more money, I knew exactly what I wanted and why I wanted it. Take the time to learn what you enjoy photographing.

And enjoy your trip!

Thanks. I think you're right. That's probably why I've been hesitant to buy another lens in addition to the two that I have.

The lenses you have will do good. Going wide, with a 10-18 for example, will allow you some amazing shots. Be aware though that I think I read that a circular polarizing filter on such a wide lens will actually not create a favorable effect across the whole sky. I believe you will have a noticeable gradient or something like that. At least that is what I found out when I researched one for my 10-22.

Melissa6 wrote in post #17250469
After just purchasing a Canon 70D, an 18-55 IS STM, and a 55-250 IS STM, I plan to go to a Carribean Island soon. () There are so many things that I would like to photograph there.... the seascape, landscape, colorful buildings, wildlife and birds. I'm wondering if the 18-55 will do for the wider photos? I don't really want to spend any more money on equipment right now, but I don't want to regret not buying/bringing an appropriate lens either.

I am still learning, so my photos won't be magazine-worthy or anything but I would still like to get the best photos that I can. I definitely plan to do a lot of practicing down there.

So, I guess my questions is: do you think the 18-55 and the 55-250 will do me just fine? Or do you think I would be disappointed if I don't buy another lens for the trip? (I'm thinking the 15-85 or the 10-18 would be suitable to have.) What lens would you say is a must-have for this type of trip?

-Melissa

Heya,

70D with 18-55 STM & 55-250 STM are perfectly good for this kind of stuff. Plenty of width, plenty of length.

Worry more about knowing how to get the shots you want, than buying stuff.

And remember to enjoy the trip.

I will though recommend a good travel tripod. Great for stuff, and selfies.

Very best,

you should be fine...also remember you can stitch together shots if you need to...it won't be the same as an UWA shot, but it can work if all you've got is the 18mm wide end

have fun

No way I'd be satisfied with 18mm on the wide end of a crop camera. I am migrating to full-frame my 17-40 isn't wide enough on that format. You will NEED a 10-18, or something similar when you get there.

Melissa6 wrote in post #17250616
When would you suggest I use the lens hood? For wider shots that include the sky or beach? Or for the majority of the time? (I realize that it's purpose is to block some of the light.)

Its purpose is to block light that hits the lens at a glancing angle steep enough not to be part of the image, but which could be bounced around inside the lens causing unwanted internal reflections ("flare"). The correct hood will never affect your exposure.

I use them all or most of the time on most of my lenses. On some lenses I don't use a hood at all. It depends a bit on the lens - some have a deep bezel which performs some of the same task. And, with zooms, the kind of hood Canon supplies is only completely effective at the widest setting; otherwise, it would need to be adjustable.

I tend not to. Usually you have to remove the hood to fit the filter. With a polarizing filter, you have to turn it to the correct angle, and that's hard to do with the hood on. Once I've adjusted the angle, I only put the hood back on if there's a big risk of flare, which depends on where the sun is.

amfoto1 wrote in post #17250516
...a quality filter such as the B+W Kaësemann MRC costs close to $100 in that size, but is worth it for the best image quality, IMO

The B+W Käsemanns are very nice, and I have two of them, but my 67mm is the cheaper non-Käsemann B+W. The Käsemann just has better weather sealing and should last longer in rough conditions (it's someone's name, "Cheeseman" in English, not some optical effect). I doubt your lenses are weather-sealed, so I don't think you need to spend that much extra on a filter. I can see no image quality difference between the Käsemann and non-Käsemann B+W filters, but a difference between B+W and some lesser brands.

I would take an ultra wide like the 10-18. I used my 10-22 every day for sunrise beach photos. Also used it for some unique architectural shots.
Not the greatest but here is one taken at 10mm on a tripod with an ND filter for an 8 sec exposure.