Gone FF and Traveling Light

Hello All, long time lurker, first time poster. After about 3 years with my Canon T2i, I've bitten the bullet and currently have a 5D3 on the way - and for now i'm looking to only run with 2 lenses. After reading countless threads on here, I'm in a quandry as to what zoom and prime to get. I pretty much take pictures of people and architecture/city landscapes. And in a few months, I'll be headed to Italy. Right now I'm eyeing the 24-70 L II, and 85 L II. I like the idea of staying light on the lenses and just work to master a prime and a zoom for now. It looks like the 17-40 is highly recommended for travel, but my better half is not keen on the curvature of the sides. So for now to appease her, I'm ruling that one out.

So I'm looking out to everyone here on their thoughts as to what 2 lenses you would recommend, in particular for travel and possible portrait. Thanks everyone!

My equipment right now - Canon T2i | Canon 50m f/1.8 | Tamron 18-270 f/3.5 | 18-55 f/3.5 kit lens

17-40 at long end has little curvature if people are at the edges. It's also a lot lighter than 24-70. I would get that plus an 85, 100, or 135 for portrait.

Hi and welcome to POTN.

Wow. $4k in lenses for travel? And they're not exactly light. If it were me, I'd be looking at a lighter zoom and prime. (I personally think that my 28-105II is a great little lens. Yeah, I've owned much more expensive lenses, but I've come to realize that they're not necessary to my style of photography. Fwiw, I'm pragmatic to the point of being boring. )

So, I'm going to recommend something along the lines of a 24-105 IS (or the 28-135IS or 28-105II) and maybe the 85/1.8. The advantages of the two lenses are: longer range on the zoom with f/4 being pretty shallow on a FF body (roughly equivalent to f/2.5 on your cropper, iirc), IS and lighter weight. While the prime is smaller, lighter, much faster to focus, and IQ is superb. I'd also bring the 50/1.8 since it's so small and light.

So, there's my 2 cents. Good luck and safe travels.

Thank you very much! I was also looking at the 24-105, but I was wondering if the f4 would prevent me from taking crisp pictures inside of dark places like churches. I seem to take a lot of those.

framedinaustin wrote in post #15673896
Thank you very much! I was also looking at the 24-105, but I was wondering if the f4 would prevent me from taking crisp pictures inside of dark places like churches. I seem to take a lot of those.

I believe the IS of the 24-105 will serve you better than the f/2.8 of the 24-70II in that instance.

The 50 1.4 is so small and light it's hard to argue against bringing it. 50mm is so close to 35-70 that it's redundant to bring a 24-70 as well, so if you must bring a zoom, let it be the 16-35.

16-35 (or 24L)
50 1.4
135L (or 85L)

I think that's the ideal minimalist travel kit. Buy the hood for your 50 1.4 and never take it off, that way you don't have to worry about the AF motor being damaged while the lens is stowed, or remember to focus it to infinity after use. Same goes for the 85L

Traveling light? Possibly a 24-105 attached and a CF tripod ?

Wecome to POTN...

The 24-105 f4 Lis as your walkaround, and the new sigma 35 1.4 for low light. its so sharp you'll cut your finger on it.
Honetly though, for portraits you would be better served with the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 on budget, 85L if funds are not an issue.

Safe and enjoyable travels

5d3 +pancake = light. I can see using that setup alone when on vacation. Good enough in low light, small and discrete.

Hi had the same issue when i jumped from a 40D to a 5D MkII. I took the leap of faith & bought the 24-105L for my walk around lens & have never regretted it. I used it on my trip to NY & it gave me great reach when i needed it but also having IS for low light hand held shooting in a city like NY it was money well spent. With your 5d III you will have even better ISO quality, you will get great hand held shots.

The 24-105L is my travel lens. It covers a great range and is reasonably small and light.

The 85L II ranks pretty close to my "most likely to be left at home when travelling" lens. It's failrly big and heavy for a prime, and I very rarely need such an extreme aperture in a telephoto while travelling.

Going to travel and want to be light in lens? Any fifty prime will do.
I traveled with 50 1.8 and old tiny 50 1.4 MF lens. Both worked as portrait lens too.

If I'll think of new photo gear for travel now, it will be not DSLR, most likely.

Thanks everyone for their thoughts, it sounds like the 24-105L gets overwhelming endorsement. I think I may have to go with that and possibly a 50 1.4.

framedinaustin wrote in post #15673896
Thank you very much! I was also looking at the 24-105, but I was wondering if the f4 would prevent me from taking crisp pictures inside of dark places like churches. I seem to take a lot of those.

I shoot with a 7D and a Sigma 17-70 OS (roughly the same focal range as the 24-105) and I can tell you that you should have absolutely no problem with the 5D3 and 24-105L IS in dark churches. I used my combo in dark churches in Spain and was amazed at what I could do with high ISO and OS. I was able to hand-hold at 70 mm, f/4 and 1/8 sec at ISO 6400 and get very, very usable photos. In fact, it became a bit of fun in that I would take photos so that my wife and son could see some of the details that we couldn't see because it was too dark!

With even better high ISO performance of the 5D3 and very effective IS on the 24-105L, I think that you are set with that camera/lens combination.

Tim

framedinaustin wrote in post #15674687
Thanks everyone for their thoughts, it sounds like the 24-105L gets overwhelming endorsement. I think I may have to go with that and possibly a 50 1.4.

This is just me personally but on travels, I don't want to have to worry about swapping lenses, that's why I think the 24-105 is the most versatile of them all. Great lens as well, as used by many many users here!