1 travel lens for SL1: Reach vs Speed

So I'm looking for a "1 lens solution" for my SL1 for compact traveling. I find the 18-55 IS STM surprisingly good optically, but it's kind of in between. Not quite fast enough (for moving subjects anyways) at times and not enough reach at times.

Generally speaking, in your experiences, what do you find more valuable in traveling? Speed or reach? I'm wondering if I should look at something like the Siggy 17-50 f/2.8, or a superzoom like the 18-200.

I love my Sigma 17-50 2.8. By speed, do you mean AF speed? The 17-50 does pretty well with moving objects but it also has a lot to do with the camera too. It is a pretty large/heavy lens too. It's going to depend on the type of travel you are doing and what the purpose of the traveling is. For me, I like using my 24 2.8 pancake on my SL1 for its tiny size.

For you, I might suggest the 18-135 STM. Similar to what you are using now but more reach. If you are concerned with low light capabilities, then I'd go with something in the 2.8 family. But your lens is going to be larger and heavy and most people that use an SL1 for travel do so for its small size. I guess we need more specifics?

depends on what I am doing that day, I take my sigma 17-50, 55-250, 24-105 and 10-18. I almost always have the 10-18 on me and pick one of the others depending on what im doing that day.

Forgot to mention, just get one of the pancake lenses for your SL1. Even if you don't use it as your main travel lens, you can still throw it in your pocket! This way, you could use a longer zoom and have one of the shorter pancakes for those tighter areas or for wider shots.

15-85. Loved mine. You are now spoiled for choice with small light cheap primes to supplement it. Just add either the 24 mm, 40 mm or new 50 STM & you're set. Or buy all 3. Cheap enough.

Edit -I'm extremely tempted to buy another crop camera again. With the latest batch of lenses Canon have released, one can build a very very competent system for not a lot of money. When you consider lenses such as the 10-18 IS, 24, 40, & 50 STM's, 55-250 STM & 18-135 STM.
An updated SL1 (with just a few more cross AF points ) would tip me over the edge for sure

the 85mm 1.8 is not any bigger than the 18-55, combine that with the EF-S 24mm pancake and either the 40mm pancake or the brand new 50mm 1.8 STM (it's really surprisingly small) and you have a nice kit that is incredibly compact. That would give you lots of reach and speed and not sacrifice much portability.

if you really need portable, you could get the 85 and one pancake.

I travel with SL1, 10-18 stm, 18-135 stm and the 55-250 stm...They are all lightweight and easy to travel with and give excellent results

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17554049
the 85mm 1.8 is not any bigger than the 18-55, combine that with the EF-S 24mm pancake and either the 40mm pancake or the brand new 50mm 1.8 STM (it's really surprisingly small) and you have a nice kit that is incredibly compact. That would give you lots of reach and speed and not sacrifice much portability.

if you really need portable, you could get the 85 and one pancake.

Not really seeing the logic here. If you're going to carry a larger heavier lens, why not carry one with a bit of range? 135 equivalent is not going to get a lot of use traveling, & would be rather restrictive imo. The 15-85 is fantastic for that type of use. Goldilocks lens. Just wide enough, & just long enough. Only need something for lower lighting conditions then.

a really good travel combo would be the 6D + 24-105 if it were just one lens. Other than that, a 17-5x f2.8 fits the bill nicely as well, however not as much reach, and not as wide.

My 60D with the EFS 18-200 and the Sigma 8-16 is my light travel kit. The 18-200 is surprisingly good, sharp lens. You will not mistake it for the 24-70 MkII or the 70-200 MkII, but still... Here is a 100% crop comparison with the vaunted 24-70 MkII.

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …ison_zps4bd2a96​f.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …view_zps835019d​a.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …Ben1_zps710a5f3​3.jpg.html

A friend here in Japan swears by the newer 18-135mm STM lens.
He has it paired with the USA T3i and it's great.
He recently bought the new 10-18 and that is also a winner.

He has spent much less on gear than I have, and the only limits the wide DOF in his photos.
On another note, I do much more evening and late-night street photography than him.

How about the Tamron 18-270 VC. I had the original version & got good results & I've read the newer version is sharper with faster AF. Shot this Air Show with mine.

http://plus.google.com …50860237280465?​banner=pwa

If the AF can lock onto moving targets doing that it should meet most 1 lens needs.

I think it really depends on the destination. There are trips that I would be perfectly fine with the 18-135 STM, there are also trips I'd be perfectly fine with the 55-250 STM, and there are trips I'd be fine with the 40mm f/2.8. It really depends on your specific trip. If I had to chose one lens, to use for the rest of my vacation life with an SL1, it would likely be the 18-135 STM. It's light, has enormous focal range, has reasonable minimum magnification (.28X), has more than reasonable IS, and is quite affordable.

MakisM1 wrote in post #17554136
My 60D with the EFS 18-200 and the Sigma 8-16 is my light travel kit.

The 8-16 is in a class by itself... very sharp lens

Interesting. Do you have any more 8-16 shots posted anywhere? I have the EFM 11-22 & an EOS M, & the 11-22 has me quite reluctant to walk away from it.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17553824
So I'm looking for a "1 lens solution" for my SL1 for compact traveling. I find the 18-55 IS STM surprisingly good optically, but it's kind of in between. Not quite fast enough (for moving subjects anyways) at times and not enough reach at times.

Generally speaking, in your experiences, what do you find more valuable in traveling? Speed or reach? I'm wondering if I should look at something like the Siggy 17-50 f/2.8, or a superzoom like the 18-200.

Heya,

Depends on where you travel, what you're doing, and what you are shooting. I find that the last thing I need tons of, when traveling, is reach. There's a difference though. Sometimes we travel for photography, in which case, I just take everything and lack nothing. Other times, we travel to travel and photography is 2nd to the actual experience, in which case, I compromise taking everything and reduce it down so that I can still have fun and experience the moment, and not just be disconnected from it, documenting it. For example, if I were traveling to Alaska for the purpose of wildlife and all that, I'd take my 600mm, no questions asked. But if I'm going to the beach for a few days, I'm just taking a small light travel setup with maybe one lens tops.

So for me, when I travel, be it going out on the town, or to an event, or on a vacation some where, I'd rather take a light, fast setup that is more wide angle, rather than something heavier, bulkier and with lots of reach. I love fast primes, but when I'm traveling, I care less about that and care more about context and capturing moments, scenes, etc. Wider angle and stopped down aperture is more common for me, when traveling.

I used to use an APS-C and a 10-22 for most of my travel needs. But these days, I'm using the EOS-M with 22 F2 pancake more for my "travel" camera. I don't take any other lenses. I find wide angle does it all in the situations where I'm traveling and photography is not the reason I'm traveling there. Again, if I were going some where with photography as the purpose, I'd not need a travel setup and I'd just take everything.

Where you travel matters though. Telephoto focal ranges can be very important in some places where everything is very spread out and huge distant things, like mountains, gorges, massive monuments from a distance, etc. Places where you're not immediately near what you're photographing, and need the telephoto so that your image isn't just a tiny spec due to wide angle. If you're traveling some where, where you're immediately near everything you're shooting, then wider angles are fine.

Personally, I love taking a wide angle and serious ND stopping power. Kind of weird. But thing thing is, with a 10 stop or 16 stop ND setup that is small and transportable, you can take images of things where people are, without the people showing up, like magic, thanks to very long exposure photography (7 minute exposures for example).

My current travel buddy is the EOS-M with 22F2, UltraPod II (mini pocket tripod), and a CPL and a strong 10 stop ND filter, with a little wireless shutter system. I leave everything in a bag except the camera. The UltraPod II is for selfies with family and for long exposure stuff when needed.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oq7z​AG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/os9t​L8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/p91w​So

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pW9h​Pr