Bangkok lens dilemma

I know.
I realize.
For a fact.

If I'm only taking one lens with me on my week-long trip to Bangkok, my 24-105 is the most logical decision.


But my affinity for my 35L ceases all logic.

What I own:
5d mkii
17-40 L
24-105 L
35L
45 pancake
135L
Sigma 150 macro

I want to be walking around bangkok with a camera & lens should shoulder.

To clarify, it's a foodie trip. I'm mainly going to eat.If a temple or historical site happen to within two food destinations, so be it.
A bit of exaggeration but my point is it's mostly casual shooting + foodie shots.

The advantage of my 35L is the enormous aperture.
Can use it day , night & indoors in low light conditions.
The advantage of the 24-105 is the versatile zoom range.

I don't intend to take my camera with me very often after the sun sets.

I know I'm better off with my 24-105 but 35 L is faster & smaller.

35L if it was me and a food centric journey. It will gather the light you need for the food and you can zoom with your feet for all the other shots

thanks for your thoughts Lupo

Isn't the "pancake" the best for foodie? Sorry

Why not take both?

Heya,

35L makes tons of sense for your purpose (food). You'll be in very low light and tight spaces. So wide is good and F1.4 is good. Anything too big for your field of view can be handled with a few shots and stitched together like a pano, which is a bit less trouble than trying to carry more lenses, etc.

I would actually take the 17-40 over the 24-105 if you were forced on a zoom. Tight spaces. Close proximity to subjects.

But the 35L makes sense.

Very best,

35L all the way for the food shots...

If you love the 35L, take the 35L.

If you find something non-food related that you'd like to shoot . . . get creative. Trying looking at whatever it is in different ways. Change your perspective: crawl around, get up high. Tilt your camera at funny angles. Experiment with light and shadow. Make the 35L work.

I'm purposfully doing something similar right now . . . I go somewhere and I take a lens that is not really appropriate for where I'm going. It forces me to think differently about my subjects, as I have to use the lens I have with me if I want to create the photograph.

I think it is getting me thinking more about photography again: instead of just working on autopilot. You might find some welcome benefits if you take the 35L and work with it instead of giving up on a subject.

I'm really curious why the restriction on a single lens as well. Seems like the 24-105 and the 35 would make a good pair.

35L will work fine 90% of the time. And something is just fun about having a single 35 prime and going with minimal gear. Bangkok is a great city, but you'll often have busy backgrounds that aren't too attractive. Having the wide aperture of the 35 would melt some of that background away.

24-105 gives you that extra flexibility like you mentioned.

17-40 would give you a nice wide angle, which is useful in the tight spaces of Bangkok (markets, etc). But I think you would miss the ability to do a street portrait at longer focal lengths. I would probably leave this one home.

24-105 and the 40mm pancake is another possible combination. Get a slightly wider aperture and about the same focal length as the 35, and it's an easy second lens to throw in the bag with the 24-105.

Either way you go, have a good trip. If you get a chance, take an evening river boat tour along the Chao Phraya. The Grand Palace and other temples are gorgeous when lit up at night. I have a Flickr album of my trip to Thailand several years ago. At the time I had a 450D with the kit lens and a nifty 50. We spent a month there in Bangkok and towns up-country:

https://www.flickr.com …/albums/7215761​6122391720