Vacation Lenses

After reading through the forums over the last few hours I've come to a few conclusions regarding this subject but I wanted to know if anybody had other suggestions. Until now I've always been a big fan of primes, currently my only zoom is the Sigma 150-600. Regarding travel though I may be taking a few international trips later this year and I feel like primes can be very limiting and hurt the experience by needing to change lenses regularly.

As someone who occasionally makes money from portraits, and after reading a few other posts it seems like the 24-70 II should be on the top of my list for "travel lens" as it'd serve a dual purpose for a great walk-around and excellent portrait lens. In addition I have the Rokinon 14 2.8 which covers the UWA.

Pairing these two with my 6D are there any other suggestions for a solid travel pack without being too heavy? I've got a few months to save up so I'm considering a 35 1.4 too.

Regarding what I'll be shooting, I love landscapes. Zooming in on details doesn't really interest me very much - I like capturing the "standing there" wide sweeping perspective.

depends a bit if you are talking about city/urban or mountains/open spaces, but as it seems that you like UWA, consider them the canon 16-35 f4 or the sigma 12-24 v2. There is also a tamron 15-30 in the mix.
the next range is either 24-70 or 24-105: the makers mention prior all make great models of the first but I think only canon and sigma have a 24-105
They are all great zoom lenses, and being jack-of-all-trades, they are indeed master of none.
I did not mention the canon 11-24, due to it's size and weight (not to mention cost), which makes it a less suitable candidate for a walk-around lens.
- and ofcourse there are other 16-35s and the 17-40, but not worth to consider unless you shoot in low light or have budget concerns

If I were you, I'd just pack your 14, 50, and 100mm. My 50 STM is my most used walk around lens because of it's size. If you're looking to add a zoom, 16-35 f4 or 24-105 would be the easy choices. The 24-70 f2.8ii is everything everyone says it is, but big and expensive if you're trying to keep it light.

Funny you mention that. I actually sold my 16-35 AND 24-105 this year because they didn't get a lot of use in favor of the primes.
Didn't expect to travel though clearly.

hard to say, I HAVE to have my ultrawide and telephoto.

at minimum 12-14mm prime + 200mm prime.

In between, I'm a lot more flexible, but for the most part, have gravitated towards primes for their dual purpose of low light and background blur ability.

24, 35, 50, 100, 24-70f2.8, 24-105f4 are my options. Size matters when traveling and I tend to shy away from the zooms. A small compact 24-70 f2.8 would be nice, but doesnt exist.

My travel kit: two bodies, three lenses. 16-560mm, no gaps.

was it because they were not wide enough?

No, Sold the 24-105 because I wanted to eventually upgrade to the 24-70 2.8. Sold the 16-35 after preferring the 14mm field of view.

NickWell24 wrote in post #17989694
No, Sold the 24-105 because I wanted to eventually upgrade to the 24-70 2.8. Sold the 16-35 after preferring the 14mm field of view.

if you like the 14 FOV, I would say that you are/might be a good fit for 11 or 12mmm FOV
however both zoom offerings are not exactly small lenses - unless you want another prime: Irix 11mm
so:
11-24 or 12-24 and the 24-70 mkII (still think that the (sigma)24-105 would be a good second as far as reach goes)

I'd buy a Fuji X series body with the 10-24 and the 16-55.

NWPhil wrote in post #17989909
if you like the 14 FOV, I would say that you are/might be a good fit for 11 or 12mmm FOV
however both zoom offerings are not exactly small lenses - unless you want another prime: Irix 11mm
so:
11-24 or 12-24 and the 24-70 mkII (still think that the (sigma)24-105 would be a good second as far as reach goes)

the 11-24 is obnoxiously big, and at 14mm, the image quality of the rokinon 14 is similar and a stop faster. From 11-14mm can be quite a jump, however both are usually considered "wide enough".

I imagine TS has no issue jumping from 14mm to 24-70mm. That's quite a common shooting combo for me, even if I dont shoot a 24-70 much. In all honesty, I wouldnt have an issue shooting 14mm then jumping straight to 35 or 50mm as a "normal" lens, even for vacation. My last few vacations 50mm has been my standard lens, not really a big deal.

Travel is an odd thing that means a lot of different things to different people. I recently returned from a cruise where I took two toddlers, a 7d ii and about 8 lenses and a G7x. I don't think I actually shot a single picture with the 7d ii as I always grabbed the G7X. A couple of years ago when it was Sans kids, I quite happily lugged the DSLR around and took thousands of pictures. In general, what I've found is I take very different types of trips, sometimes I'm never more than 100' from the car with nothing on my mind than photography, in which case taking all the gear and the kitchen sink works well. Other times photography is an afterthought of the trip and my hands are full of kids. The advise you are going to get here will spread that same spectrum so keep in mind travel means many things to many people.

If this trip is a photography oriented trip, then take the 6d and add some more primes to your line up for any focal lengths you think you are lacking. Renting lenses you only want to take on vacation makes a lot of sense. Buying and reselling used after the trip is also an option a lot of people take.

If you still want to take pictures, but don't want 10lbs of gear, you might consider taking your 70D, and some combination of 10-18, 18-55, 18-135, or 55-250 STMs and one or two of the EF-S 24, EF 40, EF 50 1.8. I didn't do the math, but you might be able to take ALL of those lenses for less weight than your 150-600 . The new EF-S STM lenses offer very good image quality, cheap, and are extremely light. I didn't do the math, but you might be able to take ALL of those lenses for less weight than your 150-600 . The other benefit is you can take a kit that costs a lot less, I'm not sure about you, but some of the places I travel I'd rather not take 5K of gear.

NickWell24 wrote in post #17989343
After reading through the forums over the last few hours I've come to a few conclusions regarding this subject but I wanted to know if anybody had other suggestions. Until now I've always been a big fan of primes, currently my only zoom is the Sigma 150-600. Regarding travel though I may be taking a few international trips later this year and I feel like primes can be very limiting and hurt the experience by needing to change lenses regularly.

As someone who occasionally makes money from portraits, and after reading a few other posts it seems like the 24-70 II should be on the top of my list for "travel lens" as it'd serve a dual purpose for a great walk-around and excellent portrait lens. In addition I have the Rokinon 14 2.8 which covers the UWA.

Pairing these two with my 6D are there any other suggestions for a solid travel pack without being too heavy? I've got a few months to save up so I'm considering a 35 1.4 too.

Regarding what I'll be shooting, I love landscapes. Zooming in on details doesn't really interest me very much - I like capturing the "standing there" wide sweeping perspective.

Heya,

A 24-70 flavor, and a 14mm together would make a good general setup.

Depends on whether you're traveling for photography, or simply adding photography to your traveling.

Personally though, I'd be tired of lugging the bulk & weight while "traveling." I'd want a smaller lighter setup that is less bulky, less obvious, etc, to more enjoy the traveling and less worry about gear all the time. Personally to get the most out of the gear for landscape, I'd want a tripod and I'd be wanting to shoot at early morning or late evening, where hand holding is less of what I'd want to do, and more likely interested in those times of light, just adding to the bulk & weight needs. But, that's if the travel was for the purpose of photography, instead of traveling and just taking images while traveling for fun. When I go some where specifically to do photography, I take the gear. When I go some where for fun, I just take a smaller kit (this is why I use an EOS-M a lot when I go out, instead of lugging my 5D's, several lenses and tripod).

Just a thought.

Very best,

I agree with vengence and MalVeaux, but it's your trip and you understand the priorities. In that sense it is odd that you ask us what to take, when only you know what is important to you.

The boss sent me to China a few years ago, first time there for me. It was a business trip, so photography was just for after hours. I was pretty sure I would find my (then) 40D, standard zoom, and 70-300mm too heavy. So I went shopping. Bought a Rebel and kit lens, and took that. It was very light, very handy, IQ was great, and was just the ticket for this kind of trip.

There were trips when I had more time and opportunities and took the 100-400mm. But there were also trips when I took only a compact camera.

So it all depends on the person and also on the trip.

You also might want to consider the 24-70/4L IS USM... It's a lot smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 24-70/2.8, yet has virtually as good image quality. Take the 50mm, too, for any really low light needs (though the IS on the 24-70/4 might make it less necessary).

To each his own... to me a 24-70 on a full frame camera often comes up a little short for portraits (though I like it a lot for portraits on crop cameras). I'd probably pack the 100mm macro, too, just in case.