Portrait lens for vacation decision

It was my first time using the 16-35. Very impressive lens for sure. I'd highly recommend it

I realized some of what you are saying after a couple of vacations /weekend getaways.. anything longer than 50mm no longer comes with me.
As it just never gets used because 99 percent of the time im trying to involve the enviroment

16-35 f4 and 55 is what i do now.. although the 28 f2 actually ends up being more useful focal length than 55(55 not that great for across the table shots when at restaurants) and f2 decent enough for low light situations..
Sure these arent traditional portraits focal lengths but
I mean this is for family trips

Tommydigi wrote in post #18392790
It was my first time using the 16-35. Very impressive lens for sure. I'd highly recommend it

The 100-400 Sigma C may end up in my travel bag though. Small and light for 400mm.

rantercsr wrote in post #18392803
I realized some of what you are saying after a couple of vacations /weekend getaways.. anything longer than 50mm no longer comes with me.
As it just never gets used because 99 percent of the time im trying to involve the enviroment

16-35 f4 and 55 is what i do now.. although the 28 f2 actually ends up being more useful focal length than 55(55 not that great for across the table shots when at restaurants) and f2 decent enough for low light situations..
Sure these arent traditional portraits focal lengths but
I mean this is for family trips

I really enjoy long lenses for landscape compression, and it doesnt have to be a fast lens. In the past, I would carry a 200 MF prime, and have got great shots from all sorts of destinations. That's also only 350g, it's small. Since I would carry a 24-70 f4 lens (~400-500g), I thought I'de try to consolidate the two, and went with an all in one 24-240 (700g+). It's not the best, but stopped down a little, I can still get quality that I'm satisfied with. Wide open, simply shooting a long focal length, you can get pretty decent portraits.

I couldnt be without a long lens, and at the same time, fully aware how troublesome they can be.

Charlie wrote in post #18392854
I really enjoy long lenses for landscape compression, and it doesnt have to be a fast lens. In the past, I would carry a 200 MF prime, and have got great shots from all sorts of destinations. That's also only 350g, it's small. Since I would carry a 24-70 f4 lens (~400-500g), I thought I'de try to consolidate the two, and went with an all in one 24-240 (700g+). It's not the best, but stopped down a little, I can still get quality that I'm satisfied with. Wide open, simply shooting a long focal length, you can get pretty decent portraits.

I couldnt be without a long lens, and at the same time, fully aware how troublesome they can be.

There is all sorts of interesting things that can be captured with a long lens. I enjoy architectural stuff and many times when I go to other places it's what I notice. I know you guys think I'm some camera **** on my trips but I'm not. Have a great time and still get to squeeze in a few shots.

One thing that is important to me is when the wife and I travel alone somewhere I want a great capture that I can print large and display in our home to always remind us of the trip. while maybe not the best it was cold and I had zero time we walked out on the Brooklyn Bridge and we took a selfie and I snapped about 3 shots and walked away with this (held the camera steady on the handrail). While she very much enjoys the selfie lol... I stole it as it's her current facebook profile.

Vacations ? Sony with a couple small primes.

Bassat wrote in post #18392072
Vacation? In that case, I retract my comments. I don't take cameras on vacation. I used to take a G15, but I hardly used it. I couldn't operate the darn thing with a Pina Colada in each hand.

Pina Colada? Might as well drink liquid estrogen therapy. It's not a real drink unless barley was involved in the making. I'll make exception to the rule for a good bourbon if enough rye is involved.

Talley wrote in post #18392016
Anything longer than the 50-70ish range of my options above will be the 100-400 Sigma C. I have no interest in anything longer that's fast aperture.

I'd have a hard time with this. The 100-400 is too slow to really blur the background and 70 is too wide to have as my longest lens. Did you unload your 70-200/4 IS? I would want that as a minimum but prefer a 100/2 or 135/2 or the soft focus version would be nice too. I would pick 16-35,24-700 and a longer prime like above. I don't know how much I would use a 100-400 unless the vacation was an African safari type of thing.

I'm taking my girls to St Augustine, Fl for the next 3 days for the 4th at the beach and the old city. Taking 5D, 17-40, 35 F2 IS, ETTL/HSS flash and that's it.

Last time it was Cocoa beach, and we used the 35 F2 IS and no flash, and I definitely missed having an ETTL/HSS flash for the hard shadows and lack of fill, in sunlight. But I definitely didn't want anything longer. I wouldn't want something long that kept us always having to be 20+ feet apart to get a portrait with the environment involved. Heck, even at 35mm, F2 and F2.8 produces really soft environments. We like to just be right on top of it, close, not separated up (especially if there's other people around, which is common of course!). I still like some softness to the environment sometimes, not always, but having the option to soften it is nice, and again, F2 and f2.8 with 35mm still produces really soft backgrounds at this proximity on a full frame sensor, so I've just never felt like going longer was worth it, and shorter with IS handles low light much, much better (when you do not want to use a flash or its not appropriate, etc).

Fun is always the most important thing.

I can't imagine using a 100-400 for family vacation portrait. I thought about taking a long lens and visiting the alligator farm, but I just don't want to carry more stuff all day.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/G61g​nJ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gv9E​DD

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GsQq​pW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GpjC​UP

Great captures. The 100-400 wouldn't be for any portraits, we usually visit zoo's in various cities when we go traveling so it'd make for great zoo lens and landscape.

I know this... if the XE3 ever gets produced then that will be my vacation camera. Right now my wife uses the X-T20 but she doesn't let me fiddle with it much. It's her camera. Without a doubt the easiest choice would be to get a second fuji camera but none of them really interest me much.

There is a recent rumor that Fuji may start doing IBIS cameras. I'd want that for sure.

Until then I think the 16-35, 24-70 and the 12mm FE will be my next several outings vacation kit.

FEChariot wrote in post #18393094
I'd have a hard time with this. The 100-400 is too slow to really blur the background and 70 is too wide to have as my longest lens. Did you unload your 70-200/4 IS? I would want that as a minimum but prefer a 100/2 or 135/2 or the soft focus version would be nice too. I would pick 16-35,24-700 and a longer prime like above. I don't know how much I would use a 100-400 unless the vacation was an African safari type of thing.

the 100-400 can blur the background fine, it's the really long focal length that does it. Also the ability to isolate well, you can use to avoid clutter.

That said, unless I was on an african safari/wildlife mission, I'de leave it home.

Charlie wrote in post #18393163
the 100-400 can blur the background fine, it's the really long focal length that does it. Also the ability to isolate well, you can use to avoid clutter.

That said, unless I was on an african safari/wildlife mission, I'de leave it home.

It probably blurs well at 400/6.3 but how about 100/5? Working distance at 400mm might be less than ideal for most.

FEChariot wrote in post #18393174
Working distance at 400mm might be less than ideal for most.

In a portrait lens for vacation context, ie this thread, my god, yes, less than ideal.

Very best,

Uh I never said the 100-400 would be for portrait

Anyway while 70 2.8 may not be as portrait as a 50 1.4 it should pose to be just fine

I just had a vacation and one thing that I still cant release from my mind was that I was happy with my gear I took. First time ever.

I took and used in daytime, 6D w/16-35F4. 80D w/55-250stm. Nighttime 6D w/28mmIS, 80D 50mm stm. I had 35 macro in bag on standby.

that is a total of 3100g

For comparison, 5DIV, 16-35F4, 50ART,24-70ART=3340g. I realize its not a apples apple comparison.

Depending on modes of travel I would take a similar kit to yours above or my Sony and two lens which is nothing. Two big lens with 6d, just seemed to be a hassle, and the reason I bought the sony. It felt good taking my bodies that I use to shoot everyday. If I saw a shot, pull my weapon from bag and shoot. no faffing with big clunky lens whilst my subject vanishes.

So get a Sony.

Edit: took plenty of portraits with all four combinations.