Lens for an 7 day solo trip to London?

Hello,

I'm doing a solo trip to London in the second half of February for 7 days. This will be the first time I'm visiting and I plan to do the normal tourist stuff (I haven't looked into what there's to do as this is a spur of the moment trip, but I imagine museums, palaces / historical landmarks, markets, theater, etc.). This is not a photography trip; I hope to take some nice photos, but I'm mostly looking to enjoy and relax.

I'm bringing a 5DIV and a maximum of 3 lenses. No tripod (doesn't fit) and no flash (I'm thinking not needed). My gear list is in my signature. If you've been there, I would appreciate thoughts on what lenses to bring.

The obvious would be 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, and 70-200/4 IS. That would cover all focal lengths and would be most flexible. But I wonder if I could do with just 2 lenses, and if so, which two.

Also, I wonder if I should substitute a fast lens like the 35/1.4 II. Not sure if that would be useful relative the zooms.

Finally, I could toss in a 40/2.8 pancake since its so small that I count that as a freebie.

This will all go into a Lowepro Flipside Sport 15L AW, which I plan to carry from morning to night when I get back to the hotel. So lighter is always better, though with the 3 lenses its only 10 lbs and I'm fine with it.

Thanks!

Bump.

My vote is to ditch the 16-35mm or the 70-200mm. More likely, ditch the telezoom.

If you want to travel light, I would just bring the 24-70. I would bring the 16-35 for those times when 24mm isn't wide enough. The architecture in London is great if you are into that type of photography. I brought all 3 Nikon equivalent lenses you named and the 70-200 got a lot of use, but that was because I was there for the Olympics. I've been to London on previous trips and I'd say wider focal lengths were used most often. Maybe you like to get close up for detail shots? Since this is not a photography trip, my vote is for the 24-70 as a general purpose walkaround lens. I like to shoot at night, so the tripod is a must for me. I leave it in my hotel room until I need it, it doesn't stay strapped to my bag all day. London looks great a night. I personally find London more interesting when the sun goes down, although in Feb, you may not get much sunlight. I would have rain protection handy just in case.

For travel I’m a big fan of uw and a fast prime. My personal kit is usually 16-35 and 50.

I'd suggest you take the tele. A lot of interesting buildings are relatively isolated, not packed together like say NY, so there are plenty of long shots.
Dusk is good, everything's lit up. A trip on the "wheel" is good at that time.
The Shard is the tallest thing. Cheaper if you book ahead.
35/1.4? maybe for isolating close details like old wrought iron, or signs. Also for pictures in museums (no flash), or pubs at night.

Big Ben is covered in scaffolding - sorry! And the trees in the parks will be bare.
Tate Modern (art gallery) has an enormous space inside so worth a look. The Crown Jewels are impressive, but it's in the Tower Of London so if you get your camera out in there they clap you in leg-irons in the dungeon. (). Good views from the Tower Bridge walkway, nearby.
Drop in to The Photographers' Gallery as long as there's something showing. It's good for a lunch/café stop.

With luck you'll have it crisp with blue skies. If not, it's grey skies all day.

CEITam wrote in post #18551474
Hello,

I'm doing a solo trip to London in the second half of February for 7 days. This will be the first time I'm visiting and I plan to do the normal tourist stuff (I haven't looked into what there's to do as this is a spur of the moment trip, but I imagine museums, palaces / historical landmarks, markets, theater, etc.). This is not a photography trip; I hope to take some nice photos, but I'm mostly looking to enjoy and relax.

I'm bringing a 5DIV and a maximum of 3 lenses. No tripod (doesn't fit) and no flash (I'm thinking not needed). My gear list is in my signature. If you've been there, I would appreciate thoughts on what lenses to bring.

The obvious would be 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, and 70-200/4 IS. That would cover all focal lengths and would be most flexible. But I wonder if I could do with just 2 lenses, and if so, which two.
...
...
...
Thanks!

---

I would suggest taking the 24-70mm mounted as your walk-about lens - its versatile enough.
Depending on weather conditions, what you plan to do and where you plan to visit - will determine whether the wide-angle or the zoom is more appropriate.
If the weather is crap and you're mostly indoors, the wide-angle option makes more sense.
If the weather is great and you're moving around freely - the the zoom may be the better option.
Then a gain, many buildings, points-of-interest look stunning in w/angle
If you can take all 3. That way you're fully prepared. Then again, you stated that this is not actually a photography trip.
Of course, you want to capture memories - so perhaps the solitary 24-70 may prove good enough

I’d probably just take the 16-35. I find it to be my most used lens on vacations. I wouldn’t bother with either of the other two. They’d probably never get attached.

Well, you definitely don't need to buy anything as all the kit options for this kind of trip are covered ... the question now is which option do you choose?

I do think saving some weight would be a good idea. 10 pounds will get heavier as those seven morning-night days wear on, or at least it would for me. I have a couple of different ideas ...

• Take only the 24-70. It's versatile and covers everything from quite wide to quite long.
  
• Don't take the 24-70. It's the biggest and heaviest of the three zooms, and the wide and long ends (normally the most used focal lengths) are covered better by the wider 16-35 and the far longer 70-200, both are F/4 and therefore much lighter.
  

Personally I just take 25mm and 85mm primes and am happy with the coverage. Having a lighter kit just allows you to enjoy the experience rather than being weighed down by extra lenses.

s1a1om wrote in post #18557048
I’d probably just take the 16-35. I find it to be my most used lens on vacations. I wouldn’t bother with either of the other two. They’d probably never get attached.

It all depends upon one's personal approach to photography. My own opinion on the topic:

In making multiple business trips to Europe with a film SLR 4 decades ago, I went with a 35-70mm zoom plus either a 28mm or 24mm zoom. I was not satisfied by 28mm, and even today when using a P&S with that AOV (or a dSLR with that same AOV limit), I am not happy limited to that AOV. (BTW same 'limited' AOV is perfectly fine and safe FL to not permit induced perspective distortion for wedding clients and their guests). I finally found I was happy after getting 24mm FL. In fact, during one trip I brought a 24mm Perspective Correction lens as my ONLY lens in a town to which I had never been to before, and was totally happy having that lens alone. I find I seldom wanted/needed my 20mm lens.

Superwide AOV causes distant detail to shrink to miniscule sizes while capturing wide expanses.
Superwide AOV increases the prominence of people or objects nearby, while doing the above.
Those two things in combination cause me not to find superwides of value if I have a travelling companion with me, but then they are subject to induced perspective distortion when they are 5' away from the camera.

Others derive orgasmic delight from superwide. 'Different strokes for different folks', as the song goes.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts and comments! I really appreciate it.

In the end, I'm leaning toward bringing 3 lenses as I don't think the weight saving would be enough for me to drop a lens. The only question then is which 3 lenses. I'm slightly leaning toward 16-35/4 IS, 70-200/4 IS, and 35/1.4 II. There are some fantastic museums in London and I think a fast 35 lens would be useful indoors without flash (though I imagine the 16-35 with IS would also do well since I can hand hold at a very slow shutter speed; images would be sharper with the 35/1.4 II, however).

If I do that, then I'll be missing the range between 35 and 70, but since I'm traveling solo, I think missing the middle focal range might be ok since I'm not photographing my family.

As always, additional comments welcomed!

I assuming you are either on your trip now or back home. Which lenses did you travel with and which one got the most use?

I'm actually at the airport on my way home. I ended up taking the 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, and 70-200/4 IS. I had considered taking the 35/1.4 II, but it actually weighs about the same as the 24-70, and while a fast lens would be nice in some situations like museums, I did some tests and thought the 16-35 with IS would be fine and offered flexibility. Also, I wasn't sure a 1.4 with shallow DOF would work well in museums.

As I had expected, by far the most used was the 16-35, which was great for general outdoors (buildings, etc.) and indoors (museums, etc.). The second most used was the 24-70, exclusively outdoors. I did use the 70-200 a bit, but not much. London is cold and sometimes raining, so tried to not stay outdoors for extensive periods of time.

CEITam wrote in post #18571814
I'm actually at the airport on my way home. I ended up taking the 16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, and 70-200/4 IS. I had considered taking the 35/1.4 II, but it actually weighs about the same as the 24-70, and while a fast lens would be nice in some situations like museums, I did some tests and thought the 16-35 with IS would be fine and offered flexibility. Also, I wasn't sure a 1.4 with shallow DOF would work well in museums.

As I had expected, by far the most used was the 16-35, which was great for general outdoors (buildings, etc.) and indoors (museums, etc.). The second most used was the 24-70, exclusively outdoors. I did use the 70-200 a bit, but not much. London is cold and sometimes raining, so tried to not stay outdoors for extensive periods of time.

---
as long as you had a memorable time, that's more important. That is the biggest and only problem with the UK -----> the weather!