The ideal travel lens combo

For those that are wondering what are ideal travel lenses, having just returned from three weeks in South America, I can safely say the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L are a perfect combinations on a crop body.

For landscapes, I found the 17-40 to be ideal. If needed extra focal length (eg for my sunset shots) the 70-200 provided the range I needed, and I found I didn't need the 40-70mm range. The only problem is that I had to stand quite far back for portraits with the 70-200 (the 17-40 is not good for portraits). If you can afford it the 17-55 might be a useful replacement for the 17-55 in terms of range.

And both lenses are not too bulky on the 350.

You could argue the 10-22 would be a better choice but (1) you get too much distortion and (2) it's not long enough for all purpose landscape work.

My photos are on my website at http://www.geocities.c​om/george9t8/pbc_photo​s.html

George

i think the ultimate travel combo if you really wanted to pack light would be a 17-70 sigma and 80-400 tokina. mabye add in 430EX and a lowlight prime, and you are set.

if you dont mind carrying around heavier gear then i would definitly agree with you. i spent 10 days in costa rica with my 17-40, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4, and a 1.4TC in my minitrekker and enjoyed the heck out of it.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2039744
For those that are wondering what are ideal travel lenses, having just returned from three weeks in South America, I can safely say the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L are a perfect combinations on a crop body. ...

Well, that's one opinion.

Seriously though, the "perfect" combination for a given individual is highly dependant on the shooter's preferences, and to some extent, on the camera they are shooting with (as you alluded to). That said, I'm happy to hear that you have found your combination. It looks like you got some great photos in your travels!

I just returned from a 4 day cruise off the coast of British Columbia. I packed my Canon 20D, 580ex Speedlite, Sigma 17-70 and Tokina 80-400. The Sigma was on the camera about 80% of the time, and both it and the Tokina performed very well. I did not take the Sigma 10-20 EX or 70-200 EX or any of my other lenses. This particular combo worked very well for this travel.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2039744
For those that are wondering what are ideal travel lenses, having just returned from three weeks in South America, I can safely say the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L are a perfect combinations on a crop body.

For landscapes, I found the 17-40 to be ideal. If needed extra focal length (eg for my sunset shots) the 70-200 provided the range I needed, and I found I didn't need the 40-70mm range. The only problem is that I had to stand quite far back for portraits with the 70-200 (the 17-40 is not good for portraits). If you can afford it the 17-55 might be a useful replacement for the 17-55 in terms of range.

And both lenses are not too bulky on the 350.

You could argue the 10-22 would be a better choice but (1) you get too much distortion and (2) it's not long enough for all purpose landscape work.

My photos are on my website at http://www.geocities.c​om/george9t8/pbc_photo​s.html

George

Thanks for your advice. I'm going the Germany second week in November, and felt that using 2.8 aperture lenses would be best for me because it always seems to be overcast and I also go a lot in winter, as that's when most of the conventions I attend are held. This will be the first time I'm going over with a DSLR....you guys can see my equipment. I'm open to suggestions on what to add........and subtract. I'm certainly not taking all this stuff!

For me, my favorite two lens travel set is my Tokina 12-24 and my Canon 24-105L. I've never found I needed any long telephoto lens for traveling. The Tokina takes care of the landscape/architecture​, and the Canon takes care of everything else. I had both of the lenses you mention and find that the two lenses I mentioned are much better suited for my style of shooting.

I will take for my travel the follwoing stuff:

Canon 350D
Canon 30D
Canon EF-s 10-22
Canon EF 16-35
Canon EF 24-70
Canon EF 70-200
Canon Flash 580EX
and the rest you know like CF, cleaning stuff,...

I agree with the OP - in fact I chose my lenses so far based on the feeling that these two focal lengths suited me the best - so that would apply whether at home or away.

Having said that, my 70-200 gets a lot less action, even though it's my favourtite lens. Being that much bigger and heavier makes it a little more of an undertaking to schlepp it around.

the two zoom lenses tht cover a large range and are light are:
- canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
- canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

probably the only drawback to this combination is the performance in low light shooting.

then again one may swap the 17-70/85 lens for the ef 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.

I like the 24-105L and 100-400L myself

calicokat wrote in post #2060973
I like the 24-105L and 100-400L myself

I would like to take the 24-70, and the 70-200 2.8 - then maybe a 1.4x tele
Would the 24 not be wide enough though? I think you could use something a little wider than 24mm, however you can zoom with your feet, but that may not be a possibility

I wish that canon made a 17-85 f/2.8L IS... I love that range
but that would be a HECK of a heavy lens!!!! maybe 3 lbs!!

surfologist wrote in post #2061179
I would like to take the 24-70, and the 70-200 2.8 - then maybe a 1.4x tele
Would the 24 not be wide enough though? I think you could use something a little wider than 24mm, however you can zoom with your feet, but that may not be a possibility

I wish that canon made a 17-85 f/2.8L IS... I love that range
but that would be a HECK of a heavy lens!!!! maybe 3 lbs!!

wouldn't that be freakin rad! no need for the 16-35/17-40 and a little longer than the 24-70. That would be the 24-105's nemesis! lol

Went to Cyprus (birding) in May. Took my 100-400 IS lens and my Canon S2 for general shots. Wish I had also taken my 17-40L. Maybe next year.

Cathpah wrote in post #2061686
wouldn't that be freakin rad! no need for the 16-35/17-40 and a little longer than the 24-70. That would be the 24-105's nemesis! lol

No Freaking Joke!!!
That would be so awesome... It would be the ULTIMATE lens. I love the wideness, and the reach. I just hate that it is so slow... And i wish it was a little more sharp!!

Lets get Canon to do it.... 17-85 f/2.8L IS..... They would have to make it white too, just because
Weight: 3.1 lbs
Price: dont even go there!!! I would guess maybe $1900 USD?

I sold my 17-85 because it was so poor at 17mm it was unsuitable for landscapes.

Don't dismiss ranges like 70-200 for landscapes. eg, you can capture the best parts of a sunset at 200mm.