Which combination for Oz trip.

Right I've gone and upgraded to a 5D and have the 17-40L on it's way as well.

My dilemma is what combination to get, I've virtually decided on either the (50mm 1.4 coupled with the 70-210 F4) or the 24-105 as they both come in at around the same price.

I'm off to Australia for a month and I can't decide whether I'll need the longer reach that the 70-210 offers, the 17-40 will do the wide angle stuff and the 24-105 should be a great walk around lens. But with the 5D being FF will 105 be long enough.

My main interests are land/sea/cityscapes.

Decisions, decisions.

Where about in OZ? There is rather a lot of it.

You may want to compare prices here to UK, there not being the cheapest place to get gear.

The longest focal length I had with me on my trip to Australia and New Zealand (on holiday) was 85mm on a 20D. I think your 24-105 would be a vastly superior lens for travel with a FF camera, backed up with your 50mm for low light.

Keep in mind that if you fly Qantas or Air New Zealand, since March they have very strict guidelines about weight of carryons being under 7.5 kg (check web site...might be actually 7 kg) and this is especially strict on domestic flights (within country). So bring FEW lenses, unless you trust them to checked baggage (not!)

It depends on your style and the type of photography you do, whether 24 mm is wide enough, or 105 mm long enough. In terms of cost, seize and weight the 70-200 f4L and 24-105 f4L are not that different. I guess it depends on which of these two lenses you would prefer to have beyond your needs for this trip.

I normally travel with a 17-40L on my 20D, and 85 f1.8 in my bag, and it is good enough for me. You may just as well take your 17-40L and 100 f2.8 macro, but it depends on your interests.

prep wrote in post #2238952
Where about in OZ? There is rather a lot of it.

One week in Alice springs area (Camper Van)
One week Melbourne & Great Ocean Road
Christmas & New year in and around Sydney

Wilt wrote in post #2238995
The longest focal length I had with me on my trip to Australia and New Zealand (on holiday) was 85mm on a 20D. I think your 24-105 would be a vastly superior lens for travel with a FF camera, backed up with your 50mm for low light.

Keep in mind that if you fly Qantas or Air New Zealand, since March they have very strict guidelines about weight of carryons being under 7.5 kg (check web site...might be actually 7 kg) and this is especially strict on domestic flights (within country). So bring FEW lenses, unless you trust them to checked baggage (not!)

As far as I can tell I'm just limited to 7kgs with singapore Air, I'll have to check the weights of the items.. Thanks for that.

I wasn't very clear in my original post it was either the 50 or 24-105

I'd take both the 50mm and IS L and sell/leave the 17-40mm on a 5D. The IS L will cover you very well and the 50mm will be nice for portrait and lower light.

amarasme wrote in post #2239004
It depends on your style and the type of photography you do, whether 24 mm is wide enough, or 105 mm long enough. In terms of cost, seize and weight the 70-200 f4L and 24-105 f4L are not that different. I guess it depends on which of these two lenses you would prefer to have beyond your needs for this trip.

I normally travel with a 17-40L on my 20D, and 85 f1.8 in my bag, and it is good enough for me. You may just as well take your 17-40L and 100 f2.8 macro, but it depends on your interests.

My main concern are things like Taronga Zoo & trying to catch a photo of skippy and other creatures, the 100 probably won't be long enough.

It'll be 90% landscapes and 10% wildlife but will I miss not getting those 10%.

condyk wrote in post #2239151
I'd take both the 50mm and IS L and sell/leave the 17-40mm on a 5D. The IS L will cover you very well and the 50mm will be nice for portrait and lower light.

I like my wide angles so 17-40 is defiantly going with me.

I'm beginning to become more inclined towards the 24-105 to leave on the camera most of the time, I'm sure it will get more use than the 70-200.

I wonder if I got a cheap 50mm 1.8 it would be better for building interiors than the IS?

MAH wrote in post #2239254
I like my wide angles so 17-40 is defiantly going with me.

I'm beginning to become more inclined towards the 24-105 to leave on the camera most of the time, I'm sure it will get more use than the 70-200.

I wonder if I got a cheap 50mm 1.8 it would be better for building interiors than the IS?

50mm for interiors? Depends on what you are shooting. If doing interior of catchedrals, I would use wide angle, not your 'normal' lens. Since the 24-105 is only f/4, use high ISO (and later postprocess to remove noise).

MAH wrote in post #2239106


One week in Alice springs area (Camper Van)
One week Melbourne & Great Ocean Road
Christmas & New year in and around Sydney

I'll see you in Sydney for the fireworks

MAH wrote in post #2239125
As far as I can tell I'm just limited to 7kgs with singapore Air, I'll have to check the weights of the items.. Thanks for that.

Yep it's 7kg's for carry on luggage. Though they didn't weight my backpack when I flew with them a few weeks ago.

Just carry your camera and lens around your neck. WIll help to shave a kilo or two.

Definitely the 17-40L, especially for places like Alice Springs, Uluru. beaches and other landscapes.

I'm taking that and probably a 70-200 plus teleconverter to Europe next year. I was going to take only the 17-40 and a tamron 90 but a recent walk along the pond here convinced me that I'd regret not having a longer lens for birds, landscapes etc. If you like wildlife (or perhaps surfing) you'll be kicking yourself if you don't have a longer lens - but depends on what you are interested in and what you're prepared to carry

BTW - on most domestic flights in Australia it's rare for carry on baggage to be weighed unless it looks oversize or you're on one of the cheap flight airlines (Jetstar/Virgin). If you travel on any small planes (eg many regional airlines eg REX), then you'll need to check most of your baggage.

I was one week in the Sydney just about the one month a go. I has the 17-40 and the 70-200 with me and those was covering pretty well all the shootings. Only place where I hope to have longer lens was in the Taronga Zoo open bird fly show.

I would take 17-40 for sure and 100macro maybe add 200mm or 70-300 zoom.

egghead wrote in post #2242142
Yep it's 7kg's for carry on luggage. Though they didn't weight my backpack when I flew with them a few weeks ago.

Just carry your camera and lens around your neck. WIll help to shave a kilo or two.

I fly Singapore Airlines very frequently.
In my backpack i have my laptop (6kg!!) plus essentials (passport, wallet and not much else)
I also carry my 5D in a Toploader 65AW, with the 135 and 16-35 strapped onto that in seperate Lowepro lens cases. (the 50 1.4 fits nicely on the 5D inside the Toploader)
Never been hassled yet (touch wood!!)