If you were to buy ONE lens for a trip to Australia..

Hello everyone,

The family and I have been planning a visit to Australia for some years now, and July 2009 is the month we will finally visit the country down under.

We will be flying into Sydney, travel along the coastal route to Brisbane, fly into Cairns, visit Cairns and fly back via Sydney home.

My budget is about 800EUR; which is enough for one quality lens. My current setup is below. I'm not sure if I should buy a ultra wide angle (Canon 10-22?) or a wide angle zoom like the Canon 17-55IS. I like my Sigma 17-70 but it lets me down sometimes due to the lack of sharpness.

My Sigma 70-300 isn't very good - it's worth it's money but quite soft - obviously - wideopen at 300mm; so I might go for a 70-200 F4L? I'm not sure if I'd need a telephoto - but for photographing koalas and such it could be handy. Now I come to think of it, how about a 70-200 F4L and a Tamron 17-50?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Dan

As someone who lives Down Under and has travelled to almost all the states, I'd have to say 10-22. UWA for sure. Also bring a good CPL.. trust me on this one. A mid-telephoto zoom would be the least useful IMO.

AirbusA380 wrote in post #7218897
Now I come to think of it, how about a 70-200 F4L and a Tamron 17-50?

defnitely a killer combination.

but yes, and ultrawide is useful too.

If it was me.. I'd bring a 10-22 and 24-105L.

Collin85 wrote in post #7218908
As someone who lives Down Under and has travelled to almost all the states, I'd have to say 10-22. UWA for sure. Also bring a good CPL.. trust me on this one. A mid-telephoto zoom would be the least useful IMO.

Thanks for the recommendation, Collin .

Jaetie wrote in post #7218950
defnitely a killer combination.

but yes, and ultrawide is useful too.

It's either a 70-200 F4L and a 17-50, or a 10-22 .

Collin85 wrote in post #7218957
If it was me.. I'd bring a 10-22 and 24-105L.

That would be outside my budget - I don't have a UWA yet. However, I don't think I'll use it that much after my return from Australia - a good standard zoom (24-105L or 17-55, I know, different lenses) would be better. I guess?

Dan, woops I misread your budget. Okay, so if you have money for only 'one quality lens', I would strongly recommend the 10-22 simply because UWA will be very useful and you don't currently have this focal length range covered.

Looking at your lenses, I'd also bring the Sigma 17-70 and the 70-300 and you should be sweet. The 17-70 will give you general 'walkaround' capability, and the 70-300 will be your main wildlife lens for zoos and such.

I would also bring both bodies if possible. A trip to Australia is a big one.. and you don't want to be without a body if one of yours fails for whatever reason during the trip.

I spent 6 weeks around Melbourne in 2007. It was a working trip but I had some opportunity to take some time and see the immediate scenery (mostly vineyards). Although I only brought my Sony 707 I found myself usually wishing for something wider or longer. Therefore If I could only bring 2 lenses, I would bring my 10-22 and my 70-200. If I had a 100-400, I might use that rather than a 70-200.

Based on what you already have, get a 70-200 and a 1.4x converter.If that does not fall withing your budget, buy a 55-250.

Dan
The 24-105 spends about 90% of the time on my camera,i use it alot more than the 10-20 or the 70-200,imho you wont go wrong with the 24-105,great all round lens.
BTW dont bring a Canon bring a gun

Wow, the 10-22 does seem popular. I do have a question to UWA owners though: don't you feel when you are reviewing your photos that your photos lack detail? Every time I shoot a photo at 17mm I feel there isn't as much detail as I would have wanted - I might be a pixel peeper, but that's why I prefer to shoot panos

Thoughts?

AirbusA380 wrote in post #7220316
Wow, the 10-22 does seem popular. I do have a question to UWA owners though: don't you feel when you are reviewing your photos that your photos lack detail? Every time I shoot a photo at 17mm I feel there isn't as much detail as I would have wanted - I might be a pixel peeper, but that's why I prefer to shoot panos

Thoughts?

Seems like you have the mid range zoom covered, the 10-22 will rock your socks

I could walk around all day with just the 10-22. Plenty of fun @ 10mm, especially landscape, architecture photography

bohdank wrote in post #7219014
I spent 6 weeks around Melbourne in 2007. It was a working trip but I had some opportunity to take some time and see the immediate scenery (mostly vineyards). Although I only brought my Sony 707 I found myself usually wishing for something wider or longer. Therefore If I could only bring 2 lenses, I would bring my 10-22 and my 70-200. If I had a 100-400, I might use that rather than a 70-200.

Based on what you already have, get a 70-200 and a 1.4x converter.If that does not fall withing your budget, buy a 55-250.

you'd opt for the 70-200 over the 10-22?

to the o.p. if you're on a budget you can look into the sigma 10-20...the price is considerably less than the canon, and image quality is close

You keep mentioning the 17-50, but you don't like your 17-70. Honestly, there should be little difference in sharpness between the two. Just didn't want you to get your hopes up. Personally, I think the 17-70 would be perfect. Little but of wide and a little bit of tele. Should be covered. Shoot a 2-3 shot panorama if you need wider and stitch back at home.

Check out the sharpness tests for the two at SLR gear. The 17-50 will only gain you constant f2.8 max. Sharpness is roughly identical on both.

http://www.slrgear.com …ma17-70f28-45/tloader.htm
http://www.slrgear.com …amron17-50f28/tloader.htm

You can see that at f5.6-f8, both are about as sharp as it gets middle and corners.

tkbslc wrote in post #7220697
You keep mentioning the 17-50, but you don't like your 17-70. Honestly, there should be little difference in sharpness between the two. Just didn't want you to get your hopes up. Personally, I think the 17-70 would be perfect. Little but of wide and a little bit of tele. Should be covered. Shoot a 2-3 shot panorama if you need wider and stitch back at home.

Check out the sharpness tests for the two at SLR gear. The 17-50 will only gain you constant f2.8 max. Sharpness is roughly identical on both.

http://www.slrgear.com …ma17-70f28-45/tloader.htm
http://www.slrgear.com …amron17-50f28/tloader.htm

You can see that at f5.6-f8, both are about as sharp as it gets middle and corners.

i don't think a 2-3 shot panorama and an UWA shot are really close to the same thing...i don't think you can achieve the same results with 2-3 more shots...an UWA isn't neccesarily about fitting in as much as you can

DreDaze wrote in post #7220558
you'd opt for the 70-200 over the 10-22?

The OP has a 17-70... That + a 70-200 would work for me.

The 17-70 + 10-22 would also but a very different shooting setup.

The 17-70, at 17, has some expansive scenery capabilities..stitch panoramas.

That's why I have a 10-22/28-75/70-200... I would bring all 3 and not spend anytime wondering.

If you want some quality, you can't do it all with 1 or 2 lenses.

DreDaze wrote in post #7220747
i don't think a 2-3 shot panorama and an UWA shot are really close to the same thing...i don't think you can achieve the same results with 2-3 more shots...an UWA isn't neccesarily about fitting in as much as you can

I kind of agree, but sometimes it IS just about fitting it all in.

I was mostly just saying that the 17-70 would likely be the best ONE lens to take. You can get pretty wide and you still have tele left if needed. Sure if you can bring a full kit, why not have a 10-22, 17-70 and 70-200? But for traveling light something like the 17-70 is great.