Ultra-Wide and Telephoto enough?

Hey guys,

Im going on a big holiday soon, all around Asia. As I've spend most of my money on the trip, I don't really have that much to disperse on lenses and what not.

Currently, I have;

Canon 40D
Tokina 12-24
Canon 70-300 IS

I'll be travelling to Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Will this be enough for the trip? Im pretty worried about the gap between 24-70, and not having a 'mid range' zoom. I'm mainly going to be taking Landscapes and stuff like that, but would 17 be wide enough?

Contemplating selling the Tokina, and getting a Tamron 17-50 or something like that.

What are your thoughts?

It all depends upon YOU. On an APS-C camera, the 'gap' is that you have no 'normal' nor 'short telephoto' for your camera. Some might never miss this part of the range. Keeping the Tokina, and then adding a Tamron 17-50 gives a bit of overlap so that you aren't perpetually force to change lenses, and (more importantly, to me) it gives you a fast aperture. For the cost of the Tamron, it is an economically fairly easy addition rather than replacement!

I think you'll be fine... I have sigma 10-20mm and canon 70-200mm and nothing in between because I saw I don't really need it lol. I mostly shoot landscapes where my ultra-wide comes handy, and everything else from flowers to people to weddings I use my 70-200mm

I much, much prefer having a single lens that is suitably wide to short tele for vacations as I don't want to be changing lenses constantly. Also, I can much more live without UWA and long tele on vacation than the range about normal.

To me the ultimate vacation dSLR kit would be a 5D + 24-105L or a 1.6X body with the newer 15-85.

It's very much down to the individual. For me, that combination would be awful, as it misses most of the focal lengths I tend to use.

I'd stick a 50mm 1.8 in the bag. It's light, it's cheap (boy, is it cheap), it's pretty fast and it'll help plug that gap.

Selling the Tokina would be a great mistake, as I hear from all the good reviews it's got.

But you could buy a Sigma 17-70 or, even better (and more expensive) a Tamron 17-50 VC. Or even the new Canon EF-S 15-85 (even more costly !). I have the 17-70 and am quite satisfied with it.

Yes the 50 f/1.8 is very sharp, but not a great landscape lens. It's more a portrait or a pseudo-macro lens.

I've been in Vegas one time with my Rebel and Canon EFS 10-22 ONLY and love it, light, get everything, sharp, etc..

another time in vegas only with my rebel + tamron 17-50 only, again same result.
I've been in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia (on 1 trip) one time with my Rebel and Tamron 17-50 ONLY and love it, light, get everything, sharp, etc..

next time im traveling again i'll only gonna bring my rebel and my new toy, the 18-200 thats it. (or maybe even my 17-50 again since it is so light instead of 18-200 which is kinda heavy).

anyway, its up to your style and need, hope my experience helps.

good luck man...

Keep the Tokina, get a 18-55 IS as a nice cheap solution to fill the gap. It's also very lightweight, which would be good for your trip. Otherwise a Tamron 17-50 VC would be nice (but woun't work on your 1DmkIII) perhaps consider a 24-105L that would be a really nice travel lens IMO.

hollis_f wrote in post #9006787
I'd stick a 50mm 1.8 in the bag. It's light, it's cheap (boy, is it cheap), it's pretty fast and it'll help plug that gap.

I second that opinion. Selling a good UWA lens like the Tokina 12-24mm would be a mistake, esp when the gap can be filled with an ultra-cheap 50mm 1.4.

Do you have friends?

If you want to take pictures of people I would definitely want something in that range. If you only want landscapes, building, and far off items those would work fine.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9004800
To me the ultimate vacation dSLR kit would be a 5D + 24-105L or a 1.6X body with the newer 15-85.

I'm right in the same ballpark with you. I now have the 15-85 and the 55-250. Ideally I will be replacing the 250 with the 70-200 F4 IS and a 1.4 extender for those times when I really need to be a bit longer. Those two should take me well into any area I want to go.

Hey guys,

Thanks for all your ideas.

I guess im just a little worried I'll never have the chance to do something like this again. I'll stick with the current plan, and keep my eyes peeled for a 17-50.

Thanks guys!

For me, most of my shots are taken in that "gap" range so I'd be a little worried. I have a Tamron 17-50mm and its a great lens and I enjoy shooting with it very much.

Ben A wrote in post #9009297
Hey guys,

Thanks for all your ideas.

I guess im just a little worried I'll never have the chance to do something like this again. I'll stick with the current plan, and keep my eyes peeled for a 17-50.

Thanks guys!

If money is a concern why not look for a used EF-S 18-55 IS? Covers that range and is a competent lens.

Added bonus is that it is cheap, light, small and has IS.