Hawaii: Macro or tele?

Ok, I'm heading to hawaii in a few months (not my first time but first time with a camera!).

And I've got the itch. You know --- that shopping itch.

With Hawaii as an excuse to buy more stuff, I want to make the best of this trip. I've already bought a Lee Big Stopper, so I'm part way there. I'm good with lenses. I have (on FF) 35/2, both canon 50mm non L's, 85 1.8, 135L. My buddy has a ton of lenses, I'll probably bring his 17-40mm. Maybe, just maybe, 24-105mm but I'm iffy on that (owned the lens before never used it). I do have access to the 100mm macro IS, but I want to bring my 135 so I won't bring both.

So, faced with that, what do you guys think: Kenko extension tubes or Kenko teleconverter for my 135L? I can't remember seeing anything in Hawaii that really would warrant ~200mm FL. I'm thinking I'll be on the wide end a lot, and some tight portraits. So maybe I don't need either but that won't stop me

Is there anything macro worthy in Hawaii? If neither is particularly useful I'll go for the macro for general use here stateside.

Hawaii. Beach. Sun. Girls.

Macro or tele? You tell me...

Shadowblade wrote in post #10606596
Hawaii. Beach. Sun. Girls.

Macro or tele? You tell me...

Hahah

Shadowblade wrote in post #10606596
Hawaii. Beach. Sun. Girls.

Macro or tele? You tell me...

How about a Macro telephoto?

Wide angle and a general zoom should be enough. I would say: 17-40 & 24-105. But if you want to take some photos of beach...girls...sun...​. take your prime 85 f/1.8 with you as well. It will give you more separation I don't think a telephoto would be needed. It should stay in the hotel.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10606596
Hawaii. Beach. Sun. Girls.

Macro or tele? You tell me...

Tele!!!!!!!!



Not many girls in Hawaii except for the tourists though. I'll be shooting my lady though so I guess it'll be Hawaii, Beach Sun and Girl.

I would bring your 17-40mm and a 70-200mm. On a FF those are all you will need, unless you are in to macro shots then you need the 100mm f/2.8L IS as well. Have a look at my flickr, I use mostly those two lenses. http://www.flickr.com/​photos/37014341@N03/

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

The 70-200mm is HUGE and white though ... was thinking maybe the 135mm with 1.4x would be more inconspicuous. The 17-40mm is a must though.

jdang307 wrote in post #10606564
Ok, I'm heading to hawaii in a few months (not my first time but first time with a camera!).

And I've got the itch. You know --- that shopping itch.

With Hawaii as an excuse to buy more stuff, I want to make the best of this trip. I've already bought a Lee Big Stopper, so I'm part way there. I'm good with lenses. I have (on FF) 35/2, both canon 50mm non L's, 85 1.8, 135L. My buddy has a ton of lenses, I'll probably bring his 17-40mm. Maybe, just maybe, 24-105mm but I'm iffy on that (owned the lens before never used it). I do have access to the 100mm macro IS, but I want to bring my 135 so I won't bring both.

So, faced with that, what do you guys think: Kenko extension tubes or Kenko teleconverter for my 135L? I can't remember seeing anything in Hawaii that really would warrant ~200mm FL. I'm thinking I'll be on the wide end a lot, and some tight portraits. So maybe I don't need either but that won't stop me

Is there anything macro worthy in Hawaii? If neither is particularly useful I'll go for the macro for general use here stateside.

@ 400mm
feral chickens.....

I just got back from Hawaii. I had a lot of fun at the botanical gardens shooting flowers with my 60 2.8 macro. I would definitely suggest a circular polarizer and some sort of gradient filter. I attended a photo tour and if I didn't have those I would have had very flat washed out pics. I was able to get great sky and water gradient with these two inexpensive tools.

interesting. I do have a circ pol, and will be getting a set of filters as well.

which botanical gardens did you go to? I will be on Oahu so I see there are five. Are they all worth visiting?

Shadowblade wrote in post #10606596
Hawaii. Beach. Sun. Girls.

Macro or tele? You tell me...

How close can you get to the "Sun"? *cough*:p

jdang307 wrote in post #10607562
The 70-200mm is HUGE and white though ... was thinking maybe the 135mm with 1.4x would be more inconspicuous. The 17-40mm is a must though.

Sigma 150 and a 1.4x. Gives you a fast 150mm, a reasonable 210mm, and a very good macro lens.

jdang307 wrote in post #10607562
The 70-200mm is HUGE and white though ... was thinking maybe the 135mm with 1.4x would be more inconspicuous. The 17-40mm is a must though.

I got a black lenscoat for my 70-200 2.8 and now it is not so conspicuous.

I'd take a SuperZoom (WideTele), you'll have a lot of chances for landscapes, and if you want to check out the ladies, you have the zoom there.