Travel and Hiking one lens to do all solution.

I am looking for a one lens solution for hiking and Travel. It will pair with my 7D for landscape, portrait, group, cityscape, walkaround and animal(maybe). I have 580EXII when there is not enough light. Samples are absoultely helpful.

Thanks.

canon 17-55 IS or 15-85 IS

/thread

17-55 IS
35mm if you like primes

But if you want a one lens fits all solution, the zoom is really the better choice.

I think if you go with a single lens that is 55 or 85mm at the long end, you're going to be limiting yourself. You may come upon a situation where you need more reach. If you want to stick with a single lens then I would suggest either a 28-135 or 70-200. Unfortunately you're going to have to sacrifice the short end.

Another alternative is a "superzoom" like Tamron's 28-300. You'll sacrifice speed with a lens like this, but if you get the VC (Vibration Compensation) version, you can get back a stop or two.

I would suggest at least two lenses. I'm headed east next week and I plan on taking at least three lenses and two bodies with me. I'll probably have a 70-200, 28-75 and 14mm lenses, in addition to a 1.4X and 2X that will fit the 70-200.

Well the real question would be... are you hunting stuff or do you want landscape?

plasticmotif wrote in post #11128919
canon 17-55 IS or 15-85 IS

/thread

I have 17-55. That's not the ideal solution as it is lack of long reach. And it's not that wide when it comes to landscape. Looks like 15-85 is interesting. Thanks for mentioning it. I will give it a look.

LiberationFrequency wrote in post #11128931
17-55 IS
35mm if you like primes

But if you want a one lens fits all solution, the zoom is really the better choice.

Thanks I have 17-55 already. Not an ideal solution for me. While I have no problem to use 35mm on 7D all day ( I used sigma 30mm 1.4 before) it's sure not a good solution for travel. I don't need fast lens as I am prety sure I will bring my flash. Thanks for your input.

There's always the "ultimate superzoom", the 28-300 3.5-5.6 IS L...but it's a handful...

JWright wrote in post #11129018
I think if you go with a single lens that is 55 or 85mm at the long end, you're going to be limiting yourself. You may come upon a situation where you need more reach. If you want to stick with a single lens then I would suggest either a 28-135 or 70-200. Unfortunately you're going to have to sacrifice the short end.

Another alternative is a "superzoom" like Tamron's 28-300. You'll sacrifice speed with a lens like this, but if you get the VC (Vibration Compensation) version, you can get back a stop or two.

I would suggest at least two lenses. I'm headed east next week and I plan on taking at least three lenses and two bodies with me. I'll probably have a 70-200, 28-75 and 14mm lenses, in addition to a 1.4X and 2X that will fit the 70-200.

Thanks for your suggestion. I have 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mark II. While I have no problem to bring it for hiking, i would be more than happy not to. Most of the shots I took for landscape were from the shorter focal length tho. Not saying the long end is not useful, it is very useful and I use it for landscape too but I just tend to use the short end more in that situation.

As I said, i am looking for a 1 lens solution for travel and hiking, Two lens or two bodies are not my intention. I currently take 3-4 lenses with me when I travel or hike but I believe I can do it with a much lighter setup. I wil have either 430 EXII or 580 EXII and tripod with me when I travel so I don't need fast lens at all.

tamron 18-270mm.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp

LiberationFrequency wrote in post #11129023
Well the real question would be... are you hunting stuff or do you want landscape?

I hope I can have 1 lens to do both. But if I have to choose, I would choose landscape before hunting. But I don't want a lens with slow AF that will hunt a lot in less than ideal lighting condition.

DeaconG wrote in post #11129106
There's always the "ultimate superzoom", the 28-300 3.5-5.6 IS L...but it's a handful...

I have gave that a thought but it's price and pull-push style hold me off (I had 100-400L before). Also one of my goals to go for one lens solution is to reduce the weight when traveling/hiking. So, that super zoom L will work agianst that goal. Thanks for your input anyway.

HyperYagami wrote in post #11129120
tamron 18-270mm.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp

I had the non VC version on my Alpha mount before. I bought used at 180 dollars. And i really don't think the VC version worth 600 dollars. But thank you for input. I might still give it a look.

nonick wrote in post #11129159
I have gave that a thought but it's price and pull-push style hold me off (I had 100-400L before). Also one of my goals to go for one lens solution is to reduce the weight when traveling/hiking. So, that super zoom L will work agianst that goal. Thanks for your input anyway.

Looks like you're running out of options quick! I assume the 70-300 L isn't gonna work for you either since you have a 70-200...

I had a curiosity about the 28-300 once upon a time...unfortunately I already have enough heavy hitters in my kit and if a 70-200 gets you noticed, a 28-300 will seriously get you noticed!

I hope you find what you're looking for!

15-85 is probably best on crop if you like to take landscape shots. I tried to use a 17-50 for hiking and found it no where near wide enough for landscape. You need an ultra-wide for that. Are you space limited or worried about the weight? You could always do a 10-22 and 55-250, which would still be light.