Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hello all,

My wife and I are going on a 3 week trip to Italy and I have the budget to rent one lens for the time we are gone. My current gear line-up that I will be bringing with me is as follows:
- Canon 40D
- Canon 17-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS
- Canon 50mm II f/1.8
- Manfrotto 190XB with appropriate head

In Italy there will be a combination of landscape as well as building/sculpture shots. I have narrowed my rental lens choices down to 2 lens and they are as follows:
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
- Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS

I know these lenses are only completely opposite ends of the spectrum but I really can afford to rent only one of them so I would love to hear everybody and anybody's thoughts on these.

Thanks in advance!

Berge

Ultra-wide for sure.

A fun and creative alternative would be a fisheye lens.

imo, if you plan to do a lot of walking and sight seeing within the week, get the lightest and smallest lens you can find that covers the most focal range. I don't know much about canon lenses, but the 18-200 for nikon is what i am talking about. It becomes really cumbersome to carry even a tiny combo around after a couple days straight.

I agree with Del, go with the canon 18-200 or sigma 18-250 for the convenience. I went on a month and half backpacking trip in BC and all I had with me were sigma 18-250mm and 50 1.8.

Really though, you want to lug around 70-200 4L lens with you all the time?

I agree with Delsorbo as well. For my trip to Europe including Italy, I brought my 18-200 and my 10-20 and that was adequate for everything I needed. And even then I kinda regretted how heavy everything was and wished I just brought a point and shoot.

I would limit your gear to two lenses and I would take a wide over the zoom. Places like Venice was very narrow and you'll never use the zoom.

The answer lies in your shooting style. If you have the 17-85 then it becomes a question of will you shoot more between 10-17 mm or between 85-200 mm.

I've been to Rome (only in the city) with both the 70-200 and the 10-22 (and the Brick!!) and with my style I used the 70-200 more often than the 10-22.
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_mario ... 8803044298

It is not a heavy lens.

And you are not a weak guy. You can carry more than the average guy. I say saddle up!!

Your mileage may vary if you are going to be in the countryside. I find the 70-200 to be an exceptionally sharp lens, much more so than the 10-22.
What can I say? I really love the 70-200

question is are you going as a tourist or photographer?

I'm going primarily as a tourist and secondly as a hobbyist photographer.

The 18-200mm a few people mentioned is a good overall travel lens but sharpness and quality-wise it's nowhere near the L-series lenses...

I'll agree with that. On the far end, it is not that sharp but I preferred the convenience over lugging multiple lenses with me. On the other hand, I was backpacking (no strolling luggage), so I needed to make sure everything was as light as possible. If you are not really traveling except random day trips, then weight is not really an issue.

Are you going to be mainly in the city(tourist area's) or the country side? If your mainly in the city/tourist sites leave the tripod at home and go hand held. Way to many people for a tripod and eliminates the chance of getting it knocked over no matter how careful you are.

As previously mentioned this lens is not heavy otherwise you need to hit the gym.

Unless you love wide angle or need the reach for wild life all you really need is the 24-105L IS and a fast prime or 2. Consider getting a gorilla pod as it will be permitted in many places where a tripod will not.

Berge, I went to Italy for two weeks last year. I never went anywhere without my camera gear. I had three prime lenses, one zoom lens and a converter: 28mm, 50mm, 150mm, 70-200mm and 1.4x teleconverter.

I never used the 70-200 or teleconverter. I used the 150 three times. The rest of my pics were split pretty even between the 28 and 50, making up both architecture and landscape. I never missed a shot.

Maybe this will help you narrow it down a little.

I'm a total amateur, but i do travel a lot and take pictures. I love shooting landscapes and wide angles in general and own a sigma 11-16. I have to say that the majority of the time, the difference between 11mm and 16mm is insignificant. I don't remember myself ever saying "oh boy, i'm sure glad this thing goes down to 11".

If it's a matter of coverage, i think your 17mm should be plenty if you choose to shoot wide. On the other hand, the difference between 85 and 200 is very significant and gets a whole ton of extra range. For coverage, I would definitely go with the 200.

If you're looking to increase your quality and you mostly shoot wide, then your choice may be different.

I have no doubt you can carry whatever gear you bring, between yourself and that fancy backpack you have you'll be fine. It comes down to priority; if it's important that you get the shots you want and you enjoy your gear it becomes less cumbersome.

The question for me would also be are you happy with the 17-85? Would you not prefer a 17-55, 24-70 or the 24-105? A 17-55 could remove the need for a UWA depending on your shooting style (Do you tend to shoot wide or long?) Also, instead of the 70-200 look into the 70-300L. That extra reach may come in handy while travelling and it's got the newest IS to help handhold that 300. I've been thinking that for me, one day waaaay down the road, that might be a good "travel" lens. More likely a TC on a 70-200 mk II though.... anyway, I digress.

My travel setup is now much like Phil's: a UWA (mine being the Tokina) 11-16, the Brick 24-70 and a 70-200 (mine's a slightly larger 2.. All the ranges are covered and his track record with it is unquestionable.

Tough guy eh? The actual weight of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens 52.4 oz which is DOUBLE my 26.8 oz for the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens.

The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens is an intriguing lens. It wasn't available when I bought my long lens. It weighs in at 37.4 ounces.
I suppose Berge could carry that lens AND both of us in that bag!!

Lol, cmon now guys... I know you want to come with me to Italy, but I'm not packing you through security on my back!!

Seriously though, thanks to everyone for the advice; I still don't know what I'm going to go with but would likely be a good idea to spend some time walking around downtown and doing some architecture photography. That way I can see if I prefer the UWA to capture the overall structures or the zoom to get the details on the buildings. I have a feeling I'm leaning towards the UWA but we shall see

Thanks again!

what works in modern city might not necessarily work in ancient one. E.G. in Toronto I'd mostly shoot details since there isn't much of an isolated (building) architectural gem appeal, while in Europe I'd shoot a lot of wide angle (17 or so) because a lot of buildings come together in an overall scene

Berge, I haven't looked to see if it's available, I don't think Tokina is available for rent around here, but the Tokina 12-24 looks like it would suit your needs pretty well. Plus it's a constant aperture lens.



Yes, the Mk II is heavy but it's just that good that it doesn't seem so! Okay, maybe after a day of shooting with it I was starting to feel it but it has the IS to compensate for my shoulders weakening. My Sigma weighs ~43oz and the Canon Mk II is 52.6oz so it is nearing one pound heavier. That's 9.6oz more I'm willing to carry considering the quality difference.

The 70-300 is indeed interesting. I've played with one briefly and like the feel. I don't like that it's not a constant aperture though. Plus adding a TC would take away auto focus. 140-400 with f5.6 and still maintaining quality is one of the many tricks the 70-200 Mk II has. This is all aside from price of course.

Fuji HS20 or Canon SX30

Well then I'll just have to do a lot of shooting when I take the boss (aka wife) to Montreal for our anniversary in July... ya, that should work in terms of the older buildings... not necessarily ancient but not modern either.

Personally, I'd recommend trying to get a single lens that gives you the most flexibility/zoom-range possible so that you only have to carry 1 lens.

Any of the 18-200's would typically fit this bill, especially if you are using a crop factor, although the canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L is of particular note because of it's quality and super long range. (but also the really big price tag)

oh, ya... and bring the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, just because it weighs nothing and allows you to get really creative with DOF and is great for those low-light shots where you arn't allowed to use your flash.

My turn...

I am going to Paris and London in September and do not want to bring all my glass.

I have the following line-up:
***Coming with me for sure***
40D
11-16 Tokina (A good buddy is willing to lend to me)
17-55
50/1.8
580EX2 flash
CF travel angel tripod/monopod and SLR-Zoom Gorilla-pod

***Trying to decide what to bring***
85/1.8
135/2.0
70-200/4/IS

I could bring the zoom and be covered for all ranges or one of the primes but I would rather not being them all. Ideally I would like to only bring one of the three.

I may have access to a Canon 18-200 but I would be reluctant to downgrade my glass for what I consider a trip of a lifetime.

Thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

What are you going to be shooting? Museums, galleries, churches? Street, urban, landscape?

I did Paris and London with my P&S and was more than happy with the results, mostly street shooting.

I forgt to mention, we also will have a Canon S90 along for the ride.

I will likely shoot architecture, sites, churches and the like. I tend to only bring my 70-200 along when I do event style shooting with crowds/stages or sporting events.

17-55(or 11-16) & 70-200

s90 for the rest

Do you think i could do without the 11-16? My 17-55 tends to be my walkaround lens.

11-16 is a little too special-purpose for most trips. I used a lot of UWA in Rome but I anticipated that need going into the trip. I don't think you'd get much use out of it in Paris and London... 17mm should be plenty wide.

Would you bring along the 70-200 or one of the primes?

I'd probably bring neither. Having travelled with far too much gear in the past, I'm much more of a minimalist now on my trips.

40D, 17-55, and the Gorillapod are probably all I would take.