Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Hi all, I am sorry if I have posted this in the wrong area or if there is already a well used post about the subject...I am new to forums and although I have been told they are a breeze to navigate around, in my case it's more of 2 steps forward and 1 step back....but I'm learning.
My questions is about lenses for travel photography. I am going to Europe next year on a very very extended holiday on the canals. My current arsenal is: Canon 20D kit EFS 18-55mm, Canon EFS 35-80 CR AP lens, Canon EF 50 1:1.8, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM, Sigma 70-300mm DL MACRO SUPER f4.5-5.6. I would really only like to take 3 lenses with me and my thoughts were the Sigma 10-20mm, the EF 50mm and either an EF24~105 f4 L or one of Canons 70~200 L lenses. My problem is I can really only justify the expense of 1 of the 2 L glasses and I would like advice or opinions on which of the two would be more appropriate. I am not keen on the idea of lugging a huge tripod around so I would get 'IS' in whichever lens I buy. I would also be upgrading the 20D to a 60D as I find the top LCD is a bit hard for my old eyes and I miss the 'liveview' of my S3IS. Thank you in advance for any input. Darryl

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I don't get why there is an "expense" to justify if you own all of these lenses?

Which do you CURRENTLY own?

ebaribeault Loc: Baltimore

Not familiar with canon lenses but I would bring three lenses something in the 18-105 range, a 50mm prime and something in the 70 to 300 range this should cover every thing you will shoot. I would also reconsider the tripod if you plan to take landscapes at night

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Hi there, I currently own all but the 2 'L' glasses (EF24~105L & EF70~200L).

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

My intention is to sell the kit 18~55, the crap 35~80 (I'd give this one away) and the Sigma zoom 70~300. All I am planning on taking is the Sigma 10~20 and either of the 2 L glasses mentioned. I just don't know which is the more suitable. If I was to go for the EF 70~200 L I would need to keep my kit 18 ~55 to fill in the gap. Darryl

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Ahhh, sorry now im confusing myself. I meant I would sell the 18~55 as well and keep the EF50mm.
So, the lenses I would keep are Sigma 10~20, Canon EF 50 and either one of the 2 L lenses. I can't justify the expence of both the 'L's. Darryl

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Thanks for your help. I will have the field pretty well covered by keeping the 10~20, 50 prime and (buying) the 70~200L. If I got the 24~105 L I could probably leave the 50mm prime behind but I am hesitant in parting with the prime. The 70~200 would have 'IS' so I think most of my shots would be hand held and using whatever is available for support, whereas my current Sigma 70~300 needs a tripod. And yes, there will be a sturdy tripod with me but I am more talking about the lenses I would carry with me for most of the time. cheers

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Here is what I'd do.

I wouldn't go for zooms at all.

Why?

You said you couldn't part with your beloved 50mm...why?

Is it because it's such a sweet piece of glass?

I agree; primes rule. Not for convenience but for image quality and at the end of the day...I'll sneaker zoom for image quality over convenience every time.

You have the short end covered...you have the middle covered with the 50mm.

I'd go for another prime either the 100mm macro f/2.8 or the 135mm f/2 (the sharpest lens canon EVER made.) OR I'd go with the 85mm f/1.4 (an amazing lens.)

That's just me, I'm all about seeing every eyelash in a picture with people and every grain of sand in a beach shot. :) you can always soften, but you can put in what was never there.

If you don't want primes; I'd stick with the 24-70L lens.

400% crop of my dog taken with the 24mm f/2.8

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Get the 24-105. It's a nice sharp lens with great coverage range and it's relatively light.
You get the 70-200 (presuming you mean the 2.8) and you might end up leaving it in the hotel room. It's heavy and will wear on you. Great lens, I have one, but not sure I'd feel like lugging it around for long days.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

That's what I was wondering...is the 24-105 much lighter than the 28-200?

Thanks for answering that for me..

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Oh yeah the 70-200 2.8 weighs over twice as much as the 24-105 and is almost twice as long.

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Thanks 'Gator, I was only waiting for one person to suggest the 24~105 as opposed to the 70~200........you have confirmed what my heart was desiring all along.

:thumbup:

Darryl88 Loc: New Zealand

Thanks a lot rpavich - I hadn't given a prime of that size (135 f2) much thought in my desire to cover most of the bases. I will go with the EF 24~105L (as 'Gator suggested below) and also a prime with respectable distance. You are a man after my own heart~ I also love to see everything in my picture sharp from the front to the back. Not that I have anything against bokeh (if I want Bokeh my 50mm will do it for me) but I was bought up in the 'film' era of looking for sharpness in a photos and old habits die hard.
What can I say about your photo but....WOW!! (and all in capitals!)....that's a seriously dam good photo! Darryl

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

[quote=Darryl88][quote=rpavich][ I also love to see everything in my picture sharp from the front to the back. Not that I have anything against bokeh (if I want Bokeh my 50mm will do it for me) but I was bought up in the 'film' era of looking for sharpness in a photos and old habits die hard.
What can I say about your photo but....WOW!! (and all in capitals!)....that's a seriously dam good photo! Darryl[/quote]

Don't misunderstand..I love shallow DOF but what should be in focus....should be cornea slicing sharp. :-)

Glad Gater could help you with the zooms.

vooda Loc: Bribie Island,QLD,Australia

I have a 24-105mm f/4 L IS and it is fabulouse..Super sharp, light and is the perfect walkaround lens..