Travel lens
Apr 5, 2022 13:05:58 #
Is a 17-50 f/2.8 way to short? I've been internally debating about whether or not to rent a so-so superzoom lens (28-300 f/3.5-6.3), bring my heavy 24-105 f/4 on either of my bodies or just take the old APS-C and my light-as-a-feather (comparatively speaking) 17-50. I'm going on a 3-wk trip to France and Switzerland in June. There will probably be quite a few more indoor pics in France and more outdoor pics in Switzerland (my guess). I have both a FF an an APS-C body to choose from. I can use CIZ up to 2x, but using the 17-50 on the FF would reduce MP from 42 to 18. An RX10 IV would be about 2x the cost of the lens (~$360 vs ~$180 with insurance).
Apr 5, 2022 13:31:15 #
I have a Tamron 28-200 in A mount - the "XR" version - really a quite nice lens on my A99 - less than $100 used ! It is what I would be taking on a trip.
.
.
Apr 5, 2022 14:23:41 #
It depends on your shooting preferences and <versatility> desires.
Mine is my 18-200.
A 17-50 may be too short or not as versatile, for some people, and just fine for others.
Mine is my 18-200.
A 17-50 may be too short or not as versatile, for some people, and just fine for others.
Apr 5, 2022 15:04:54 #
On my APS-C body I use a Sigma 18-300 mm zoom. It covers most everything.
Somewhat bigger, heavier and more expensive is the Tamron 18-400.
Another way to cover most everything is a bridge camera. My SX50 HS fits the bill, but the current model is the SX70 HS. There are many competitors models to choose from.
Somewhat bigger, heavier and more expensive is the Tamron 18-400.
Another way to cover most everything is a bridge camera. My SX50 HS fits the bill, but the current model is the SX70 HS. There are many competitors models to choose from.
Apr 5, 2022 15:10:30 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
planepics wrote:
Is a 17-50 f/2.8 way to short? I've been internal... (show quote)
Despite the fact that i have and use an 18-200 mm zoom on a DX camera, my preference is for something other than a 11:1 zoom unless there is really a reason for it. I have used a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom on a D200 (DX) and other cameras for over 15 years, including travel to some pretty notable places, and it has worked fine for me. Today, I'm at school doing two or three things with a 24-120mm f/4 on a D500 (also DX). I also use it on a D850 sometimes (it's a full frame lens). Sometimes I use a 24-70mm f/2.8.
The real answer, as has been stated, is what you are comfortable with...what you can make work for you. I do not allow my lenses to drive the boat. Once I decide what to take, I work to make that one work for me. No second-guessing. I'll occasionally miss a shot, but never completely, and not very often.
Apr 5, 2022 15:52:02 #
Apr 5, 2022 17:12:21 #
planepics wrote:
Is a 17-50 f/2.8 way to short? I've been internal... (show quote)
I'm personally a fan of the 28-300 focal range for a utility lens. I have two of them, a Nikkor and a Canon L series. The Nikkor was around $900 new and the Canon goes for around $2400 new. I bought my Canon 28-300L used in fairly rough condition for around $600 and paid Canon another $600 to refurbish it. It was like new when I got it back and it works great.
Apr 5, 2022 17:57:30 #
If the 17-50mm lens is too short or not depends on what kind of images you generally take or plan to take on the trip.
A few years ago I traveled all across Europe for a month with nothing but a 50mm lens. Of course there were a few situations I could have used a longer lens, but I simply adapted to what I had and set up my shots accordingly. For example, finding ways to get closer to the subject. I absolutely don't regret not bringing a longer lens along for the trip. In fact, it was rather enjoyable not carrying a long, heavy zoom lens around - I hardly noticed the camera was there most of the time. But then, I'm not the kind of person who feels the need to take non-stop thousands upon thousands of pictures from every possible angle and focal length on a trip. A few hundred well chosen and thoughtfully composed images are enough for me.
A few years ago I traveled all across Europe for a month with nothing but a 50mm lens. Of course there were a few situations I could have used a longer lens, but I simply adapted to what I had and set up my shots accordingly. For example, finding ways to get closer to the subject. I absolutely don't regret not bringing a longer lens along for the trip. In fact, it was rather enjoyable not carrying a long, heavy zoom lens around - I hardly noticed the camera was there most of the time. But then, I'm not the kind of person who feels the need to take non-stop thousands upon thousands of pictures from every possible angle and focal length on a trip. A few hundred well chosen and thoughtfully composed images are enough for me.
Apr 5, 2022 18:11:57 #
Apr 6, 2022 04:13:24 #
zug55
Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
In my experience, 24-105mm (full-frame) is the perfect focal range for a travel lens. The Sony 24-105mm gives great image quality that a superzoom cannot offer. f/4 is enough for a travel lens--I usually shoot at f/8 anyway. IBIS and OSS are so good that I can easily take a hand-held night shot or interior shot with this lens at f/4. I usually also take a Zeiss Batis 18mm for architectural shots--this is my travel kit. I have used this kit in Switzerland and France before the pandemic (and in many other countries), and I am currently in Spain after having spent a week in Dublin, again using just these two lenses. You want to keep your travel kit simple and not too heavy, otherwise you will not enjoy your trip.
Apr 6, 2022 04:27:32 #
zug55
Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas
rook2c4 wrote:
A few years ago I traveled all across Europe for a month with nothing but a 50mm lens.
I think that this is an interesting experiment. I would probably pick 35mm instead of 50mm, but that is a matter of personal preference. I think that the lens we use reflects the way we see the world. I often go on day trips with only my Zeiss Batis 40mm. I invariably come back with great photos. I have not had the guts yet to do that for an entire trip, but perhaps I should give this a try.
Apr 6, 2022 05:47:43 #
w00dy4012
Loc: Thalia, East Virginia
planepics wrote:
Is a 17-50 f/2.8 way to short? I've been internal... (show quote)
On a trip to Ireland, I carried three lenses: a 24-240, a 16-35, and a Samyang 12 mm fisheye (semi-rectilinear). I was expecting to mainly use the 24-240. but except for a few images of white-tailed eagles, most of the several thousand images were made with the 16-35 followed by the 12 mm.
Apr 6, 2022 05:52:02 #
A 17-70 f2.8 with your cropped body will cover a lot of subjects and it will be very useful in very dark places. For more reach you will need a tele-zoom.
Apr 6, 2022 06:29:30 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
planepics wrote:
Is a 17-50 f/2.8 way to short? I've been internal... (show quote)
I use my trusty Zeiss 24-720 mm that fits in my pocket. Best travel lens ever, and best of all it's attached to the Sony HX99. Sharp, light, long, shoots RAW, what else could be better. Pop up viewfinder, pop up flash and auto fill and night time balanced flash.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Apr 6, 2022 09:33:35 #
Not sure what camera brand you're using but the Nikon Z 24-200 is a versatile lens with excellent sharpness in the center and very good at the corners.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.