Lenses for Trip to Italy (Page 4): You are each entitled to your wrong opinion. I stand by my recommendation of the two most useful lenses on such a trip: 24-70 and 10-20. It would...

nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada

Robertl594 wrote:

Rent a faster 24mm? I just re-found my 24mm 1.4. My new favorite lens.

You are each entitled to your wrong opinion. I stand by my recommendation of the two most useful lenses on such a trip: 24-70 and 10-20. It would certainly help if they were constant apertures lenses for better low light performance.
By the way 10 (15 on crop sensor) is much wider than 18 (27 on crop sensor). There is a much different image production between 10 and 18. Do the math!

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

nikon123 wrote:

You are each entitled to your wrong opinion. I stand by my recommendation of the two most useful lenses on such a trip: 24-70 and 10-20. It would certainly help if they were constant apertures lenses for better low light performance.
By the way 10 (15 on crop sensor) is much wider than 18 (27 on crop sensor). There is a much different image production between 10 and 18. Do the math!

Wow. My opinion is wrong?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Longshadow wrote:

It depends on what and how you shoot...
I went to Iceland with an 18-200 and a 50.

If I were going, using your equipment, I would take the 18-300 and the 35.
But that's me.
What do you want to take?

I completely agree that it depends on what and how he shoots. Not knowing that, I also agree on the 18-300mm and 35mm,

Toolking Loc: Pacific Northwest

I agree that's what I took 5 years ago for a D610.
OOPs forgot quote ..18-300 and 50 1.8

R.G. Loc: Scotland

frankraney wrote:

10-20 not that much wider than 18.

....until you find yourself in an enclosed space with no room to manoeuvre.

I've noticed that people who do real estate interiors usually say that 24mm (FF equiv.) isn't quite wide enough. 27mm equiv. is even less wide.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

R.G. wrote:

....until you find yourself in an enclosed space with no room to manoeuvre.

I've noticed that people who do real estate interiors usually say that 24mm (FF equiv.) isn't quite wide enough. 27mm equiv. is even less wide.

That's real estate. But inside a church or other large building and landscape, street shots (what he will be doing) 18 is plenty wide. Imho

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

frankraney wrote:

That's real estate. But inside a church or other large building and landscape, street shots (what he will be doing) 18 is plenty wide. Imho

I have photographed dozens of church interiors in numerous countries (including Italy), and can say with confidence that 18mm full-frame is wide enough, but 18mm APS-C is not--because de facto has the field of view of a 27mm lens. (This is why I recommend taking the 10-20mm APS-C lens.)

Many folks here throw around numbers of focal lengths without specifying what format they are talking about. This leads to a meaningless discussion.

An example here is the OP's option to take a 35mm lens--52.5mm full-frame equivalent--which many here endorsed. While having a faster prime certainly can be useful for night shots, 52.5mm is too long to be really useful for this type of photography in my experience. 35mm in a full-frame system would be a different story--that would be in the 20-24mm range for an APS-C lens.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

frankraney wrote:

That's real estate. But inside a church or other large building and landscape, street shots (what he will be doing) 18 is plenty wide. Imho

There's a possibility that the OP won't want to limit himself to large buildings or lanes that aren't too narrow or busy. I referenced real estate interior photography because it's typical of what photographing inside typical rooms is like (some are large, some not so large). Throw in a few people (or possibly more than a few) and the need for a wider angle becomes more obvious.