I have a Canon 70D and taking this on a upcoming trip to Lima, Machu Picchu and Cusco in Peru. I want to travel light and was planning on bringing just one lens on this trip. I have a Canon 18-135mm STM that I would bring. However I am thinking about renting a Canon 24-105L lens from one of the lens rental companies. The majority of my photos are of landscapes. I am certainly interested in hearing any member opinions.
The rental would not be as wide nor have the reach.
If I were going on that trip, I would take the 18-135.
(My primary lens is an 18-200 that lives on the camera.)
I'd stick with the 18-135, for the wide reasons mentioned above. You might consider a EF 50 f/1.8 or even an EF 40 f/2.8 that are small, cheap, feather weight, and give you a lowlight / indoor option if you can't use a flash.
The 24-105 actually has less focal length range than your 18-135. Landscapes need wide angles and 24 might not be wide enough. On the other hand, for wildlife the 104 would not be long enough, indeed, the 135 might not. If you want to do it all in 1 lens you might consider the Sigma 18-300 or the Tamron 18-400. I would have said the Tamron 16-300 if it were priced similar to the Sigma. This will give you the longer tele.
If you can carry a second lens, the Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 would offer wider coverage for landscapes.
Wonder around anything resembling a landscape in your neighborhood and see how wide you think you need. I found 18 wide enough for most situations.
Ron29 wrote:
I have a Canon 70D and taking this on a upcoming trip to Lima, Machu Picchu and Cusco in Peru. I want to travel light and was planning on bringing just one lens on this trip. I have a Canon 18-135mm STM that I would bring. However I am thinking about renting a Canon 24-105L lens from one of the lens rental companies. The majority of my photos are of landscapes. I am certainly interested in hearing any member opinions.
Hi Ron, I did almost the same trip as you are doing a couple of years ago and wanting to cover every eventuality took my 24-70 2.8 and 70-300 4.5. (Nikon) I also took my little Lumix LX3 with its 24-70 lens.
By the time we got to Peru I was leaving my Nikon gear in my packed bag most of the time. It just got too heavy (and obvious to locals) to carry around all the time and relied on my LX3 for most of the 'city' shooting. When I did use the Nikon (D7100), I used the 24-70 95% of the time. There were very few times I regretted not having the long lens with me and I dont recall thinking I needed wider than 24mm.
(I was so happy with the LX3 I upgraded to the LX100 when we got home and today it is my 'go to' camera most of the time.
You can see a few samples of pics from our Peru trip on the link below my signature if you want).
I dont know Canon lens quality but as far as range goes I would suggest your 18-135 would be close to ideal and cover the majority of your needs.
Just be aware that altitude takes it toll. I have no problem carrying my Nikon D7100 with its heavy 24-70 attached most of the time here in NZ, but it became a drag at altitude.
Enjoy your trip, Peru was a wonderful experience for me. Lovely people, very colorful and fantastic landscapes.
I agree with what others said. You will miss the 18mm wide, at least in Machu Picchu and Cusco por details and around constructions.
I should add the 24-105L is an excellent lens. The image quality is better than from the lenses I suggested above and is f/4 all the way to 105, but the disadvantage is the limited zoom range.
Hi All,
Thank you for the advice, looks like I will stick with the Canon 18-135 STM. I also have a Canon 70-300 L glass lens, just don’t feel like carrying this around all day. I did carry this around in the Canadian Rockies last year and the weight plus altitude is a lot to handle daily.
sb
Loc: Florida's East Coast
You might want to rent a Canon 10-22mm wide angle lens. It is a really high-quality lens (always felt to be "L" quality even though Canon does not officially make their EFS lenses as "L". You will appreciate the wide angle - to get more of the ruins and the mountains but also for closer shots of the stonework.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Ron29 wrote:
I have a Canon 70D and taking this on a upcoming trip to Lima, Machu Picchu and Cusco in Peru. I want to travel light and was planning on bringing just one lens on this trip. I have a Canon 18-135mm STM that I would bring. However I am thinking about renting a Canon 24-105L lens from one of the lens rental companies. The majority of my photos are of landscapes. I am certainly interested in hearing any member opinions.
I took a Nikon D7200 and a Nikon 18-200 that covered everything.
Ron29 wrote:
I have a Canon 70D and taking this on a upcoming trip to Lima, Machu Picchu and Cusco in Peru. I want to travel light...
We did this amazing trip two years ago. My 18-135 mm lens stayed on my camera >95% of the time.
I shoot Pentax and I have a small light Pentax 10-17 mm fisheye-Wide-angle zoom that takes almost no space and was a fun addition 5% of the time.
So if the Canon 10-22 mm lens mentioned above is not big nor heavy, that would round off your kit very nicely for this trip.
Hope this helps! And have a great trip.
Unrelated to the above:
message me here for some helpful links for preventing or mitigating gastrointestinal issues...
Ron29 wrote:
I have a Canon 70D and taking this on a upcoming trip to Lima, Machu Picchu and Cusco in Peru. I want to travel light and was planning on bringing just one lens on this trip. I have a Canon 18-135mm STM that I would bring. However I am thinking about renting a Canon 24-105L lens from one of the lens rental companies. The majority of my photos are of landscapes. I am certainly interested in hearing any member opinions.
On the 70D you won't pick up a huge advantage in image quality and you loose range on both ends. I would stick to the 18-135mm.
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Ron29 wrote:
Hi All,
Thank you for the advice, looks like I will stick with the Canon 18-135 STM. I also have a Canon 70-300 L glass lens, just don’t feel like carrying this around all day. I did carry this around in the Canadian Rockies last year and the weight plus altitude is a lot to handle daily.
Leave thE big gun at home. Much to conspicuous. You might do as well with a bridge camera an sx50 can be picked up inexpensively. And you will have a back up when you return
I’d look at the Tamron 18-400. It’s pretty much replaced my two Nikon (18-50, 70-300) lenses.
But I’m wondering about all the responses about the camera being too “obvious”. I’m going to Costa Rica next month (with a guided tour). Should I be concerned taking my D7500 + Tamron. Why have a good camera if you are afraid to use it. There’s crime here in the states too.
DL
Loc: St. Petersburg, Fl and Island Park, Idaho
I did that trip 5 years ago. I took 2 lenses. I took my 70-200 2.8 and a 16-35. The 70-200 was on the camera 90 percent of the time and I needed the long end of it a lot but I was very glad to have the 16-35when I needed it. That trip is not cheap so I would make the effort to carry what you need and not be sorry you didn't.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.