# One lens for vacation



## ScottFielding (Apr 17, 2013)

I am going on holiday with the family and ideally would like to take just one lens. I am interested in what others would regard as a popular lens for a beach/pool holiday with young kids??

I have a 5D III and currently own a 50L and 70-200 f2.8 II. I will have enough on my hands with one lens and am therefore considering taking the 50L as love using a wide aperture for capturing my kids. I will not have a chance to take many scenery shots, so will be doing mostly candid/portraits.

I could justify purchasing a new lens before I go and have been considering the 135 f2 for a while now, but my friend recently captured some great shots with his 16-35 II. 

If I am purchasing a new lens I need to get it right as don't want it gathering dust when I get back. I mainly use the 50L and nearly always try to have it at 1.2. I have previously considered the 85L but with fast kids I need a quick focus lens, and feel the 135 f2 would suit better.

I live on a small Island and have no access to wide lenses, so don't want to jump into an expensive prime.

Would appreciate any advice as my only concern with the 50L is that I would have to be close to the water to capture the kids. I am not looking to get any group shots.

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 17, 2013)

May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed  High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 17, 2013)

If you're used to the 50L, just take the 50L. It's what you and your kids are used to, but it just might mean that you get a bit more wet than with the 70-200 II. :


----------



## bholliman (Apr 17, 2013)

50mm is an excellent general purpose lens. Probably a better choice than your 70-200 if you are just taking one lens. The 70-200 II is also really large and heavy. If you plan to do a lot of walking, the extra weight can take away from the enjoyment of your vacation.

If you are thinking about purchasing another lens, a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom would be an excellent choice both for your vacation and almost everything else. The constant 2.8 aperature will allow you to take great portraits and family shots in low light without flash. Both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70mm VC would be excellent choices. The Canon 24-105mm 4.0 is another option, but will not be as capable in low light indoor settings as the f/2.8 lenses.

The 135L f/2 is an awesome lens and I recommend it as a future addition to your kit. That said, its probably not an ideal choice if you are just taking one lens on a trip. It has a 3 foot minimum focal distance and you usually need to be much further away from you subject than that to get more than just their face in the frame. Not ideal in small rooms or tight quarters.


----------



## RGF (Apr 18, 2013)

what do you want to shoot? Scenics, family pix, group scenes, ... The big orange ball as it sets or rise with a tree right in front of it?

What are you going to do with the images? Web, 4x6, ... Don't need a great lens for these. Might consider an 18-200 for general purpose any goes photography. or 18-135 STM is fairly sharp but not as long.


----------



## pierceography (Apr 18, 2013)

I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. It covers the range of the 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm and is just as sharp. For me, the 24-70 range is my focal wheelhouse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2013)

The 'ultimate' one-lens solution is the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. I often take that on trips - you get a huge range and good IQ, but it's a big lens (same size as the 70-200 II). 

A 24-105L is also good one-lens option for a more reasonable size/weight, but I'll likely take my 24-70L II instead, as that can do portraits, landscapes, etc. 

The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II would make a wonderful two-lens kit. 



RGF said:


> Might consider an 18-200 for general purpose any goes photography. or 18-135 STM is fairly sharp but not as long.



I'd really, really, _really_ recommend against taking a 5DIII (which the OP stated as the body) and just one EF-S lens that can't be mounted on that body.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

Here's another vote for a standard zoom, either the 24-105 or the new 24-70.

There's a reason they're called standard zooms, and that they're the lenses the manufacturers sell in the box with the camera. You'll find plenty of edge cases where a specific lens outdoes the standard zoom, but the standard zoom is going to be good to excellent at everything.

Your 50, for example, as good a lens as it unquestionably is, makes for an absolutely miserable 24mm lens. And while the 135 will be great for headshot portraits, it's going to suck royally at most everything else. A standard zoom, on the other hand, will do quite well at both wide-angle landscape work and headshot portraits, even if it's not the absolute best lens for either.

If you know specifically what you'll be shooting, grab the specific tool for that specific job. But if you don't know what you'll be shooting, you want a Swiss Army Knife that'll get the job done (and do it well even if not perfectly) no matter what. And that's what a standard zoom is.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## bwfishing (Apr 18, 2013)

Just my two cents....

I would always recommend taking at least one back-up lens, even if is just a pancake Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens. Because you never know what can happen.

+1 for the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens is a easy winner to me regarding the information provided.

I hope you and yours have a GREAT time on vacation!


----------



## tiger82 (Apr 18, 2013)

The 17-40 f/4L with your 50 should work. The 17-40 is fairly compact and light and half the cost of a 24-70 II f/2.8L or a 16-35 II f/2.8L.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Apr 18, 2013)

au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
reasons. It's relatively cheap to buy - around $300 - but has good enough image quality that it has been a standard package zoom with many Canon bundles. It's relatively cheap to buy so you're not going to break the
bank if it's damaged or stolen. It doesn't weigh as much as some of the alternatives suggested here and most vacations I've been on involve a lot of walking without many "rest stops". You can sell it after your vacation if it doesn't fit nicely into your long range lens plan and you won't lose much, if any, money. If you decide to take the
50 crop sensor, the 18-135 is another similarly priced option.


----------



## tiger82 (Apr 18, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
> reasons. It's relatively cheap to buy - around $300 - but has good enough image quality that it has been a standard package zoom with many Canon bundles. It's relatively cheap to buy so you're not going to break the
> bank if it's damaged or stolen. It doesn't weigh as much as some of the alternatives suggested here and most vacations I've been on involve a lot of walking without many "rest stops". You can sell it after your vacation if it doesn't fit nicely into your long range lens plan and you won't lose much, if any, money. If you decide to take the
> 50 crop sensor, the 18-135 is another similarly priced option.



Have you shot with it? With a 5D3, I don't think the OP wanted to sacrifice IQ. If IQ is not paramount, then an SX50 or SX40 P&S will serve the OP well.


----------



## TAF (Apr 18, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed  High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.



+1 for the 24-105L.

I would also recommend (as others have) getting the 40mm pancake as a small (in your pocket) spare, just in case.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2013)

+1 for 24-105mm for vacation.

+1 for at least one back up lens...... 40mm or 50mm....


----------



## spinworkxroy (Apr 18, 2013)

I would strongly advise on the 24-70ii over the 24-105.I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2013)

spinworkxroy said:


> I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again



Ditto. Still have my 24-105, too...I've gone so far as to shoot product pics of it and dig out the original box, although I haven't actually listed it yet.


----------



## tiger82 (Apr 18, 2013)

If this were an exercise in reading and interpreting te OP's request, most of you will get a FAIL. He has his hands full with kids, won't have time to explore, and likes to shoot wide open. Surely, a bulky lens won't work and neither will a small aperture solution.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again
> ...



Out of curiosity, how much did you shoot the 24-105 at 105, and how're you dealing with the shorter focal length?

I’ll observe that there's a bigger difference between 70 and 105 than there is between 85 and 100, the two most popular primes in that range...and that most people used to shooting a 100 chose it over an 85 for a reason, even if you can compensate....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 18, 2013)

+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II. I used mine on my cruise to the Bahamas WAAAAAy more than I thought. BTW, I brought everything but used this most of the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Ditto. Still have my 24-105, too...I've gone so far as to shoot product pics of it and dig out the original box, although I haven't actually listed it yet.



Out of curiosity, how much did you shoot the 24-105 at 105, and how're you dealing with the shorter focal length?

I’ll observe that there's a bigger difference between 70 and 105 than there is between 85 and 100, the two most popular primes in that range...and that most people used to shooting a 100 chose it over an 85 for a reason, even if you can compensate....
[/quote]

I haven't missed the 70-105mm range, yet. For many scenes, a step closer does the trick. Where I might actually miss the 24-105 (and probably the main reason I haven't sold it) is 'studio' portraits (lighting + backdrop). I do that at f/9-10, the 24-105's IQ is excellent there, and the 105mm means decently tight portraits whereas 70mm doesn't work (too close, wrong perspective).


----------



## dslrdummy (Apr 18, 2013)

I recently did an unpaid sports shoot and although a number of the shots were published by a local newspaper (my first ), I found out two things that are going to impact my next vacation kit. First, my 24-105 is soft on the edges wide open and marginal in low light even at high iso on the mark 3. Second, I get way better image quality with my 70-200 ii cropped than using the 2x extender. My advice if you are taking one lense is go for the 24-70 if you can afford it. I would if I could.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where I might actually miss the 24-105 (and probably the main reason I haven't sold it) is 'studio' portraits (lighting + backdrop). I do that at f/9-10, the 24-105's IQ is excellent there, and the 105mm means decently tight portraits whereas 70mm doesn't work (too close, wrong perspective).



Hmm...wouldn't the 70-200 trump the 24-105 in the 70-105 range?

(And I'm personally fond of the 180 for the kind of stopped-down tight studio portraits you describe. It's perfect for passport-style publicity head shots -- as if that was what it was designed for, rather than macro work.)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Dart23 (Apr 18, 2013)

If you worry about being too far away (at the beach for example) with the 50, just get the 85 1.8 - very fast, not too bulky, fairly cheap should something happen to it, and perfect for you since you said "mostly candids/portraits".

Then get the 40 2.8 - may be bending the one lens rule but it's so small you could put it in your pocket if you needed something wider for general scenery / walkaround.

Both good for the wide open you like to shoot, and you can get both of those for less than the 24-105 even...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Where I might actually miss the 24-105 (and probably the main reason I haven't sold it) is 'studio' portraits (lighting + backdrop). I do that at f/9-10, the 24-105's IQ is excellent there, and the 105mm means decently tight portraits whereas 70mm doesn't work (too close, wrong perspective).
> ...



Sure - but for pics of young kids, I don't have time to spend changing lenses...


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 18, 2013)

I don't miss the 70-105 but the extra stop and sharpness more than make up for it. My favorite just miss the is of the 24-105. Would probably buy again if canon made a newer 24-135 f4 is with all their modern coatings and advancements then that would be a perfect vacation lens. Just bring a prime for low light and you would be set. Also another thought is you could rent the tamron 24-70vc for the trip if you want is.


----------



## RGF (Apr 18, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
> ...



The OP did not discuss IQ. It would be helpful to know what will be done with the images, web, 4x6, large blowups (or tight crops and moderate blow ups)????


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 18, 2013)

Dumb questions. 

Is the difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70 II more than just an extra stop of speed with shallower DOF?

For vacation shots with a variety of subjects, including relatively still ones, could the IS on the 4.0 lens outweigh the benefits of the extra stop on the 24-70?

I know, the extra speed of the 2.8 24-70 offers cleaner action shots for it allows faster shutter speeds without having to push the ISO ceiling of the 5D3. But, that ceiling is pretty high.

On the flip side, the IS on the 24-105 opens the door to whole new world of slow shutter speed creativity without a tripod. A slow shutter speed can blur the movement of a crowd behind a relatively stationary subject. Capturing the movement of water over rocks in a stream is another example.


----------



## stilscream (Apr 18, 2013)

If your kids are as fast as you say and if you're as old, fat and lazy as I am on a daily basis. I recommend bringing a 600 f4L IS USM so you can keep an eye on them. All kidding aside. 50 f1.2 or 35 1.4 are great general purpose lenses. 70-200 is ii for me would be hard to leave behind as an avid wildlife guy.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 18, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
> ...



I had the 28-135, and to be honest its IQ and build are crap compared to the 24-105. Pardon my French


----------



## ScottFielding (May 9, 2013)

stilscream said:


> If your kids are as fast as you say and if you're as old, fat and lazy as I am on a daily basis. I recommend bringing a 600 f4L IS USM so you can keep an eye on them. All kidding aside. 50 f1.2 or 35 1.4 are great general purpose lenses. 70-200 is ii for me would be hard to leave behind as an avid wildlife guy.



Ha ha!! I have contemplated cancelling the holiday in favour of using the funds for a 300 2.8 

I do like my prime lenses and borrowed a friends 85 1.2 last week, but don't have the $ to splash out on this lens at the moment.

I have decided to take the 50L which I am used to using, and buy the 135L which means a second lens but gives me a bit more of distance from the pool!! This lens will also come in useful back home as I love my 70-200 f2.8, but sometimes it is too cumbersome with a kid in one hand and a beagle in the other!

Thanks to everyone for their advice!!

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## RGF (May 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed  High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.



+100. Whole heatedly great walk around lens


----------



## bholliman (May 10, 2013)

ScottFielding said:


> I have decided to take the 50L which I am used to using, and buy the 135L which means a second lens but gives me a bit more of distance from the pool!! This lens will also come in useful back home as I love my 70-200 f2.8, but sometimes it is too cumbersome with a kid in one hand and a beagle in the other!



Excellent pair of lenses. You should come home with some great pictures.


----------



## TexPhoto (May 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed  High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.



Agree 24-105 is a great lens if you only have one. also the 24-70 f2.8 I or II, but I prefer the 24-105 because of the IS, and it is much cheaper. 

I see you are picking up a 135L, i think this leaves you with no wide option, but that is one way to go. Consider a 100mm Macro. Not as long as the 135, but it gives you a macro lens and is pretty awesome.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

ScottFielding said:


> I am going on holiday with the family and ideally would like to take just one lens. I am interested in what others would regard as a popular lens for a beach/pool holiday with young kids??
> 
> I have a 5D III and currently own a 50L and 70-200 f2.8 II. I will have enough on my hands with one lens and am therefore considering taking the 50L as love using a wide aperture for capturing my kids. I will not have a chance to take many scenery shots, so will be doing mostly candid/portraits.
> 
> ...



I liked the 24-105L + 50L combo. It really covers 90% of anything that comes up but now I carry my g15 + 430II for family stuff. I like my g15 quite a bit now. ;D


----------



## knkedlaya (May 10, 2013)

I carried 3 lenses during my recent trip along with 7D.
1. Tamron 17-50mm f.28 VC(95% of the time it was on my camera)
2. Canon 55-250 kit lens - 4.5% of the time.
3. 100mmL Macro - 0.5%.
Most of the photos were "I was there" kind of shots, so 17-50 was perfect. I bought Tammy just before the trip since I found 24-105(rented) was just not wide enough for my taste on 7D. I found 55-250 was useful near the water pools to avoid water falling on the camera and the lens. 
My .2 cents.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 10, 2013)

24-70 f2.8 II will be a great choice. You can get sharp and decent bokeh at f2.8. You can shoot f9-11 for landscape shots with 24-70, where your 50L could have major focus shift. 24mm on 5D III is quite wide for travel and indoor tight space.


----------



## Zlatko (May 10, 2013)

bwfishing said:


> I would always recommend taking at least one back-up lens, even if is just a pancake Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens.



On my last vacation, the 40 f/2.8 STM was my most-used lens. It's a great combination of compact size, light weight and high image quality.


----------



## meenanm (May 10, 2013)

I have he 24-105F4 and its a great travel lens. If I had the 24-70 f/2.8 I think I would use the 24-105 less often. I would like the 2.8 ability when traveling. That said, the 24-105 is a GREAT lens. 

Also have the 135, you made a good choice. Lacks IS but at 2.0 its not needed that often, for me. 
-Mike


----------



## canonball93 (May 10, 2013)

The 24-105 on my 5DIII is usually my choice on a single-lens outing.


----------



## gary (May 10, 2013)

I am heading back home for a month in the summer and showing Europe to my wife. My one lens solution is the 24-70L 2.8 II. I have used it for about 2 months now and its versatile with exceptional quality.


----------



## asmundma (May 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again
> ...



Ditto too, when you see the pictures of 24-70L II, you don't want to use 24-105 any more. It's scrap.


----------



## gundul (May 11, 2013)

one for versatility and one for low light.

i took 24-105L and 35L for my last vacation trip.
just two lens should be fine. and i took of the grip off my camera to keep things light.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gundul/sets/72157633150076060/


----------



## ScottFielding (May 11, 2013)

Thanks again for everyone who has given input on this thread, I appreciate your advice.

I love my 50L and want to invest in primes. As such I ordered the 135 f2 last night, so should have a few weeks to play with the lens before our holiday.

If I could afford it I am so tempted to go for a 35mm too, and take that and the 135. I would have nothing in between but it would make me get used to these two lenses. If not I will take the 50L and the 135L.

I unfortunately live on a small island and we only had one camera shop (Jessops) which recently pulled out, therefore I can't get access to try out lenses before I buy. I have a couple of friends into photography but have my own idea of lens choice. I agree the 24-70 II would probably be a good choice but as mentioned want to stick mainly with primes if possible.

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## bycostello (May 12, 2013)

the lightest one


----------



## Hillsilly (May 12, 2013)

FWIW, I largely settled on a two lens kit for most work trips - 40mm f2.8 and 135 f2. The 40mm lives on my camera and I bring the 135mm because its my favourite lens and there are always opportunitites to use it. Although, I've often thought I could leave the 135mm at home and still get along happily. (But then I also just bought a little fuji to use on these trips, so that will probably change soon.)


----------



## emag (May 12, 2013)

None of the above. Bring a Pentax Optio WG-2. You could let the kids use it also with no worries.


----------



## ScottFielding (May 13, 2013)

As of now I will be taking my 50L and my soon to arrive 135L. My main worry is that I bought the 50L to shoot at 1.2, and on sunny Spanish days I am going to struggle shooting with such a wide aperture at the lowest ISO available on my 5DIII.

I have no experience with ND filters and would appreciate advice on using them. It helps that both lenses accept the same sized filters, but what would be recommended as a good quality brand??

Cheers again!!

Scott


----------



## brad-man (May 13, 2013)

ScottFielding said:


> As of now I will be taking my 50L and my soon to arrive 135L. My main worry is that I bought the 50L to shoot at 1.2, and on sunny Spanish days I am going to struggle shooting with such a wide aperture at the lowest ISO available on my 5DIII.
> 
> I have no experience with ND filters and would appreciate advice on using them. It helps that both lenses accept the same sized filters, but what would be recommended as a good quality brand??
> 
> ...



I think everyone will agree that B+W is your best bet. Not quite sure which strength for you application though. I would think the B+W 72mm 0.6 ND MRC 102M would do, but I'm sure there are others with better knowledge of this application than I.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Circular+Sizes_72mm&ci=114&N=4077634512+4291599900+4294955265


----------



## AprilForever (May 13, 2013)

I would say a 300 2.8!!!

Or, maybe 15-85...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2013)

ScottFielding said:


> As of now I will be taking my 50L and my soon to arrive 135L. My main worry is that I bought the 50L to shoot at 1.2, and on sunny Spanish days I am going to struggle shooting with such a wide aperture at the lowest ISO available on my 5DIII.
> 
> I have no experience with ND filters and would appreciate advice on using them. It helps that both lenses accept the same sized filters, but what would be recommended as a good quality brand??
> 
> ...



I use a B+W 3-stop ND (#103) for daylight portraits with the 'holy trinity' (35L, 85L II, 135L) shooting wide open. 3 stops is enough in sun, and if it's a bit too much you can bump the ISO to 200 or 400 if needed, with no real IQ difference.


----------



## mvinson1022 (May 14, 2013)

I use the Vari-ND from Singh-Ray. Just buy the largest size you need and use step rings for the other lenses. The vari-ND / Polarizer combo lens is great too for eliminating reflections.


----------



## ScottFielding (Jun 18, 2013)

Thanks again for the great advice!!!

I leave for vacation on Monday, and have decided to go for the Sigma 35 1.4 which I will take with my 135L. If my Mrs finds out I have just bought another lens I will be in trouble!!

I always feel safe shooting with the 50L but would like something a bit wider for environmental portraits, so the holiday will give me time to get used to this lens. 

(I should have changed the thread subject to 'Two lenses for vacation' 

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 20, 2013)

Take the 50L.


----------



## M.ST (Jun 20, 2013)

Don´t use only a prime lens.

The best way is to take two lenses with you. I highly recommend the combination 24-70 mm and 70-200 mm.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ScottFielding said:
> 
> 
> > As of now I will be taking my 50L and my soon to arrive 135L. My main worry is that I bought the 50L to shoot at 1.2, and on sunny Spanish days I am going to struggle shooting with such a wide aperture at the lowest ISO available on my 5DIII.
> ...



Interesting idea, I've a 77mm #102. Do you think this will work on an f/2.8 zoom? Else I could give it a go with my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4... I believe the 103 is 8x, the 102 4x.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Interesting idea, I've a 77mm #102. Do you think this will work on an f/2.8 zoom? Else I could give it a go with my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4... I believe the 103 is 8x, the 102 4x.



The #102 is a 2-stop (4x) ND, and should work fine for wide-open sunlit shots with an f/2.8 lens.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 20, 2013)

Wouldn't a PL give the required reduction at more less two stops?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting idea, I've a 77mm #102. Do you think this will work on an f/2.8 zoom? Else I could give it a go with my Sigma 50 mm f/1.4... I believe the 103 is 8x, the 102 4x.
> ...



I'll give it a 'shot'


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jun 22, 2013)

A vacation with the kids leaves a less time to fool around with a fancy camera and a heavy bag of lenses. Go buy
a point and shoot - the Fuji x20, Canon g1X, panasonic lx7 - and enjoy your vacation - zoom lens, good images,
small size and inexpensive. Sell it when you get back if you can part with it after using it.


----------



## ScottFielding (Jul 9, 2013)

Apart from my daughter falling and requiring €440 worth of stitches in her lip on the first morning, we had a good holiday.

I took the Sigma 35 1.4 and the 135L.

Both were quite new lenses and was pleased with both. The 35mm was so sharp and the 135mm is now my favourite lens!

A couple of shots...

35mm:




jb-2.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr

135mm:




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr

Cheers for all the input!!

Scott


----------



## bholliman (Jul 9, 2013)

Great pictures Scott. Looks like the kids had a blast!

Did the two lenses work out as expected or did you find yourself wishing you had other lens options?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Great pictures Scott. Looks like the kids had a blast!
> 
> Did the two lenses work out as expected or did you find yourself wishing you had other lens options?




+1

I'm really impressed with the bokeh in your Sigma 35mm shots. Less so with 135L, but then I'm the only person on CL who's not a fan of that lens.


----------



## ScottFielding (Jul 9, 2013)

Cheers!!!

I love the bokeh on both lenses!




jb.jpg by scottfielding, on Flickr


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 9, 2013)

Very nice results. Makes me look forward to my next 2-lenses-and-a-body trip. Impressed by your Sigma 35 results.


----------



## ScottFielding (Jul 9, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Great pictures Scott. Looks like the kids had a blast!
> 
> Did the two lenses work out as expected or did you find yourself wishing you had other lens options?



I love my go to 50L which I am used to, so shooting at 35mm on FF was quite a bit different, therefore leaving the 50L at home gave me no choice but to get used to a wider focal length. The bokeh on the 135 was stunning, and again took a bit of getting used to as I have only used the 70-200 2.8 II previously.

I love wide aperture, therefore love my primes. I was happy with just taking these two lenses, but as mentioned my kids are quick on their feet, so had to be quicker on mine 

Scott


----------

