# Best lens for a vacation -- can only choose one



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

All,

I'm off on a vaca before too long and thought I'd forego the usual bag full of gear for a simpler setup. I plan to travel with only one lens on my camera. 

*But if you only had to choose one lens for your camera for a week long trip, what would it be?* I'm game to rent, so let's keep everything on the table.

Personal Considerations:

1) I'll bring my trusty 5D3. 

2) Generally, on vaca, I'll keep it to touristy endeavors -- I shoot landscapes, candids, and occasional architecture and macro. I am not a birder, and I have no desire to lug a long tele around where we'll be.

3) I usually have to stick and move to keep up with my significant other, so dedicated, composed work is usually not on the table. I _may_ stash my travel Gitzo tripod / ball head / L plate and ND grads, but I haven't made up my mind yet. If I did, I'd probably only get 1-2 chances to use it all week.

4) My destination is off the grid & tropical. It's absolutely going to rain where we're going, so a weather sealed lens is a must.

5) I'd prefer a not carry a super showy piece of kit like an Otus or white L lens. I'm unlikely to shoot street where we're going, but still, I don't want to go waving a howitzer around.

6) I'd prefer an AF lens. Without a proper focusing screen option on the 5D3, I'd just waste a large aperture Zeiss rental by stopping everything down to avoid missing the focus.

Personally, I'm leaning towards renting the new 35L II, but I am not married to the idea. The occasional macro + weather sealing + general range makes the 24-70 F/4L IS a very safe call, but again, I'm game to hear alternatives.

Advice appreciated, thx.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

I'd take my 24-70/2.8L II... But personally, I'd never travel with just one lens. I
My M kit (M2, 3 lenses, flash) takes up the same volume as the 1D X + 24-70, and I'd likely choose that option with such a constraint.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd take my 24-70/2.8L II... But personally, I'd never travel with just one lens. I
> My M kit (M2, 3 lenses, flash) takes up the same volume as the 1D X + 24-70, and I'd likely choose that option with such a constraint.



I've toyed with the thought of just bringing my most excellent 28mm f/2.8 IS (I really do adore the IQ for the size), but it's not sealed and I certainly will see rain regularly.

I also considered renting a small fixed-lens FF rig (Leica Q, RX1R II, etc.), but that kind of defeats the purpose of owning the 5D3, IMHO. So it's 5D3 or bust for me. That's the only 100% solid constraint I have.

- A


----------



## bholliman (Oct 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd take my 24-70/2.8L II...



+1 tough to beat this lens for all-around use. (Personally, I would take my 135/2 as well as a portrait/medium tele option.)


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 27, 2015)

Usually in these types of situations, I wuss out and go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II (never tried the f/4 IS), but I'd kick myself for not bringing at least one other lens especially if it's for more than a day.

Like Neuro, the M + lenses is an option (esp. if DSLRs aren't allowed), but it's slow AF and processing lag drives me crazy. I used it at a hockey game a few weeks ago just because DSLRs aren't allowed, and I missed a lot of shots. For P&S, it's a valid choice.

But if you are considering rentals and would relax some other requirements, I would consider
Sigma 24-35 f/2 + Canon 50 f/1.8 STM (yeah, they're not that weather-resistant so it's a fair-weather kit). 
I'd be fun to try something new and still cover a decent focal length range. f/2 is good for indoor ambients most of the time. And the 50 f/1.8 is small enough to "count" as a fraction that is rounded down. :


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Usually in these types of situations, I wuss out and go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II (never tried the f/4 IS), but I'd kick myself for not bringing at least one other lens especially if it's for more than a day.
> 
> Like Neuro, the M + lenses is an option (esp. if DSLRs aren't allowed), but it's slow AF and processing lag drives me crazy. I used it at a hockey game a few weeks ago just because DSLRs aren't allowed, and I missed a lot of shots. For P&S, it's a valid choice.
> 
> ...



Yeah. Deep down, I think I'd like a new toy to play with / new viewpoint to appreciate, even if it's just a rental. So the 24-70 f/4L IS is perfect for saying yes to the most needs, but I'd like to try something new. 

In my head, I'm thinking wide + fast + prime, but I certainly could be talked down.

- A


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 27, 2015)

24-105 f4 IS L or 24-70 f2.8 II or 24-70 F4. But as others have said, I would not take 1 lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 27, 2015)

In my case, A7s + FE 35mm


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 2) Generally, on vaca, I'll keep it to touristy endeavors -- I shoot landscapes, candids, and occasional architecture and macro. I am not a birder, and I have no desire to lug a long tele around where we'll be.
> 
> Personally, I'm leaning towards renting the new 35L II, but I am not married to the idea. The occasional macro + weather sealing + general range makes the 24-70 F/4L IS a very safe call, but again, I'm game to hear alternatives.



I picked up a 24-70 f/4 IS when they were on sale for pretty cheap on that big auction site (white box lens) and it has been a pleasant surprise- especially the macro function. It's pretty lightweight as a bonus.

I'd also bring a 16-35 to cover the wider perspective. The f/4 version is supposed to be nice.

Probably not in the same league as the new 35mm, but those other 2 lenses would cover lots of opportunities... as long as f/4 is good.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Generally, on vaca, I'll keep it to touristy endeavors -- I shoot landscapes, candids, and occasional architecture and macro. I am not a birder, and I have no desire to lug a long tele around where we'll be.
> ...



Yeah, I have the 16-35 f/4L IS, and I generally do prefer wider FLs on a walkaround. It's a great lens -- light, sharp as all get out, sealed, IS, etc. 

I do feel the slower speed of that lens -- if it's my only one on the trip -- will greatly limit my small DOF opportunities.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 27, 2015)

If you consider a f4.0 zoom think about a 40/2.8 pancake or a 50/1.8 STM as small cheapo lens that gives you more aperture. Esp. the pancake is sooo small. You won't recognize it until you'll need its f2.8.
Otherwise I'd also go for a 24-70/2.8 (v1 or 2).

A 28 mm lens would be too much wideangle for one lens alone, IMO. If you'd pair it with 50 or 85 mm I'd think it's fine. But you were talking about weather sealing, so forget about that.

More and more it looks like a 24-70/2.8 to me...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> If you consider a f4.0 zoom think about a 40/2.8 pancake or a 50/1.8 STM as small cheapo lens that gives you more aperture. Esp. the pancake is sooo small. You won't recognize it until you'll need its f2.8.
> Otherwise I'd also go for a 24-70/2.8 (v1 or 2).
> 
> A 28 mm lens would be too much wideangle for one lens alone, IMO. If you'd pair it with 50 or 85 mm I'd think it's fine. But you were talking about weather sealing, so forget about that.
> ...



Yep. That's why I was ever-so-slightly leaning towards the 35 f/1.4L II. I can still pull off a waist-up portrait and get some good subject isolation with it, yet it's not too long for the occasional landscape.

I rented a Sigma 35 Art over my Christmas travels, and I enjoyed it a lot, but the AF hit rate wider than f/2 was downright poor (even with careful technique, not focusing and recomposing, etc.). So perhaps that new 35L will better hit the mark for me...

- A


----------



## nc0b (Oct 27, 2015)

In my case I would take my 6D and 24-105mm f/4. I don't own a 24-70mm, but even if I did, and could only carry one lens, it would be the 24-105. On a trip to South America, I could only take what would fit in a modest-size backpack. I took the 6D & 24-105 and 60D and 70-200 f/4 IS. Same batteries, same memory cards, same chargers, etc. Backed up to a WD Passport Wireless that can copy SD cards. No room for a computer. Used the 6D / lens combo 80% of the time, but glad I had the other with me. Of course I wasn't willing to be that far away from home with only one body and only one lens. Nothing broke, but I was covered if something happened. Also I took about 10 SD cards, and changed cards on average every day of two. On the following trip to Alaska I added the 400mm f/5.6 for raptor and whale shots. Always shot the 6D when possible. Used the 70-200mm for Puffins and the like.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2015)

To my mind, this is not a question of the best lens but of the best camera. If you are not going to change lenses and want a general purpose lens, then don't take a DSLR but take a Powershot with the appropriate zoom. I travel now with the G3 X, which gives 24-600mm. The quality is superb all the way through.


----------



## tomscott (Oct 28, 2015)

24-105mm would be my choice. Super versatile and similar IQ to the 24-70mm F4. When I travel I take the 16-35 24-105 and the 70-300L with a 5DMKIII. 24-105 is on 75% of the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 2) Generally, on vaca, I'll keep it to touristy endeavors -- I shoot landscapes, candids, and occasional architecture and macro. I am not a birder, and I have no desire to lug a long tele around where we'll be.
> 
> 3) I usually have to stick and move to keep up with my significant other, so dedicated, composed work is usually not on the table. I _may_ stash my travel Gitzo tripod / ball head / L plate and ND grads, but I haven't made up my mind yet. If I did, I'd probably only get 1-2 chances to use it all week.



Looking at the bigger picture, I always take a lens selection based on destination and what will lkely be encountered. The general purpose zoom does cover most of that. For me, with an urban destination I'll add the TS-E 17 or TS-E 24 for architecture, if there's night street photo ops a fast wide prime (35L), etc. 

The other consideration when traveling with others is how much you can forego sleep.  Depending on time of year, you may be able to go out later or get up earlier and go out shooting at blue-hour for architecture, or golden-hour/sunset/sunrise for landscapes.

I also find that having the right bag for the gear is critical, for example on business trips to Europe I carry on a Lowepro DSLR Video Fastpack 250, which holds the 1D X + 24-70/2.8, two extra lenses (usually both TS-Es), and the M+11-22 in the camera compartment, both my laptops (personal 17" MacBook Pro and work 13" MacBook Air) in the laptop compartment, and a sweater, headphones, etc., in the personal compartment. The tripod goes in checked luggage.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 28, 2015)

The 35mm gets my vote if it is really just 1 lens. I assume, in this hypothetical, you wouldn't bring a Speedlite (bigger than most lenses) or a tripod (much bigger than another lens) so the big aperture of a prime is important, plus the 35mm is just so versatile.


----------



## Greatland (Oct 28, 2015)

tomscott said:


> 24-105mm would be my choice. Super versatile and similar IQ to the 24-70mm F4. When I travel I take the 16-35 24-105 and the 70-300L with a 5DMKIII. 24-105 is on 75% of the time.


I agree...it never leaves my back pack....


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I also find that having the right bag for the gear is critical, for example on business trips to Europe I carry on a Lowepro DSLR Video Fastpack 250, which holds the 1D X + 24-70/2.8, two extra lenses (usually both TS-Es), and the M+11-22 in the camera compartment, both my laptops (personal 17" MacBook Pro and work 13" MacBook Air) in the laptop compartment, and a sweater, headphones, etc., in the personal compartment. The tripod goes in checked luggage.



Preaching to the choir there, Neuro. 

I'm a veteran mixed bag traveler, carrying a mix of gear and personal items. For a long weekend, I bring a satchel with a Tenba insert, 5D + 2-3 lenses and I can still tuck a laptop or iPad, granola bars, raincoat, clear bag for TSA liquids, etc. in there. Longer trips I have deeper satchels that will take a second Tenba insert (and still fit under my seat) and for very long trips with a dedicated landscape element to it, my GuraGear Kiboko comes out and I bring the kitchen sink. And sometimes I port in with a huge bag full of gear but I also collapse a smaller bag in my luggage for day excursions from the place I'm staying (if it's practical, safe, etc. to do so).

But with this trip, I'm strongly leaning towards a tiny bag -- body + lens + blackrapid strap + possibly my ubersmall 90EX for emergency lighting (I use a flash once a week on a vacation, honestly, it's not what I do).

All of that would easily fit in my tiny Kata Hybrid bag (basically, a lunchbox sized shoulder bag). I usually carry bags that do not scream camera (DIY budget canvas satchels + tenba inserts), but I don't have anything like that in a similar Kata Hybrid form factor -- a classic Domke or trip to the army/navy surplus store is undoubtedly in my future.

- A


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 28, 2015)

I use the 40/2.8 a lot when on holidays.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

Great feedback, all. Very sound and thoughtful advice.

I'm clearly torn between a 24-70 and a fast wide prime. 

Someone brought up other gear, and here's where my head is (percentage likely to bring):


CPL/UV = 100%

Lens hood = 100%

Flash = 90% likely to tuck in the uber tiny 90EX (I almost never use a flash)

Tripod / ball head / grads = 25% (If I want a personal day to shoot on this trip, it's coming.)

Charger = 0% 2 full strength 5D3 batteries will last me a week -- I'll only take 200-300 shots, I don't shoot astro, etc.

2nd lens = 0% I want to be brave / clever / adaptable on this trip

I'll leave the tinier compulsories (micro fiber, backup memory card, raincover, dessicant, BR strap, etc.) off this list, but they'll probably find a way into my bag as well.

- A


----------



## Shane1.4 (Oct 28, 2015)

For me it would be the 35mm.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> But with this trip, I'm strongly leaning towards a tiny bag -- body + lens + blackrapid strap + possibly my ubersmall 90EX for emergency lighting (I use a flash once a week on a vacation, honestly, it's not what I do).



If you want small and rainproof/resistant, and don't mind foregoing FF, you might want to consider something different from what's been mentioned so far - rent an Olympus OMD EM 1 or 5II (Ming Thein ran the former under a shower for ten minutes, switched on all the time, and it emerged unscathed) and one or two Olympus 2.8 zooms.


----------



## TeT (Oct 28, 2015)

FF 24 105 L

Crop efs 18 135 STM

if you can only take one...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 2nd lens = 0% I want to be brave / clever / adaptable on this trip



To me, that says 35/1.4L II. A 24-70/105 would be more cautious / safe / versatile. 

Another consideration is the uniqueness of the trip. I'd be more open to the creative 'push' of bringing just one prime lens if I had the safety net of having previously visited or knowing I'd likely visit that destination again.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Great feedback, all. Very sound and thoughtful advice.
> 
> I'm clearly torn between a 24-70 and a fast wide prime.
> 
> ...


The 24-70 II is pure awesome, but there is really something magical about the 35 1.4 II.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 28, 2015)

I love my 34-70 2.8 II, your f4L should be great. Remember, you won't get everything you want with just one lens.

Have a great time.

sek




ahsanford said:


> All,
> 
> I'm off on a vaca before too long and thought I'd forego the usual bag full of gear for a simpler setup. I plan to travel with only one lens on my camera.
> 
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 28, 2015)

If you want to try something new and improved, why not rent the new 11-24 f4L- gets outstanding reviews.

sek



ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Usually in these types of situations, I wuss out and go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II (never tried the f/4 IS), but I'd kick myself for not bringing at least one other lens especially if it's for more than a day.
> ...


----------



## cpsico (Oct 28, 2015)

I would say the 35L 1.4II can do everything, but is nearly as big as the 24-70. Its crazy sharp, extremely accurate in focus and wonderful contrast and color, oh and can shoot at 1.4 and get great shots.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 28, 2015)

Tough decision. As previously mentioned, the location and venues will dictate the logical choice. For me, the "safe" all purpose full frame lens is the 24-105 f4L IS. The 24-70 is a better choice for action and low-light indoor events -- and when every bit of IQ matters. But, as a tourist, I think the extra 35mm reach and the IS makes the 24-105 more versatile. One shot I'm more likely to take when traveling is moving water, such as streams and waterfalls. The IS makes it possible for hand held, slow shutter, motion blur of the moving water.

However, what type of shots interest you the most? It's very difficult for me to leave the house without both the 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. But, the vast majority of my shots are with the 70-200. Granted, I shoot a lot of candids and sports, but I tend to gravitate towards this focal range for most subjects.

The 24-70/105 short zoom may be the logical choice, but I would be tempted to leverage the venues of vacation locales to capture images with the focal range that works best for me at home and take the 5D3 with the 70-200 plus a 40 2.8 pancake for landscapes and close quarters work. Ok, technically this is two lenses, but just think of the 40 as a fat body cap.


----------



## geekpower (Oct 28, 2015)

i'd go for the 35. while the 24-70 obviously has more versatility in length, if your wife is anything like mine, you wont have time to properly frame your shots anyway, so the shallow dof of the 35 will actually be much more useful for subject isolation and making imperfect framing disappear into bokeh land.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 28, 2015)

TeT said:


> FF 24 105 L
> 
> Crop efs 18 135 STM
> 
> if you can only take one...



+1, although I would lean toward the the 15-85mm EF-S. I usually take two lenses everywhere: the 24-105 and the 70-300 L. They cover 99% of shooting situations when traveling and aren't that cumbersome.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

I tried doing a couple of trips with my 35. I could get about 60% of the shots I wanted, missed the others. I found that my 24-105 was a safer bet for when I needed wider or longer focal lengths.

It does matter where you are going and how much you have invested in the trip. For a expensive trip, I'd take a second lens as a backup, and my G1X as a second camera.

Certainly, 24mm is not always wide enough, and 35mm is often not long enough. A 17-85 FF lens would be really nice for vacations, but we have to do with what's available. I have a really old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that I keep in my bag just in case wider than 24mm is needed. Then, I feel ok with my 24-70mmL.


----------



## Cheekysascha (Oct 28, 2015)

For me I'd take the 24-70 F2.8 II, it's what I used exclusively for both of my last trips to London and Hamburg it's such a good versatile lens that works for almost anything you could want to take pictures off on a touristy trip.

However like so many others said having a good bag is also important, I usually take my Langly Alpha pro with my which can hold up to a 1dx with a 24-70 and a second fast prime lens and has enough room for clothes that can last a weekend. Also bonus is that it doesn't look like a camera bag so no problems with thief's.


----------



## drob (Oct 28, 2015)

24-105 F4 is a hearty lens. Great zoom range for an L lens. I still, to this day, say if Canon would make a 24-105 F2.8 it would sell like hotcakes. 

Just a side note about vacation... I recently picked up a Samsung NX500 mirrorless (plus a 18-55 lens) from the event in Seattle and took it with me to Disney world. Carrying around something so small and light with excellent image quality was outstanding. No need to lug around my 6D and 24-105L. 

After my experience with the mirrorless Samsung at Disney, I can see that Canon is missing out in the enthusiast/advanced mirrorless market...but after seeing so many Rebels there, I can see that it would gut their beginner DSLR market.


----------



## Dick (Oct 28, 2015)

Interesting that people would take an f/4 zoom. I can't see the lens as versatile or anything like that. Especailly in the 24 mm end, the f/4 is really difficult to use due to too much DOF. In fact, I would most likely not use the 24 mm end of such a zoom. I have the 24-105L and the 24 mm shots always end up disappointing me. Going out with a FF body and just a f/4 zoom sounds somewhat retarded to me. It gets dark in the evenings too doesn't it? But each to their own I suppose. 

I would most like take a 35 mm prime as boring as it may sound. It is somewhat wide but still not so wide that people get too distorted near the corners.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Oct 28, 2015)

35mmf2 IS, be brave and just go for 'less is more'


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 28, 2015)

Shane1.4 said:


> For me it would be the 35mm.


If I have to shoot with only one lens it would be a fast 35mm lens. I own the 5D3 + 35mm f2 IS combo. It's not weather-sealed but IQ is great, it's fast and the IS is very helpful when needed.


----------



## Daan Stam (Oct 28, 2015)

i would go for the 18-135 f4-5.6 is stm but i don't know if it fits on full frame i use it for almost everything you wil miss the f2,8 but fo the rest it is pretty much as good as the 24-70 you do see the difference but it is pretty good


----------



## quod (Oct 28, 2015)

I would take the 24-70/2.8 II or 24-105/4. I have both. They are weather sealed. If it were me, I would take the 24-105 and not worry about sand, weather, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

daaningrid said:


> i would go for the 18-135 f4-5.6 is stm



For the OP, that would be just a good as taking a Nikon lens for his 5DIII.


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2015)

AlanF said:


> To my mind, this is not a question of the best lens but of the best camera. If you are not going to change lenses and want a general purpose lens, then don't take a DSLR but take a Powershot with the appropriate zoom. I travel now with the G3 X, which gives 24-600mm. The quality is superb all the way through.



+1 I think this is the best advice. Since serious photography is not the intention of the trip, the IQ of full frame DSLR is not required. The G3x or similar will fit the bill perfectly. IMHO.


----------



## TK (Oct 28, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > For me it would be the 35mm.
> ...


This is my most used combo at the moment (for both work and play...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 28, 2015)

I have travelled extensively with a 1Ds MkIII and a 24-70, I am currently traveling Central America and don't have my go to lens, I brought the 35 f2.0 IS instead and am loving it. I am getting shots with the IS prime I couldn't get with the zoom (obviously that works both ways so is entirely dependent on how and what you shoot). If I want wider I just shoot two shots and will stitch, and whilst it might not be advertised as 'weattherproof', an entirely subjective and non standardized marketing speak, certainly I have used my 35 in very wet conditions and it is working flawlessly. 

Whilst I'd happily buy a 1.4 L, at this point, Id far rather have the IS along with the smaller size and weight than the stop of speed and the loss of dof that would force on me. I am getting good shots handheld at 1/4 second, something I have never been able to do with a faster heavier lens.

Oh, and shooting a prime really forces you to think about your composition much more! After shooting the 24-70 for many years the differences in the strengths of the lenses is remarkable, it certainly adds an enjoyable twist to the photography.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 28, 2015)

Dick said:


> Interesting that people would take an f/4 zoom. I can't see the lens as versatile or anything like that. Especailly in the 24 mm end, the f/4 is really difficult to use due to too much DOF. In fact, I would most likely not use the 24 mm end of such a zoom. I have the 24-105L and the 24 mm shots always end up disappointing me. Going out with a FF body and just a f/4 zoom sounds somewhat retarded to me. It gets dark in the evenings too doesn't it? But each to their own I suppose.
> 
> I would most like take a 35 mm prime as boring as it may sound. It is somewhat wide but still not so wide that people get too distorted near the corners.


I find it interesting that so many dismiss the 24-105. 

For most of my shooting, I live above ISO 3200 with the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 -- most often wide open. I love these lenses for their focus response, sharp wide open IQ, and the subject separation that the shallow DOF offers. But, for my vacation shots, I tend to need more DOF. Many shots include my wife and kids who are not always the same distance from the sensor. The f4 gives me some additional DOF cushion for grab shots. My copy of this lens has never disappointing me. Looking at past photos taken at or near 24mm, it's tough for me to tell whether they were shot with the 24-105 or the 24-70 without pixel peeping or side-by-side comparisons. (Lightroom does a good job correcting for lens distortions). Yes, I know that I can stop the faster lens down to 4.0, but the extra reach and the IS makes the 24-105 more versatile for me. As for exposure speed, in most travel situations, the high ISO benefits of the 5D3 makes the f4.0 quite usable and the IS is an added plus if the subject allows for slow shutter speeds. I actually like a little controlled blur and this is where the 24-105 shines.

Incidentally, I echo the raves about the 35 f2.0 IS and often rely on this lens for slow shutter speed shots of "players on the move". But, I want more range when I travel.

A side note, I also have a G16 for times when I want to "travel light". But, more often than not, I still grab the 5D3/24-105 combo. I know this body much better and don't miss the shots that I sometimes miss with the G16. Plus, the FF sensor can be more forgiving and can give me more room to crop an image.


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting that people would take an f/4 zoom. I can't see the lens as versatile or anything like that. Especailly in the 24 mm end, the f/4 is really difficult to use due to too much DOF. In fact, I would most likely not use the 24 mm end of such a zoom. I have the 24-105L and the 24 mm shots always end up disappointing me. Going out with a FF body and just a f/4 zoom sounds somewhat retarded to me. It gets dark in the evenings too doesn't it? But each to their own I suppose.
> ...



24-105 is my favorite travel lens. That and 35f2 IS if I am traveling light. If I have more room then add 70-200 f4 or 2.8 depending upon how much low light tele shooting I intend.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

Yep. I am a fan of the 35mm f/2 IS USM as an everyday low profile walkaround. I own the 28mm f/2.8 IS and love its small size but would love something quicker, so the 35 f/2 IS makes perfect sense. 

But that's a 'when I get back' sort of lens. For this trip, as stated before, weather sealing is not optional.

So I am now waffling between:


Rent a 35 F/1.4L II -- This or 28mm is probably my fav single FL for a prime. Can tackle environmental portraits, a good chunk of landscape vistas, general walkaround, etc. 



Rent a 24 f/1.4L II or possibly bring my 16-35 f/4L IS -- I'd go with this if I felt like there would be a higher percentage of landscape work. (TBD, we haven't made all of our plans yet.)



Bring my 24-70 f/4L IS -- This is my fallback if nothing else lines up. I still would prefer this over the added stop and added sharpness of the 24-70 f/2.8L II as the macro mode is killer for trips. I'll use that mode 4-5 times in a week of shooting, but I always net a keeper with it.

Great thread, all. Very much appreciate your perspectives and insights.

- A


----------



## andarx (Oct 28, 2015)

Whenever I decide to take a DSLR on vacation, I take 24-105mm. To me it's the most practical choice, it covers the basic needs. Sometimes 105mm is not enough, but that doesn't happen often.


----------



## FramerMCB (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> All,
> 
> I'm off on a vaca before too long and thought I'd forego the usual bag full of gear for a simpler setup. I plan to travel with only one lens on my camera.
> 
> ...



My two cents: (which others may have already suggested) Either Tamron's 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (a great lens and has some weather sealing) or the Canon (latest) version [24-70mm f/2.8 II] (no VC(IS) but great autofocus), or the newer 24-70mm f/4 Canon - also has good macro capability. Or the Sigma Art Series 24-105mm f/4 or Canon's own 24-105mm f/4 - the Sigma one is much newer and heavier/better build, and a little sharper and better performance at 24-35mm, especially in the corners, but is not weather sealed to my knowledge. Good luck.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Bring my 24-70 f/4L IS -- This is my fallback if nothing else lines up. I still would prefer this over the added stop and added sharpness of the 24-70 f/2.8L II as the macro mode is killer for trips. I'll use that mode 4-5 times in a week of shooting, but I always net a keeper with it.


First advice is to treat bodies and lenses like tools, to remove the "emotional" attachment that we might have for a favorite tool, and pick the ones that best match the need. This makes a lot of sense when "covering" an event or shooting for a client. But, it sometimes counters the artistic element that drives each of us.

At this point in my "career", I am most fascinated by looking at the world through the perspectives offered by my 70-200 zoom. Macro work and wide angle images can be quite compelling, but I have little interest in exploring these roads -- for now. 

Ask yourself, "why bring a camera?" Do you want to fully document the vacation for posterity sake, so you can relive it with family and friends when you return? Or, do you want to take advantage of the locales that you visit to bring home prize photos?

Both are legitimate reasons and I find myself wanting to document everything -- which may take away some of the experience of the vacation. If this is the motivation, one often makes concessions on capturing the prizes. Devoting time to quality "snapshots" is ok when triggering memories down the road is the intention. You can get by with potentially inferior lenses that are more general purpose. But, you may also lose out on some photo-ops for prize photos because you didn't want to miss an event that "needed to be documented." 

In hindsight, I've not regretted documenting past vacations, but I treasure the wall hanging prize photos the most. It's ok to skip documenting the entire vacation and just go for the prize photos that your vacation venues might offer. If this is your intention, then stick with the 24-70 f4 IS and it's macro mode for it seems to offer the view of the world that currently interests you the most. See what you can capture from this perspective and enjoy the ride.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Bring my 24-70 f/4L IS -- This is my fallback if nothing else lines up. I still would prefer this over the added stop and added sharpness of the 24-70 f/2.8L II as the macro mode is killer for trips. I'll use that mode 4-5 times in a week of shooting, but I always net a keeper with it.
> ...



Awesome post -- you raise a fair question about immortalizing one moment vs. chronicling the trip as a tourist. Excellent insights.

I almost always lean to the latter on vacations, but I also have framed some 6 MP shots from my old 300D that I absolutely cherish as lifelong keepers (technical limitations of a bygone tech era be damned, I love what I love).

In fairness, I'm in a unique boat that my favorite FLs to shoot also happen to be great 'vacation cataloging' FLs, somewhere between 24-35 mm FF -- great for walkabout, landscape, environmental portraits, street, etc. Also, longer glass requires longer distance from the target, which kind of breaks up the value of a vaca with a significant other. We typically aren't more than 20 feet apart for 95% of our travels -- so a 70-200 (as much as I love mine) would hardly get used. 

So the gear selection depends heavily on whether it's a getaway vaca with a significant other versus a solo jaunt through a place you've never been. 

- A


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


As a sidebar, some 20 years ago I started shooting "where's Waldo" photos of my wife. This started at Disney World. I'd drop back to get a scenic shot of something at the park and make sure my wife is visible in the crowd. Sometimes she's posing, sometimes it's more candid. Today, I still try to get these shots with my wife and kids.


----------



## quod (Oct 28, 2015)

As an aside to your last post, and given your interest in a 35 f/2, have you considered renting a small mirrorless with a 28-35mm fixed lens? I ask because whenever I shoot my Fuji X100S, I spend a lot less time fussing with my shots than when I shoot with my 5D3 and I feel like I am more present in the moment. On the plus side, mirrorless offerings are generally on the small side too, which is great for travel. If this option intrigues you, make sure you bring one with an EVF.


----------



## candc (Oct 28, 2015)

When I go on trips i take a 70d with sigma 8-16 (landscapes) 18-35 (fellow travelers) and tamron 150-600 (birds). So if your not into birds then just an uwa and a nice little portrait lens (its hardly any trouble taking a small 50). If you insist on just one and a ff body then a good 24-xxx


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

quod said:


> As an aside to your last post, and given your interest in a 35 f/2, have you considered renting a small mirrorless with a 28-35mm fixed lens? I ask because whenever I shoot my Fuji X100S, I spend a lot less time fussing with my shots than when I shoot with my 5D3 and I feel like I am more present in the moment. On the plus side, mirrorless offerings are generally on the small side too, which is great for travel. If this option intrigues you, make sure you bring one with an EVF.



I'm sure I'd love a walkaround fixed lens rig, but with all I've invested in my FF SLR collection, I use vacations as batting practice to try out new FF lenses. Nope, it needs to be something I can bolt on my 5D3.

Thanks,
A


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Yep. I am a fan of the 35mm f/2 IS USM as an everyday low profile walkaround. I own the 28mm f/2.8 IS and love its small size but would love something quicker, so the 35 f/2 IS makes perfect sense.
> 
> But that's a 'when I get back' sort of lens. For this trip, as stated before, weather sealing is not optional.
> 
> ...



"Weathersealing" is a bullshit marketing term that does not align with any national or international standard, in many cases on lenses it means nothing more than a small piece of tape over a screw hole. I have been using my 35 f2IS in the rains that recently hit Mexico (I got it before it got there) without a hint of an issue.

We all set ourselves criteria, sometimes it is well founded and sometimes it ends up being entirely arbitrary, I know very few people who are as cavalier with their gear in a working environment as myself and I don't treat my 35 any different from all the L series lenses I own, it hangs by my side on a Black Rapid strap through rain and shine, bus journey and mountain trail. If you want an L for the sake of it, go for it, if you want a lens that will do the job look no further than the one you already own.


----------



## gregorywood (Oct 28, 2015)

Have you considered taking the 24-70 f/2.8 and getting a macro extension tube for those times when you want to shoot macro? It's small and weighs almost nothing. That seems like the best of both worlds from my perspective - a wide aperture zoom, with weatherproofing, with a reasonable focal length, plus macro. 

If it were me, and I've actually done this when I travel light - I decide either between the 16-35mm f/4 + 50mm f/1.8 STM combo...OR...the 24-105mm f/4 + 35mm f/2 IS combo. The determining factor is my environment and photo opportunities.

The 24-70mm f/4 is an odd lens in my opinion. You give up a significant amount of reach and gain macro mode, though it's not actually "full macro". 

I'd like to try the single lens PRIME solution on my next lightweight trip.

Greg


----------



## Al Chemist (Oct 28, 2015)

In my opinion, there are two types of trips for a photographer. A photography trip by yourself or other photographers or a trip with family/ friends who have little patience for watching you fiddle with cameras. A word of caution...don't mix up the two. Many of us have experienced that. 

When on the first type of trip, carry whatever you can!

When on the second type of trip, carry your 5D3 with a zoom. In my opinion, the 24-105 covers everything you want to do and offers a reasonable range of focal lengths. The photos you take are going to be spontaneous and you will not have time to change lenses. A small second camera like the mighty "M" is a good backup and with the adaptor will also work great with the 24-105 if the need arises and you can leave it in your room without worrying too much. Go light and bond with your significant other and most of all, enjoy the adventure!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> The 24-70mm f/4 is an odd lens in my opinion. You give up a significant amount of reach and gain macro mode, though it's not actually "full macro".



Respectfully disagree. People lose their minds with glee when a new version of a non-macro lens now has a 0.30x max mag when it used to have a 0.23 max mag. 

This one is a _0.70x max mag_. I honestly feel like I break through that 'min focusing distance barrier' just like I do with my 100L at 1:1 -- it feels like another photography world to capture images.

Keep in mind, I'm not even a regular macro shooter, what a killer trick to have up it's sleeve! No additional lens required, no tubes required, AF still works, etc. It's astonishing.

YMMV with it, of course. It's not intended for serious macro work on rails or for focus stacking, and the working distance at 0.7x is comically small to the point that the lens often shades the subject. But I find it incredibly rewarding to have that functionality when I need it, especially when I travel and am space/gear constrained.

- A


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 28, 2015)

Just my 2 cents... for vacation, I always bring my 24-105L together with 6d. The extra 30mm at the long end most of the time was enough. I also bring my old G11 with waterproof casing if it's a vacation near the sea. With it, I can take pictures I can only dream if I'm just using my dslr.


----------



## Good24 (Oct 29, 2015)

I've thought about this a lot lately. Got back from a vaca with my 5D3 and two lenses - 50 L and Voigtlander 20. Love the results from both lenses. But didn't enjoy switching lenses. And so I thought next time I should bring just one lens. Splitting the difference (50 + 20 = 70 /2 = 35) I feel like the 35mm f/2 IS would work real nice for me. Don't own it now but only know it by reputation. It's light and compact. And f/2 is pretty nice. I shot the 50 more open than f/2 a bit but probably could have done with f/2.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 29, 2015)

When ease is important, the 40mm f/2.8 STM on a 6D does the trick. (Having said that, it isn't water-resistant). You can also stick it on an extension tube if you are wanting close-up photos. Not the ideal tool for such, but ok in a pinch as long as you can live with 1:2 or so.


----------



## boogaloo (Nov 2, 2015)

Controvertial idea, perhaps, but if you're worried about space why not go for your 24-105 and pick up a cheap 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. You can get them very, very cheap and whilst it won't match the 35mm 1.4 for pure IQ and bokeh you'll be able to capture those shallow DOF shots with something that costs less than £100 and fits in your jeans pocket...

For what it's worth I have always travelled, so far, with my 6d and a range of lenses but took a risk on this summer's holiday and used my M3 with the 11-22, the 50mm f1.8stm and the 22m prime. Delighted with the shots I took and for convenience it was just a delight. The whole kit cost less than £500 and fits in a tiny camera bag.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2015)

boogaloo said:


> Controvertial idea, perhaps, but if you're worried about space why not go for your 24-105 and pick up a cheap 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. You can get them very, very cheap and whilst it won't match the 35mm 1.4 for pure IQ and bokeh you'll be able to capture those shallow DOF shots with something that costs less than £100 and fits in your jeans pocket...
> 
> For what it's worth I have always travelled, so far, with my 6d and a range of lenses but took a risk on this summer's holiday and used my M3 with the 11-22, the 50mm f1.8stm and the 22m prime. Delighted with the shots I took and for convenience it was just a delight. The whole kit cost less than £500 and fits in a tiny camera bag.



I own an EF 40mm. Nope.

One vacation lens to rule them all. I insist.

- A


----------



## boogaloo (Nov 2, 2015)

Fair enough. I get the whole 'one lens' thing if you're going for one single prime. I love that kind of challenge of just making one decision and going with it. I did that in Barcelona and loved it (just used the sigma 35mm 1.4). If you're already considering a zoom then you're cheating


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2015)

boogaloo said:


> Fair enough. I get the whole 'one lens' thing if you're going for one single prime. I love that kind of challenge of just making one decision and going with it. I did that in Barcelona and loved it (just used the sigma 35mm 1.4). If you're already considering a zoom then you're cheating



Well, I was excited about that 35L II but DXO says it's a waste of time because it is soft at f/22. [Giggle.]

DXO telling me something is not good is the best endorsement possible.

- A


----------



## PeacePham (Nov 9, 2015)

If I were you, I would bring the Canon EF 28-135mm IS with me. You can take both wide angle shots and close up shots.


----------

