# Moving to India



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

Long story short; I’m getting married at the start of August and moving to Bangalore, India (for the next couple of years) at the end of August. Camera gear is actually more expensive (from what i have found, PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong) in India than here in Europe (not to mention the US) and apparently import tax is a bit of a bugger too. I can mentally and financially justify buying a single new lens before we go, and i’m torn between which to get. The weakest part of my set-up is at the longer end (55-250) and would like to replace it with either the 70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L.

Regarding my photo style, I’m a bit of a Jack of all trades, master of none. I enjoy all photography; travel, street, landscape, strobist, portrait, wildlife etc... Each of these lenses has its own attributes (physical size, speed, optical-length, resolution) that make it more desirable for one style or the other. Considering I have no one specific role for lens, I find myself ping-ponging between all of them depending on the direction of the wind! I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250! 

I’m not rich (especially with the upcoming expenses) so any purchase is a BIG one. My body will be replaced anyway in the next 9-12 months; either FF or cropped depending upon what canon has to offer... 
Any advice for this rather “privileged” dilemma? 

Thanks.


----------



## rpt (Jun 22, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Long story short; I’m getting married at the start of August and moving to Bangalore, India (for the next couple of years) at the end of August. Camera gear is actually more expensive (from what i have found, PLEASE correct me if i’m wrong) in India than here in Europe (not to mention the US) and apparently import tax is a bit of a bugger too. I can mentally and financially justify buying a single new lens before we go, and i’m torn between which to get. The weakest part of my set-up is at the longer end (55-250) and would like to replace it with either the 70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L.
> 
> Regarding my photo style, I’m a bit of a Jack of all trades, master of none. I enjoy all photography; travel, street, landscape, strobist, portrait, wildlife etc... Each of these lenses has its own attributes (physical size, speed, optical-length, resolution) that make it more desirable for one style or the other. Considering I have no one specific role for lens, I find myself ping-ponging between all of them depending on the direction of the wind! I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!
> 
> ...


Take a look at the Indian prices at this site:
http://www.canon.co.in/personal/products/dslrs?languageCode=EN

There is a link for DSLR cameras and another for EF lenses.

The cameras are not much costlier here. The 5D3 is a bit cheaper than the US price. The prices on the Canon India site seem to be tax included prices as the price listed there is the price I paid. I know the UK prices are *much* higher. I thought the Europe prices were high too but I have not really compared them.

Hope this helps.


----------



## expatinasia (Jun 22, 2012)

Of the three you mention (70-300L, 70-200L is 2.8 II or the 100-400L) I would definitely go with 70-200L is 2.8 II, without a single shadow if a doubt. Yes, it is slightly longer than the 70-300L, and a little heavier, but it is much more versatile too. My second choice would be the 70-300L, but honestly if you can, get the 70-200L is 2.8 II.

Hope you enjoy Bengaluru!

added in: And one other thing, check, and then check again the warranty. Seems some countries have international warranty and others do not.


----------



## sanj (Jun 22, 2012)

U r welcome to my country. I am in Mumbai and a working cinematographer and a serious still hobbyist. I can assure you gear price is comparable to USA here. 

Let me know if I can be of any help.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

dilbert said:


> How much time have you spent in India?
> 
> And coming from Europe, you're caucasian, right?



We went to Rajasthan for 2 weeks last November... thats it  and yes, we're caucasian?!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

rpt said:


> The cameras are not much costlier here. The 5D3 is a bit cheaper than the US price. The prices on the Canon India site seem to be tax included prices as the price listed there is the price I paid. I know the UK prices are *much* higher. I thought the Europe prices were high too but I have not really compared them.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Awesome, thanks!  I don't know how i managed to think they cost more??? That really releaves the pressure for me! 

Sanj - thank you for confirming!  I'm looking forward to it very much! 

expatinasia - I think i'm leaning that way too... good point on warrenty too!


----------



## rpt (Jun 22, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Awesome, thanks!  I don't know how i managed to think they cost more??? That really releaves the pressure for me!
> 
> Sanj - thank you for confirming!  I'm looking forward to it very much!
> 
> expatinasia - I think i'm leaning that way too... good point on warrenty too!



Do check the prices at your end. The Euro is at 71.678 Indian Rupees and The US$ is at 57.14 as of right now (17:03 IST...) http://www.xe.com/ucc/

*expatinasia * has a good point.


----------



## LikeBreathing (Jun 22, 2012)

If cost is an issue go for the 70-300 IS USM non-L. However, if you can afford it and don't mind the size and weight then the 70-200 is a given, especially if IQ is a concern.

I went to India a few months ago and loved it!
Some pics from my trip: http://likebreathing.com/india/


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

LikeBreathing said:


> Some pics from my trip: http://likebreathing.com/india/



Nice shots... 

I think 70-200 is winning, and considering the current exchange rate means that it is actually cheaper to buy there, depending on the warranty, I'll pick it up when i get there! 

Thanks for all the advice!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I can't believe you're going back...



Why? We had a great time, loved the food, people, culture etc. Also it is a growth area in our professional fields!



dilbert said:


> your wife is going to stay indoors nearly all the time?



Not likely, she is the Scientific Attaché for the French Embassy... She got the job, and as an acadmic scientist (biophysicist/biochemist) it was not too difficult for me to find another lab there to continue my research (muscle disease in children)... So, it is not as though I’m dragging her there, nor do I think it will be a problem.


----------



## jenbenn (Jun 22, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> I just know that I'm not happy with the results i get from my 55-250!
> 
> Thanks.


 Maybe you could explain to us why you are not happy with the results from the 55-250? AF too slow, build quality, optical quality? Focal length? Aperture? This would make it easier to recommend something for you.

In general: I have lived quite a long time in India and photographed most corners of the country. 
You can check out my pics here if you want: www.photography-in-style.de

In general I am no longer using long white tele lenses in India. The exception being wildlife (esp. tigers) and the occasional compressed landscape. 
When I started out I used a 70-200 f/2.8. Then I switched to the 70-200 f/4 IS (w 1.4x converter) because of weight (both on full-frame). In the end I even largely abondend using the latter lens. 

The reason why tele lenses have not worked too well for me are the following:

1. too big, too heavy- they wear you down in the heat and keep you from getting shots (Exception, see above).

2. too eye catching in the cities and crowds. People will shy away from your camera more easily while doggy characters are attracted (touts and thieves).

3. It is a hassle to fight through the crowds with such a big lens getting in your and other people's way.

4. your photographs are not very engaging, because you have to stand too far off. Better invest in a good midrange zoom and a nice portrait prime (85mm 1.8, 100/2 or 100/2.8 macro)* and get close to your subject*. A UWA lens will also come handy.

5. Unless you shoot wild animals full time, better carry a light, black tele zoom for the rare occasion where you really need it ( like 70-300 IS non-L or Tamron 70-300 VC) This should also do for compressed landscape. The opitical quality of both lenses is very high.

Regarding lens cost:
Prices in India are either the same or slightly more expensive than in Europe (dfepending on the exchange rate). You usally do not find special offers and the shops may not stock your desired lens. Consider also guarantee issues. I have browsed through some stores in delhi (Connaught Place area) and Mumbai(Fort area) and found hardly any L-enses in stock, even in the bigger stores. Probably better to buy at home.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

jenbenn - Some really great shots on your website! Thanks for your input, you have given me a lot to think about!



jenbenn said:


> Maybe you could explain to us why you are not happy with the results from the 55-250? AF too slow, build quality, optical quality? Focal length? Aperture? This would make it easier to recommend something for you.



AF too slow (though my camera does not help), build quality (the filter thread actually broke off), the optical quality at 250 isn't what i would like. Focal length is fine and the variable aperture doesn't bother me much... though if i were to have a fast lens, i would be more inclinded to use it for portaits. IQ is important to me, and not missing the shot, which i tend to with the 55-250 (didn't have that problem with a firend 70-200 that i borrowed). 



jenbenn said:


> 1. too big, too heavy- they wear you down in the heat and keep you from getting shots (Exception, see above).
> 
> 2. too eye catching in the cities and crowds. People will shy away from your camera more easily while doggy characters are attracted (touts and thieves).
> 
> ...



1, 2 and 3- Agreed... very good point. I would still keep the 55-250 to use if discretion was required.
4 - An interesting suggestion... 
5 - I'm not going to be wildlife shooting full time, but it is something I would like to do more of, especially birds!

I have the 10-22 which I love as a landscape and close-quarters lens… my 17-55 is my standard walk-around lens for travel, and I use my 50 for street (even though it is a tad tight on my cropped body).

Thanks!


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 22, 2012)

From personal experience... get the 70-300 IF you are a daytime shooter, or shoot still life, or wildlife... get the 70-200 F2.8II IF you are an event shooter, if you do a lot of candids, a lot of low light people shots... The 100-400 is nice, but not as sharp as either of those two lenses, got a funky push-pull action going on, and what you gain in reach you lose in functionality, speed, and ergonomics. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 22, 2012)

I would just keep close in your mind that it will be very hot where you are going. It would attract less attention and be way more comfortable if you get a small system. I don't like the image quality from crop systems myself so I understand sticking with DSLR but you are probably going to take less photos overall and be much more stressed out about your photography than if you just get a smaller system and a few suitable lenses, or better yet, just 1 or 2 very good point and shoots. I really don't like the look of non-landscape images from micro 4/3rds or point and shoots because they don't have the same strength and quality of shallow depth of field, but overall, if you can fake that in editing well enough, and overall get images that you are happy with, then it's definitely a smarter approach to go small and light for where you are going. If you are not moving up to FF, then I would definitely go micro 4/3rds, without question, and get a few nice primes and maybe one standard or telephoto zoom. Should be much cheaper too.


----------



## AmbientLight (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't think that gear size is an issue. I have been spending a couple of weeks in Bangalore, walking for many kilometers through that city and no one bothered me, even if I was carrying a 70-200L IS f2.8 and a whole bunch of other L lenses. The much-nicer-than-at-home-climate others call heat also didn't bother me one bit :. You should decide for yourself, if for you this is a factor or not, since you have been visiting India before.

In general I think it will be best for you to choose the 70-300L for birding. That it is not f2.8 should not bother you too much.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2012)

We didn't find it too harassing, but i know a lot of people did/do.


----------



## underjammer (Jun 22, 2012)

dilbert said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



When I was in India, I got a lotttT of the "a white guy! he's 'rich' let's try to get some money out of him" in tourist-ee areas, but it got pretty repetitive (and extremely funny..) after like 2 days.. . It wasss annoying when people would try to get in my pictures, though.. (They then expect you to "tip" them..) But they'd do it for *everyone* with a camera.. DSLR or not. That was about the extent of harassment I got.

There were definitely some sketchy people, but I think they pretty much gravitate toward alll tourists, in terms of "easy money", and I never felt any sense of danger. It was fairly innocent attention. I also started telling them off pretty quick, and they left me alone, since they knew they weren't going to get my rupees! It was as easy as that.

(However, there are things like people-who-watch-your-shoes-for-money... And they do that for EVERYONE, not just "whitey", so in those cases you really should be paying them.)

I did get loads and loads of kids coming up to me asking for hand outs (because I'm white).. At first it was annoying, and they would keep pestering me, but I had brought a lot of gum, so I started handing sticks of gum out, and they couldn't have been happier. : D No more pestering, just lots of happy kids, and they'd either want to talk to me, asking me lots of questions, follow me around curiously, or move on and get money from other people, depending on how touristy or busy the area was. An older woman asked me for money once, as I was giving gum to some kids, so I offered her a piece, but she just gave me a dirty look, hahaha.. So I gave her some money, and THEN she reeeeally wanted the gum, too. : D

Outside of tourist-ee areas, I got a whole lot more interest and excitement just by being a foreigner. People were very warm and friendly, and if I had my camera out, they loved to get their picture taken and see the results on a screen. (This was 5-6 years ago, though.) No idea how it's changed since then..

Also, as for weather, Rajasthan and Bangalore are totally different beasts, I think? Rajasthan was hot and dry, and was just fine.. (46 degrees c (115+ f) - no problem!). Sure you might sweat, but you won't be soaked in it (especially carrying around a camera bag). Hopefully Bangalore isn't has humid as Chennai! In Chennai, it was instant-soakage and it did NOT leave you. Oh man! Loose clothes and loose bags. The temps weren't nearly as hot, but the humidity was a killer.

Also, if I was stomping through heavily packed areas, like a bazaar, I wouldn't have my DSLR out, though.. Just my point-and-shoot in my pocket. Mostly because, as someone mentioned above, the DSLR really gets in the way. I guess if you're more aggressive and/or gung-ho you can get out there in the thick of it, but that really isn't my style, haha. : D

I WAS paranoid of thieves trying to lift stuff from my backpack, though... I didn't have a backpack camera bag, though.. just one at my side, and i had the zipper / flap pointed IN toward my body, so there was pretty much no way anyone could get into my bag (short of cutting it open, I guess, but I wasn't THAT paranoid, hehe..)

As for those lenses, I'd normally recommend the 70-200 over the other two, but in your case, I'm not sure.. I don't know the 70-300 size/weight.. if it's significantly smaller, mayyybe.. but I doubt it is, though I have no experience with that 70-300. I have the 70-300 IS NON L and I also have the 55-250 ef-s. I brought the 70-300 IS non L with me to India (the 55-250 didn't exist then), and it was great and I used it a bunch, but I don't think it really has much over the 55-250, other than full-frame coverage (which you don't have, so it's a non-issue..). The 70-300 IS non L isn't quite as sharp at 300 as the rest of the focal range, so that extra 50mm reeeally doesn't get you much over the 55-250.. I would say it's not worth it. And its autofocus speed isn't anything to write home about, if I recall, though I've never actually tried comparing it to the 55-250. Buttt, I don't think I've ever tried to use the 70-300 for anything that neeeeeeded ultra autofocus, so it's never let me down, either.. (None of these lenses are really birding lenses..) And since I know that range, personally I wouldn't bother limiting myself with the 70-300 L 5.6, when I can get the 70-200 II 2.8 and throw a 2x adapter on there for 400 5.6 if I reeally needed it (except for autofocus speed, perhaps... I'm sure the adapter will kick it below the belt in terms of autofocus, but I've never used that lens with an adapter, so I don't know.). But that's just me. So I'd say stick with the 55-250 or go all out with the 70-200. Maybe give the 55-250 a shot over there, even though its falling apart.. The 55-250 I think is an awesome everyday stomping around telephoto.

Sounds like an awesome experience for you guys! Enjoy it! : D


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Jun 22, 2012)

underjammer said:


> Sounds like an awesome experience for you guys! Enjoy it! : D



+100 to what underjammer has said. I am an Indian (although right now in US for studies) and what he has said should give you a very clear picture of what to expect - the positives and the negatives.

I would emphasize that in "urban touristee" areas you shall be better (much better off) off carrying a good point and shoot (G1X, G12, S100, S95) rather than a DSLR. Because,
1. It will catch much less attention.
2. Walking through crowd will be easier.
3. You will probably not get any artistic photo which requires the quality of DSLR in those places anyway.

However, keep you DSLR for your (probable) trips to the scenic places (the Western Ghats, The Himalayas, The Nilgiri, Rajasthan, the historical (non-urban) sites, the parks and sanctuaries, and may be if you have the opportunity to Arunachal Pradesh in the North East; and some more). In this scenario, I will strongly suggest 70-300L rather than 70-200L. You might find the second one to be quite limiting in reach even with a cropped sensor.

Enjoy your stay.


----------



## robbymack (Jun 23, 2012)

70-200 f4 is, lighter, cheaper, and just as sharp as the 2.8


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 23, 2012)

The 70-300L is shorter than both 70-200's with weight inbetween the f/4 and f/2.8II


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 23, 2012)

Underjammer - Wow, thanks for your reply! No matter what i will keep the 55-250 as a compact alternative, i doubt i would get much selling it in the condition it is in anyway!  

Thank for all your posts and help. I think i am leaning towards the 70-200 2.8 (and maybe a TC if i want extra reach; i hear they works well with it)... I will probably wait now and get it over there, the warranty is not soo much of an issue, considering we will be staying there for a minimum of 2 years, the warranty will be dead by the time we leave! 

I'll let you all know how it goes!

John


----------



## EvilTed (Jun 23, 2012)

I've been to India 5 times and traveled from Rajasthan down the West coast to the south tip of Tamal Nadu.
My camera went with me everywhere.

I never experienced anyone trying to mug me and steal my camera but you will get a lot of people trying to scam money out of you at temples etc.

I love India and contemplated moving to Bangalore at one point in my career.
I was getting sent there for a month at a time anyway.

Bangalore is actually quite cool.
It was a British holiday town high up off the plains so it is temperate and never baking.
Because of the Brits it has a lot of cool pubs, but unfortunately they are all shut by 11pm 

Tons of great places to visit close (and not so close) by.
On my last trip we took a cab to Hampi, stayed all night and them drove up to Badami.
11 hours a day in a cab on an India freeway is something my Indian colleagues would never do.

Enjoy and post some pictures!

ET


----------



## AmbientLight (Jun 24, 2012)

As in many other countries there is a trick: Don't be a tourist.
I went to India strictly on business and could avoid all those bad experiences. If you stay in a good hotel, you can hire a driver from the hotel and make your tours with that driver. Mine did everything I could hope for to get me into temples and around people trying to make money for nothing. I had wonderful experiences in India.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 25, 2012)

I havent been to india (I would love to go though  ) however I spend alot of time in china
and the 2 countries have similar population densities. In china I quite often found even 50mm on full frame too long. the 16-35 f2.8L II is my most used lens in these crowded places. With heavily crowded areas there simply isnt the working room to bring a 70-200 to bear.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I havent been to india (I would love to go though  ) however I spend alot of time in china
> and the 2 countries have similar population densities. In china I quite often found even 50mm on full frame too long. the 16-35 f2.8L II is my most used lens in these crowded places. With heavily crowded areas there simply isnt the working room to bring a 70-200 to bear.



This might be the place for the shorty forty as even on a 1 series the camera doesn't look that impressive


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 25, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I havent been to india (I would love to go though  ) however I spend alot of time in china
> ...



Got my eye on one of those too!!! think i can sneak that thing past the misses!


----------



## LikeBreathing (Jun 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I havent been to india (I would love to go though  ) however I spend alot of time in china
> and the 2 countries have similar population densities. In china I quite often found even 50mm on full frame too long. the 16-35 f2.8L II is my most used lens in these crowded places. With heavily crowded areas there simply isnt the working room to bring a 70-200 to bear.



Too true! My walkaround lens was a Sigma 17-70 - mainly set to 17.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 26, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I havent been to india (I would love to go though  ) however I spend alot of time in china
> ...



I think these sorts of places are what the shorty forty was made for. probably the perfect lens for this situation even still perhaps could be too tight sometimes on Full frame definately too tight on a crop


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I think these sorts of places are what the shorty forty was made for. probably the perfect lens for this situation even still perhaps could be too tight sometimes on Full frame definately too tight on a crop



Agreed, but as you say might be too tight... now if they came out with a tiny twenty, i would be all over that!  Generally my 10-22 or 17-55 lives on my camera on day to day basis.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I think these sorts of places are what the shorty forty was made for. probably the perfect lens for this situation even still perhaps could be too tight sometimes on Full frame definately too tight on a crop
> ...



I just got a voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar SLII

http://www.voigtlander.com/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7pyj95.html

cant wait to get out and do some shooting with it today but so far its awesome
aperture control is all completely electronic on the canon one unlike the nikon
af confirm is very fast and accurate, build quality is excellent


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 13, 2012)

Hey,

Arrived in India and thought i would let you all know i ended up with the 70-200.. in fact my Wife surprised me with it as a late wedding gift... 

Bought it in India from a Canon store for 2014 Euro... so cheaper than in France! 

thanks for all the advice!


----------



## rpt (Oct 13, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> Hey,
> 
> Arrived in India and thought i would let you all know i ended up with the 70-200.. in fact my Wife surprised me with it as a late wedding gift...
> 
> ...


Really? Wow! Some lenses just went up in price in India by about 33% some 10 or so days back! I think it was due to changes in exchange rates. I am sure you will enjoy it.
Have fun! Do go to the Mysore palace if you like palaces...


----------

