# Standard Lens for Paris and London holiday.



## Haydn1971 (May 16, 2013)

I've hit a bit of a problem this week - I bought my 6D just before the New Year, I bought the body only and intended to use my 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2 as my main lenses, soon after, my local shop had a second hand 17-40mm come in, I when to look and walked out with a new 16-35mm MkII Lens, which I'm really really very pleased with. My itch continued in Feb with a Eos M & 22mm prime, which I also really love for when I'm out on long walks. I'm missing something though... I'm finding that I'm not using my 50mm because its fairly inflexible as a walk around lens... What's a boy to do ???

I've now made the mistake of checking my local dealer and noticed they have a second hand 24-105mm (fantastic condition they say) in for about what a new one would have cost me back in Dec had I bought it as a kit lens. I've a fear though, will I walk out with a 24-70mm MkII that I've promised myself next year ?

I plan to take my 10-22mm and 70-300 non L along as trade in lenses, I can't use the former and don't use the latter as my 135mm F2 gives better pictures when I crop in than the 70-300 ever could. I'm starting to consider that what if I also traded my 50mm f1.4 too ? 

I head to London and Paris late next week for a two week holiday - I'm wanting the 24-70mm but have a niggle in my head, is it the right lens for the holiday and should I get the second hand 24-105mm now, keep the 50mm and then as planned, get the 24-70mm next year ?

I like landscapes, available light, flower and portrait photography mostly. Won't be taking a tripod, but may just pick a joby up at the weekend for emergency ND1000 usage ;-)

Help me deal with the itch please ;-)


----------



## robbymack (May 16, 2013)

What ever you do don't compare the 24-105 to the 24-70ii. If you do you will be walking out very poor. The 24-105 is a great travel lens. Light, great range and IS so you don't necessarily need a tripod often. Although I'd say if you already have a 16-35 and a 50mm I'd skip the normal range zooms entirely and just pick up one of the many excellent versions of the 70-200 made by canon. You honestly wont miss the 35-70 range its rather boring imho. Personally I was turned off by the weight, size, and price of the f2.8 versions of that lens and ended up with a great copy of a 70-200 f4 IS. If your heart is set on a 24-70 zoom don't forget to look at the tamron. You get 95% of the performance at 50% the cost to the new canon.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2013)

Hmm... you got the 6D body only because you "knew" that in the future, you'd go with the 24-70 II. Now, you're considering the 24-105 as a stop gap until you get the 24-70 II next year. Looks like you're fated to get teh 24-70 II. :

Sounds like you should just get the 24-70 II now esp. if you can get it for around 2k US and if you can afford it without wrecking your finances. It might be 100-200 less next year, but you'll have transaction costs for buying/selling the 24-105, and renting the 24-70 II for a couple weeks will also cover the difference as well. The only advantage that the 50 f/1.4 has over the 24-70 II is 2 stops. At equal apertures, the 24-70 II is much better. If you don't use the 50 f/1.4 wide open, then there is no point in having it because it will get used even less.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the 24-70 II will also put the 16-35 II to shame, and then next year, you'll consider trading the 16-35 II for the TS-E 17.


----------



## eml58 (May 17, 2013)

Sell the 16-35 & anything else you don't need, then buy the 24-70f/2.8 L II, you will not be sorry, this Lens is just about perfect for what your going to need, and keep in mind Paris is simply Lovely at night, the f/4 will struggle, your 24-70f/2.8 L II + your 135f/2 are the only two lenses Paris require.

And I wasn't joking about your new 16-35, it's a "nice" Lens and I have the Version 2, but it's not a "great" lens like the 24-70 & 135, My view only of course.

Which ever way you go on the Lens purchase, have a great time, Paris is a Beautiful City.


----------



## pj1974 (May 17, 2013)

I've lived in London for 6 years back in the 1990's early 2000's, and while not visiting Paris, I have been in many other European cities. Though architecture and street photography isn't my 'main photography interests' - I'd say that you will find UWA helpful in cities (eg both street scenes and inside old buildings, etc).

Both your 50mm f/1.4 and 135 f/2 could be useful for different types of candid street shots too (eg for subject isolation). While the 24-70mm II is a great lens, it depends your shooting style whether you'd need it. One thing I don't like doing while travelling is taking a TON of equipment. So you might not need an additional lens to the 3 you currently have.

As stated previously, f/2.8 will be helpful for low light / night time - but often an even lower f/ value AND IS is better. You state you won't bring a tripod along, and I can understand that. In general I would advise people who are going to a place specifically FOR photography to consider bringing a tripod along - but yes, that can be quite inconvenient carrying a tripod along everywhere unless you have a bag that fits one to it.

I find the zoom range of my 15-85mm on my 7D ideal as a 1 lens travel option... ie equivalent to 24-136mm in FF format. And it has 4 stops IS... so I can get away with a lot of hand held photos that still have a deep depth of field too. So in some ways if I went on holidays with a FF, I might even consider the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VR - but I have heard there are some QC issues with that.... So it might even mean that I would go with the 24-70mm f/4 IS OR 24-105mm f/4 IS. 

Am I helping or making more options? Ok, in summary - I'd probably go with the 24-105mm f/4 as an all round, or stay with your 3 current lenses if you don't mind changing lenses... but a wide angle and 1 lens for subject isolation can be helpful.

Paul


----------



## Cookie28 (May 17, 2013)

Hi,

Just recently came back from a trip to London and Paris both being amazing cities to photograph. I had taken my 24-70II and 70-200L IS II. While in both cities I mainly had the 24-70II on the camera most of the time but occasionally I would put the 70-200mm on and shot mainly at the 200mm. It may not of been the lightest system to pack but I would do again and again just I so know i can get the shot I want. For example when I was in London the Queen opened parliament I was able to get a much closer shot of her in her carriage going back to Buckingham Palace using the 70-200mm lens as appose to just my 24-70mm and I'm not a big fan of cropping.

Anyway if your going there for a photography trip and had never been there before like myself I recommend a mid-range zoom and something longer.

Enjoy your trip


----------



## dexstrose (May 17, 2013)

I was in Paris in December, brought one lens with me and that was the 24-105. The weight was excellent, good zoom range. But the only problem I had, it was very dark and cloudy when I went. I wish I had the 2.8 lens to get more light. I found that the 24-105 worked well with good light or flash. Also a contributing factor was my camera iso capabilities were not that great. But I made do.

From reading a lot of reviews of the 24-70II, I would get it, its something that will be with you a longtime with no regrets in a general zoom lens. Only the price will hurt at the moment, but when you see those pictures, you will hopefully say it was worth it. 

At this moment, I'm saving up for the 24-70II.

Here is one with the 24-105:


----------



## sdsr (May 17, 2013)

It depends on the sorts of focal lengths you like using, how much equipment you want to carry around and for how long, and what you'll be shooting. The days are long in both cities in the last week of May, so unless the weather's really heavily overcast you shouldn't have to worry much about low light unless you want to photograph inside churches etc., some of which are pretty dark inside even in the middle of the day. Moreover, with your 6D you may well find that a slower lens with IS yields better results in low light than a fast lens without it, so you could lighten your bag by leaving behind fast lenses (unless you want them for other reasons). 

I can't quite tell from your post, but if you're planning on taking just one lens, would 24-70 II be versatile enough for you? If so, go for it. It would be too short for me. When I was in Paris a year ago, around the same time you're going, I took my 5DII and 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS (if I had had my 70-300L I would have taken that instead), and three 1.8 primes, but except when I was in Notre Dame or wandering around after dark I never used the primes and only took with me either 24-105 or 17-40 + 70-200. (And, as it turned out, the IS zooms generally performed better than the primes in low light (the results would have been even better had the 6D been available at the time). The next time I go, unless I just take my Olympus OM-D gear instead, I'll take 6D + 24-105 + 70-300L (both perform really well in low light on the 6D) and leave the rest behind. 

If you're really set on the 24-70, you may want to supplement it with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (I guess you could go whole hog and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but who wants to cart that around all day?).


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 17, 2013)

Cheers for the comments folks, I'd like to take as little as possible, at the moment it's looking like the 16-35 II, the 50mm, the 135mm, my Lensbaby and my Eos M ! 

The comment about not missing the 35-70mm if I had a 70-200mm have given me food for thought, I'd previously discounted a 70-200mm lens on my crop 450D, but now I'm on full frame, I may have to force myself to go out with my 70-300mm non L and see how that works for me. Having thought about this, I'm really enjoying my Eos M as a lightweight walkabout camera, the 22mm lens has of course the same view as 35mm on my full frame and at the moment is working well for what I photograph.

I had a 15-85mm on my crop, it was near on perfect for the range it covered, it's a shame there isn't a full frame equivalent - the 24-105mm is short on the long end by comparison. A new 24-135mm f4 HIS would be in my eyes, a great walk around on a full frame, but perhaps not that popular with the purists ;-) My style is definately bold, I like to use ultra wide close up, I like to get in close on portraits, I like to bold my colours in Lightroom, but of course I'm limited on the style of shot by the lenses I currently own - although I don't at all feel limited by my kit. I've mainly use my 16-35 in the last six months, then probably my 135mm, then my lensbaby, i last used my 50mm on New Years Eve, but not used the 70-300 at all, probably because the 135 works better when cropping in and the 200-300mm range produces quite poor images in my opinion.

I'm err'ing towards keeping my cash in my pocket, working with what I have, making an effort to sell my less used lenses and making a choice in August over a 24-70 2.8 II or a 70-200 2.8 IS II - whichever way, it has been a very expensive year and I'm loving it - my photography style has definately improved since moving to raw a couple of years ago and more so since upgrading to full frame - I'm less snap happy and much more considered, which results in a great big smile on my face when I see the end results.

Now if I could only fix my jpeg output issues - 16bit Jpegs anyone ? ;-)


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 18, 2013)

Ouch ! That's a 24-70mm f2.8 MkII in my bag now...

I can see my 16-35mm II getting used a tad less now, I'm avoiding reviews of the 14mm & 17mm TSE ;-)


----------



## mwh1964 (May 18, 2013)

How is the 24-70. Does it live up to you expectations?


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 18, 2013)

I'll get a good chance to play tomorrow when I have a walk up Kinder Scout near where I live ;-)


----------



## gimmeadeal19 (May 18, 2013)

I totally agree on the 24-105 f/4. I own it and it's a great lens in good light, a good lens in fair light and a poor lens in poor light.


----------



## Eli (May 19, 2013)

Yep your 24-70 II and 135mm is all you need really, you can and will sell the rest after you've discovered the 24-70 mkii (I did), its just that good!


----------



## expatinasia (May 19, 2013)

eml58 said:


> keep in mind Paris is simply Lovely at night



It really is, so make sure you take a tripod as it helps with night shots, and now they are pretty small and can fit in your suitcase. 

There have been a lot of trip threads recently, so just remember don't pack too much. Choose two good lenses and modify your photography accordingly.


----------



## honsten (May 19, 2013)

Just make the most of what you have, the 16-35 would be good because we have very narrow streets in London and especially Paris. 
Personally speaking, I just slap the 40mm STM on the 6D for walking around/travel. Its so convenient and the optics are as good as it gets regardless of price. Maybe take one as a body cap


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 19, 2013)

Cheers for the comments and thoughts folks - been out with the 24-70 today up Kinder Scout, love the handling, true to say that it's a boring focal range for landscapes, but it's going to be perfect in the city environments. I'm currently laid up nursing some sore feet but aim to get onto Lightroom tonight to check out the raw's ;-)

As for the trip, I really like my ultra wide shots, I'm travelling by train and staying in just one hotel at both London and Paris, so whilst walking around with my camera and a second spare lens is probably the way to go, I'll most likely be taking more kit than I'd usually take on a flight based holiday - happy days !


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 25, 2013)

By way of an update - the photos from Kinder Scout came out great, but having used the 24-70mm today around London, I've got back to the hotel and scanned through them on the camera LCD away from the sun and bloody hell !!!! What a cracking lens, just completely blown away with the colours, contrast and sharpness and pretty sure that it's going to be the main lens on my camera from here on. My 16-35mm came out to play around St Paul's for a few shots, the 135mm didn't see light of day though, maybe if I go up The Shard ;-)

100% recommendation from me


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 27, 2013)

I lived in Paris for 4 years... for me i find wide was the way to go. I did have fun with an UWA (10-22 on an APS-C), but i think 24 is wide enough (on FF) for most shots. 70 might be limiting, but I rarely used a tele (just my style for cities)... so 24-70 would be my recommendation... keep it simple and enjoy the sights! 

Check our Butte aux caille in the 13eme if you have time and want away from the tourist frey... it is like the nottinghill of Paris. A bit bohemian. Also, check out "Les Frigos" (http://les-frigos.com/) if it is an open house when you're there... It is an old Fridge factory and now a artists hide-out. Even when it is not an open house, you can usually go for a wander around it...  Just a few local tips.


----------



## TommyLee (May 27, 2013)

Haydn

I use 5D3 ...

I already have the 16-35II, 14L II, 24-105, Sigma 35 1.4, 100L Macro, 85L II 135L, 70-200 f2.8 II and f4 I.S. .....
and tried the 24-70 II ... returned it for softness at 70mm....but may get it back....... yes too much...I love them all

so what would I take to Paris / London ?
well
my general plan was to make up THE most able and smallest kit for travel and/or home (I have too much gear)

the FIRST PLAN - WAS - to have the 24-70 II ... THEN add the 135 f2 ....small and capable
and THEN add the 14L II ..... get the WHOLE bridge in the shot

but then I tried the sigma 35 1.4 - wow....gotta have it on every trip now...

so ...adjusting
FIRST - I would NOT go to Paris without an ultrawide - for bridges, buildings, even museums - end of story...

SECOND - for night or weak light
one needs a low-light walkaround that WORKS - the sigma 35 is PERFECT ... cafes, portions of lighted bridges, nicely framed day scenes
then a bit of low light 'reach' - the 135 (1a 1.4x TC still yields f2.8)

so for ME...I would take the following ...adding EACH new lens ... as I accepted more space/weight requirements

first - if ONLY one lens - the 24-105 is it... in a small single case ...and 3 batteries and a 3-4 VERY large cards or offload laptop ability.

if ONLY two lenses ..... 16-35 II and the 135L (for me I would cheat and take 50 1.8 ).... for you... take the 50 1.4
(so you already have the Paris kit)

if ONLY three lenses the 14L II(or 16-35), sigma 35 and 135L - that set is crazy good quality...very good low-light
if a FORTH lens is ok, THEN GET THE 24-70 II (and no 16-35 - stay with 14L II) ....
.........so at this point you have 14L II 35 sigma 135L AND a walk-around zoom - 24-70 .... all world-class optics
a 4 lens kit should do it ...add a 25mm tube and a tamron 1.4x sp pro 
(a tamron 1.4x on the 135 L gains a little reach - with very little loss in quality or speed)

I cant see 70-200 (f2.8 OR f4) as a travel lens in cities

///////////////

my conclusion for you is - you have 16-35 and 50mm and 135L
this will do almost everything.... just use them....
I would swap the 50mm for the sigma if any change at all.... the sigma is as good @ 1.4 as the 50 is at f5.6 IMO - a killer

you could walk around the city with 16-35 all day ..ultrawide to near normal
I used 10-22(same as 16-35) for 90% shots in Chicago over 3 days

also
I sometimes go out for long city walks with the 16-35 and a 100mm macro...like street fairs etc.. gets me close and wide... and fast enough
//////////////

one more thing ... in PARIS especially...
keep your kit VERY CLOSE - I would run a little cable/lock thru the zippers on a back pack or carry in my front...
the little teenaged thieves are very clever and work in pairs in Paris... they partly unzipped our back pack TWICE at train station entrances ....EVEN when we knew they were there...
.
SMALLER KIT is BETTER

just my thoughts 
TOM


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 27, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> Haydn
> one more thing ... in PARIS especially...
> keep your kit VERY CLOSE - I would run a little cable/lock thru the zippers on a back pack or carry in my front...
> the little teenaged thieves are very clever and work in pairs in Paris... they partly unzipped our back pack TWICE at train station entrances ....EVEN when we knew they were there...



Nice bit of scaremongering there, and i would add a slight overreaction... like any other city, the key is not to make yourself appear a target. I am British and have experienced exponentially more crime in London than in Paris, and i have never lived in London. 

Paris is safe, just be as smart as you would be in any city... Enjoy


----------



## TommyLee (May 27, 2013)

adhocphotographer

you think I am over reacting....?

ok...
I found London to be very safe been there a lot...
My brother lived ther 35 yrs..I visited regularly....felt at home

just a few times to Paris...LOVE it.. but there is a known thread of thieves as I described....
I stand by my report

the issues I described were also described by a number of posts I read...upon return and asking about other's experiences...

packs opened in 3-4 attempts ... zipping a bit at a time...
by trailing pair of thieves - one at watch - one behind you...in the tube or a crowd

so I believe Paris is a bit more risk.... and recognized as such.

but I am not an expert.....I defer to your expertise on Parisian/London Crime ...
me...I will stay alert....more alert in Paris

TOM


----------

