# What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

Hi all Canon-shooters! 

I'm about to do a sort of a travel dream in october. Will be traveling to these places:
- Dubai
- Sydney
- Great barrier reef (compact with under water housing)
- New Zeeland

I'm going to bring a Canon 5D mk3 aswell as my compact camera.
Now I'm thinking of what lenses I should bring and if there is any lens that I should get for a trip like this.

Currently I have:
- Sigma 15mm fish eye
- Canon 16-35/2.8
- Canon 35/1.4
- Canon 50/1.8
- Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II
- Canon 85/1.2
- Canon 100/2.8 IS Macro
- Canon 135/2
- Canon 1.4x extender

When I want abroad to shoot last time I brought my 16-35, 50 and 135mm. it's a little complicated to switch lenses all the time when the sun is about to set.
That's why I've thought of getting perhaps the 24-105/4 to bring instead of only primes.

Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.

Just to clarify: I'm doing this trip mostly to shoot pictures for my portfolio and to get new clients, not so much tourist-shooting. So I'm aiming for pictures that clients (magazines, hotels, travel agency, real estates etc) will like and not so much for my own vacation album.

What whould you bring on a trip like this?
I'm thankful for all input! 

Best regards
Fredrik


----------



## mwh1964 (Aug 13, 2013)

A good travel kit would be 24-105/24-70 and the 70-300L perhaps complemented by your 35 f1.4. Using what you have I would probably take everything with me but carry only for the specific day. If you wanna slimline I would bring the 16-35, 35 f1.4, 70-200 + ex. Really no need for the 35-70 range. I did a 4 week dream trip to California bringing only a 35 f2 on a lightweight Fuji x100 and really didn't miss anything. So everything comes down to what you intend to shoot. Enjoy your trip and stay safe.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> A good travel kit would be 24-105/24-70 and the 70-300L perhaps complemented by your 35 f1.4. Using what you have I would probably take everything with me but carry only for the specific day. If you wanna slimline I would bring the 16-35, 35 f1.4, 70-200 + ex. Really no need for the 35-70 range. I did a 4 week dream trip to California bringing only a 35 f2 on a lightweight Fuji x100 and really didn't miss anything. So everything comes down to what you intend to shoot. Enjoy your trip and stay safe.



Thank you for the input. I will only bring what I can carry in my bag all the time. I don't want to bring equipment that I leave in a car/at a hotel and that don't be used 

Why do you think that I need the 35/1.4 if I already have the 16-35? Because it's sharper or I can use it in low light conditions? 

I intend to shoot architecture, landscape, people, animals (macro) and some underwater dives  Almost "everything". I'm not going to shoot birds/animals with a long tele though.

Best regards
Fredrik


----------



## duydaniel (Aug 13, 2013)

Please bring your CPL filter as well.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 13, 2013)

My travel kit has devolved to 24-105 + 17- 40 + 70-200 + 1.4x. And, I am not always going to bring the 70-200 and 1.4 either. Depends on where I am going and why. When I go to Denali, I'll bring a lot more. But, I am happy walking around with just the 5Diii and 24-105 while having the 17-40 in my bag. 

I may or may not bring the M with the 22 and the 40+adapter as my "stealthier primes" as well. But, with cropping and a camera that does well in hi-iso situations, you don't need as much as you'd think. I've learned this the hard way!

Sounds like an incredible trip.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

JPAZ said:


> My travel kit has devolved to 24-105 + 17- 40 + 70-200 + 1.4x. And, I am not always going to bring the 70-200 and 1.4 either. Depends on where I am going and why. When I go to Denali, I'll bring a lot more. But, I am happy walking around with just the 5Diii and 24-105 while having the 17-40 in my bag.
> 
> I may or may not bring the M with the 22 and the 40+adapter as my "stealthier primes" as well. But, with cropping and a camera that does well in hi-iso situations, you don't need as much as you'd think. I've learned this the hard way!
> 
> Sounds like an incredible trip.



I think the trip till be awesome!  Do you use these lenses on a crop-camera or did I read that wrong?
For traveling the 17-40 and 70-200/4L would do just fine.Then you don't need a prime lense with 2.8  But since I shoot weddings etc then I have to use faster lenses.

I want a portrait-lens to shoot with so 85/1.2 or 70-200/2.8L II IS would be nice to bring along.
Since I don't have the 24-105 
Or I can use the 100 macro for portraits.


----------



## mw (Aug 13, 2013)

I just got back from a 2 weeks trip to Paris, Venice, Rome, Florence, Monaco, and Nice. I was tempted to take as many lenses as I can, but ended up taking only 16-35 and 24-105 to go on my 5D3. I am glad I kept it light. I've got plenty of shots and happy with many of them. I would say I used the 24-105 90% of the time and 16-35 the rest.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

mw said:


> I just got back from a 2 weeks trip to Paris, Venice, Rome, Florence, Monaco, and Nice. I was tempted to take as many lenses as I can, but ended up taking only 16-35 and 24-105 to go on my 5D3. I am glad I kept it light. I've got plenty of shots and happy with many of them. I would say I used the 24-105 90% of the time and 16-35 the rest.



Nice to hear!  Sounds like a nice trip aswell. I've been in Venice and Rome. Very beautiful!
Were you there on vacation and walking around taking pictures just for the documentation of the nice trip or did you take the pictures for your portfolio/clients etc?


----------



## jhpeterson (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't know what your shooting style is like, but I would find most useful the 16-35 and the 70-200. 
I carried these two lenses around (each on FF bodies) this past year on a three-week trip to the Middle East, and found that I used them for probably better than 90% of my photos. 
You might also want to pack the 1.4 teleconverter for those times when you want some extra reach. My favorite lens is a 300, it's so incredibly sharp and I love the look it gives, but it only came out of the bag on rare occcasions, on average once, maybe twice a day.


----------



## mwh1964 (Aug 13, 2013)

fiend said:


> mwh1964 said:
> 
> 
> > A good travel kit would be 24-105/24-70 and the 70-300L perhaps complemented by your 35 f1.4. Using what you have I would probably take everything with me but carry only for the specific day. If you wanna slimline I would bring the 16-35, 35 f1.4, 70-200 + ex. Really no need for the 35-70 range. I did a 4 week dream trip to California bringing only a 35 f2 on a lightweight Fuji x100 and really didn't miss anything. So everything comes down to what you intend to shoot. Enjoy your trip and stay safe.
> ...



35 f1.4 for low light. I don't have that lens, but do often bring my 50 f1.4 or 28 f1.8 to complement the zooms. Also I find that sometimes it's useful to have a light prime on the camera and the tele in the bag for when I need it. But again the 24-105 is very competent for traveling and it does have IS and right now there seem to b many good deals on this particular lens out there.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

jhpeterson said:



> I don't know what your shooting style is like, but I would find most useful the 16-35 and the 70-200.
> I carried these two lenses around (each on FF bodies) this past year on a three-week trip to the Middle East, and found that I used them for probably better than 90% of my photos.
> You might also want to pack the 1.4 teleconverter for those times when you want some extra reach. My favorite lens is a 300, it's so incredibly sharp and I love the look it gives, but it only came out of the bag on rare occcasions, on average once, maybe twice a day.



Well, I'm a little of a planer and I often try to take less photos.. but have them to be a little "better" then just shooting a lot of pictures to try and find a "goodie" among them later on 
When I see something I like or I get an idea, then I take my time and shoot it. If I find a nice place but the light is bad, I can come back in a couple of hourse just to shoot that picture later on.

I'm thinking of creating a "storyboard" on my shoot to tell a kind of story with well planned (and unplanned) shots aswell 

I don't have a 300mm - lens and I don't think I would bring it unless I know that I will have to use it some shots that I've planned. 70-200/2.8 with 1.4 would have to do the trick then 

I hope I answered your question.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> 35 f1.4 for low light. I don't have that lens, but do often bring my 50 f1.4 or 28 f1.8 to complement the zooms. Also I find that sometimes it's useful to have a light prime on the camera and the tele in the bag for when I need it. But again the 24-105 is very competent for traveling and it does have IS and right now there seem to b many good deals on this particular lens out there.



The 35/1.4 isn't that large so I think it could fit in the camera bag. If I find place and a reason for it.. I will bring it with me  I love that lens.. but I would also like to try the Sigma 35/1.4.

The 24-105/4L IS seems to be very nice lens for travel when you don't want to switch lenses that often. It is quite nice priced (bulk white package) for $1200 here in Sweden.

/Fredrik


----------



## fugu82 (Aug 13, 2013)

The 24-105 + 16-35 would be great, but see if you can find a corner of your bag for the 15mm fisheye also. It's really small, but such a fun lens!


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> The 24-105 + 16-35 would be great, but see if you can find a corner of your bag for the 15mm fisheye also. It's really small, but such a fun lens!



Yes, the 15mm is very nice. Quite fun pictures that you can take with it  And it's very small aswell so it might slip in there!

Anybody who have any ideas of a Tilt Shift Lens?
Canon 24/3.5 TS-E II
Canon 17/4 TS-E

Best regards
Fredrik


----------



## brad-man (Aug 13, 2013)

fiend said:


> fugu82 said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 + 16-35 would be great, but see if you can find a corner of your bag for the 15mm fisheye also. It's really small, but such a fun lens!
> ...



Regrettably, I don't own either one. But as a general rule, the 17mm if you're mostly shooting indoors, and/or the 24mm for outdoors. For myself, I would choose the 24. Enjoy your trip!


----------



## Etienne (Aug 13, 2013)

I would take my 5DIII, 16-35, and 50 1.4
That's it. Keep it simple and light and you'll be more relaxed.

In your case, I would suggest : 5DIII, 16-35, and 100L macro
That kit will not slow you down and give you plenty of good shots. Although I'd be severely tempted to tuck the 35 1.4 in the bag


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

brad-man said:


> fiend said:
> 
> 
> > fugu82 said:
> ...



If I say that the 17mm works with the 1.4 extender and then it becomes a 24mm TS-E / 5.6 if I'm not all wrong?  then you get two Tilt Shift lenses in one?


----------



## mw (Aug 13, 2013)

fiend said:


> mw said:
> 
> 
> > I just got back from a 2 weeks trip to Paris, Venice, Rome, Florence, Monaco, and Nice. I was tempted to take as many lenses as I can, but ended up taking only 16-35 and 24-105 to go on my 5D3. I am glad I kept it light. I've got plenty of shots and happy with many of them. I would say I used the 24-105 90% of the time and 16-35 the rest.
> ...



I was on vacation and mainly taking pictures of whatever that were pleasing to the eyes. And there were plenty of that as you know.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I would take my 5DIII, 16-35, and 50 1.4
> That's it. Keep it simple and light and you'll be more relaxed.
> 
> In your case, I would suggest : 5DIII, 16-35, and 100L macro
> That kit will not slow you down and give you plenty of good shots. Although I'd be severely tempted to tuck the 35 1.4 in the bag



When I was in Norway earlier in spring I used my 16-35/2.8 in 99% of the photos (landscape).

In Side (Turkey) I used 16-35 in 40% of the shots, the 50/1.8 in 20% and the 135/2 in 40% (some with the 1.4x).

With the 16-35 I mostly used it in the 16mm or 35mm range.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 13, 2013)

The TS-E 17 is better for tall buildings or for interior shots, but the TS-E 24 is more versatile for general landscapes and pano-stitching (especially if you have close foreground objects near the edges). It is harder to make 17mm panos interesting. Extenders can be used on them to give you more framing options but the TS-24 will be sharper and faster than the TS-E 17 + 1.4x. In your case, I can see the TS-E 17 being more useful for the trip, but how much would you use it after? Is it worth renting it for the trip or buying it and possibly selling it in the future?

Are you going to be bringing a tripod? If not, then I'd avoid the TS-Es for now. Shooting handheld with shift is easy enough, but to get the best results, you'll want to shoot at ISO 100 and take mulitple exposures to blend later, which will give you the most leeway when post-processing them later.

+1 on the fisheye. Defished or not, it would give you creative options in urban landscapes.

If I were you, I'd take the
fisheye
16-35
ts-e 17
50
135
1.4x for both the ts-e and 135
tripod

The 135 would be the least used, and the 16-35 and the 50 the most used.


----------



## fiend (Aug 13, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> The TS-E 17 is better for tall buildings or for interior shots, but the TS-E 24 is more versatile for general landscapes and pano-stitching (especially if you have close foreground objects near the edges). It is harder to make 17mm panos interesting. Extenders can be used on them to give you more framing options but the TS-24 will be sharper and faster than the TS-E 17 + 1.4x. In your case, I can see the TS-E 17 being more useful for the trip, but how much would you use it after? Is it worth renting it for the trip or buying it and possibly selling it in the future?
> 
> Are you going to be bringing a tripod? If not, then I'd avoid the TS-Es for now. Shooting handheld with shift is easy enough, but to get the best results, you'll want to shoot at ISO 100 and take mulitple exposures to blend later, which will give you the most leeway when post-processing them later.
> 
> ...



I always bring my tripod for shots of landscape and architecture  
I've used the old 24 TS-E and kind of liked it for shooting buildings in my own town when I tested it.
For landscape 17mm TS-E would be better aswell as for the indoor shooting.
But the 17TS-E is not as sharp as 24mm, especially not shifted (I've read..)

Today I'm used to make panos with my 70-200 handheld, but that's kind of hard to do with buildings that are quite near though 
In Dubai I guess that there will be very large and nice buildings and sometimes not that much room or space. 
Perhaps you can take several shots with the 24mm instead?
And if I visit a church or something I can use the 24mm for pano indoors aswell? Haven't tried it though so hard to say.

http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wpid4696-emma-julkonsert2012-12_3_4_5_6.jpg
This picture is taken with the old TS-24 (single shot. Its a local church here in Umeå, Sweden.

Renting the TS24 / TS17 would cost about $1000 for a month. If I buy it afterwards, the rent is free (I just pay for the lens as I've bought it right of the start).

Thanks for the input!


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.

Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.
> 
> Otherwise a 24-105 is more versatile.



I have my 5d mkII that I could use. Perhaps I should bring it alongside the 5d mkIII as a "backup" ?
Didn't want to carry to much weight/gear with me on the trip though


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 14, 2013)

I have travelled lots around the world, and taken thousands upon thousands of photos with my DSLRs in various situations. From several countries within Europe to SE Asia to many parts of Australia (where I grew up, now live and have returned after sevearl years abroad).

Convenience is important while on the go - I want to enjoy my time of walking, travelling, seeing sites, talking with people and yes, also photographing lots. But I would opt for a light & available body with a zoom in most cases than travel rather than feel like a 'fully laden pack horse' with a host of lenses, including too many primes!

In your case, I'd probably opt to buy a 24-105mm L, and use the 16-35mm time to time too. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II is a great lens, but very heavy to take along. I can see the new 35mm f/2 IS being a great option as a 'street photography' / low light option too.

I use a 7D as my travel camera, and the Canon 15-85mm is my main camera. So yes, it does depend on each individual's photography style, but I would expect that many photographers would find the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII the most handy combination (or the newer Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS as another travel option).

When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L. A great, and very portable 2 lens travel solution - providing very high quality images. Though in some situations I'll (also) take and use my Sigma 8-16mm (love that ultrawide!) Of course one can use all 3 lenses as such if that is preferred.

When I was on holiday in Thailand some time ago, I used the 15-85mm about 80% of the time on my 7D.

Best wishes.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to not change lens often is to get a second FF body. Put the 16-35 in one and the 70-200 in the other and you are done. Only then the 35 - 70 range does not matter a lot.
> ...


When I want minimum size/weight a carry a 5D2 with 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. But I try to combine lenses you already have. True 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 is a heavy combination. In that case a viable alternative is 5D3 with 16-35 50 135 and 1.4X.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.


A killer combination indeed, especially if combined with a 10-22 lens (I know you mentioned other brand you just reminded me of my beloved and stolen 10-22).
But the point is that OP has already a FF camera. I agree with you that in this case the 24-105 is the best all round lens(I do own and like it). I would complement it with the 16-35 and 135 (and leave behind all others) to avoid carrying the 70-200 2.8


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> Hi all Canon-shooters!
> 
> I'm about to do a sort of a travel dream in october. Will be traveling to these places:
> - Dubai
> ...



Leave the Canon 35, 50, and 85 at home...take as many of the rest of the lenses as you can...and rent a 24-70...possibly also the 17mm T/S...and a second body.


----------



## Danielle (Aug 14, 2013)

I'd suggest taking your pick of only 2 lenses and make the most of having the trip with the choices you have.


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 14, 2013)

I'd be perfectly happy with a 5d3 and 24-105/4

I'd be happy with a 5d2 and 24-105/4 --- which is what I've got!

If I'm really going on an expedition... I bring one digital SLR, and its been a few Rebels and the 18-55 in the past (last expedition was in 2006). I bring a small flash that runs on 2 AA cells. And I bring a Leica M4 or M6 and 35/2.0 and a half brick of monochrome film.

Keep in mind, when I get out of town, and into a new locale, I don't really see the sights as much as try to mingle and meet the locals and share share stories with them as I click away. Your own needs are probably much different than mine......

Should also add, it all fits in a F1x Domke, along with about half my clothes and personal items, the rest being taken along in literally... saddlebags.


----------



## Pi (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.



I used only the 24TSE, not the 17 - but for tall buildings, I do not like the results of TSE. You can easily simulate them with software, just to see what you will get. The buildings look too tall (well, they are) but very weird. I much more prefer to point the camera upward and make the "distortion" even worse. Why not your fisheye or your UWA instead for tall buildings?


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 14, 2013)

How about a second body, lest lens changing?



fiend said:


> Hi all Canon-shooters!
> 
> I'm about to do a sort of a travel dream in october. Will be traveling to these places:
> - Dubai
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 14, 2013)

Sort of off topic a bit, but check early with the carriers, there may be a weight limit for carry on luggage. 

I almost got into trouble with that last year- had a safari vest and off loaded the heavy stuff into my vest. On the plane, I re-packed it into the bag. I wasn't going to check any camera gear.

In fact we had a 24 lb limit, and after all my camera and laptop stuff, I had only enough left for toiletries and two days of clothes. 

Also, be sure your bag will fit into the smallest overhead that you will be flying on.

When you get all this figured out, your choices may already be made for you.

sek


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 14, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I would take my 5DIII, 16-35, and 50 1.4
> That's it. Keep it simple and light and you'll be more relaxed.
> 
> In your case, I would suggest : 5DIII, 16-35, and 100L macro
> That kit will not slow you down and give you plenty of good shots. Although I'd be severely tempted to tuck the 35 1.4 in the bag



I agree. Simple and relaxed is the name of the game while traveling. I rarely take the 24-105 off my 5D during a trip and if I do, it's for something with a bit more reach, such as a 70-200, when I want to grab animal pics at a zoo (Taronga Zoo in Sydney is awesome, by the way). That said, out of the lenses you have, I second the above --

5DIII, 16-35, 100L macro, 70-200 (if it fits and depending on interest) , and if you can squeeze in another prime, the 35 or 50 for very low light work or discreet street photography. At *most*.


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > When I go for 2 lenses, it's often the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L.
> ...



Hi *tron*

Thanks for your post and quote of my earlier post.

Yes, I'm aware that the op has a FF, that's why I stated in my post - in his situation I would go with the 24-105mm L (twice mentioning that as a suitable lens). It's true I didn't explicitly make the connection / compare my 15-85mm on a 7D / APS-C with the 24-105mm on a 5DmkIII (these being quite similar in usability as a go-to zoom lens).

I have used the Canon 10-22mm, and have own a Sigma 10-20mm since 2008 (my copy has v good sharpness & great contrast). Now I have the Sigma 8-16 which is superior in various ways (less CA, slightly sharper in centre - but more noticeably sharper in the corners). I have often stated on these CR forums and other places that there is a plethora of great UWA lens choices for APS-C DSLRs these days. And it's very hard to obtain equivalent full frame lenses (esp zooms) which can match the corner sharpness of the best APS-C UWAs.

I would recommend that *fiend*, the OP, buys a 24-105mm and goes with for most of his photos. Then uses the 16-35mm when he requires UWA photos. The 135mm L prime is not a bad addition, but it's not THAT much longer than the tele end of the 24-105mm L, of course the 135mm L prime is a few stops brighter - but having 3 lenses rather than 2 does mean less convenience. 

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > My travel kit has devolved to 24-105 + 17- 40 + 70-200 + 1.4x. And, I am not always going to bring the 70-200 and 1.4 either. Depends on where I am going and why. When I go to Denali, I'll bring a lot more. But, I am happy walking around with just the 5Diii and 24-105 while having the 17-40 in my bag.
> ...



Sorry I was not more specific. I have FF and recently an Eos M. On a recent trip, I carried the 24-105, 17-40 and the 40mm. I shoot a lot of people shots but some more typical tourist stuff as well. At the end of the trip I used the 40 for about 5 shots, the 17-40 for less than 10% and the 24-105 for about 2000 shots. 

Recently, I found the Eos M (which is cropped) to be a nice small addition with the 40+adapter . Keep it simple. Changing lenses in the field can be an "interesting" experience. Keep it light be because it is not too much fun carrying a heavy kit, especially when it is hot.


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

There have been a lot of feedback and answers here during the night  Thanks!
Will reply to them soon.

I just want to clarify on the topic that the goal with the trip is not to travel around like a tourist and take pictures of everything while I'm on the beach/hiking around like a tourist but to have the chance to take really good pictures for my portfolio to get new clients. That includes both real estate, travel companies, hotels, magazines etc aswell as selling these pictures to them.

To bring one lens to do it all and shoot everything "kind of OK" is not an option for me. I rather bring extra lenses and shoot optimal pictures 

Best regards
Fredrik


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I have travelled lots around the world, and taken thousands upon thousands of photos with my DSLRs in various situations. From several countries within Europe to SE Asia to many parts of Australia (where I grew up, now live and have returned after sevearl years abroad).
> 
> Convenience is important while on the go - I want to enjoy my time of walking, travelling, seeing sites, talking with people and yes, also photographing lots. But I would opt for a light & available body with a zoom in most cases than travel rather than feel like a 'fully laden pack horse' with a host of lenses, including too many primes!
> 
> ...



Thanks for the input 
The thing is that I'm aiming mostly to shoot for new clients and for my portfolio and less vacation-shooting so I'm willing to bring some extra lenses if it makes my eventual clients more happy.

Yes, the 70-200 is quite heavy, but maybe 200mm will come in handy sometime? Its so sharp and have such nice reach  the 135 is also very nice and a lot lighter. Equipped with 1.4" its quite long aswell. I'm shooting on FF so it's not as long as with the 7D though.

The 70-300 seems to have a nice range, but it's quite expensive aswell 
I've looked at this before.. just trying to justify the cost.. hehe

/Fredrik


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> How about a second body, lest lens changing?



I'm thinking of that. To bring a 5D mkII aswell as backup camera


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> When I want minimum size/weight a carry a 5D2 with 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. But I try to combine lenses you already have. True 2 bodies and a 70-200 2.8 is a heavy combination. In that case a viable alternative is 5D3 with 16-35 50 135 and 1.4X.



16-35, 50, 135 was what I had with me when I traveled to Side Turkey last year to shoot 
I could fit all those lenses in my Crumpler shoulder bag, so I'm aiming to bring some more with me in a backpack... I think.

Here are some of those pictures from Turkey
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/fler-bilder-fran-side-turkiet-2012/
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/bilder-fran-side-turkiet-2012/
http://www.fredriklarsson.se/blogg/fotografering/alanya-turkiet-2012/

And also some pictures of me shooting


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

Pi said:


> fiend said:
> 
> 
> > Since I'm going to shoot a lot of pictures with big tall buildings in Dubai I'm thinking that a Tilt Shift should be a good investment that I can continue to use later on. I've tried that 24 TS-E, but I'm thinking of the 17mm.
> ...



Have you tried to use the shift and take panorama with the 24 TSE aswell?  
I don't really like to much leaning buildings/landscapes but I don't like the extremely tall buildings either. Perhaps you can use the 24mm and instead taking some panoramic shots with it?

Fisheye could be a nice effect aswell!  That's more of an effect-type of image.. instead of an client-image. But I like both types so I don't want to exclude any of them.


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> Sort of off topic a bit, but check early with the carriers, there may be a weight limit for carry on luggage.
> 
> I almost got into trouble with that last year- had a safari vest and off loaded the heavy stuff into my vest. On the plane, I re-packed it into the bag. I wasn't going to check any camera gear.
> 
> ...



I don't find this off topic 

What is the smallest overhead that you should consider? 45x30x20 ? or something like that.
Som companies have 55x35x25 or something like that.. but that's quite large 

I might get a vest for carrying equipment in if they find my bag do be to large. That's a good idea!


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> I would recommend that *fiend*, the OP, buys a 24-105mm and goes with for most of his photos. Then uses the 16-35mm when he requires UWA photos. The 135mm L prime is not a bad addition, but it's not THAT much longer than the tele end of the 24-105mm L, of course the 135mm L prime is a few stops brighter - but having 3 lenses rather than 2 does mean less convenience.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul



Can you equip the 24-105 with the 1.4x extender?
The 135/2 will be a 186/4 with the extender so it gives me a little more reach 

Hmm.. many options here.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 14, 2013)

This is kind of off the topic because this is my travel photography kit that i will use for a 3 month trip to Japan shortly.

1DX
TS-E24mm 3.5L II, 85mm 1.2L II, 135mm 2.0L

Leica M (240)
Apo 50mm 2.0, apo 90mm 2.0

And i hope the new zeiss 55mm prime will be available before october.

My message is to invest to primes and have good insurance and carry up to 2 lenses at a time and leave the rest to the hotel.

Also i really really really recommend the TS-E24mm II !!!!!!!!!


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> This is kind of off the topic because this is my travel photography kit that i will use for a 3 month trip to Japan shortly.
> 
> 1DX
> TS-E24mm 3.5L II, 85mm 1.2L II, 135mm 2.0L
> ...



Interesting choice of lenses. You carry only 2 lenses? And leave the rest at the hotel? I would not like to leave expensive equipment back at the hotel :/
What kind of photos will you be shooting in Japan? Is it for your own purpose or for clients etc?


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > This is kind of off the topic because this is my travel photography kit that i will use for a 3 month trip to Japan shortly.
> ...



The 1DX is heavy enough on it's own so i won't be carrying more than 2 Canon lenses at a time. I have time to come back somewhere if i was missing a lens. But if i have my TS-E24, 85mm and my Leica M with a 50mm on me i can do pretty much anything.

Mostly for my own purpose. Kind of like you i'm building a portfolio. I will sell prints and my own books. Also i'm starting my own photo company in Tokyo in the next few years and moving there permanently so i want to start building contacts there. The photos are not the main purpose of my trip though.. But it is a fun thing to do at the same time i'm enjoying my vacation.

(edit)-I have no problem leaving my stuff at the hotel. Japan is a rare place, i could leave the door open and no one would take them.


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> The 1DX is heavy enough on it's own so i won't be carrying more than 2 Canon lenses at a time. I have time to come back somewhere if i was missing a lens. But if i have my TS-E24, 85mm and my Leica M with a 50mm on me i can do pretty much anything.
> 
> Mostly for my own purpose. Kind of like you i'm building a portfolio. I plan to sell prints and my own books. Also i'm starting my own photo company in Tokyo in the next few years and moving there permanently so i want to start building contacts there. The photos are not the main purpose of my trip though.. But it is a fun thing to do at the same time i'm enjoying my vacation.



Yes, that machine is awesome but heavy and bulky  The 5d mkIII without the battery grip is quite small and a lightweight in comparison! 

I will bring my sony rx 100 with me for the "casual shots" aswell. For me the photos are the main purpose of the trip and I will try to enjoy the trip while I'm shooting. I will not stress, but rather take 5 AWESOME shots, than running around with a 18-300 and shooting 5000 pictures just for the sake of taking pictures.

Japan would be awesome to shoot aswell


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> I always bring my tripod for shots of landscape and architecture
> I've used the old 24 TS-E and kind of liked it for shooting buildings in my own town when I tested it.
> For landscape 17mm TS-E would be better aswell as for the indoor shooting.
> But the 17TS-E is not as sharp as 24mm, especially not shifted (I've read..)
> ...



It's true that the 17mm isn't as sharp as the 24mm, but the 17 is the sharpest of Canon's UUWAs and it is more than adequate. Sharper than the 14mm and much sharper than the 16-35. You won't be disappointed. And for a rental fee of 1000, it makes sense to buy it outright. I've heard that the Ziess 15 might be a tad sharper, but I've never tried it, and at those focal lengths, I'd rather have the movements anyway.

If you're using the movements to fix the perspective you won't have much freedom to stitch, so a wider lens is more useful in this case. If you need to fix the perspective at 24mm, try using the extender. I've never shot with the extender but have verified that it fits. In the end, you'll likely end up with both ts-e 17 and 24. =)


----------



## jhpeterson (Aug 14, 2013)

fiend said:


> jhpeterson said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what your shooting style is like, but I would find most useful the 16-35 and the 70-200.
> ...


I think you've explained yourself quite well.
From what you've said, the two lenses I mentioned appear to be excellent choices. Not having a 300, you would want to carry that 1.4 as well, for those times you'd want some extra reach. It still produces excellent image quality on the 70-200.
A number of people have suggested bringing along the 24-105, but, if it's at the expense of the 70-200, I'd talk you out of it. It's too much of an overlap with the 16-35 for the sacrifice of longer lengths, as well as the use of the 1.4. I took one with me on my trip, but used it even less than the 300. I didn't seem to miss the gap between 35 and 70, but perhaps that's because I seldom see things normally! Besides, you can always get those with your compact camera.


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> It's true that the 17mm isn't as sharp as the 24mm, but the 17 is the sharpest of Canon's UUWAs and it is more than adequate. Sharper than the 14mm and much sharper than the 16-35. You won't be disappointed. And for a rental fee of 1000, it makes sense to buy it outright. I've heard that the Ziess 15 might be a tad sharper, but I've never tried it, and at those focal lengths, I'd rather have the movements anyway.
> 
> If you're using the movements to fix the perspective you won't have much freedom to stitch, so a wider lens is more useful in this case. If you need to fix the perspective at 24mm, try using the extender. I've never shot with the extender but have verified that it fits. In the end, you'll likely end up with both ts-e 17 and 24. =)



Yes, the 17mm seems to very sharp and to be able to use it on a landscape might be very useful I think. And for interior. With the 1.4x I can achive the 24mm aswell, but maybe not as tack sharp as the 24 TSE itself. But sharpness isn't everything and on that level I can do some post-sharpening aswell I think.

The Ziess 15mm, that isn't a Tilt Shift though? 

/Fredrik


----------



## fiend (Aug 14, 2013)

jhpeterson said:


> I think you've explained yourself quite well.
> From what you've said, the two lenses I mentioned appear to be excellent choices. Not having a 300, you would want to carry that 1.4 as well, for those times you'd want some extra reach. It still produces excellent image quality on the 70-200.
> A number of people have suggested bringing along the 24-105, but, if it's at the expense of the 70-200, I'd talk you out of it. It's too much of an overlap with the 16-35 for the sacrifice of longer lengths, as well as the use of the 1.4. I took one with me on my trip, but used it even less than the 300. I didn't seem to miss the gap between 35 and 70, but perhaps that's because I seldom see things normally! Besides, you can always get those with your compact camera.



I've sold my 24-70/2.8 (first version) since I didn't use that focal lengths that often. When I shoot weddings I'm only using my 16-35 aswell as my 70-200. Then I have all the wide angle I need aswell as portrait and full body shots 

I guess that when I will be shooting abroad, I will be using both wide angle in landscape, macro on flowers and small wildlife.. aswell as tele for portraits / panoramic shots etc.

The 24-105 is a nice lens,but it might be a better "go around-tourist"-lens and shooting lots of pictures 

As you say, I can get "tourist"-shots in the 24-100 with my compact camera aswell.


----------

