lenses for travel/vacation

Doing a bit less shooting in a dreary winter, I started working on a blog..

Thought this post would be useful to this forum, the lenses for travel:

https://photoenthusiastblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

If any of the regulars here would like to share some material for the blog, let me know.

Good stuff. I've found decent success with the Canon 5DsR (50mp = tremendous ability to crop, but also relatively weak in the ISO department), the 16-35/4 IS, and either a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2. Honestly, I found the 16-35/4IS was generally good enough for me to leave the 24-70/2.8 II home a LOT, and save myself one additional lens (and all of the associated lens swaps). I suspect the 85/1.4IS could make this combo even more spectacular (and lighter!). The 11-24 is enticing, but you're right that it's HEAVY, and it almost pushes me back to an 11-24, 24-70 combo which feels wasteful (50/1.2 seems to be a long way away from 24mm, 85mm seems to be just too far away from 24mm, yet 35/1.4 seems not enough).

That said, I do shoot a lot with a Shootsac (neoprene messenger-bag-like lens carrier) which holds three lenses, and of course a camera with a lens. Heading out with three lenses means it's easier to change lenses than with four lenses (room to deposit the "old" lens before pulling out the "new" lens), and for that I can see 11-24, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. Or 14/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 135/2. Or...

Good stuff. I've found decent success with the Canon 5DsR (50mp = tremendous ability to crop, but also relatively weak in the ISO department), the 16-35/4 IS, and either a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2. Honestly, I found the 16-35/4IS was generally good enough for me to leave the 24-70/2.8 II home a LOT, and save myself one additional lens (and all of the associated lens swaps). I suspect the 85/1.4IS could make this combo even more spectacular (and lighter!). The 11-24 is enticing, but you're right that it's HEAVY, and it almost pushes me back to an 11-24, 24-70 combo which feels wasteful (50/1.2 seems to be a long way away from 24mm, 85mm seems to be just too far away from 24mm, yet 35/1.4 seems not enough).

 

That said, I do shoot a lot with a Shootsac (neoprene messenger-bag-like lens carrier) which holds three lenses, and of course a camera with a lens. Heading out with three lenses means it's easier to change lenses than with four lenses (room to deposit the "old" lens before pulling out the "new" lens), and for that I can see 11-24, 35/1.4, 85/1.4. Or 14/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 135/2. Or...

The problem with the 11-24 is the size (and price). The biggest advantage of Sony for travel is the size of their wide angle lenses. Many people correctly point out that Sony FE lenses really aren't any smaller -- But they are smaller at wide angle. The Sony 12-24 delivers quality possibly equal to the 11-24 at half the size.

If you want with the 16-35... I think you'd be in good shape with the 50mm or the 85mm at a second lens, and not really need any more.

When I'm "home," the 85mm is my favorite lens and focal length. But I found I rarely use it on vacations/travel.

If you went with the 11-24 (or the Sigma 12-24/4), and with the 50mm, I actually think you're well covered.

Yes, there is quite a bit of distance from 24mm to 50. But you can easily crop the 24mm at least comfortably to 35mm equivalent, probably a bit more.... up to 40mm. So you are really only missing the range from about 35/40 to 49mm.

One benefit of smaller sensor cameras, like micro 4/3, is that 'superzoom' lenses are more reasonably sized, and have more than decent aberration control [smaller image circle].

When 'Gear Acquisition Syndrome' hits, I am looking at adding an Olympus 12-100 f4 lens to my kit. [equivalent to 'full frame' 24-200]. Reviews say that the lens is well corrected, even wide open, over the zoom range. For the second lens, I would have a faster 'normal' lens [17 or 25 f1.8] and for fun the 'body cap' fisheye lens

m43 also has a 14-140 lens [28-280 equivalent], but that is a stop or two slower. A faster, more compact, prime lens is less of an option than a necessity [the Olympus 'travel lens kit' pairs this with a 17 f1.8 prime]

I have a problem with the complaint about superzooms being bad quality because they only get 15 megapixels. Megapixels does not equal good quality. That's the one good thing Ken Rockwell preaches about. Unless you're shooting stars (maybe full landscape photogs), megapixels is more about what you can crop or how big you can blow a pic up. But you shouldn't crop every picture if you can avoid it (compose first). And how often do you blow a photo up to be a poster size? Lack of megapixels are not a problem anymore. Not for your basic travel photography.

He shoots a Nikon D750, the same as me, but he doesn't give any options for that camera.

I'd have to say, I disagree with him nearly completely with regards to Nikon (or even any regular DSLR). I've only played with mirrorless so I don't have enough experience to say much there.

If you have a DX, I think there's nothing wrong with a superzoom. 18-200. I had that. Great lens for travel. Not that heavy. Not having to change lenses is HUGE.

Now that I have a full frame, the whole point of a full frame is to make max use of it. I'll give him the prime. Toss a 50mm f1.8 in your bag. It's small and not too heavy. But I rented that 12-24 f2.8 he mentions. It's a BEAST. And I really didn't use it as much as him. If you look at his photos, they're wide, but also distorted for the most part. That's an ok look occasionally, but not for all your photos. He wants that as your main lens. I totally disagree with him. I say stick with the 24-70mm f2.8. It's about the same size as the ultra wide, and much easier to protect cuz the glass part of the lens isn't super round and sticks out like crazy. Honestly, for most vacations, you can just bring the 24-70mm f2.8 and just use one lens the whole trip. Can skip the prime.

The complaint about superzooms being bad quality because they only get 15 megapixels or around the same as the phone pretty much wipes out credibility right there. Megapixels does not equal good quality. That's the one good thing Ken Rockwell preaches about. Unless you're shooting stars (maybe full landscape photogs), megapixels is more about what you can crop or how big you can blow a pic up. But you shouldn't crop every picture if you can avoid it (compose first). And how often do you blow a photo up to be a poster size? Lack of megapixels are not a problem anymore. Not for your basic travel photography.

 

He shoots a Nikon D750, the same as me, but he doesn't give any options for that camera.

 

I'd have to say, I disagree with him nearly completely with regards to Nikon (or even any regular DSLR). I've only played with mirrorless so I don't have enough experience to say much there.

 

If you have a DX, I think there's nothing wrong with a superzoom. 18-200. I had that. Great lens for travel. Not that heavy. Not having to change lenses is HUGE.

 

Now that I have a full frame, the whole point of a full frame is to make max use of it. I'll give him the prime. Toss a 50mm f1.8 in your bag. It's small and not too heavy. But I rented that 12-24 f2.8 he mentions. It's a BEAST. And I really didn't use it as much as him. If you look at his photos, they're wide, but also distorted for the most part. That's an ok look occasionally, but not for all your photos. He wants that as your main lens. I totally disagree with him. I say stick with the 24-70mm f2.8. It's about the same size as the ultra wide, and much easier to protect cuz the glass part of the lens isn't super round and sticks out like crazy. Honestly, for most vacations, you can just bring the 24-70mm f2.8 and just use one lens the whole trip. Can skip the prime.

You are correct that resolution is only one part of lens quality, but you miss that it is an important part. It's the one thing you can't correct in post-processing. Thus, I stand by my point -- Using a superzoom is going to give you smart phone quality but with zoom. That isn't purely a criticism of superzooms -- It is a compliment to smart phones. Yes, you can get a good picture with a superzoom -- and you can get a good picture with a smart phone. And the smart phone will have a MUCH wider aperture than the superzoom-- So the smart phone will actually do better in low light than using a superzoom. In sum, a superzoom gives you smart phone quality resolution, gives you bad distortion worse than a smart phone, gives you a slow aperture.... there is almost nothing positive to say except fewer lens changes.

As I also said, if you don't want to change lenses, just don't buy a ILC camera. The Sony RX10iv will deliver better results than a Nikon D7200 paired with the Nikon 18-200... better ultimate image quality, and even more zoom range.

The Nikon 18-200 when paried with the Nikon D500 gives a perceived resolution of 6mp:

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-nikkor-18-200-f-3.5-5.6G-IF-ED

That's the quality of older generation smart phone.

Turning to ultrawide -- the 14-24/2.8 is a beast, but there are smaller and lighter options, including the 18-35g which was cited. Extreme ultrawide isn't in everyone's tastes, but a lens like a 16-35 or 18-35 avoids the extremes while giving the type of wide angles one would want on vacation.

As to just using a 24-70/2.8 on vacation ---

The Nikon 24-70/2.8 costs $2400 and weighs 1070 grams. If you bring just this lens, it means you will have those 1070 grams on your camera at all times. That is HEAVY.

The Nikon 18-35g is $750 and weighs 385 grams.

If you went heavy and more extreme with the Nikon 14-24/2.8, it is $1900 and 1000 grams.

The Nikon 50/1.8 weighs 185 grams and costs $220

If you stick to my recommendation of the Tamron 45/1.8, it weighs 500 gram and costs $399

So if you went with the 24-70... you would spend $2400 and have 1070 grams attached to the camera at all times.

If you went my route and picked the 2 heaviest from above, you would spend $2300 and your bag would weigh a bit more -- 1500 grams. But you would often only have 500 grams attached to the camera. Plus, you would have SUPERIOR image quality, superior low light capability, and the ability to go wider than 24mm which is fantastic when traveling.

But alternatively, you could spend just $1,000 and have weight of 570 grams -- So save $1400 and save 500 grams, but get superior image quality, superior low light ability, and the extra versaility of being able to go wider.

Again, I'm not saying my advice is for everyone. If you really don't like wide angle photograpy, for example. But I stand by my recommendations for most ILC owners.

It's not that I don't like wide angle photography. And I'm not saying your choices aren't valid or anything.

But, we're debating travel photography. We're generalizing of course. Matter of preference ultimately and projecting what would be best for the "average" travel user.

I prioritize not switching lenses as much. Less chance of gunk getting into the camera. Less chance of losing or damaging something. I prefer a zoom lens. Gives you much greater flexibility. The ends of the zoom range or what matter the most.

In your example, it's 18 and 50. 18 is wonderful. I wish my 24-70 were 18-70. But, to me, 24 is wide enough in exchange for going all the way up to 70. I've got that 50. Well, I have the f1.4. Wonderful. But there's no zoom. You can only move so far and cropping isn't ideal. Particularly if the shot really called for a 200mm lens. Those last few 20mm makes a ton of difference. Which is why I think the 24-120mm might be better for travel than the famous 24-70. It's only f4, but the flexibility of being able to go out to 120 is worth that tradeoff to me. The dynamic range and sensitivity of the chip on a full frame should make the picture usable, even in low light.

For someone starting a new system for travel, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree and suggest one lens at 24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 rather than two lenses, even though they are lighter. Having to switch lenses and being that restricted in focal lengths is too much IMO. I've been in too many situations where having to switch lenses took too much time and made me miss the best parts of a scene.

It's not that I don't like wide angle photography. And I'm not saying your choices aren't valid or anything.

 

But, we're debating travel photography. We're generalizing of course. Matter of preference ultimately and projecting what would be best for the "average" travel user.

 

I prioritize not switching lenses as much. Less chance of gunk getting into the camera. Less chance of losing or damaging something. I prefer a zoom lens. Gives you much greater flexibility. The ends of the zoom range or what matter the most.

 

In your example, it's 18 and 50. 18 is wonderful. I wish my 24-70 were 18-70. But, to me, 24 is wide enough in exchange for going all the way up to 70. I've got that 50. Well, I have the f1.4. Wonderful. But there's no zoom. You can only move so far and cropping isn't ideal. Particularly if the shot really called for a 200mm lens. Those last few 20mm makes a ton of difference. Which is why I think the 24-120mm might be better for travel than the famous 24-70. It's only f4, but the flexibility of being able to go out to 120 is worth that tradeoff to me. The dynamic range and sensitivity of the chip on a full frame should make the picture usable, even in low light.

 

For someone starting a new system for travel, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree and suggest one lens at 24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 rather than two lenses, even though they are lighter. Having to switch lenses and being that restricted in focal lengths is too much IMO. I've been in too many situations where having to switch lenses took too much time and made me miss the best parts of a scene.

I have a question about interchangeability of lenses, but using lenses from different cameras. I have an old Rollie with some terrific lenses. I would like to use them with my Sony Alpha. I know there are adapters, has anyone on this forum used adapters and are there tips you might share?

I hope this isn't too off topic?

Thanks

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It's not that I don't like wide angle photography. And I'm not saying your choices aren't valid or anything.

 

But, we're debating travel photography. We're generalizing of course. Matter of preference ultimately and projecting what would be best for the "average" travel user.

 

I prioritize not switching lenses as much. Less chance of gunk getting into the camera. Less chance of losing or damaging something. I prefer a zoom lens. Gives you much greater flexibility. The ends of the zoom range or what matter the most.

 

In your example, it's 18 and 50. 18 is wonderful. I wish my 24-70 were 18-70. But, to me, 24 is wide enough in exchange for going all the way up to 70. I've got that 50. Well, I have the f1.4. Wonderful. But there's no zoom. You can only move so far and cropping isn't ideal. Particularly if the shot really called for a 200mm lens. Those last few 20mm makes a ton of difference. Which is why I think the 24-120mm might be better for travel than the famous 24-70. It's only f4, but the flexibility of being able to go out to 120 is worth that tradeoff to me. The dynamic range and sensitivity of the chip on a full frame should make the picture usable, even in low light.

 

For someone starting a new system for travel, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree and suggest one lens at 24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 rather than two lenses, even though they are lighter. Having to switch lenses and being that restricted in focal lengths is too much IMO. I've been in too many situations where having to switch lenses took too much time and made me miss the best parts of a scene.

Your thoughts certainly are more consistent with conventional wisdom than mine. As I said in the post, my advice strays a bit from the norms.

But partially, I see good smart phone cameras really changing photography as well as enthusiast bridge cameras.

If you went back 5-8 years, a Nikon D90 (for example) paired with an 18-200 lens would still give you better results than any phone or any point and shoot camera. So the combination might not get the best photos, but it would still get better photos than other options.

Not anymore --- For those who are don't want to change lenses, an RX100iv will give better results than using a superzoom on a dSLR. For those who just want the most convenient way to get decent pictures of everything, the newest phones can produce images of that quality.

Yes, you're missing telephoto with a phone. And my recommendations also exclude telephoto. But after lugging around many lenses for many years, I realized my best travel photos were very rarely my telephoto images. 3 or 4mm on the wide end is much more important to me than an extra 50mm on the telephoto end. Because what are you shooting when you travel? I'm shooting what I'm seeing with my eyes, not looking at things through binoculars. (There are exceptions, like safari type trips).

So when I leave my telephoto lenses at home, there may be a handful of vacation/travel images that I just can't get.. just shrug my shoulders and let go of. But it's not very many.

Which brings me to the purpose of travel photography. For me personally (and what my recommendation is based on), I'm not trying to get EVERY image. I am trying to capture highlights.... and come back with a few outstanding images. I want to come back with a few images that will make fantastic 20x30 wall art. 3 potential frame-able 20x30 images would be a more successful trip for me, than 3,000 half-decent facebook worthy images. (And I can just pull out my phone to capture those 3,000).

For example, I was in the Philadelphia museum of art -- My goal was not to take photos of every piece of art I was looking at. Instead, my goal was to make art of my own:

Dueling Sculptures at Philadelphia Museum of Art by Adam Brown, on Flickr

And capture my own family's enjoyment of the location:

philly (123 of 232).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

No need for telephoto.... but a need for high quality wide angle shooting, a need for low light capabilities.

But it all goes to the first section of my post -- what do YOU want to capture on vacation and when you travel. And therefore, my recommendations certainly don't apply to everyone.

I have a question about interchangeability of lenses, but using lenses from different cameras. I have an old Rollie with some terrific lenses. I would like to use them with my Sony Alpha. I know there are adapters, has anyone on this forum used adapters and are there tips you might share?

I hope this isn't too off topic?

Thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I don't really know anything about the Rollie...... You cannot typically do too much with adapting lenses to dSLRs. I don't know which Sony Alpha you have. If you have the Sony Alpha mirrorless cameras, you should be able to find an adapter. (Sony A6000, Sony A7 series).

I have a question about interchangeability of lenses, but using lenses from different cameras. I have an old Rollie with some terrific lenses. I would like to use them with my Sony Alpha. I know there are adapters, has anyone on this forum used adapters and are there tips you might share?

I hope this isn't too off topic?

Thanks

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

You may want to check over at the 'Adapted Lens' forum over on dpreview https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1065

You may want to check over at the 'Adapted Lens' forum over on dpreview https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1065

Thanks all for the help!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro