Lenses to Take for Rome Sightseeing

[FinelyCruising]

We are flying into Rome for a few days pre-cruise I want to walk around with only two lenses. Or 3. Really just 2.;)

 

I want to take my 10-22 Sigma, and I think I should take my 17-55 Canon with one of these two staying on the camera.

 

I recently bought the 70-200 Canon that I will have with me as well as a 50mm 1.4, with this 50 mm being the maybe #3.

 

What would you take?

[pierces]

We are flying into Rome for a few days pre-cruise I want to walk around with only two lenses. Or 3. Really just 2.;)

 

I want to take my 10-22 Sigma, and I think I should take my 17-55 Canon with one of these two staying on the camera.

 

I recently bought the 70-200 Canon that I will have with me as well as a 50mm 1.4, with this 50 mm being the maybe #3.

 

What would you take?

 

17-55 would be my choice for the walkabout lens. the 10-22 is great for dramatic wide-angle interior and exterior shots, but I have found that in a city you'll want to get a far higher percentage of shots tighter than 20mm can provide.

 

Keep your equipment close when in Rome. Purse-snatching and pick-pocketing are an unfortunate part of the local economy.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1146.html

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

I'd go with Dave's two. Rome is a dense city full of sights, but also crowded and some of the most marvelous things to see don't give you a lot of room to back up and get it all in - so that wide angle 10-22 should be great for buildings along narrow streets and getting close to monuments and statues so there are less people in your shots but still fitting everything in. The 17-55 would probably be the best overall walkaround lens of what you've got. I wouldn't bother with the 50mm prime unless you expect to be in many low light scenarios without tripod, where you might need handheld faster shutter speeds. But many of the gorgeous interiors in Rome would really be better served with something wider than 50mm, so it isn't the optimal choice other than that it's fast.

[pilotdane]

I vote the 17-55. The 10-22 is also usefull but I'm thinking if I have only one lens I would go for greater flexibility. The 17-55 gives you a 3.2:1 zoom range while the 10-22 is only 2.2:1 and the 17-55 is a really nice lens.

 

But, I'd keep the 10-22 in my pocket just in case.

[snowbird1]

17-55 would be my choice for the walkabout lens. the 10-22 is great for dramatic wide-angle interior and exterior shots, but I have found that in a city you'll want to get a far higher percentage of shots tighter than 20mm can provide.

 

Keep your equipment close when in Rome. Purse-snatching and pick-pocketing are an unfortunate part of the local economy.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1146.html

 

Dave

 

I agree with the rest after going to Rome. The 17-55 would be the one and if you have room take the 10-22 in case you see something special. As mentioned by Dave be very careful in Rome and keep your camera close and held tight. Pick Pockets are everywhere especially the Rail station and some of the tourist public buses that run popular routes. Also be very careful around any Kiosk with crowds buying stuff. Remember people taking pictures can be a target for theft because they aren't paying attention to surroundings while taking the picture and trying so hard to make it perfect. Other than that Rome is beautiful with tons of great things to take pictures of.

[FinelyCruising]

Good Morning - Thank you all for the insight. I do admit that I am worried about the pickpocket/theft, yet the most valuable things we will have with us while sightseeing is the camera and the len(s). So fingers crossed. ;)

[floatel_lvr]

We are flying into Rome for a few days pre-cruise I want to walk around with only two lenses. Or 3. Really just 2.;)

 

I want to take my 10-22 Sigma, and I think I should take my 17-55 Canon with one of these two staying on the camera.

 

I recently bought the 70-200 Canon that I will have with me as well as a 50mm 1.4, with this 50 mm being the maybe #3.

 

What would you take?

 

Personally, I would keep the 17-55 on the body as I walked around but would have the 10-22 and the 70-200 with me. Both will be very valuable additions. Like others have said the 50 is nice in lower light so if you don't have a tripod and are expecting quality interior shots you may choose to substitute that for the 10-22. Enjoy your trip.

RA

[picsboy]

I took a trip to Italy earlier this year and spent about a week in Rome. I had the 17-55mm lens on all the time. All the streets are narrow and the buildings are close together, so the 17-55mm lens suited me fine for the entire trip.

 

I didn't bring the 70-200mm lens, and I didn't miss it at all. I might have missed about 10 shots during the entire trip because I didn't have the 70-200mm lens. It would have been nice to use at the Vatican when the Pope looks out into St Peter's Square from his library window and gives the Sunday blessings. I had the 100mm f/2.0 lens that I brought specifically for the blessing, but the Pope was still very far away.

 

Re: the 50mm f/1.4 lens, it's a small enough lens that you probably should take it along with you to Rome. However, whatever you do, DON'T use that lens for the Sistine Chapel *wink, wink* :). Photography is strictly prohibited in the Sistine Chapel, and the guards there are very strict about photography. Your 50mm lens would be very helpful in low-light situations where the subject is somewhat further away and where you need to be discrete about your photography *hint, hint*.

[chipmaster]

We are flying into Rome for a few days pre-cruise I want to walk around with only two lenses. Or 3. Really just 2.;)

 

I want to take my 10-22 Sigma, and I think I should take my 17-55 Canon with one of these two staying on the camera.

 

I recently bought the 70-200 Canon that I will have with me as well as a 50mm 1.4, with this 50 mm being the maybe #3.

 

What would you take?

 

My guess is 17-55 will do for 95% of your pictures and the 10-22 for the other 4%. Leave the 70-200 2.8 at home, you really won't want to be lugging that around as the opportunities where you need a fast tele will be far and few. The 50 1.4 can come in handy for low light. I personally found having an stablized super zoom far more useful than a fast lens on my recent trip.

 

99% pictures on a 18-200 with 1% from a 16-85 backup camera/lens.

[chipmaster]

I took a trip to Italy earlier this year and spent about a week in Rome. I had the 17-55mm lens on all the time. All the streets are narrow and the buildings are close together, so the 17-55mm lens suited me fine for the entire trip.

 

I didn't bring the 70-200mm lens, and I didn't miss it at all. I might have missed about 10 shots during the entire trip because I didn't have the 70-200mm lens. It would have been nice to use at the Vatican when the Pope looks out into St Peter's Square from his library window and gives the Sunday blessings. I had the 100mm f/2.0 lens that I brought specifically for the blessing, but the Pope was still very far away.

 

Re: the 50mm f/1.4 lens, it's a small enough lens that you probably should take it along with you to Rome. However, whatever you do, DON'T use that lens for the Sistine Chapel *wink, wink* :). Photography is strictly prohibited in the Sistine Chapel, and the guards there are very strict about photography. Your 50mm lens would be very helpful in low-light situations where the subject is somewhat further away and where you need to be discrete about your photography *hint, hint*.

 

50mm is still a bit short for the ceiling and wall ~ 50-100mm is perfect :) Need a "fast" or stabilization with ISO 3200+

[Aplmac]

The trick that makes surreptitious photography easy is..

don't raise the camera to eye-level. Shoot blind.

And with a very-wide-angle lens, it's easy to do! ;)

 

I was amazed at what results I got by just leaving the camera hanging around my neck

and letting the auto-technology do the focusing and exposure

while I just pointed the Sigma 10-20 (set at 10 mm.) in the right direction

often turning my head in another direction while taking the shot! :)

 

My biggest worry was having the mirror noise heard by people around me

-so you wait for someone to cough, or similar.

 

Try it sometime. With practice you can get amazing shots.

 

 

Photos taken on the gun decks of the old wooden warship

and the interiors of the colonial house, at URL..

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=87193&id=682113168&l=0e97c8d7f9

were taken this way.

[picsboy]

The trick that makes surreptitious photography easy is..

don't raise the camera to eye-level. Shoot blind.

And with a very-wide-angle lens, it's easy to do! ;)

 

I was amazed at what results I got by just leaving the camera hanging around my neck

and letting the auto-technology do the focusing and exposure

while I just pointed the Sigma 10-20 (set at 10 mm.) in the right direction

often turning my head in another direction while taking the shot! :)

 

My biggest worry was having the mirror noise heard by people around me

-so you wait for someone to cough, or similar.

 

Try it sometime. With practice you can get amazing shots.

 

 

Photos taken on the gun decks of the old wooden warship

and the interiors of the colonial house, at URL..

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=87193&id=682113168&l=0e97c8d7f9

were taken this way.

 

Ha ha! :) Great job on those surreptitious photos! I have never had the guts to try taking photos secretly like that because I usually have the heavy and bulky 17-55mm lens on the camera. Although, I guess with a higher ISO and faster shutter speed, I should be able to pull it off.

 

And secret indoor pictures would certainly be a lot easier with a 50mm f/1.4 or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens, since they're considerably smaller and lighter. This would make the camera easier to hand-hold for a steadier no-look shot.

 

The other place where they're very strict about photography is Pope John Paul II's tomb at the Vatican. There's a guard standing right there eyeing anyone with a camera. :mad: (although, I did a quick search on Flickr, and looks like several people were able to sneak pictures of the Pope's tomb :confused: ).