One lens, Europe

[BeachBum1007]

If you had to choose one lens to take with you to the Mediterranean, which would it be? Or traveling in general...

 

I am a Canon user. I still have my kit lenses and am looking to purchase a new lens for my trips (I'm also going to Ireland). I am considering leaving my 75-300mm at home since I won't be shooting much wildlife, if at all. I am planning on mainly shooting outdoors- buildings, landscapes, food, etc.- and then inside churches and such.

 

My kit lens is an 18-55mm but it's f/4.5, so the upgrade is mainly for aperture. I was thinking about getting a prime (50mm?) but not sure if a zoom makes more sense in this situation? My budget isn't the highest, so this is another reason to point me in the direction of a prime.

 

I really only want to take one lens, two tops, if I can get away with it. I think I will have a hard enough time with the weight of my suitcase and don't want to weigh down my carry-on as well :rolleyes:

 

Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, it is always appreciated. :)

[mskaufman]

Last year on my Med cruise I took my Tamron 18 - 270. I know you ae not shooting wildlife but there are still plenty of things you might want to zoom in on. Sometimes you can't get close enough to a building to capture some of the sculpture. In addition to my DLSR I took a Canon SX40 (now they make the SX50). This has a 40X zoom, which I was glad I had.

[knittinggirl]

Most cruises, I take my Nikon with an 18-200mm.

[cisobe]

I went on a land tour of Europe. I took my 24-105 f4L is, 17-55 f2.8 is, and 10-22 f3.5-4.... I found that my 17-55 was on my camera 90% of the time. What body do you have? 50 on a crop is tight, but might be OK on a off body...

 

Maybe the 15-85?

[Keith1010]

One lens I would want a 18-300 or 18-200. Otherwise take two lenses.

 

Keith

[Paul S]

Whether cruising, travelling generally, or just out and about with my camera I take my Nikon 18 - 200mm. I have other lenses, but this seems to be the best compromise that covers most situations. Unless you are going after one specific type of shot (portrait, landscape, etc.) and are choosing kit to suit the desired outcome you never know what photo opportunities may present themselves or which lens might be best.

 

Paul S

[Turtles06]

I've been on a Med cruise, and if I were taking only one lens, it would definitely have the sort of range others have recommended above: 18-200mm or 18-300mm (although 300mm is probably more than you need on a trip like this). Although you may not see wildlife (:)), you'd be surprised at how many things you'll want to zoom in on (gargoyles high on a church, for example). And at the other end, you want to be wide enough for architecture outdoors as well as interiors, etc.

 

Since you plan on shooting inside churches and such, if you decide to take a second lens, you should consider an ultra wide. You'll be able to get shots like this (taken at 12mm):

 

 

(Salisbury Cathedral, photo by turtles06)

[ed1aa]

One lens I would want a 18-300 or 18-200. Otherwise take two lenses.

 

Keith

 

Ditto; I am taking my the 18-300 on our cruise in June / July.:)

 

Ed

[havoc315]

A good value kit upgrade lens is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Gives you the constant faster aperture you were seeking, and nearly the same zoom range as your kit lens.

[Mtn2Sea]

Ditto; I am taking my the 18-300 on our cruise in June / July.:)

 

Ed

 

I've been on four Med cruises and strongly agree with the recommendations regarding having a good zoom lens.

[kat1007]

I am a Canon user too and my walkabout lens is the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 on a Canon 60D

 

I didn't bother with my 10-20 last time I went away as the 18 to 250 does all I need.

 

My husband recently bought one too after trying mine:)

[Nole0202]

A good value kit upgrade lens is the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Gives you the constant faster aperture you were seeking, and nearly the same zoom range as your kit lens.

 

 

+1, the fast lens will give you an extra stop for bad light conditions and higher quality images. The all-in-one lens will give you a slow lens and average quality images.

[pilotdane]

For travel purposes I'm a firm believer in quality zoom lenses. Since you did not say what you wish to photograph or mention your style it's hard to say... Hard tellin', not knowing. Much depends on your style and what you want to achieve but my first step would not be an inexpensive prime.

 

I know it's a hard pill to swallow but a quality lens coupled to any body can make a big difference. They are not cheap. Almost all have a comma in the price but can outlast several bodies with the recent gee-wiz technology.

 

In cities I would pick the 17-55 EFS. It's a fast 2.8 for inside and night time and the wide angle lets you catch it all while still being able to zoom in when needed.

 

If you just want one lense from walking around the city to taking longer range shots from the ship I would go for the 24-105 f5L. You can make 24mm work in town with the f4 and stabilization while the 105mm gives you some longer range telephoto action.

 

I don't want to sound like a snob saying throw money at it but I truly cherish my lenses. I put my money in the lenses and the camera bodies are disposable.

[donaldsc]

 

Since you plan on shooting inside churches and such, if you decide to take a second lens, you should consider an ultra wide. You'll be able to get shots like this (taken at 12mm):

 

 

Totally agree on the ultra wide. I used mine a lot when inside buildings.

 

DON

[BeachBum1007]

Thank you all! I think I will be going with a 18-250! I appreciate all of your input. I may also consider getting an ultra wide if I can afford it.

[Maligator]

The Sigma 10-20mm is a good value, especially if you go with the 4.5-5.6 version.

 

Personally, I'd take the EF 8-800mm f2.8L IS USM. :D

[WannabePhotog]

I'd go w/ my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. Those all encompassing zooms (18-200+) leave a lot to be desired. The IQ is not that great at the high end, etc. You could always take much better glass and then just crop your images. If I wasn't going somewhere w/ wildlife I'd only use my two UWAs (Sigma 8-16mm, Canon 17-55mm).

[Jayayeff]

I am a Canon user too and my walkabout lens is the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 on a Canon 60D

 

I didn't bother with my 10-20 last time I went away as the 18 to 250 does all I need.

 

My husband recently bought one too after trying mine:)

 

I'm a Canon user too and recently traded in my Canon 18 -135mm kit lens for the Sigma 18 -250mm - no regrets at all, zoom range is perfect for a walkabout lens and it doesn't suffer from lens creep as the 18 - 135mm did... I also have the Sigma 10 - 20mm ultra wide for indoor shots...

 

Anne

[awboater]

Also check out the Sigma 17~50mm f/2.8. DxOMark "real world" lens testing shows this lens to be better than both the Canon and the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8, which is a huge deal. And other reviews I read before buying one also remarked that this is probably the best mid-zoom for a cropped camera you can buy.

 

I don't normally buy Sigma, but I took a chance on this lens and I have to say, it is sooo tack sharp. You cannot go wrong for $600.

 

I usually take a 18-200mm, and while there are some optical issues, they go away at f/8. But since buying the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, I am considering selling the 18-200mm.

 

I do have a 70-300mm I can take for the telephoto end to make up for the zoom range of the 18-200. I also have a 80-200mm f/2.8 but it is way too heavy to take on vacation.

[zackiedawg]

I think the 18-250mm choice is the best way to go - you're making a good decision which will give you maximum flexibility. My caveat is that I could never ever imagine going anywhere with only one lens for my DSLR...but if I had to, with a gun to my head, it would definitely be the 18-250mm. I bought it for the purpose of covering as much focal range as possible in one lens, for those times when I needed to travel light or inconspicuous, or when lens-changing was difficult - I've never regretted it and it's the go-to travel lens for me for 6 years now. I always travel with a bag of lenses - I may leave many in the room or cabin and just head out with 1 or 2 lenses on me, but I can't think of being without additional lenses when traveling - so my 10-24mm ultrawide, my 30mm F1.4 fast lens, and my long wildlife primes are always there too!

[Steviewonder1]

I have a Tamron 28-300 IS lens I have had for 2 years that works great. Most items in Europe are Large so I don't need one down to 18 on the wide side. The IS will keep me in the show even from a moving bus or trolley I may find myself on. My new Canon T3i (Lifelong Canon Man) will really get a workout in both video and stills.

[lamchops]

I have a Tamron 28-300 IS lens I have had for 2 years that works great. Most items in Europe are Large so I don't need one down to 18 on the wide side. The IS will keep me in the show even from a moving bus or trolley I may find myself on. My new Canon T3i (Lifelong Canon Man) will really get a workout in both video and stills.

 

I also have a Tamron 28-300 for my Sony. I don't like to pack lenses while in port so this one fits the bill. I used it extensively on my PC and TA cruise excursions. If cost was not an issue, I would get a 18-250.

[fireflies]

think Sigma's new Macro version would be a great choice too

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-250mm-3p5-6p3-os-hsm-macro/5

 

"it's compact, has decent enough optics, offers fast autofocus and effective image stabilisation, and tops this all off with impressive close-up ability. We'd be inclined to conclude that it's the best-rounded general-purpose SLR lens currently on the market."

 

I understand the appeal of ultra wide and wide angle lens (especially in churches) but I try to pack less and make do by stitching photos together with software.

 

About primes, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is pretty awesome for the price and size. My sister has this one and it makes portrait photos pop since it isolates the subject better than kit/zoom lenses. Though it can be a hassle to swap out lenses. It would also be handy for casual night strolls and port deck departure shots since zoom lens can have a hard time in the dark. You can't capture every shot but you can get a decent low light photo without having to crank up the iso.

[chipmaster]

If these are for web sharing and no large prints

18-200 or 18-270/300 superzoom is likely good enough for crop sensors.

 

if you are shooting fullframe than 24-xxx is best.

 

You really will more likely go wide then long so if on crop sensor and a Nikon person their 16-85 is a good choice.

[cdp8]

I've been shooting DSLR's for 7 years, first with a D200 and now with a D7000. Before that I shot film SLRs. I have a small collection of zooms and primes that get me from 11mm up to 300mm. I picked up a Canon S90 P&S a few years ago for those times I did not want to haul the DSLR kit around. I've also shot the Canon S95 and S100 and Sony RX100 P&Ss. (DW and I went through a lot of cameras because of a burglary).

 

More and more, the weight of my DSLR kit is not something I want to carry around. It seems I only use it for landscapes around the Southwest US, where I can drive to the location with minimal to no hiking involved.

 

What type of shooting do you do and how big do you print your pictures? Shoot sports and small kids and/or print 11x14 or bigger? Then keep your DSLR. If not, consider selling your kit on ebay and pick up a high-end compact (or two) or move into a mirrorless system like Fuji X or m43.

 

I took a trip to Maui last fall with my bicycle, and lugging the bike and the DSLR kit was not an option. So my only camera for the trip was the RX100. With a filter attachment ring, polarising filter, ND filters and a gorilla pod, I never missed my DSLR. The pics turned out great for how I use them in iPad slide shows and a shutterfly book. Would they look great on the wall blown up to 11x14? Maybe, because the RX100 has a bigger sensor than most P&Ss. The high-end Canon, now the S110, takes remarkable pics for such a small sensor. The RX100 and S110 have two of the fastest lenses in the P&S class and they work well in low-light conditions. Their only negative is their zoom ranges are somewhat limited (roughly 28-115, the Canon is a little wider and longer than the Sony).

 

DW and I booked a Christmas Markets river cruise this December. I am seriously thinking of selling all the Nikon gear and switching to Fuji X before the trip. It has an APS-C sized sensor just like my Nikon (and probably your Canon), yet the cameras and lenses are much smaller and lighter. The IQ is superb and with the APS-C sensor, big prints are still an option. The focus speed is not quite up to DSLR standards (thus not ideal for sports or small kids) but is getting better. DW loves her P&Ss, so we will likely add a superzoom for her before the trip for taking pics from the boat.

 

If you decide to keep your DSLR kit, I disagree with the recommendations for the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. All three constant aperture zooms are great in low light but they all weigh a ton and cost a fortune compared to variable aperture zooms.

 

You do need better low-light cabaility, so take a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. That gets you some low light capability where you need it (wide angle indoors) at a fraction of the weight and cost. The 17-70 also has stabilization and "macro" capability. That giant internet retailer named after a river sells it for $400; I would buy that in a heartbeat. With the Sigma 17-70 and your 75-300, you are ready for anything. Don't leave that big zoom home; it will come in handy for taking pictures of sights from the ship.