Best Canon Lens for Travel/Culture Images

[Bill Walsh]

I will be returning to India & Pakistan for a 3 week trip in August and will be bringing the following two lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

This will cover me for wide angle and zoom situations. I need to choose a general lens that will stay on the camera for every day and would like some advice.

These are ones I'm considering:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Pros and cons? What will be the most useful for travel/culture subjects?
Other recommendations?

Bill

[Don Lashier]

Hi Bill,

I find that my midrange zoom is actually my least used. Your Tamron should be fine for the "grand scenes", both urban and scenic while the 70-200 is ideal for people shots or street shots. I would either just add the 50/1.4 because of its low light capabilities and also good for close-up people shots without being too intimidating... or can the lens bag and just travel light with the 24-105. Particularly traveling in a dry and dusty climate this could minimize sensor cleaning :)

- DL

[Lee Jay Fingersh]

I will be returning to India & Pakistan for a 3 week trip in August and will be bringing the following two lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

This will cover me for wide angle and zoom situations. I need to choose a general lens that will stay on the camera for every day and would like some advice.

These are ones I'm considering:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Pros and cons? What will be the most useful for travel/culture subjects?
Other recommendations?

Bill

I didn't see a mention of a camera. I find having a wide lens with IS is *very* helpful in many situations (especially when you need deep DOF in low-light). I also like to have a little reach on my walkaround lens. These are the two reasons I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70 for the purpose you mentioned. I do use it on both the 5D and 20D but like it better on the 5D since it's wider on the 5D than the 17mm lenses are on the 20D.

Lee Jay

[Richard Rickard]

a 17-85 IS- is great walk a round lens and the price is good. That is if you have a 20D

[Frank Cizek]

I use the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM, but it's expensive & sometimes not wide enough. For general "Walkabout", what you have looks OK to me.

[Gary Ayala]

Don is right ... your mid-range would probably be the least used. I would recommend the 50 for its low light capabilities and it is less threatening/intimidating lens for use in candid/street photos. If your intent is purely for photography and you are planning to capture images from the street ... a second body might be better than a mid-range lens.

Dunno what you plan to take, but a second body ... mmmh ... an XT or 30D isn't very intimidating especially without a grip (the XT is very quiet). The two bodies would provide both wide and long at the same time (maximizing your reaction time to photo opps), while minimizing lens changes ... thereby reducing dust on the sensor.

-G-

[Peter Galbavy]

I am happy, on my 1DMkII, with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 24-105 IS - in my context for candids at festivals this summer. Some examples (maybe too many) at http://photasmagoria.com/gallery/events/950ffc700afb

I hardly actually used the 50mm this summer, but I kept it with me for low light and other special uses. Not applicaple to your needs, but I tend to keep my cherished 200mm f/1.8 in the car for stage shots in low light.

[Nill Toulme]

What body Bill? I really enjoyed the 20D/17-85IS combination on my recent trip to Italy. It's very portable and *reasonably* unobtrusive (although any SLR seems to stand out a bit in this day of tiny P&S's). The 17-85 handled about 85% of my shooting needs; the 15mm fish and the 70-300 IS handled the other 10% and 5%, respectively. The 20D's high ISO capability together with the lens's IS make up reasonably well for the lack of large apertures even for dim interior shots.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Tom Yi]

Looking at Bill's Profile, this is his only post and I'm not sure if he is in Pakistan as we speak or not.
Assuming that he has a cropped sensor, I'd actually go for a Sigma 17-70. It's a very useful range, wide enough for landscapes and environmental portraits, long enough for short telephotowork. Fast enough for a bright viewfinder and has decent close focusing ability too. Optically, it seems to outperform Canon's version, although without an IS, and it's cheaper as well.

Instead of having a 17-35, a normal zoom, and a 70-200 and ending up switching between three lenses, I'd just take a 17-70 f2.8-4 and take a 70-200 for long range work. If it was me, I'd probably just take the 17-70 by itself, unless you plan on doing lots of telephoto work.

If you have a full frame camera, then I'd say 24-70L for it's range and speed.

[Jon P. Ferguson]

In a situation like this, I would pack my 28/135IS and the little beauty, my 17/40.

Reasonable WA and nice range on the 28/135.
Neither are that heavy or conspicuous (?)

[Daniel Harrison]

another vote for the 24-105!

[Will Thompson]

Yet another vote for the 24-105mm.

Since purchased My 24-105mm f4 L IS USM seems to live on My 1DsMKII.

[Asher Kelman]

Always with the 50 1.4 in your pocket!

Asher

[Jim Davies]

Got to be the 24-105 :-) Superb lens. very sharp and contrasty. the 24-70 may have trhe extra stop but IS is invaluable at times.

You have three great lenses to use. The 17-35 Tamron is a nice sharp lens and I don't need to say much about the 70-200 2.8IS.

With these three you'll be covered for almost anything - although a fast prime would be nice to add.....

[Winston Rockwell]

the Tamron SP 24-135 would be a good candidate for a "walkabout" lens too... more range than the 24-105, and half the price. plenty sharp on an APC-S body like the 20D, and i've had zero problems with flare or CA with mine.

[Asher Kelman]

I love the 24-105 IS but I wish there was a 2.8 version!

As it is, its wonderful and compact, well relatively so!

Asher

[Lee Roberts]

Newbe to the forum but do shoot with a Canon and am currently using the 24-70 2.8L, Bill, and love this lens. I does almost everything I want as far as a great general purpose lens and personally I think the extra money spent on the L version of the Canon lenses is money well spent.