I'm headed for the himalayas in November and quite honestly I'm getting tired of packing around tons of metal and glass. I shoot with canon equipment. What are your favorite light weight but sharp travel lenses?
Richard, since I don't know which part of the Himalayas you are going to, it is going to be hard to predict.
Assuming you are going to Sikkim in India - no worries with equipment, carry as much as you want, you can always rent a dzo that can carry a big truck.
In Uttaranchal and Himachal too, you will get lots of porters and guides who will carry lots of stuff for very cheap. Nepal is the place where things can get expensive getting hold of porters and guides.
I believe Ladakh and the Zanskar ranges will be off limits in November.
Last time I went there (well almost went there), I had my 20D, a 10-22 and a 24-105. I shoot predominantly landscapes. I was also carrying zero food except for a handful of emergency protein bars and my backpack was already tipping the 40lb mark.
If I had to limit myself to one lens for travel, I would take my 24-105 f/4 IS.
That is shooting with a full frame sensor. For a cropped sensor, I'd really want to add the 17-40 f/4.
First off, have you considered using an XTi for this trip? The body can provide some decent weight savings. The NB-2LH batteries aren't too heavy either.
The 10-22 is a good choice if you are using a crop body. Its a half pound lighter than the 17-40L and nearly as good optically (I own both, though I don't have a full frame body on which to try the 17-40L). Its also one-half pound lighter than the Tokina 12-24 f4. Its frustrating that with the lower quality build quality of the EF-s and the lack of an included hood that the lens costs more than the 17-40L, but you pay to play I guess. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is supposed to be a good performer and Tamron's lenses are usually very light weight.
The Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USMII is also a nice compact, lightweight and sharp lens as is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (I've used both). I've heard the same of the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM. The color and contrast aren't as good as some L lenses, but these can be improved in post processing and the sharpness is sufficient with these lenses. A bonus with the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USMII is that it focuses closer than alot of other lenses in the range for a little macro capability. The 24-105 f4L IS also gets great marks for its performance., but I don't know how it compares weight wise.
Between the 70-300 IS non-DO and the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) its a bit of a toss up. Weight wise, I think they're pretty similar, but for me the IS is needed at that focal length to handhold the lens.
These lenses should trim some pounds from heavier L lenses while still offering good image quality.
For a one lens solution I've seen hit or miss comments about the newish Sigma 18-200 OS. The Canon 17-85 generally gets graded poorly on CA and with the high contrast scenes in the Himalayas, I would think this would be a major problem. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 seems to get decent marks.
Mel-
Posted by Richard Wong on July 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I use the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4. It is relatively inexpensive for good wide angles and can double as an effective photojournalism lens.
We travel extensively, but use the Nikon line. Among the Canon lenses I've used, I really covet the 24-105 f/4. It's a terrific lens. We use the 24-120 in the Nikon line, and that general range is most useful. Second mose useful is a short zoom which picks up at the bottom end of the longer one- in our case a 12-24 for me and a 10-20 for my wife. That approximate zoom range, from 10-120mm covers about 95% of our needs for general travel. We might add a longer lens for special uses along with a macro, but the first two are our core.
Thanks to everyone for your quick replies and advice. I guess I should have given a few more specifics. I will probably take my 5D and 1D Mkll. I'll be going to Bhutan with a side trip into India at Assam for some wildlife. I have the 70-200 f2.8, 28-135mm, 17-35mm. I guess what I'm looking for are suggestions for lighter lenses which don't sacrifice too much image quality.
Posted by Rajesh Mohan on July 24, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Hello Richard,
This is really tough. From your inventory I would definitely take 17-35 and 70-200 f2.8. Unfortunately it will be a heavy set up. For landscapes and monastries 17-35 is perfect. For landscapes, people and animals 70-200 is ideal. I can live with the focal length gap in-between and leave 28-135. I am assuming you would want to go to Kaziranga NP in Assam. I would definitely take the 70-200 with a teleconvertor. You will see a lot of birds and 400mm would fall short. For larger mammals - rhino and elephants, 70-200 is just perfect focal length.
For your reference, my ideal travel set-up consists of 24mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS. I also have a voigtlander bessa with 15mm (35mm film) for those super wide shots.
I went to Kaziranga NP in Jan this year. If you need any info on logistics etc please drop me a line and i would be glad to give you tips.
rmohan26@yahoo.com
Back in my Film days I seldom took my Tamron 24-135 off my camera. Now that I shoot digital APS-C size (D200 and D1x) I use the 24-135 and the 12-24 Nikkor AFS more than any other. I wish Nikon had a lens like the 70-200 f4, if they did I would gert it for sure.
Richard, that's a tough one ... in Bhutan you want to be light, whereas in Assam you are going to need the long tubes. If you are into culture-related photography, a wide angle lens would certainly be handy.
I believe in Bhutan you cannot venture out on your own, so you are likely to have porters and guides? In that case weight might not be a limitation.
On a side note, I would keep atleast 10 passport sized photographs, and 10 photocopies of the passport and visa handy. Government officials in remote border areas in India can be like a recycling company ... they eat a lot of paper
Another vote for the 24-105 L IS. It makes the weight of our 1DMkIIN and 1DMkIII tolerable around the neck and is more than adequate for street photography. We use it a lot in our studio when the key light is cranked to f/8.0. We have "better" and "faster" glass, but if I had to walk around with one body and one lens, this would be it.
Posted by Vandit Kalia on July 26, 2007 at 5:18 AM
I spend a lot of time photographing - and leading photo trips - in the Himalayas. A few thoughts:
1/ I dont recommend taking both bodies on you while shooting. Leave the 1D2 in the hotel - and dont worry about it getting stolen, odds are negligible. If you are particularly worried, ask the reception to take care of it. 2 bodies = unnecessary weight. It *will* slow you down and tire you out, and when you are physically uncomfortable, you will not be in a good frame of mind to take good photos.
2/ A good kit for the 5D would be the 17-40/4, 50/1.8 & 70-200/4. These are the ideal mountain lenses and what I recommend to everyone who comes with us. No one has been disappointed yet. Alternatively, you might want to consider 24-105/4 and 70-200/4. A lot depends on how you "see." I prefer the UWA for the inside of monasteries. For mountainscapes, you'll likely be using a standard-to-tele focal length anyway.
3/ Think not only about lenses but how you are going to carry them. At high altitudes, heavy becomes tiresome VERY fast. I cannot stand shoulder bags in the mountains -- too uncomfortable. And backpacks are too slow/cumbersome. Consider either a belt system, or the Lowepro Roadrunner beltpack.
When I was using Canon my favorite combo was camera body+17-40+70-200/4L lenses. I have used 24-105 which belongs to Juza and it is a damn good lense. I suggest for FF 24-105 is a good choice and a back up camera.
Nowadays I take D80+18-70 and FM2+24mm on camera and a small 50mm lense for serious trips. For day trips D80+18-70.
I want to thank everyone who responded to my question about your favorite travel lenses I have been thinking about replacing my aged but trusty 28-135 for some time and I think the consensus here is that the 24-105 will fill that bill nicely. When I began this post I actually was trying to lighten my load. I don't think that's going to happen. I like most of us want to be prepared for every eventuality. Looks like I'll be cramming my photo vest on my flights to and from again. Oh well, I guess we're supposed to suffer for our art
Thanks again for all the help. NPN'rs are great!!!
Discussion
15 repliesAssuming you are going to Sikkim in India - no worries with equipment, carry as much as you want, you can always rent a dzo that can carry a big truck.
In Uttaranchal and Himachal too, you will get lots of porters and guides who will carry lots of stuff for very cheap. Nepal is the place where things can get expensive getting hold of porters and guides.
I believe Ladakh and the Zanskar ranges will be off limits in November.
Last time I went there (well almost went there), I had my 20D, a 10-22 and a 24-105. I shoot predominantly landscapes. I was also carrying zero food except for a handful of emergency protein bars and my backpack was already tipping the 40lb mark.
That is shooting with a full frame sensor. For a cropped sensor, I'd really want to add the 17-40 f/4.
The 10-22 is a good choice if you are using a crop body. Its a half pound lighter than the 17-40L and nearly as good optically (I own both, though I don't have a full frame body on which to try the 17-40L). Its also one-half pound lighter than the Tokina 12-24 f4. Its frustrating that with the lower quality build quality of the EF-s and the lack of an included hood that the lens costs more than the 17-40L, but you pay to play I guess. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is supposed to be a good performer and Tamron's lenses are usually very light weight.
The Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USMII is also a nice compact, lightweight and sharp lens as is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (I've used both). I've heard the same of the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM. The color and contrast aren't as good as some L lenses, but these can be improved in post processing and the sharpness is sufficient with these lenses. A bonus with the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USMII is that it focuses closer than alot of other lenses in the range for a little macro capability. The 24-105 f4L IS also gets great marks for its performance., but I don't know how it compares weight wise.
Between the 70-300 IS non-DO and the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) its a bit of a toss up. Weight wise, I think they're pretty similar, but for me the IS is needed at that focal length to handhold the lens.
These lenses should trim some pounds from heavier L lenses while still offering good image quality.
For a one lens solution I've seen hit or miss comments about the newish Sigma 18-200 OS. The Canon 17-85 generally gets graded poorly on CA and with the high contrast scenes in the Himalayas, I would think this would be a major problem. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 seems to get decent marks.
Mel-
This is really tough. From your inventory I would definitely take 17-35 and 70-200 f2.8. Unfortunately it will be a heavy set up. For landscapes and monastries 17-35 is perfect. For landscapes, people and animals 70-200 is ideal. I can live with the focal length gap in-between and leave 28-135. I am assuming you would want to go to Kaziranga NP in Assam. I would definitely take the 70-200 with a teleconvertor. You will see a lot of birds and 400mm would fall short. For larger mammals - rhino and elephants, 70-200 is just perfect focal length.
For your reference, my ideal travel set-up consists of 24mm f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS. I also have a voigtlander bessa with 15mm (35mm film) for those super wide shots.
I went to Kaziranga NP in Jan this year. If you need any info on logistics etc please drop me a line and i would be glad to give you tips.
rmohan26@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Rajesh
I believe in Bhutan you cannot venture out on your own, so you are likely to have porters and guides? In that case weight might not be a limitation.
On a side note, I would keep atleast 10 passport sized photographs, and 10 photocopies of the passport and visa handy. Government officials in remote border areas in India can be like a recycling company ... they eat a lot of paper
1/ I dont recommend taking both bodies on you while shooting. Leave the 1D2 in the hotel - and dont worry about it getting stolen, odds are negligible. If you are particularly worried, ask the reception to take care of it. 2 bodies = unnecessary weight. It *will* slow you down and tire you out, and when you are physically uncomfortable, you will not be in a good frame of mind to take good photos.
2/ A good kit for the 5D would be the 17-40/4, 50/1.8 & 70-200/4. These are the ideal mountain lenses and what I recommend to everyone who comes with us. No one has been disappointed yet. Alternatively, you might want to consider 24-105/4 and 70-200/4. A lot depends on how you "see." I prefer the UWA for the inside of monasteries. For mountainscapes, you'll likely be using a standard-to-tele focal length anyway.
3/ Think not only about lenses but how you are going to carry them. At high altitudes, heavy becomes tiresome VERY fast. I cannot stand shoulder bags in the mountains -- too uncomfortable. And backpacks are too slow/cumbersome. Consider either a belt system, or the Lowepro Roadrunner beltpack.
Vandit
Nowadays I take D80+18-70 and FM2+24mm on camera and a small 50mm lense for serious trips. For day trips D80+18-70.
Thanks again for all the help. NPN'rs are great!!!