Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2005, 3:24 PM   #11
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

20D Body for sure, it is far more robust than the XT.

Other than that, don't discount the comments about travelling light and low key.

I would keep a 300mm f4L IS in another nondescript bag with a 1.4x TC if you need it for the occasional long shots. The 1.4x produces much higher quality shots than the 2x, and the price of the 300mm with IS can't be beat for that focal length. Usually if you really want to zoom you will have it at max focal length anyhow.

The 50mm f1.4 is a brilliant and affordable street photography lens, but in your case you might want to go with a zoom to minimize the number of lenses on your person.

Don't worry about the 150-300mm range really, either you need variations under it or much more. The 17-85 is a nice lens, and lightweight, but the constant f4 and L glass on the 24-105 will be much nicer.

If you like wide, get the 10-22. Between those three, with only the body and the smaller 2 lenses in your main bag, you can cover a great deal of range and not haul a ton of expensive looking or bulky equipment. With IS on the 2 longer lenses, you can probably get by without a tripod as well, but bring a beanbag just to be safe :G

Have fun!!!! Sounds like a wonderful trip!
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2005, 3:21 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Trip of a lifetime, you say? Speaks for itself then -

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L USM

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM

1.4 and 2x converters.

and

Two fastest primes in you favorite length that you can afford.

Whether you have quality lenses in your bag or not, this will not stop it being taken off you. A 2000 dollar bag is as much an attraction as a 4000 dollar one, and these guys probably wont know the difference anyway. Be streetwise, stay with a crowdand travel safe and carefully. Your instincts in these countries are your best friends, listen to them. Traveling light doesnt mean you wonthave your camera and one lens taken off youifits going to happen. Just means you wont have the right equipment for that lifetime trip. Take what you need and like I say, just be wise about where you go. Take a pocket camera for certain city streets and leavethe restin the hotelsafe or wherever.


LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2005, 8:38 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Come on Guys/Gals

IMO any 200 zoom is just too short for wildlife/safari. You'll be using this lens mostly with a 1.4x if not a 2x teleconverter on most of the time! A 300/400mm is the minimum... We're not in a confine of a zoo here - Wildlife do not pose for you, an animal could be close at one moment and very far away at the next which is highly unpredictable -> A zoom is needed unless you want portrait of a big cat up close plus you don't want to be changing lenses too often in the dust of Africa or in the humid moisture of Asia !

-> I pretty much traded my EF-400 f/5.6 L for the same reason as above for a 100-400 zoom which hopefully will see more light than the previous prime:


Attached Images
 
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2005, 8:40 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BTW the above shot was taken with another prime: my EF-50 f/1.4 for the defocus (or low-light) capability but royally useless most of the time... :-)


On the other hand whenever I traveled a 24mm is not wide enough for landscape/scenery on a cropped dSLR - I need at least a 17mm, but a 10 or 12mm zoom can provide a greater visual impact!

... and remember the original poster want to limit to two lenses with more coverage :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 4:54 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Yeah sure, sounds reasonable. :?

ok swap out the 70-200 f2.8for the 100-400 f5.6.

and swap out the 24-70 for the 10-22 f4-f5.6(or equivalent.)

What have you then done..... ? Lost completely the most used focal lengths in photography hahaha. (Plus stops and stops of light gathering ability.) Thats cool.

Look I'm not going to get in an argument with you.

Poster has to decide how much wildlife over other types of photography he will be doing and make a concise decision about the focal lengths.
Quote:
I will be shooting pictures of wildlife in Africa, tons of street photography in parts of Asia, as well great scenary, etc.
And as stated he will not just be going for wildlife. From my experience there is a lot more to Africa than wildlife safari.

The 70-200 is fantastic on its own. With the 1.4 converter and the 20D you have 448mm and very high quality throughout the aperture range. With the 2x you have a 640mm at f5.6. When shooting between f8 and f11 there is virtually no discernible difference in quality between that combination and a 400mm f5.6 lens. If the aperture needs to be opened then a slight increase in sharpening can be applied in PS, and the photographic qualitywill still be high. Thats 450 and 640mm with IS, more than plenty for wildlife. Heck for fun he can also combine the converters and shoot silhouette's on the horizon.

For all other times he has the best 70-200 f2.8money can buy. Thatand the 24-70 f2.8is by far the best 2 lens combination in photography. Thats not my opinion, its fact.
LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 9:04 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

No argument here... :blah:

It can be done with two lenses... and you don't have to miss anything focal range, see my very 1st link above:

1. The EF-S 17-85 (or the Sigma 18-125) - You can spend more on the 24-70 f/2.8 but you'll be stuck at 38mm and not a wide angle regardless of f-stop, and that's a fact (24 x1.6)!
The quality of the pictures put out by theses lenses are surprisingly good:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=48552
... even in low-light:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791


2. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 makes the 70-200 f/2.8 redundant and with a 2x TC and you do get a true 600 f/5.6 (960mm in your term). You've seen my shots at thoses settings with no IS required because the wildlife are active when I shoot them. The 75-300 DO can get you to the required tele range as well as the other Sigma 100-300 f/4 (practically a prime) which when coupled with a 1.4xTC can out range the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2xTC...

Ever wonder which one will produce better result a 1.4x or a 2x???
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 10:39 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

*Prepares to bang same old drum*

Two lens travel combo for the 20D

1. 17-85
2. 70-300 DO

For all the same old reasons. Neither is the best you can buy but they go very nicely with the 20D as a semi-pro quality set that balances optical quality, portablility and inconspicuousness(?)

IMO that kit is good enough that the main limiting factor will be your skills not the equipment.

Of course if you have a strong constitution (not afraid of being mugged or drawing attention to yourself) and a strong body (not afraid of carrying 5kg of camera gear) and you're going primarily to take photographs rather than primarily to have a good trip then take the heavy expensive stuff.

That lens of NHL's weighs 2.6kg without the TCs and is 300mm long; I personally wouldn't take it as a gift even though optically it is a fantastic lens.

The 70-300 DO weighs 720g and is only 100mm long.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 11:00 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

The 1.4 of course. Still as I mentioned the 2x is fine at f8.

I agree it would be acceptable to swap out the 24-70 for the 17-85 IS. (this is a good lens) Not a bad suggesstion for the 20D. The 24-70 being a first choise for full frame.

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Okfair enough. Only problem being the loss of focal length between 85 and 120. I wouldnt be happy with that personally.

These are all good suggestions NHL butwith regards to the other lenses you have suggested, you will be limiting this photographer to a set of smaller appature lenses that will greatly effect his photogaphic expearience on this trip. He has to ask himself how often he is going to be shooting at 300/400, teleconverter or not, say against the range 35mm to 120mm. How often he is even going to be in the bush against the time spent in accomidation, in the street, out at dusk, night and early morning, visiting citys and taking landscape. All locations (with exception of landscape) where a larger apperture selection will be a benificial inclusion.



Quote:
Two lens travel combo for the 20D

1. 17-85
2. 70-300 DO
Also makes sence.

Seems there isno real right answer. Anyway Shutterbug,hope you have a fantastic trip. Is it all holiday ?

LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2005, 11:22 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
That lens of NHL's weighs 2.6kg without the TCs and is 300mm long; I personally wouldn't take it as a gift even though optically it is a fantastic lens.
... It all depends on how much one values the faster aperture f/2.8 (same size/weight as an EF 300 f/2.8L ):
Wildlife are most active during the early or late hours - When they are mostly sleeping or standstill at midday I guess you can use IS over the two extra f-stops!

A compromise would be the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX
Split the weight right in the middle (and it's MTF is higher than the EF-300 f/4L), shorter and still good enough with a 1.4x for a full 420mm @ f/5.6! :-)



LBoy wrote:
Quote:
The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. Okfair enough. Only problem being the loss of focal length between 85 and 120. I wouldnt be happy with that personally.
This is why I mentioned the Sigma 18-125 :idea:
Check the posted link - It's doing quite well in low-light... http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2005, 1:47 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 37
Default

I would budget for a backup camera also, dont put all your eggs in one basket. Nice having a expensive camera and expensive lenses, but what if it breaks down on the trip?
kensplace is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 AM.