Good lens choices for travel photography?

[AuthenticJourneys]

I am moving up from my kit lens (from the XSi) and have a budget of about $1300-$1400 total which has to cover a focal length range from ultra wide to fairly long. I mostly shoot on my travels (a variety of landscapes, people and occasionally wildlife and nature) and sell some of my photos in my travel and fair trade boutique.

I am thinking about going with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. I also own the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. My two concerns are the fact that most of my range is only f/4 max and that my zoom is only 168mm - I do shoot mostly outdoors, though, and don't want too many lenses (or real heavy ones) to lug around when I travel.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

[OsmosisStudios]

Sounds like a good plan: if you find that you need more reach later on, you can always go and get a 100-400 to complement that group nicely.

[bearly]

i spent 9 weeks traveling around europe this summer with the canon 10-22 and the 18-55, and that worked really well. it would have ben nice to have some longer focal lengths but the lenses you are talking about will cover significantly more, so i think that those two (plus the 50mm) will be excellent for travel.

have fun

[djentley]

I'll hijack this thread, I have scouted out the 24-105mm f/4 L series lens as fairly adequate for my price range, however I am not sure whether it offers enough telephoto range. Essentially, how far away can I stand at full zoom to capture a complete portrait of a person?

In many reviews I have also found that there is a large range in the quality of individual lenses, as if there were bad batches. I'd like to have superior quality if I'm going to spend that amount, how does the 70-200mm L series lens compare, I ruled that out somewhat as it was just too bulky for where I photograph. How would the 24-105 compare in image quality to the 50mm f/1.8?

That said, the 24-105 would basically take the range of my current 18-55mm kit, so how much could I expect if I sold that lens?

The lens will be going on a 450D for now.

[RichardTaylor]

@djentley
Dimensional Field of view calculator can be found here.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

I have a 24-105 F4 IS L and it makes for a great travel lens, especially on a full frame camera (I use mine on a 5D). May not be wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera especially when shooting where space is tight. Only downside is the distortion at the wide end.

IQ more than meets my needs for web publishing & prints up to A4.

[inkista]

I use a 24-105L on a crop body, and enjoy it a lot, but I tend to shoot long, not wide. I definitely have bumped up against the "not quite wide enough" thing with it, and f/4 is problematic for available light shooting, especially with moving subjects. OTOH, it's smaller and lighter than a 24-70 f/2.8L, and if your subjects are typically non-moving ones, like buildings, landscapes, etc., the IS can make up for some of that.

My only caution about going the 10-22 and 24-105 route is to check out the focal lengths you use on your 18-55, and make sure that 23mm is a good "breakover" point for you. If you find that you tend to move a lot in the 18-35mm range, it's going to be frustrating being forced to swap lenses, and something like a 17-40 f/4L might be a better fit.

You're not likely to get much for an 18-55 kit lens, btw. They're pretty common, and they were cheap to begin with.

24-105 would be, in my estimation, too short for wildlife that isn't extremely friendly. It's still a walkaround zoom.

[sk66]

I got by very nicely for a very long time with a 10-20 and 18-200 as my primary lenses on a crop body...
I still miss the 18-200 as a general travel/walkabout lens (I'm using a full frame body now)

[djentley]

I don't mind all that much about the lack of wide angle, I mostly photograph people and found the 50mm prime and 55 of the kit to be too short and you end up disturbing some subjects if you come to close. While I wouldn't mind 18mm for up close images to take the whole subject, I don't suspect the small difference at the wide end will matter all that much when I have more play at the long end.

How does image quality compare to other lenses, as I have read it is softer than, say, the 70-200mm f/4 L or non-L series lenses?

I gather there is a f/2.8 model without IS, but this benefit is largely cancelled out by the IS on the f/4.

[RichardTaylor]

IQ more than meets my needs for web publishing & prints up to A4.

For me IQ is not mainly determined by the 24-105. It is more my shooting skills and/or the lighting conditions I am shooting in.
At slow hand held shutter speeds it runs ring around the 70-200 F4 L (I own both lenses) - Mainly because of the IS.

(1) Example - hand held:


Camera Canon EOS 5D
Exposure 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture f/4
Focal Length 40 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV

The Canon 70-200 F4 L is a great lens in good light, or on a tripod in poor light.

(2) Hand held.,


Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/4
Focal Length 188 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV

I havn't seriously used non L primes, since my film days, except for a macro lens. So I can't compare it. However I own a 135 F2 L which is a "magic" lens, if it meets your shooting needs.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by djentley

...While I wouldn't mind 18mm for up close images to take the whole subject, I don't suspect the small difference at the wide end will matter all that much when I have more play at the long end.

Depends on your working space. If you're shooting in small windy alleys in Italy, you may desperately want that wider angle, when your back's against the wall.

How does image quality compare to other lenses, as I have read it is softer than, say, the 70-200mm f/4 L or non-L series lenses?

Wider lenses will almost always be worse performers than telephotos because you have to bend the light more. And larger zoom ranges are typically harder to accommodate than smaller ones. So, yeah, a 24-105 is likely to be softer than a 70-200. One rule of thumb a lot of oldtimers adhere to is that a zoom range of >3x is going to have some compromises in it. The 24-105 is >4x zoom range. It is, among the Ls, a little compromised. It was designed to be smaller and more general-purpose with the larger zoom range, but as a result, especially on a full-frame camera, some folks find that it's not quite up to the level of what they were expecting of a $1000 lens, especially at the wide end where distortion and CA appear.

That doesn't mean it's not a terrific lens. It's just that folks raise the bar on their expectations as the price tag goes up. On crop, you're unlikely to see as much CA or distortion @24mm, because they will be at their worst in the corners. This is not a perfect lens. It's the 5DmkII's kit lens.

I gather there is a f/2.8 model without IS,

Not of the 24-105. There is a 24-70 f/2.8L USM. Which is covering a <3x zoom range.

but this benefit is largely cancelled out by the IS on the f/4.

No. This is a mistake a lot of newbies make. IS is not the equivalent of a larger aperture. The only advantage IS gives you is over eliminating camera shake blur while handholding. It does absolutely nothing over subject motion blur, which is still controlled by shutter speed. Like a tripod or monopod, all IS does is steady the camera, and it's not even as good at that as a tripod or monopod can be. IS doesn't mean you're going to have a rock-steady 3 second shot. And if you're shooting at shutter speeds faster than 1/focal_length, you may not even need IS at all.

If the majority of your subject matter is still, and you like using slower shutter speeds, then IS is valuable. But only more maximum aperture gives you the ability to increase the shutter speed, and to decrease the depth of field. IS with f/4 means you're still stuck at f/4. The advantage of IS depends a lot on what and how you're shooting. My 24-105's IS has, at times been wonderful:


Canon XT/350D. EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. @24mm. iso 200, f/7.1, 1/8s

And at others, utterly useless:


Canon XT/350D. EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. @105mm. iso 800, f/4, 1/30s.