Traveling without the 24-105!? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Archive 2012 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

nicke5012
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

Hey everyone,

I'm about the embark on a trip to Peru and I'm toying with an idea that's putting me outside of my comfort zone--going without the trusty 24-105. My original plan was to take a 24-105, Sigma 50mm 1.4, and 70-200 F/4 IS, but the overlap between the 24-105 and the 70-200's got me reconsidering all the redundant weight I'd be carrying (in addition to traveling within and between cities, I'll be going on a 4 day trek to Machu Pichu).

Now, though, I'm toying with picking up a 17-40 before I go to get some ultra wide-angled goodness, and leave the 24-105 at home. I'm thinking the perspective distortion and feeling of depth that it can give would be really cool for the ruins we'll see and the trek around the mountains in general. So I'd have the 17-40 for wide-normal shots, the 50 for low-light, and the 70-200 as a telephoto/people lens. I've never used an ultra wide before, though, so this is all speculation.

OR, I could grab a 17-40 and leave the 70-200 at home, keeping the 24-105 on for most things.

Anyway, I'm shooting with a 5Dc, and I like the idea of grabbing a 17-40 and leaving the 24-105 at home, but the idea of traveling without a "normal" zoom lens just kinda puts me on edge. Thoughts from the crowd? Blasphemy!?

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:25 PM

Photon
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I would want to take the 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200. Overlapping zoom ranges are very handy. I'd probably not bother with the 50/1.4 for a location like that.

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:30 PM

Glenn NK
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I look at overlap as an advantage (using the 24-105 and 70-200).

In the the range from 70 to 105 where either lens will suffice, you don't have to change lenses.

Glenn

Photon and I were typing at the same time.

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:30 PM

Jeff
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I'd also tend toward what Jess said, however I have to admit that after four months traveling, the 70-200 was by far my least used lens. I don't think I could travel without a 15-85 or 24-105, but if you need a 70-200, 105 probably won't do.

Now that I've thought about it for 45 seconds, I absolutely could not ever travel without the 24-105 (or equivalent); you may be sorry if you leave it home.

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34 PM

Tenn.Jer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I bought a 17-40 after using a friend's at a waterfall shoot; the extra 7mm was really handy there, but I've rarely used it since; when traveling, the wider range of the 24-105 is much more useful to me than the extra few millimeters on the wide end. I'll probably sell the 17-40 soon, and go back to relying on stitched 24mm frames for my ultra-wide needs. Furthermore, even though there's quite a bit of overlap, I always carry a 70-200 lens, mostly for picking out landscape details; having the overlap just means I don't have to change lenses as often...have fun...

Jerry

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:41 PM

rachelsdad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

My travel duo is the 24-105 and the 70-300 L. They give me exactly the quality and versatility I want without too big a load. Steven

Feb 16, 2012 at 06:46 PM

KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

Using just a 17-40 and a 70-200 looks doable on paper, but in practice you'll get sick and tired of swapping lenses by the end of the first day.

Feb 16, 2012 at 07:56 PM

edseiz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

The 24-105mm covers most of what you will need. If you need something, it is best to go wider so a 17-40mm is a great choice. Remember, once there don't get too overwhelmed, I went through 3-8GB cards in the first day. Have fun.

Feb 16, 2012 at 07:59 PM

leftymgp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

If I could only take 3, I would take the 17-40, 50 prime, and 24-105. > 105mm seems unnecessary unless you know you're going to have a need for a telephoto. Or if that's your preferred perspective for things, then you could probably leave the 50.

Do bring an UWA. You'll want it for that trip.

Feb 16, 2012 at 08:30 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

The only time I leave my 24-105 home is if I leave my 5D home. I read that the Machu Pichu site may charge extra for a tripod. This was a couple of years ago when I was going, I didn't get there and reports varied, but check. The 24-105 has IS which the 17-40 doesn't have. I find it useful even at the wide end.

I'm doing a Greek Island trip, see separate thread, and I'm taking 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 f4 IS. ~6.5 lbs camera gear to lug through airports.

Feb 16, 2012 at 08:32 PM

DLP
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

Two lens light travel kit for me is 17-55 and 70-200f4 IS or 17-40 and 70-200. Switching takes seconds and I never miss the gap in between. To me the extra 7mm on the 17-40 Vs the 24-105 is massive. I almost always opt for the 7D for a light travel kit because the 17-55 f2.8 is such a perfect travel lens. Fast glass with IS is invaluable for low light venues that don't allow flash.
For FF on a trip like this I'd take a 24-70 and 70-200 f4IS.

Dave

Edited on Feb 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM · View previous versions

Feb 16, 2012 at 08:40 PM

ssc45
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

In all my travels, leaving the 24-105 at home is not an option. It is my most used lens. I have left my 70-200F4 IS at home many times. I love the 70-200. It is very sharp and lightweight, but it is my least used lens. It seems it is not quite wide enough nor long enough when I have it mounted. My travel kit is the 17-40, 24-105 and the 100-400.

Cheers, Steve

Feb 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM

safcraft
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I just sold my 24-105L to fund a 85L.
My travel kit is a 5D with a 35L and the 80-200L.

Feb 17, 2012 at 12:36 AM

arbitrage
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

Take the 24-105, you would regret not taking it. It isn't a huge burden. I did Peru with 7D, 10-22, 24-105, 100-400(mainly for Galapagos part of the trip) and 100L Macro with T1i as backup body.
On the 4 day trek I'd just take the 24-105 because anything else is too much at that altitude. The 17-40 could work okay but I actually used the 24-105 most and I was on a cropper. For FF you only need the 24-105 for almost everything around Machu Picchu. I just did a quick scan of my few hundred pictures from the Inca Trail and Machu Pichhu and almost all were with the 24-105 and that with the 7D. I have a few with the 10-22 but they actually look too wide and the 24-105 ones look good. So on 5D just stick with the 24-105.

Feb 17, 2012 at 12:42 AM

HelenaN
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

Oo Peru, I'm envious!

Like KaaX wrote, having just 17-40 and 70-200 can become frustrating. For me it felt like I always had the wrong lens mounted, and that I had to carry both all the time.

Now I have 24-105L + 35L and it's just perfect, so there's no way I'd leave 24-105 at home.

I too think you'll regret it if you do.

The only time I take 17-40 and 70-200 now is when weight isn't a concern and I can bring both my cameras.

Edited on Feb 17, 2012 at 07:56 PM · View previous versions

Feb 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

lovinglife
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

a 35L would be perfect... I usually end up using 28-35mm focal length while traveling,

Feb 17, 2012 at 07:17 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

nicke5012 wrote:
Hey everyone,

I'm about the embark on a trip to Peru and I'm toying with an idea that's putting me outside of my comfort zone--going without the trusty 24-105. My original plan was to take a 24-105, Sigma 50mm 1.4, and 70-200 F/4 IS, but the overlap between the 24-105 and the 70-200's got me reconsidering all the redundant weight I'd be carrying (in addition to traveling within and between cities, I'll be going on a 4 day trek to Machu Pichu).

Now, though, I'm toying with picking up a 17-40 before I go to get some ultra wide-angled goodness, and leave the 24-105 at home. I'm thinking the perspective distortion and feeling of depth that it can give would be really cool for the ruins we'll see and the trek around the mountains in general. So I'd have the 17-40 for wide-normal shots, the 50 for low-light, and the 70-200 as a telephoto/people lens. I've never used an ultra wide before, though, so this is all speculation.

OR, I could grab a 17-40 and leave the 70-200 at home, keeping the 24-105 on for most things.

Anyway, I'm shooting with a 5Dc, and I like the idea of grabbing a 17-40 and leaving the 24-105 at home, but the idea of traveling without a "normal" zoom lens just kinda puts me on edge. Thoughts from the crowd? Blasphemy!?

17-40 + 70-200 sounds plenty good enough to me, I don't see how you'd miss 40-70 so badly, 50mm tends to be a bit boring focal length on FF, even notice how when using a 35-70 or 24-70 zoom that you are so often at 24/35 or 70 or in the 24-40mm range and how far less often at 45-60mm?

assuming 24mm is wide enough 24-105+70-200 sounds plenty good enough too though

I would never, ever , ever, EVER use the 17-40+24-105 combo and leave the 70-200 home! 70-200 can be ultra useful for landscapes and general purpose photos. In fact, my 70-300L is my most used lens on FF.

I often use a 24 1.4 II + 70-300L pairing actually.

70-300 can be more often used for landscapes than wider lenses as often as not.

Edited on Feb 17, 2012 at 08:47 PM · View previous versions

Feb 17, 2012 at 07:43 PM

obroni
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I was once travelling with 20-35 and 70-200 in the old film days. And the short end was too wide for me, so I never did it again. Definitely take a standard zoom.

Feb 17, 2012 at 07:53 PM

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

For typical travel and landscapes, I reach for the 24-105L 95% of the time on when packing a 5D2. The 70-200 hardly gets touched unless I find myself in an unusual situation/opportunity. In Europe I liked having the 17-40L for church interiors but find the 24-105 wide enough most of the time. If I wanted to travel light, I'd just take the 24-105L.

Feb 17, 2012 at 08:02 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Traveling without the 24-105!?

I would definitely take the 24-105.

My recent vacation travel featured the 60D and 15-85 IS (24-136 equiv.), with a Zeiss 50/1.4. I found I could have left the Zeiss home, as the 15-85 did everything for me, including ultra-wide 10-shot panoramas.

You don't need the tele-zoom -- few details, long shots, or wildlife for you to shoot. And you don't need the ultra-wide zoom -- you can do like me and stitch vertical shots into panoramas using 24-50mm range for awesome ultrawide shots.

If you have to take an ultra-wide for special effects, think about the Samyang 14/2.8 for around $300. But otherwise, keep it simple. Bring a nice P&S for back up like the SX230, S100, or G12.

Feb 17, 2012 at 08:34 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end