I would agree with some of the others that the 24-105 is a fantastic travel lens, and I wouldn't want to leave it at home, its extremely versatile in a lot of situations. I traveled quite a few places in the world and it was one of my most used lens on trips. I have even contemplated on leaving it behind for my up coming trip to Norway but I don't think I would be happy without my 24-105.
My regular kit consists of 24-105, 35L, 135L, and either one of my 50s or 85mm. For traveling its the same perhaps not the 135L (haven't taken this on a trip yet might just because its one of my favorite lens now)
Depends on what you goal is. Either you want to capture every photo you see (then take all three) or you want to take the best picture you see with your mounted lens (then it doesn't even matter which lenses). I'd go for the 17-40 + 70-200.
Having hiked the Inca Trail although we also trekked the Salkantay first for a total of 7 days up to 16,000 feet I suggest for this part as light a kit as possible. Based on your kit I would take the 24-105 and maybe the 70-200/4. It is tiring and you will not necessarily feel like changing lenses all the time, so the most versatile is the best. It also has IS for all those shots inside churches in low light. A 2 shot pano will enable you to get wider than 17mm.
Unless you have unlimited time, travel photography is compromised. It is best to have the most versatile kit. Although it is a little heavy the 28-300 covers most of the focal lengths required and is only one lens. Possibly a rental?
When I did that trek I took a tiny P&S because it's HARD work if you don't walk at a high level fairly regularly. There's no way I'd take that equipment with me.
I have to agree with those who, like myself, have actually done this hike. You will want to keep your kit as light as possible and, unless you do high altitude hiking regularly, you will not have the time or energy to change lenses very often. I did the trek with a guy who brought his Nikon D90 and three lenses, but I don't think I saw him change more than once and he was not feeling well the first two days of the trip.
I'd take the body and the 24-105 only. You will be able to move around enough to get the shots you want. I did it with a p&s and didn't regret it, though if I had taken the train to Machu Picchu it would be a different story.
I frequently travel light to urban locations and will bring either 28mm and 50mm Contax (with EOS adapters) or a 24-70 if I didn't mind the extra weight. I've never missed not having a 70-200mm zoom. Most of the time I wished I had more wide, if anything. However, if I was doing nature photography, it would be a mandatory lens along with a 400mm.
My medium to heavy kit would be 14-24mm Nikon (EOS-adapted) and the 24-70mm or 24-105. That would cover most everything for me. If I was feeling really strong, I'd pack the 135mm f2 (when I still had it) in there as well for those unique shots.
kmkime wrote:
I have to agree with those who, like myself, have actually done this hike. You will want to keep your kit as light as possible and, unless you do high altitude hiking regularly, you will not have the time or energy to change lenses very often. I did the trek with a guy who brought his Nikon D90 and three lenses, but I don't think I saw him change more than once and he was not feeling well the first two days of the trip.
I'd take the body and the 24-105 only. You will be able to move around enough to get the shots you want. I did it with a p&s and didn't regret it, though if I had taken the train to Machu Picchu it would be a different story....Show more →
Yeah when I did this trip (took the train) I was using a range finder. The first day/night is pretty brutal (when was the last time you hiked a lot at 8K feet?). I agree, I would take the 24-105! It will do most of what you would like. Steven
John Greengo, a travel photographer who has worked with Art Wolfe, travels with 17-40 and 70-200 as his standard kit, so this is a viable option.
After a 2 week trip to Italy with a DSLR body and 3 lenses, it felt like a burden to me, and I pledged not to do that again. While I still use my full DSLR system, my travel camera arrived just an hour ago, a Panasonic G3. If I am happy with it, that is the camera I would take to Macchu Pichu.
I wouldn't leave home without the 24-105, on a serious trip.
Depending on weight considerations, it might be the only lens I'd take with a FF body, (if so, I'd probably find the best doubler I could get which would work with it). If weight were less of a consideration, I'd add the 70-200.
But the 24-105 would be the first one to go in the travel bag.
For a change you might consider taking just the 70-200/4 IS (and the cannoli) and leaving the 24-105 at home. The longer lens is actually quite versatile and, of course, reliably sharp.
pjbishop wrote:
For a change you might consider taking just the 70-200/4 IS (and the cannoli) and leaving the 24-105 at home. The longer lens is actually quite versatile and, of course, reliably sharp.
Seems like an odd recommendation for Peru and Machu Picchu. Isn't most of the shots from this locale in the wide angle range? I'd love to hear first hand experience from those that have been there. I'm also considering the trip some time next year.
I think you could cover 95% of what you will shoot with the 24-105. I would just take that. I find it a pain to be changing lenses all the time on vacation...after all it is not work...its vacation. My last trip to Italy I took a 10-22 and a 24-105 (40d). Nice combo but I kept thinking I wish I had another body so I did not have to keep switching out. Next trip for me it will be 2 bodies and 2 lenses.
The 17-40 on the 5d would be nice but at 17mm it really falls under the "specialty" lens. To me sort of like a fisheye. They are great, but hardly used. If I took anything else it would be the 7-200 f4. Leave the 50 it will most likely stay in your bag the whole trip.
(take my recomendations with a grain of salt as I don't have one anymore )
)