Out of what I have now:
1D Mark II N with 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM
Ideally:
Who knows? Travel for me is not about a single focal length. Probably more wide than tele but I can't live without a telephoto lens (learned this the hard way early on when I left my 70-200 at home for "travelling light" and regretted it a lot) lest I force myself into a box.
If I were traveling in winter when the days are shorter, I'd go with the 35L or the Panasonic 20/1.7. The 24-105L is great (for a zoom) but I don't like to rely on IS.
Honestly, it's kind of freeing to have only 1 focal length. I went on a trip with a 21, 35, and 85 and I ended up using the 35 for about 90% of my shots.
^^ If I had to decide on one camera and lens to keep, that would be my choice as well. Each time I use that lens I get a kick out its rendering. Although far from the best one when it comes to raw optical performance, it's still my all time favorite (the Rollei version).
However, when travelling I like to keep the kit light, which rules out the 5DII. Hence my M9 + 35 Lux ASPH choice.
cbrandt wrote:
Since you only want 1 camera system .. you probably also don't have big expectations ..
use your cell phone or get a nice S100
Huh? One camera and one lens is all that many well known photographers have needed over the years. For some, working within constraints is a helpful aid to creativity.
I've done that several times (using non-alt Canon 50/1.4), but I present travel pictures usually as a semi-documentary series and having whole presentation shot with just one FL can be boring. So next time, for general travel, I am taking two lenses, probably 28 and 90 on a FF body.
safcraft wrote:
Travel for a day : 5D & 35L
Travel for a week : 5D & 80-200L
Travel without a back pain : E-P2 & Leica 40/2
Travel to a sports event : 1D2 & 24-105L
Just curious as to why for a week of general travel you'd want a 80-200 f2.8 yet for sports you prefer a slower general purpose short zoom ?
I'd think the 24-105 would be far more useful for a weeks travel if you were taking just one lens, and for a sporting event you'd want at least 200mm reach.
I'm a sports photographer for a living and can count on one hand the number of times I really make use of my wide to normal zooms per season. Its almost always 70-200, at least for indoor action such as hockey, basketball etc and 200-400 or 400 2.8 for field sports.
I just don't really see how 105mm maximum reach, or f4 really makes sense for sports action
cbrandt wrote:
Since you only want 1 camera system .. you probably also don't have big expectations ..
use your cell phone or get a nice S100
How do you make the jump from assuming that because someone ask a general question about traveling light they therefore have low expectations ??
Why can't someone still desire to produce some nice photos but perhaps because they only have a few hours before or after a meeting, and don't want to carry lot of baggage choose to leave their big bag at home ? I've done that plenty of times before, where I'm not going for the purpose of shooting, but know that I'll be in an area where I'd like to be able to grab a few images if I have downtime.
Furthermore, I can't help but get the impression from your comment that you must feel the more lenses or gear someone has the better photographer they must be ?
You must see someone walking around with a crazy belt pack system and everything but the kitchen sink with them and think they have high expectations yet view someone with a M9 and maybe one other focal length in their jacket pocket as a hack who could care less about their photography ??
While 35mm and 50mm are versatile focal lengths, each is really too restrictive for the range of subjects encountered in what most people think of as 'travel photography'. Given that zoom lenses have been on a downward spiral for over a decade now for varied reasons, the CY 35-70 f3.4 is the best compromise I have found.
Half the weight of a regular pro-level mid-range zoom, easy on tripods, small filters, balances perfectly on a full frame body, decent macro for small objects, low distortion, terrific corners, even all-of-frame performance, good enough at the long end for an 85mm crop (for portraits) and always produces excellent results - full of character - for the majority of subjects.
One lens shooting will always be a big compromise for travel, either in quality for wide range zooms, or very limited range of perspective with primes. You are gonna miss a huge number of opportunities in travel photography with just a prime - any prime. It's very frustrating indeed, seeing your work cut down arbitrarily to perhaps 35% of what you want to do, and the output has a certain sameness to each shot. A versatile mid-range zoom that is decent at both ends brings that figure up to maybe 50-75%.
