Here are a few pictures from a recent trip to Paris. I was very happy with this lens and kept it on my camera the whole time. I also took my 70-200 f/4 L but never used it because I ended up leaving it in the hotel and I'm too lazy to switch lenses. I think the Tamron is a good travel lens because it's small and the 2.8 is useful for museums and churches.
in how many places were you prohibited from deploying a tripod? where were you allowed to use one (if you did) where you didn't think you'd have been allowed to use one?
Hi ivyinvestor,
I don't have a tripod but there are times I probably needed a tripod or IS for night shots. I know that tripods could not be used on the Arc de Triomphe and probably places like inside the Notre Dame and some of the other churches. But I really wasn't paying too much attention that restriction.
Tina
ivyinvestor wrote:
xtina,
in how many places were you prohibited from deploying a tripod? where were you allowed to use one (if you did) where you didn't think you'd have been allowed to use one?
Beautiful shots, Tina! You have a real eye for color and composition. Your pictures make me want to see Paris.
I was interested in your experience because I just spent several weeks in England with my Canon 17-55 f/2.8. I, too, left my heavy telephoto in the hotel and found the f/2.8 really necessary in church and museum environments. I did carry my 10-22 some of the time and took maybe 1 or 2 percent of my shots with it. I could have done fine without it.
What I really missed that I'd left back in the States was my EF100 f/2.0, a small, light-weight lens. Periodically, I wanted something longer than the 17-55 that also had at least an f/2.8 aperture. I'm wondering if you had times you wanted something longer than the 50mm on your Tamron (even though you're lazy about switching lenses)?
Thanks Jim!
Yes, I do regret not taking my 70-200 with me at times. It would have been nice to get close-ups and different perspectives. The 70-200 f/4 is not even that heavy but I think I naturally take wider angle photos. On my next trip I will definitely switch lenses more often.
jmagru wrote:
Beautiful shots, Tina! You have a real eye for color and composition. Your pictures make me want to see Paris.
I was interested in your experience because I just spent several weeks in England with my Canon 17-55 f/2.8. I, too, left my heavy telephoto in the hotel and found the f/2.8 really necessary in church and museum environments. I did carry my 10-22 some of the time and took maybe 1 or 2 percent of my shots with it. I could have done fine without it.
What I really missed that I'd left back in the States was my EF100 f/2.0, a small, light-weight lens. Periodically, I wanted something longer than the 17-55 that also had at least an f/2.8 aperture. I'm wondering if you had times you wanted something longer than the 50mm on your Tamron (even though you're lazy about switching lenses)? ...Show more →
Thanks luant! Yes, there were times I wished the lens was both wider and longer but for the most part it was wide enough. Sometimes it was hard to get the entire church in the frame or when closer up to the eiffel tower. And it would have been nice to get wider panoramas of the city.
But then again, I would be unlikely to switch lenses anyway and I think I should have just used my longer lens instead of getting a wider one.
luant16 wrote:
nice shots, it looks like you had so much fun there, did you wish your lens somewhat wider when doing the shoot ?
Tina, you captured some very nice images. The Sacre Cour shot in particular is outstanding!
In regards to those who asked about different equipment:
I've been to Paris twice. I think you would have a VERY difficult time deploying a tripod in the museums or churches. Its very crowded. For the most part, they also do not allow flash.
I've preferred to carry a monopod on my trips. I use a Manfrotto digi series with a QR head for monopods (3027?). It fits inside a 22" rolling suitcase when the head is removed and can be used as a walking stick. The tripods that I've found capable of doing this have been very flimsy and too short for me (ie. Giottos 4 section aluminum version).
I've also found no times when I would have needed a longer lens in Paris. I've taken a 17-40L, 50 1.2 and Tokina 28-70 f2.8 on a Rebel XT. I've never needed anything outside these lenses and I would say that all of my shots could have been accomplished in the 17-50 or 17-55 ranges. I'm sure that you could get some abstract pattern shots with the longer lens, but the architectural details on the buildings would look odd from the ground and there isn't much wildlife visible unless you count pigeons. The 50 1.4 worked really well inside museums most of the time and I was almost always able to get all of a painting or sculpture in one frame without any people blocking. Shooting at f2 and ISO400 or 800 usually worked very well. I do miss the proper 50mm FOV at times though. I guess I'll just have to break down and go FF digital one of these days.
