I'm currently studying abroad at the London School of Economics for the entire academic year and just finished our last term of lectures/classes. My 6-week vacation starts today, and I'm heading to the following cities in the order listed (leaving this upcoming Monday):
Amsterdam (3 nights)
Brussels (1 night)
Berlin (2 nights)
Munich (3 nights)
Vienna (3 nights)
Budapest (2 nights)
Madrid (1 day)
Marrakech (2 nights)
Rabat (1 night)
Fes (2 nights)
Barcelona (4 nights)
Traveling with a friend--I'm only taking one backpack for clothes and one Domke J-803 satchel for my camera, guidebook, etc. We're mainly traveling by train, but a couple of flights are thrown in there between the really distant cities.
Anyway, the point is that I'm not sure whether I should take all of my (small armament) of camera gear or be selective since I'll be traveling on foot in every city and weight is a factor since I'm using a small shoulder bag. Here's what I have:
Canon 30D (w/ 2 batteries)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 30 f/1.4
Canon 85 f/1.8
Hyperdrive 40GB (obviously taking this is a must)
2x SanDisk CF 4GB
I'm really divided on whether I should bother taking the Sigma 30 or Canon 85. The Tamron is a given, but I found that I didn't use the Sigma 30 at all when I went to Edinburgh recently. Also, I only used my Canon 85 for two shots in Prague during a 4-day stay. I'll be carrying my camera gear EVERYWHERE, since I do not trust leaving it in my hostels, and I want to be able to photograph at any spur of the moment. I will be going out to cafes/bars/clubs and enjoying nightlife, but it's doubtful that I'll want to pull out the Sigma 30 for low-light that often. I'm leaning toward taking just the Tamron and Canon 85, since I'm assuming the latter will provide outstanding head/shoulder portraits in Morocco (maybe also some landscape shots in the Alps) and the Tamron can deal with everything else, including looser portraits at its 80mm effective long end.
What do you think? For reference on what kind of photos I take, see my flickr.
I would either take all or drop the 30mm..... The 85 is a short-tele so you will have something longer. The 30 would be useful for inside stuff and I would think about including it.
No problem; obviously these are approximations (aside from the rail pass). By the way, this is a 4-week trip.
Eurail pass (4 countries, 5 days of travel) = $345
Hostels = $550
Flights & misc. trains (getting to/from airports) = $575
Discretionary expenses (food, drink, sightseeing fees, trinkets, etc.) = No idea! I'm hoping to keep it under $500, but I somehow doubt that's possible since this is the only time I'll travel so "freely" for a while...
Edit: It can be done for cheaper, but we're trying to get a lot done in a short amount of time (relative to other backpackers who spend 2-3 months, i.e. the whole summer, traveling). We're going in the off-season though, so prices are lower in general.
Edited by tubescreamerx on Mar 14, 2008 at 04:01 PM GMT
tubescreamerx wrote:
No problem; obviously these are approximations (aside from the rail pass). By the way, this is a 4-week trip.
Eurail pass (4 countries, 5 days of travel) = $345
Hostels = $550
Flights & misc. trains (getting to/from airports) = $575
Discretionary expenses (food, drink, sightseeing fees, trinkets, etc.) = No idea! I'm hoping to keep it under $500.
Edit: It can be done for cheaper, but we're trying to get a lot done in a short amount of time (relative to other backpackers who spend 2-3 months, i.e. the whole summer, traveling). We're going in the off-season though, so prices are lower in general.
3 nights in Amsterdam could easily burn that $500 of "discretionary" cash
cogitech wrote:
3 nights in Amsterdam could easily burn that $500 of "discretionary" cash
BTW, I think I'd leave the 30 and 85 at home.
Haha, agreed. I'm actually meeting up with 2 additional friends from high school there, so that will be interesting. I just edited my original $500 estimate because it's not very realistic, given that Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich and possibly other cities will be more costly than anticipated.
My current thought is the same. It would be so much easier to carry less equipment around, and I use the Tamron 90% of the time anyway. But thinking "what if" I want the ______ lens for ______ is keeping me undecided. I'm hoping someone who's backpacked will have some enlightening experience with this.
I can think of plenty of situations where a fast lens could come in handy (museums, galleries, restaurants, etc.). If I was going to take one of the fast ones, I'd likely take the 30.
BTW, put some black electrical tape over the white lettering on the camera and get a generic (preferably old-looking) camera strap. A third-party zoom on an "unknown" camera is much less likely to draw attention. I taped up my 5D and I stick old manual focus glass on the front and use an old Contax strap. Many people probably assume I'm shooting film.
Well the 30 and 85 will only really come in useful for low light stuff. You can just get away with onboard flash for those situations. I would take neither.
Take the zoom forget the rest, this is like go to WDW, by time you are done walking on the 2nd day you are going to be beat. I know you are 20 and in excellent shape, but even you to are getting soft and old you are NOT 17 any more. Go and enjoy, my rule is one camera and one lens, leave the other stuff in the hotel room, in your case back in London.
The last time I was in England for biz, I took my Minox GT, instead of the M4-P and lenses. Nice and simple, when done just stuff it into the shirt pocket.
When I went backpacking xx years ago I took a Pentax MX and a 40-80 zoom Just the zoom will be fine - you will regret the extra weight and bulk if you take more.
I was just backpacking Europe last summer (lasted almost 2 months). I had my 20D, 10-22, 28-70, and 50. I don't think I brought my 50 out once, however I definitely could have used it (I was just new to photography, and wasn't comfortable with the prime at that point). I think the 17-50 and 85 would be a great pair to take. For lowlight, you can't always use flash ... particularly when you are in museums. I didn't come across any situations where I needed to mask my gear with tape, but it may not be a bad idea. Just grip your stuff tightly when you are in crowds, or on subways, or pretty much any time you walk around with your gear out. Should be a great trip. Have fun.
I went backpacking in Europe a little over 3 years ago with a Digital Rebel, 17-40mm f/4, and 50mm f/1.8. I don't think I took a single shot with the 50mm. Between the 17-40 and the on-board flash everything was covered well enough. If I were in your position I would be a little tempted to bring the 30mm since its a more versatile FL on a crop camera to me, but if weight/convenience are that important you will be fine with just the Tammy.
I like your flickr site. Very nice. I am off to Italy in a few weeks and am taking (after much debate) 10-22, 17-50, and 85 1.8. 85 for creative DOF stuff as well as low light and the other 2 are pretty obvious. I am leaving a 24-105, 35 2.0, 50 1.8 and some other long lenses at home. I took the 50 and 35 last trips and hardly ever used them.
In my opinion, the most verstile lens is the 17-85 mm IS. Not the sharperst, but if you start shooting at F/8, images are quite sharp. The wide angle to Zoom range is perfect
This lens is a work horse, and not to heavy, ideal as a walk around lens. I have a Canon 40D and the 17-55 F/2.8, and 70-200 IS lens, but prefer to travel with this lens mounted on my Canon XT.
I took this lens mounted on my Photo Expedition to Mexico, and took around 2,000 nice shots, and my shoulders don't hurt.
Image stabilization helps a lot where flash is not permited.
If I were you I'd start by experimenting at home: load up your backpack with combinations and you'll soon figure out what you're comfortable carrying all day. If it were me I can tell you I'd minimize bulk and weight. The body+Tamron is already a lot. I don't think the 30 or 85 add much. The 85's not so much longer that it makes a huge difference. If you had a 70-300 IS that migth be a different story. I'd leave the two primes at home and maybe carry a small tripod/ballhead/clamp instead. If I were you I'd also consider selling the 30 and 85 and buying a 10-22 or similar ultrawide, or a 70-300 IS, to really extend your range.
I spent a year "backpacking" Europe... and left my SLR gear at home and only took an Olympus XA with the tiny flash (usually left in the hotel/hostel/pension) and I got the good photos I needed. Unless the purpose for your trip is photography and nothing else I would find a small camera that takes good photos.
cogitech wrote:
BTW, put some black electrical tape over the white lettering on the camera and get a generic (preferably old-looking) camera strap. A third-party zoom on an "unknown" camera is much less likely to draw attention. I taped up my 5D and I stick old manual focus glass on the front and use an old Contax strap. Many people probably assume I'm shooting film.
All my current gear already has black tape over all the labels/model names and I shoot with a non-conventional Black Rapid strap anyway. I don't like when people see what I'm shooting with and then make comments based on that. This is a boon for thwarting thieves too.
twistedlim wrote:
I like your flickr site. Very nice. I am off to Italy in a few weeks and am taking (after much debate) 10-22, 17-50, and 85 1.8. 85 for creative DOF stuff as well as low light and the other 2 are pretty obvious. I am leaving a 24-105, 35 2.0, 50 1.8 and some other long lenses at home. I took the 50 and 35 last trips and hardly ever used them.
Thanks. That's what I'm afraid of--no need to carry gear if I'm only going to use it 5 or even 10% of the time.
kevinsullivan wrote:
If I were you I'd start by experimenting at home: load up your backpack with combinations and you'll soon figure out what you're comfortable carrying all day. If it were me I can tell you I'd minimize bulk and weight. The body+Tamron is already a lot. I don't think the 30 or 85 add much. The 85's not so much longer that it makes a huge difference. If you had a 70-300 IS that migth be a different story. I'd leave the two primes at home and maybe carry a small tripod/ballhead/clamp instead. If I were you I'd also consider selling the 30 and 85 and buying a 10-22 or similar ultrawide, or a 70-300 IS, to really extend your range. ...Show more →
My backpack will be left in the hostels at all times, except when walking to/from the train stations and airports. The only thing I'll be carrying all day, every day is the Domke J-803. I don't think the 30 or 85 add much either, but I think the 85 adds more than the 30 would in this situation. Museum photos (no flash; low-light) are not a concern for me, since I personally don't think they're that interesting...
I wish I had an ultra-wide! No time for that now though, leaving in less than 36 hours.
mh2000 wrote:
I spent a year "backpacking" Europe... and left my SLR gear at home and only took an Olympus XA with the tiny flash (usually left in the hotel/hostel/pension) and I got the good photos I needed. Unless the purpose for your trip is photography and nothing else I would find a small camera that takes good photos.
Photography isn't my sole purpose for the trip, but it's definitely the perfect opportunity to really get creative and capture things I won't see again (or at least for many, many years).
Thanks for all the suggestions and experience... I'm leaning toward the 17-50 and 30 combo for the first group of countries (Amsterdam through Budapest) and then replacing the 30 with the 85 for Morocco + Spain. I have a stopover in London for a day in between those groups, so I'll be swinging by my dorm for laundry/gear swapping.
WIth a 5D I found a 24-105 was more than enough. So extrapolating to a 30D I would not take the 30mm - my guess is you won't use the 85 that much but having a 17-50 may be a bit short.
One item that I found handy was a gorillapod tripod - helps solve the low light issue - its small, light and really very adaptive.
