REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

JLC · 01-22-2009, 04:35 PM

Hey all,

Hoping to get some input as I'm still very new to the photography scene.

I'm heading to Europe for my honeymoon in July (hitting about 10 countries over 24 days).

Anyways, right now I have 18-200 VR lens on my D90.

I'm looking to add a few lenses before the trip - including the 50mm F1.8, and the Sigma 10-20mm.

For those who have been to Europe, maybe your personal experience can help me figure out what will be good for the type of shooting I'll be doing over there - probably a lot of architectural, landscapes and of course, lots of pictures of my wife to be and myself (most likely not together as I'm not going to trust anyone else handling this camera besides the two of us)

I'm sure this post will help others who are thinking about heading to Europe as well.

IMASA · 01-22-2009, 04:50 PM

I didn't go to Europe, but I did go on a long vacation. The best advice that was given to me when I went to Japan for 22 days was to bring a P&S along. After a while, you will start to hate lugging all your gear around, especially if you are constantly on the go and you have to lug not only your luggage but your wife's too. I still remember all the times I was cursing my camera bag while I was lugging my suitcase up all the flights of stairs in the train stations and then having to go lug my fiancee's stuff as well. After 15 or so days, I broke down and bought a P&S.

I brought my 18-200, 10-20, 50 prime and SB-800 with me. I hardly used my 50 prime and really regret not bringing my 30 prime. I bought a Joby Gorrilla pod DSLR Zoom while I was there since I missed not having a tripod for long exposure night shots. Plus it came in handy when we wanted to do self portraits because we could always find a pole, tree or whatever to wrap the Joby around.

K-Dub · 01-22-2009, 04:59 PM

18-200, you'll appreciate the convenience & reach.
10-20, nice and wide.
and maybe a normal prime under 50mm, for night time stuff (like a 24/30)

Senna4ever · 01-22-2009, 05:45 PM

...and take a macro!

bubba_g · 01-22-2009, 06:44 PM

On my euro trip, used the 18-200VR, only prob was indoor shots. Wish I had a faster lens, especially when you're inside the Vatican, Varseilles, Notre Dame or any other museum.

B4N M3 · 01-22-2009, 07:35 PM

I'd take the 18-200 and the 10-20...the 50 is pretty limited-use.

Levitron · 01-22-2009, 10:43 PM

Bring:
18-200
10-20 (but IMHO, not totally necessary...if it were me, I'd just bring the 18-200 for portability's sake)

Here's my album from Germany:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duckduc...7604418830796/

I brought with me:
70-200
17-40 (I used this for 95% of my shots)
28-75

I will just stick with my 17-40 and 70-200 for my next trip. I did have a bit of trouble at the end of the trip where I was both tired and sick...I had difficulty lugging my camera gear around with me. BUT, I told myself this: "No pain, NO GAIN!" I was especially glad that I had a good solid backpack, and not a sling/messenger bag because I think I would have called it quits waaaay earlier.

As for the P&S, I also contemplated bringing that. However, I wanted quality photos....this meant that I had to sacrifice a bit in terms of portability. I don't regret at all for not bringing my P&S with me. I focused my effort on shooting with my DSLR.

keitaro · 01-23-2009, 01:13 PM

^
do you find the 17-40L to be a good lens to use as a walk around in general with a 1.6x crop?

Mananetwork · 01-23-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitron

I will just stick with my 17-40 and 70-200 for my next trip. I did have a bit of trouble at the end of the trip where I was both tired and sick...I had difficulty lugging my camera gear around with me. BUT, I told myself this: "No pain, NO GAIN!" I was especially glad that I had a good solid backpack, and not a sling/messenger bag because I think I would have called it quits waaaay earlier.

Absolute other way around for my Asia trip. I ditched the backpack because it was constantly a hassle taking it off, unzipping, removing camera, zipping it back up, putting it back on. I bought a sling and loaded it with a lot of my lenses.
It was no pain no gain - 5D, 70-200 2.8, 17-40, 50 and 35-70 for when I had more time to shoot and I wanted the best quality possible + macro capabilities.

I had also packed a Film camera into my luggage because it was a lot lighter then the digital. At night I just plugged a 50 on it and felt worry free if I lost 300$ instead of the 2000$ digital

Mananetwork · 01-23-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keitaro

^
do you find the 17-40L to be a good lens to use as a walk around in general with a 1.6x crop?

17-40 on a crop body is an absolute waste. It's not wide enough, and not long enough for anything. The 17-40 only shines on a full frame.

B4N M3 · 01-23-2009, 02:05 PM

I never got the point behind a 17-40...get the 16-35, enjoy the massive wide angle and have a decent f-stop

Mananetwork · 01-23-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B4N M3

I never got the point behind a 17-40...get the 16-35, enjoy the massive wide angle and have a decent f-stop

I don't think the price hike is worth the purchase

Levitron · 01-23-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B4N M3

I never got the point behind a 17-40...get the 16-35, enjoy the massive wide angle and have a decent f-stop

The 17-40 is a pre-digital lens. You know, there WAS a time before there was a thing called "digital"

EDIT: my bad, the lens was introduced in 2003. Time flies!

Denny · 01-23-2009, 05:16 PM

Bring a cheap point and shoot camera. You should get some photos of you and your wife together without worrying that someone will steal your camera.

And you might get tired of lugging around your DSLR and lens. If you get tired of lugging around your DSLR, you can leave your DSLR in the hotel and use your point and shoot. It depends if you're going on the trip to take pictures or to enjoy the trip.

SLIVER604 · 01-23-2009, 06:54 PM

I was in Europe for 1 month 2 yrs ago. the only lens i bought over were 18-200 and 50mm 1.8 and it is more then enough.

Levitron · 01-23-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keitaro

^
do you find the 17-40L to be a good lens to use as a walk around in general with a 1.6x crop?

Could be better, but it worked out ok.

!Aznboi128 · 01-23-2009, 11:56 PM

wherever i go i always take my d80 with 18-135 soon to get a 18-200vr and a 50mm

sb600/800 would also be nice to have

Senna4ever · 01-24-2009, 12:26 AM

Isn't replacing a 18-135 with a 18-200 kind of going backwards with regards to optical quality??

Meowjin · 01-24-2009, 01:09 AM

I never liked the 17-40 on my 50d. I sold it run bought the 17-55 f/2.8. Personally I found the lens soft and the heavy vignetting kinda sucked.

!Aznboi128 · 01-24-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Isn't replacing a 18-135 with a 18-200 kind of going backwards with regards to optical quality??

is it? i uno i always just wanted a 18-200 because 1st VR and 2nd a lot better range but quality i'm not sure how much I'll lose/gain

SLIVER604 · 01-24-2009, 08:02 PM

For quality i think it is about the same 18-135=18-200.. if you really want quality go for 17-55 and bring a 70-200 that give you quality. ( now we are talking about compact then quality isn't)

B4N M3 · 01-25-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitron

The 17-40 is a pre-digital lens. You know, there WAS a time before there was a thing called "digital"

EDIT: my bad, the lens was introduced in 2003. Time flies!

that doesn't change the fact that the 17-40 f4, to me, has ZERO appeal over the 16-35 f2.8. (Even if we're talking film, not digital, it's simply a better/more useful lens). In fact, I'll happily take my noisy Tamron 17-50 f2.8 over the 17-40.

I have huge respect for the L line (and proud owner of an L lens), but that 17-40 always rubbed me the wrong way lol.

keitaro · 01-25-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mananetwork

17-40 on a crop body is an absolute waste. It's not wide enough, and not long enough for anything. The 17-40 only shines on a full frame.

but the quality of the glass and build is better than the EF-S 10-22. Images from the 17-40 are better as well.

Meowjin · 01-25-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keitaro

but the quality of the glass and build is better than the EF-S 10-22. Images from the 17-40 are better as well.

100% disagree. (except on the build part)

the 10-22 is one of canons best UWA

Levitron · 01-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B4N M3

that doesn't change the fact that the 17-40 f4, to me, has ZERO appeal over the 16-35 f2.8. (Even if we're talking film, not digital, it's simply a better/more useful lens). In fact, I'll happily take my noisy Tamron 17-50 f2.8 over the 17-40.

I have huge respect for the L line (and proud owner of an L lens), but that 17-40 always rubbed me the wrong way lol.

If you have money, then of course the 17-40 has zero appeal to you. The 16-35 is at least double in cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

100% disagree. (except on the build part)

the 10-22 is one of canons best UWA

It's a good UWA from Canon, but they serve different purposes. Like comparing apples to oranges.