Which lens to take to America?

Razor-BladE

Razor-BladE

Razor-BladE

Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2009
Posts
4,298
Location
Bristol
Going to America (South and the States) for 3.5 months in a couple of weeks.

Doing South America for the first half, then States for the second half. My rents are coming over for a couple of weeks at the start of the States trip, so I can ask them to bring other stuff with them for me as it'll be much less backpacky in the final places I'm going, but for South America I'm only taking a 65L and 25L rucksack, nothing camera case specific, so have limited space/protection.

Therefore I was thinking of only taking one lens, for ease of use, but unsure which one to take. The lenses I have are listed in my sig, and also the Sigma 17-50mm OS which isn't.

I should mention that I'm taking my tripod (albeit being a bit heavy/big; Manfrotto 190XDB) as I regretted it when I didn't take it to Thailand/Cambodia last year, and I'll be visiting a LOT more places this time.
Also taking a fairly compact monopod, along with a 10-stop ND filter. Will be also taking a GoPro.

Initially leaning towards the 10-22mm, but worried I'll miss the 22-35mm range, and the f/2.8 and OS from the Sigma would be handy, but also a slightly more weighty setup.

If it helps, the places I'm going are Peru (Lima, Cusco, hiking to Machu Pichu, Lake Titicaca, Ilha Grande), Argentina (Buenos Aires, Iguazu Falls), Brazil (the Falls, Rio de Janeiro), Las Vegas, California, Miami, Key West and NYC.

What do you lot reckon?
 
Last edited:
17-50 is the most versatile you have but it depends on your style and the subjects you want to shoot, I think I'd miss the 10-22 range so I'd try to take both if possible
 
Depends what you like to shoot. Personally I would take the 10-22 and 55-250 and cover the wide and long ends (and then realize the 30mm f/1.4 is small enough to add). Then I would contemplate a small mirrorless system instead...

Otherwise would find the 17-50 perfect but for me it doesn't have much on the wide end but ok, and is certainly missing on the long.


Do you know where is the US you are going? Many if the famous parks I have been to so I could shed more light. Many of the dessert parks (arches, Bryce, Caslon lands, Zion) scream out for a 10-20mm range, the wildlife parks (Tetons, Yellowstone) demand the 50-250 or longer.
 
Get a light weight tripod and throw in an extra lens I would have hated to be in south america with nothing longer than 50mm to as above I'd pair a cheap light 55-250mm IS with your 17-50mm. I also wouldn't take a monopod and a tripod pick one or seems like extra weight and bulk for very little gain or get one of the carbon fibre tripods where a leg is removable as a monopod.
 
I usually shoot scenery with some street. I rarely shoot beyond 50mm when out and about, and not visiting any wildlife parks (I don't think) so never planned on taking the 55-250mm.
Not wanting to buy anything more as I need to save as much as I can. Otherwise I would have considered M4/3 or mirrorless, and a lighter more compact tripod.
I guess I'm contemplating between 10-22mm (and possibly 30mm), or the 17-50mm which would be a better all-rounder with OS and f/2.8 but no 10-17mm which is what I'm afraid of losing.

D.P. said:
Do you know where is the US you are going? Many if the famous parks I have been to so I could shed more light. Many of the dessert parks (arches, Bryce, Caslon lands, Zion) scream out for a 10-20mm range, the wildlife parks (Tetons, Yellowstone) demand the 50-250 or longer.
Click to expand...

The rents have sorted out the west coast so not sure exactly what we're doing but we're going Las Vegas, San Diego, San Francisco, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Central LA, then over to Miami (staying at South Beach), Key West, NYC (staying close to central Manhattan).

traveyb said:
What about a 18-200? Granted it's a f/5.6 but it saves carrying multiple lenses and covers a nice range
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't want to buy more, I don't use really use 50mm+ and I don't want to sacrifice on the IQ. Good idea, but not for me!

a1ex2001 said:
Get a light weight tripod and throw in an extra lens I would have hated to be in south america with nothing longer than 50mm to as above I'd pair a cheap light 55-250mm IS with your 17-50mm. I also wouldn't take a monopod and a tripod pick one or seems like extra weight and bulk for very little gain or get one of the carbon fibre tripods where a leg is removable as a monopod.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that tripod is on my want list but now don't have time/money to order it. Do you use 55-250mm a lot though? I don't, so thought it would be best left at home. The monopod doesn't add much as it fits around the tripod anyway so might be useful when I just want to shoot something quick but don't need the tripod?
 
The long lens can also be an important tool for landscape work, this is Yosemite shot at 420mm on an APS-C camera:

8454079251_4ffdc806b4_b.jpg


Yosemite also has quite a lo of wildlife. Bears, coyotes, mule deer are very common. As are marmots in the Alpine:

8455171356_d322cdf353_b.jpg



But it all depends on what you like to shoot. For certain shots the 10-2mm would be critical, but then it is a specialist tool and most of the time you rarely want to go wider than about 15mm because it gets incredibly difficult to get a pleasing composition.
 
Would to recommend still taking a long lens for those with absolutly no interest in shooting widelife?

I guess it could be good for landscape work where you want to compress the background/change the perspective or for some crazy super high res panorama.
 
I would for landscape work, I use a 70-200 far more than my 10-20mm for landscape.

I love what can be achieved with the 10-20, but it is a very difficult lens to use, take a lot of care and has specific uses so it only works well under some circumstances (well from 15mm up it gets much easier but the very wide end is a rarity to use but can be breathtaking when the scene has sufficient depth and lines).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom