Travel Lens

[-Ad-]

i would say canon 24-105 L

Yes on FF, No Way on a Crop. That would give him a minimum of around 40mm with his 600D, not great for those lovely landscape shots.

@ray: Any links to some other straps you recommend, need to get rid of my 5DIII one, really don't like advertising that?

 

[Dreadhead]

Thanks for all the advice folks. It has certainly made me consider lots of new options.

The 17-50 Tamron does indeed look like a bargain. Would it really serve me better as an all-rounder than the Canon EF-S IS 18-200, f/3.5-5.6. I realise that the wider aperture would serve me much better at night, and that I assume the more defined focal range should equate to shaper images, but can anyone provide any input as to how shots on the two of them, say in bright daylight, might compare?

The other tips are well received. I have already got a sling-type blackrapid strap which is comfortable over long stretches. A few pieces of craftily applied black electrical tape and I should be able to remove all branding from the equipment.

Also a lot of people recommending the non-VC tamron. Is there a good reason to loose the VC or is it just the price?

 

[a1ex2001]

Thanks for all the advice folks. It has certainly made me consider lots of new options.

The 17-50 Tamron does indeed look like a bargain. Would it really serve me better as an all-rounder than the Canon EF-S IS 18-200, f/3.5-5.6. I realise that the wider aperture would serve me much better at night, and that I assume the more defined focal range should equate to shaper images, but can anyone provide any input as to how shots on the two of them, say in bright daylight, might compare?

Stopped down to f8 or so in good light the diffrence in sharpness will be very slight and almost certainly not an issue at normal printing sizes you would need to be a pixel peeper to spot it. The Tamron will however have less distortion and probably better contrast. Wide open and in lower light conditions the Tamron will have a clear advantage.

It's a tough decision the jack of all trades lens will get you shots the Tamron won't but those shots will be of a lower quality, only you can decide if convenience trumps ultimate quality. If you are a pixel peeper as so many seem to be these days then steer clear of the super zoom as you will only be disapointed.

The other tips are well received. I have already got a sling-type blackrapid strap which is comfortable over long stretches. A few pieces of craftily applied black electrical tape and I should be able to remove all branding from the equipment.

Also a lot of people recommending the non-VC tamron. Is there a good reason to loose the VC or is it just the price?

There is nothing wrong with the VC there is an internet perception that the non-VC is loads sharper but it's a classic case of internet exageration yes the non-VC is sharper but the VC is also very sharp and has a top notch VC system.

 

[CGrieves]

Thanks for all the advice folks. It has certainly made me consider lots of new options.

The 17-50 Tamron does indeed look like a bargain. Would it really serve me better as an all-rounder than the Canon EF-S IS 18-200, f/3.5-5.6. I realise that the wider aperture would serve me much better at night, and that I assume the more defined focal range should equate to shaper images, but can anyone provide any input as to how shots on the two of them, say in bright daylight, might compare?

It really depends what you're going to use it for, and how much kit you want to lug. My 70-200 f2.8 IS II and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 are sharper than my Tamron 18-270 at equivalent focal lengths, but in the case of the 70-200 I often feel it's not 1.1Kg-extra-for-a-whole-day sharper, if you see what I mean! And obviously I'm not going to miss any shots due to having a limited focal length range- Most gear-heads will scoff, but I find Superzooms very useful.

Bear in mind that for shooting static stuff in low light, IS can give you a higher hand-held keeper rate compared to a non-stabilised lens without VC. For shooting unpredictable, moving stuff like people, aperture works.

For a long trip with limited kit through unpredictable regions, I'd be more likely to take my superzoom.

Also a lot of people recommending the non-VC tamron. Is there a good reason to loose the VC or is it just the price?

Non-VC is reportedly sharper. Not to say that the VC is a poor lens, it isn't.

 

[Mint_Sauce]

Personally I'd buy an X100s and go and enjoy my trip. If I was taking an SLR then it would probably be the Canon 35mm 1.4 although there would be times I wished I had a longer lens I don't think it would outweigh not lugging kit around. I've done it many times, taking lots of gear and you're always thinking about what lens you should have on. Inevitably by the time you've managed to swap lenses the moment is gone anyhow. Now I take an M9 and a single lens. Either a 35mm 2.0 or 50mm 2.0 but if I was buying again I'd probably go with the X100s (I haven't had any hands on time with one though).