Recommended lens for Israel trip

[redrabbit]

So I am going to Israel next month and right now only have the 50mm 1.4 for my Canon Rebel XT. I figure a trip like this is as good as reason as any to buy a new lens and was wondering what everyone here recommended for a trip like this?

The three lenses I have been looking at primarily were the
EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II
EF 17-40mm f/4L
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8

The 17-40 and the 10-22 would be difficult for me to buy from a financial standpoint, but I might be able to stretch it. Does anyone have an experience with these lenses and any particular strong feelings on them? Thanks for your help.

 

[cube]

What about the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS?

 

[redrabbit]

What about the Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS?

I'll add that to my list of considerations, thanks. Do you have this lens? I'm curious to see how sharp an image it can get with that huge range of focal length.

 

[jlcharles]

How long are you going for? You might think about renting the lens you want if you can't afford it.

I wrote a pretty detailed review of a place called rentglass.com on another forum.

http://www.iphotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23912

 

[cube]

I'll add that to my list of considerations, thanks. Do you have this lens? I'm curious to see how sharp an image it can get with that huge range of focal length.

No. I'm always on the lookout for something practical for traveling and the Nikon 18-200 VR tempts me to carry a DSLR.

 

[OreoCookie]

Depends on what you shoot: either a 2.8/17-50 (e. g. by Tamron if you are strapped for cash or by Sigma or Tokina if you have a little more money) or a 12-24 Tokina zoom (for landscapes and architecture). If you like to shoot some portraits, you might have a look at Sigma's/Tokina's 2.8/50-135 zooms.

If you are not sure what you're going to do, get a standard 2.8/17-50 zoom. With the camera you have, do not get a 2x-yy zoom, the viewing angle will be too small.

 

[claskin]

I travel with the Sigma 18-200 OS (optical stabilization). It is heavier and larer than the one without OS but is a very respectable and versatile lens. Great travel lens. I used the Sigma 18-200 (no OS) on my last trip to Israel As an alternative, the Canon 24-105.
Carl

 

[redrabbit]

I travel with the Sigma 18-200 OS (optical stabilization). It is heavier and larer than the one without OS but is a very respectable and versatile lens. Great travel lens. I used the Sigma 18-200 (no OS) on my last trip to Israel As an alternative, the Canon 24-105.
Carl

Sweet. Thanks for the advice. Do you have a gallery somewhere I can see some photos taken with those lenses?

 

[redrabbit]

ok ive narrowed it down to three lenses and i am having trouble deciding. thoughts?

edit: scratch that

it's down to the sigma 17-35 f/2.8
or the Canon 28mm f/2.8 prime lens

bear in mind i already have the 50 mm f/1.4....thoughts?

 

[JFreak]

Buy this one: EF 17-40mm f/4L. IMO, there's no reason to buy cheap lens, because you already have a pretty good one to begin with! At least whatever you buy should be on par with that one, preferably better. If your 2nd lens is not an upgrade, then what's the point?

 

[JFreak]

Another thing to consider; climate in Israel is rather "dirty" because it is very dry in there so there's lots of sand in the air. I strongly recommend you buy a decent filter to your lens(es) before you go.

Either buy cheaper UV-filter(s) which basically just protect your lens(es), or if you want to enhance your outdoor photos, buy somewhat more expensive circular polarizing filter(s).

You have better than decent lens already, so don't buy anything less than that.

 

[Grimace]

If you already have the 50mm, you have 3 zoom options:

1. <50mm
2. <=>50
3. >50mm

The longer the zoom range (bridging wide-->telephoto) the tougher it is to get top quality glass/images so something in the 28-135mm range might be good if you *only* plan on having one lens in that range in the future.

Otherwise, it probably makes sense to go wider on vacations so I'd look at the 17-40mm as JFreak suggested. You will keep it for a long time, as it is top notch.

Another prime? Eh, I think you'll want to have a zoom at the wide end. It's a lot harder to move your feet to get 17mm (effect) from a 28mm prime.

 

[compuwar]

Either buy cheaper UV-filter(s) which basically just protect your lens(es), or if you want to enhance your outdoor photos, buy somewhat more expensive circular polarizing filter(s).

I'm not a big fan of UV filters and digital photography, most of the filter manufacturers make coated plain glass filters, which won't have a noticeable effect on the image. I second a CPL though, it's good to have no matter what. If the lens choices include different diameters, try to match up with your current lens so you can reuse the polarizer. If you're going wide, make sure to get a "thin" version.

 

[Karpfish]

I was there this summer. My recommendation is to get an ultrawide. I didn't need a fast lens at all in the 2 weeks I was there. Most of my favorite images were shot at 17mm on my 17-55/2.8.

 

[carlgo]

I was there this summer. My recommendation is to get an ultrawide. I didn't need a fast lens at all in the 2 weeks I was there. Most of my favorite images were shot at 17mm on my 17-55/2.8.

It seems everyone likes those wide zooms when they travel. A nice VR type longer zoom and a wide angle zoom seem to cover everything. Adding a prime or two would be interesting, but not really necessary. I think once you are on the go that you may actually resent having to carry too much stuff.

Just make sure you take what want, though, as you may not get a second chance. The rental idea is good and allows you to get expensive lenses that you might not be able or willing to buy yourself.

 

[Qianlong]

I think you want a wide angle lens for landscapes and buildings.

The new 18-55 IS would be nice and is not too expensive and would be better than the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.
for the long range check out the 55-200IS

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556is/index.htm

The 17-40 and 10-22 are very good but also a lot more expensive.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_10-22_35-45_usm

You can use the 50 1.4 for low light shooting.

all the other lenses you mention are mid range and not really "usefull" on a Dslr.

 

[Cave Man]

ok ive narrowed it down to three lenses and i am having trouble deciding. thoughts?

bear in mind i already have the 50 mm f/1.4....thoughts?

Why did you drop the 18-200 os from your list? It is a remarkable travel lens and the OS can buy your four stops. I have made 11x14" prints from mine (one stop down from 18-135mm or so is the lens' best range) that only required a touch of unsharpen mask in pp.