Recommended lens for travel?

[mares]

Hi guys its my first ever post here in this forum

Anyway, I have a canon 450d with kit lens (18-55mm) for about a year
now, however since I am travelling to PERU this May I am thinking of
renting a lens

can you please advise me which one to get?

I am looking at the canon18-200mm IS or should I get a wide angle (10-22mm) since my shots would be mostly landscape

hoping you guys can give me suggestions

oh by the way nothing to heavy though since I would do a lot of trekking

thanks in advance!

 

[Doylem]

Trekking? Then why not stick with the kit you already have. Wide-angle to short tele: a simple camera/lens combo that won't make your shoulders droop under the weight.

If you really needed another lens for your trip, you'd know which one already...

 

[mares]

Hi Doylem

thanks for the suggestion well not actually trekking for days
just for an hour or few

anyways, what lens are you referring to?

 

[miles01110]

I actually find the 18-55 almost perfect for walking around. If you don't have the IS version you could think about that, as it's a fairly significant step up in quality.

The 18-55 is light and it's not the end of the world if you break it. Since you'll probably be doing a lot of daytime shooting, the problems with its optics aren't going to be nearly as noticeable.

 

[Doylem]

Hi Doylem

thanks for the suggestion well not actually trekking for days
just for an hour or few

anyways, what lens are you referring to?

An hour or two?? That's not trecking... that's like nipping down to the corner shop to buy a paper...

I meant that if you can't decide which extra lens to get, then you might not need one at all. 18-55 covers a lot of photographic eventualities. Get yourself a new lens (bought or rented...) only when you really know what you need...

 

[mares]

Thanks for both replies

miles - yes i do have the IS version of the 18-55 and completely satisfied with it

doylem - yes agree with your advice on sticking with my kit lens first but I was thinking of renting another lens as a spare (just in case something happens to my kit lens during my trip) and also I might be able to practice taking shots with another lens

 

[wheelhot]

17-55mm will be sweet

 

[wgilles]

Don't know how the Canon version is, but I would image it's great, but I have the 18-200 VR (same as IS) for my Nikon and it was the ONLY lenses I needed when traveling to the Virgin Islands last month. I would recommend that, keeps the pack light

 

[miloblithe]

The 55-250 IS is nice and light, and an excellent lens for the price. Maybe that and a prime for low light?

Personally, I'd rather buy something than rent something, as renting seems to be pretty pricey.

 

[jrm27]

I just borrowed a 24-105L. I think that woudl be the perfect walkign around/travel lens for me!

 

[ChrisA]

As people have said the 18-55 is ideal for your intended use. But you might want to get something either wider like 12-24mm zoom or faster maybe a 35mm prime for indoor shots.

Somany beginners think they needs a long 200mm telephoto. You don't. It will be hard to use and you need some clear and steady air to get sharp images. Ge something either wider or faster than the 18-55 f/5.6

 

[mares]

thank you everyone for all your suggestions greatly appreciated

chrisa your suggestion makes sense
when you say fast lens it means larger aperture opening right?
(like f1.4,f1.8,f2.8) therefore you are suggesting the prime lens?

and for the wide angle that you mentioned are you referring to the canon 10-22 (f3.5-f4.5) or would the tokina (11-16 f2.8) which is faster, be better?

hope i used the right terms in photography just a beginner by the way

Thanks in advance!

 

[Ralphptf]

Maximum Flexibility

I have a Sigma 28-300MM that I bought in a couple of years ago in Hong Kong. I use a Canon 40D which gives it an effective 1:1.6 ratio (45-400mm).
The advantages in the lens are the lock that stops the lens from extending until you want it to and the long reach. If you are only walking for a few hours and you see something a long way off the 300mm gets you lots closer. The downside is that it doesn't have Image Stabilisation (IS) so at full extension it requires a fast shot to maintain sharpness.
For my money it is a great general purpose lens for travel. I also have a 10-20mm for wide angle shots and a 17-85mm for general stuff but if I can only take 1 lens it is definitely the 28-300mm.

 

[gnd]

I have a Sigma 28-300MM

I also have the "Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro Aspherical Lens". I guess you have this lens in mind (only in my case it's in Pentax mount).
I find it not wide enough for general walking and not sharp enough. All it really has is reach, and even that is questionable without a tripod, especially after a few hours of walking ...

 

[Kronie]

Whats your budget? If you can afford it, get the 10-22. Your going to find that for landscapes in Peru you want w-i-d-e and 18mm wont cut it.

10-22 covers a lot of ground and 22mm is actually quite usable is a normal view lens. 35mm on a full frame.

 

[canoeman]

I would vote for the 18-200 if you can swing it. I took a trip to NZ and Australia with a 24-120 on a Nikon and found that I couldn't get back enough to take a picture of the whole church or street, and that I also couldn't reach out and get a picture of just the bell tower. It really was limiting in a way for travel.

When I arrived home, the 18-200 had been released so I took the plunge for that one and have never looked back. We traveled to Central Europe on the next trip and it made a world of difference. I find that 18 really covers most of what we want to do, and there is always photostitch for the exceptions. The reach of the 200 is wonderful for isolating people in a scene, removing extraneous clutter, reaching out to get images of things you can't get close to. I spend a lot of time leaning against a post or something to do that.

I have a 12-24 now (just recently), but with that wide of an angle you have to be careful that the images you end up with aren't just boring expanses of sky with little interesting detail. The WA's have a great place when used to compress interesting detail really close into an expanse of background, and those images are dramatic. It's almost a specialty in itself; I just don't think most of us work at that very much when travelling.

Bill

 

[wheelhot]

Sadly, I heard Canon 18-200 is not as good as Nikon 18-200 But maybe just okay for traveling since you won't want to bring expensive glasses to a place you are not sure of unless its for specific photographic purpose.

 

[cube]

Be careful that the rental may not allow not not cover taking the lens abroad.

 

[alt75]

mares,

I travelled around the world (including Peru) last year with a 450D, the Sigma 18-200OS and Canon 10-22.

I used the 18-200 almost exclusively while in Peru as there was little need for an ultra wide angle - 18mm was never restrictive. As another poster said above, the zoom is more useful than you would think, isolating your subject from crowds of people. I am a timid photographer and don't generally like to get in the way or barge my way through a crowd to get my view (probably why I don't get the killer photo that often!) so the zoom is very helpful in that regard. Of course the OS is very useful too. Some photos from that trip on my flickr page.

I find the 10-22 is a fantastic lens too but made more use of it in Europe where buildings were much bigger and it was difficult to get far enough away to include everything. It's quite an interesting learning experience restricting yourself to the UWA lens but I wouldn't recommend it for Peru!

Enjoy your travels!

 

[theBB]

You can always crop in software instead of zooming, even though it would reduce quality a bit. However, if you want a wide angle shot, it is much harder to do it in software. You can't really compose with stitching, as you are not seeing the full picture when you are shooting.