Lens to pair with RP for travel

[Minerve101]

I would value input of forum members about the best lenses to pair with the EOS RP for travel.

This would be used for vacation to cities in North America and Europe. Previously I had always used a crop sensor camera for such trips. This time I plan to use the Canon RP for better performance in cathedrals, museums, restaurants, and other low light venues.

The camera and lens will be carried many hours per day, day after day. The goal is for the weight of cameral plus lens to total less than 32 ounces. A second lens in the bag could add up to 16 ounces or so.

I do have an adapter, so I could use either EF or RF lenses, The adapter adds about 3 ounces. Here are candidate lenses I own or can borrow from family members:

EF 28mm f/2.8 USM IS

RF 35mm f/1.8 STM IS

EF 40mm f/2.8 STM

RF 50 mm f/1.8 STM

RF 85mm f/2 STM IS

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 STM IS

Of course, the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 seems designed for this niche. However, from Bryan’s test charts and from images on Flickr, the image quality seems disappointing for the midframe to the periphery. (Extreme corners are bad, but typically that does not matter for this purpose.) Do forum members find they can fix this IQ in post-processing? Is there a third party zoom that would be light enough and have IS? I would consider purchase of a zoom that was just right for this purpose.

The RF 35mm f1.8 STM seems a good option. But would it be better to have the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM with adapter? Very few shots would benefit from an aperture wider than 2.8 for these vacation shots. With the 35mm there would be occasional need to merge 2-3 handheld shots. Less merging with the 28mm, but other shots would require more cropping. For my taste, the perceptual distance between foreground and background with the 28 mm occasionally de-emphasizes the background too much

For a second lens, the RF 50mm STM is very attractive in terms of size and weight. But it lacks IS and the focal length is not very long. Maybe the RF 85mm f/2 ? Or maybe a crazy possibility like the EF-S 55-250mm ? That would produce 10 megapixel files, which should be good enough since there would be little additional cropping in post.

I enjoy the typical threads here about high-end gear, but I welcome your thoughts about these more humble options.

[Kayaker72]

RF 24-240 and the 50 f/1.8?

On my phone now, but I was looking at both recently and the seem good for the price. Size weight could make that a good travel combination.

That would be one thought, but would require a new lens. Another thought would be to take your 35 f/1.8 and rent the RF 70-200 f/4.

But, in my mind there is nothing wrong with limiting yourself to a couple focal lengths. You get the pictures that fit those focal lengths, a bit like an old school range finder mentality.

Out of your list, the EF 28 f/2.8 for wider angles and the 50 f/1.8 would likely be my choice with the 85 f/2 as an option. Pick two of those three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fast Glass]

I agree with Kayaker with the idea of a good general zoom. I don't view primes as a good option strictly by themselves. Unless you know exactly what works for you.

An ultra wide like a 14mm and a 24-105mm would be a good option.

Personally I have and love my 16-35mm and 85mm. Makes a good combo for me lately for a walk in the park.

But, if I had my way for a trip around the US and Europe I'd get the 11-24mm or 16-35mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II or III. If I had to drop one lens from that list it be the 70-200mm. But that's just me.

If I know I want to do some birding and wildlife I'd pack my 300mm f/2.8. It makes an awesome distant landscape lens as well. But I'd have a hard time justifying it if weight is even remotely a factor. Lol.

Hopefully that gives you something to think about and a wet stone for your mind.

[Minerve101]

I appreciate the input. Sounds like you both feel that 35mm is not wide enough, something that worried me, too. The EF 28mm with adapter performs well on the RP, so that I will likely use for the wide shots.

The lenses you mention, Fast Glass, are heavier than I want to carry for this kind of trip. The RF 24-240 IQ concerns me for the important 28-50mm range of focal length.

I would love any feedback from forum members who have real-world experience with that lens , or with the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1. Maybe the mid-frame is better than I think from test charts.

[Fast Glass]

It also depends on how much effort you want to put into your shots. If you are putting a lot of effort into it and going to locations for amazing pics and spending time and effort planing and waiting for the perfect light ect. It might be worth while extending your kit weight a few oz's if it makes a big difference. You don't always have to take your whole kit to every location nessarily.

A wide angle and a 24-105mm like say a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and 24-105mm is really not that heavy. If you want a long end that is light weight and decent quality the 70-300mm DO would be once such alternative. The other way to think about it is to leave a lens in the car you know for sure probably won't be useful. So let's say you are going to a place with sweeping vistas. You probably get away with a 14 prime or just a 24-105mm. Or if you are going to a zoo. You might just want the 70-300mm DO or 70-200mm of some flavor.

Just because you have three lenses, you don't always have to take it with you. Many times I take only 1 or 2 lenses if I know exactly what I want to do.

Just my 2 cents. But do not set arbitrary number goals. The way I would look at it is keep them as guide lines, try and shoot for that. But don't get worked up over a few oz's difference if it makes a big difference for you. And of course I'm assuming you will try out your kit before your trip to see if it fits your goals.

But the heavier kit is just my preference. You absolutely don't have to go that heavy and have a more than capable setup.

Again as always, this is just my two cents. I'm sure you will make the right choice in the end for your goals and preferences.

To put it into context, I'd hike around my old Minolta MD 600mm f/6.3 (For 12 years) which was similar weight and longer than the 300mm f/2.8 IS I have now. I had a 1Ds III mounted on my 300 and a 1D III in the other hand and just took it to the park for some birding and walked probably 2 miles. I take breaks and set it down once in a while. But it's not horrible and considered a lightweight alternative with extenders to the awesome 500mm or 600mm options. With some breaks and planning even a very heavy combo is definitely doable. That whole combo while not light, is 186 oz's in the hand. And I didn't get a sore wrist or arm afterwards.

As you know, many birders use a 500mm f/4 and that's much heavier than a 300mm f/2.8 and other still use the 400mm f/2.8 IS or 600mm f/4 IS, first gen. Now those are heavy weights especially with a 1-series and a tripod and anything else you might pack along!

I think your weight goals are very very light and don't worry about going over it a bit.

[Fast Glass]

If I haven't made it known by now I'm not excessively worried about weight. Lol.

But I do understand that not everyone is me. I'm just trying think out loud and maybe look at it in other ways. Even if you go for a very light weight setup you at least looked at it from all sides and are confident you made the right choice for you application.

But more to the topic, I don't think you can go wrong with a 24-105mm. Very good IQ in a extremely versatile package. If this was your only lens you could take many fine photographs with it.

If you matched it up with compact prime and you have a very versatile setup that doesn't weigh a ton by any means.

Ok, I'll be quiet now.:)

[Minerve101]

Fast Glass, thanks for your further thoughts. And by the way, congratulations on your 300mm f/2.8 IS, which I have rented in the past and found a great lens.

For a trip by car to a national park, I am completely with you. I usually would carry the EF 16-35mm f/4, the EF 50mm f/1.4 and the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS for such an occasion, with a 5D body. I might carry that for 2-3 hours, then back to the car.

The trips I was envisioning would entail 10-12 hours a day on my feet, with occasional short breaks for a light meal or coffee. Then "rinse and repeat" for several days in a row. And I think you are younger than I--the big 70 is looming! So size and weight become important to me.

I realize the standard answer is to learn to love the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1, by liberal use of texture and clarity sliders in Lightroom. Still tempting to use the 28mm as main go-to with the 50mm f/1.8 as the alternative.

[Fast Glass]

Haha, yes. I didn't realize you are approaching 70. Nothing but respect from me for still being super active at your age. I'm a bit less than half your age. So I understand a lot better with the very long excursions on your feet why you want to go super duper light weight.

Just being on your feet for 10 to 12 hours a day picture taking is a lot for anyone!

But I think you are right about the 24-105mm f/4-7.1. With the idea of being as light as practical possible it makes a lot of sense.

On a side note I was at local zoo all day today. Oh man did my 300 shine over there! Definitely got a lot to comb through but will be posting some soon here.

[Kayaker72]

This would be used for vacation to cities in North America and Europe. Previously I had always used a crop sensor camera for such trips. This time I plan to use the Canon RP for better performance in cathedrals, museums, restaurants, and other low light venues.



Focusing on this a bit more, I would be more leaning toward faster glass rather than a less expensive lower weight general purpose zoom.

Given that, any of the primes on your list could be used, although I might even skew to the f/2 and f/1.8. But I could easily see traveling with the 28 and 50 if shooting wider and the 35 and 85 as another nice pair.

But, as you've shot like this before, which focal lengths did you use/like the most on crop sensor? Really, that is your answer.

[HDNitehawk]

This would be used for vacation to cities in North America and Europe. Previously I had always used a crop sensor camera for such trips. This time I plan to use the Canon RP for better performance in cathedrals, museums, restaurants, and other low light venues.

That statement tells me to take fast primes, on your list the 35mm and 50mm.
f/2.8 if it has IS, but none on your list do. Anything with an f/4 in it no.

[Joel Eade]

Just now looking at this thread I would agree that faster lenses would be preferred based on the stated objective of better indoor performance. One alternative to fast primes would be to consider an RF-EF converter and using EF 24-70 f/2.8 and EF 70-200 f/2.8. Used versions of these can be had at a relatively affordable level. With a small shoulder bag I don't think the weight would be much of an issue. IQ is also excellent.

[Busted Knuckles]

inside - 24 1.4 (I would use my sigma art w/ adapter) seems like the go to. street level stuff outside the 24-105 seems like the must have. and lastly if you are going birding the 100-500 seems to be pretty darn awesome.

[neuroanatomist]

I've done a fair bit of travel to urban destinations in the US and Europe. My experience in Europe has been that for taking pictures of landmarks/architecture, an UWA lens is a significant benefit. There are many beautiful cathedrals and other civic buildings with very little open space around them. I would not want to visit cities in Europe without something wider than 24mm. I find that to be less true in the US, but even here I think 35mm would be too narrow.

On the telephoto end, I would typically not bring anything longer than standard zoom. That was a 24-70mm for me previously, with my R3 it will now be a 24-105mm. I've never really felt the need for anything longer. The only exception may be closeups of architectural features.

Personally, my approach was more like that of Fast Glass. My typical travel kit comprised my 1D X, EF 11-24/4L, EF 24-70/2.8L II, TS-E 17L and sometimes I'd also bring the TS-E 24L II. RRS TQC-14 for support. Now that I've switched to the R system, my urban travel kit will be have the R3 instead of the 1D X, and the RF 24-105/4L IS instead of the EF 24-70/2.8L II. If I wanted to save weight, I'd bring the RF 14-35/4L IS instead of the EF 11-24/4L. Using the drop-in filter adapter for my TS-E 17 means I don't have to bring the salad plate sized front filters (and gives me the ability to use filters with the 11-24, since I don't have the dinner plate sized front filters that would need).

In terms of recommendations, based on my own travel experience I would suggest you rent (or buy) the RF 14-35/4L IS and bring that and the RF 85/2 IS. Total load is about 54 oz, so 6 oz more than your goal. You could save 12 oz by bring the RF 50/1.8, but I think if you're worried about the IQ of the RF 24-105/4-7.1, you'd have the same worry about the 50/1.8. Also, 50mm is pretty close to 35mm. I like the short telephoto range for panorama shots (with the camera in portrait orientation). This one is 13 shots taken along the Rhine in Basel, Switzerland with the EF 24-70mm.

https://live.staticflickr.com/5823/21615943956_199470b2f7_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/21615943956/in/album-72157627063033457/lightbox/)

Note that my travel photography is mainly of places, not of people. If your interests are more along the latter line, my recommendations would be different.

Whatever you decide to take, enjoy your travels!

[Fast Glass]

100% agree with Neuro on this one.

[HDNitehawk]

It is shotgun answers to your question, because it really depends on what style of shooting you like to do and why.
For years I carried nothing but a 35mm F/1.4 L and a 24 mm with me everywhere I went. I never felt limited. Later when the IQ became comparable with the EF 24-70mm II I usually just carried it. Many of the venues you mention and shooting inside those venues you will have no tripod. Speed is of the essence as well IS would be extremely helpful. I have shot many interiors in low light with my EF 24-70mm II wide open at f/2.8 and had great results. You can get a used version around $1,200. If weight and mass are an issue, I would probably only carry a 24-70 f/2.8.

[Minerve101]

Thanks again for all the input.
Kayaker’s suggestion is very sensible, to look at which focal lengths I have previously used with my crop sensor zooms. Converting to the FF equivalent, about 40% were near 35mm, another 40% were near 28mm (as wide as I could get) about 10% were near 50mm, and the last 10% were near 85mm (as tight as I could get). Clearly the wider focal lengths are the most important.

Neuroanatomist, the panorama looks great. Did you manage this handheld? When I practice handheld I occasionally produce a set that cannot be merged with good sharpness. Maybe more practice could overcome that. A tripod is not practical for the trips I plan.

I do photograph people on these trips, but the goal is to include a generous view of the surroundings. The focal length for that is usually around 35mm.

I own and really like the EF 24-70 F/2.8 II, but the lack of IS is a drawback paired with the RP rather than the R5. The RF version of this lens with IS is 10 ounces heavier and seems pricy.

The good advice from all of you has me thinking about trading my EF 16-35mm f/4 IS for the RF 14-35, then using that the main lens. When the adapter is considered, the trade would save 6 ounces weight and about 1 ½ inches length. Sometimes the wider field of view might be handy. The biggest drawback is that the RF lens is not so sharp around 35mm.

More for me to consider, but I take from all of you that 35mm as the widest lens could be a problem.

[Fast Glass]

I own also the 16-35mm f/4 IS and have used the 24-70mm f/2.8 II as well.

That is a really solid combo, not sure how heavy it would be together. But I'd almost be tempted to sell the RP, and take that money and the money you might invest in glass and get an R6. Or an R5 if that suites your fancy. I have used all of said bodies and it would make a dramatic difference. Probably more than the lens side of things since you got awesome glass right now that is not incredibly heavy. Of course this option wouldn't really save weight. But another thought process.

I understand you are trying to save weight, and that is legitimate. But if you have one lens and body in use. Then just have a very small camera bag just large enough to house a lens, if you even need it. You could be quite light weight in practice and in the field while using some top quality glass.

But the 14-35mm makes a lot of sense too and while a bit softer on the 35mm end wide open stopping down it is quite sharp. So it is a trade off, but not a bad one.

Not sure about your shooting habits. But something to consider is the weight and size/bulk of your camera bag or back pack. But this is definitely a place you might be able to recover some weight savings and if you want to save 6 oz's. This might be a place you can do it.

Hopefully this discussion has bounced some ideas and has been a wet stone for your mind.

[Kayaker72]

More for me to consider, but I take from all of you that 35mm as the widest lens could be a problem.

Neuro has a very solid point about Europe and the need for wider.

14 mm
https://live.staticflickr.com/7682/16792274763_97578c3dc5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rzSNfF)small-7740 (https://flic.kr/p/rzSNfF) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/8748/16928445966_8e72896919_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rMUHd3)small-7075 (https://flic.kr/p/rMUHd3) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

But, trying to get every shot means you will have to pack every lens. Sometimes you have to make compromises and accept that you will still get shots to remember the trip by and shots that you will be proud of.

Same trip:

41 mm
https://live.staticflickr.com/7724/16770044583_5e7f91ee97_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rxURZH)small-7644 (https://flic.kr/p/rxURZH) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

24 mm
https://live.staticflickr.com/7773/16722774433_4a2c66d628_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/rtJAe8)small-7545 (https://flic.kr/p/rtJAe8) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

50 mm
https://live.staticflickr.com/7710/17261204968_195ef62b7a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/sijbSd)small-7817 (https://flic.kr/p/sijbSd) by kayaker72 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kayaker72/), on Flickr

etc.


Going through this trip (London/Paris in 2015), I kept 760 shots. I took 3 lenses, 14 f/2.8 (Rokinon), EF 24-70 II, and 70-200 II, I used them 8%, 83%, and 9%, respectively. Breaking down the EF 24-70 II, 47% of the total images were 24-28 mm, 11% were 29-35 mm, 15% were 36-50 mm, and 12% were 51-70 mm.

The 70-200 II usage was all over the range.

Safe to say, for that trip at least, yes, I would favor wider: 66% of my shots were 14-35 mm even though I carried out to 200 mm.

One last thought, especially as your intent seems to be travel/vacation. But if you are walking around I think it is both more enjoyable and safer to have a single primary lens that covers most of your bases. Stopping and changing lenses takes time, removes you from the moment, and may also draw attention. My thought would either to embrace the fixed lens/rangefinder mentality with one of your current prime lenses and have a second that you occasionally bring out or make the investment in a compact light zoom.

[neuroanatomist]

Neuroanatomist, the panorama looks great. Did you manage this handheld? When I practice handheld I occasionally produce a set that cannot be merged with good sharpness. Maybe more practice could overcome that. A tripod is not practical for the trips I plan.
Thanks! Nope, that was on a tripod. Each individual image was a 10 s exposure.

My RRS TQC-14 weighs about 3 lbs with the ballhead (and that's your total proposed load, so clearly not in the cards for you).

I have a night time shot from under the Eiffel Tower to match Brant's daytime one, also 14mm:
https://live.staticflickr.com/7755/17335673396_d23bdb9b02_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/17335673396/in/album-72157627187589316/lightbox/)

[Minerve101]

I considered all the good advice here and also my personal tolerance for size and weight of gear for upcoming trips. I traded for a used RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1. I plan to use the RF 35mm f/1.8 when light is a challenge, and the 24-105 for most daylight shooting. Most of the time I will not carry both lenses.

Yesterday was spring-like, so I took a few shots at the Cranbrook Institute with the 24-105. With modest post-processing, I find the image quality good enough for my travel photos. Here are few examples after simple edits in Lightroom. I cropped less than I usually would to show the IQ farther from the center.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51953031779_a7440ef630_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n9USke)IMG_1335 (https://flic.kr/p/2n9USke) by dfwatsoneuro (https://www.flickr.com/photos/philliperevoir/), on Flickr


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951740447_a6e6675050_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n9NfsT)IMG_1326 (https://flic.kr/p/2n9NfsT) by dfwatsoneuro (https://www.flickr.com/photos/philliperevoir/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51953322535_d747f0b4aa_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2n9WmLg)IMG_1322 (https://flic.kr/p/2n9WmLg) by dfwatsoneuro (https://www.flickr.com/photos/philliperevoir/), on Flickr

[Kayaker72]

Nice! Looks like a good pick up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk