16-35mm, 24-70mm (II if possible), 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (II if possible). It might seam heavy but it's the closest thing to primes in a zoom package which in a travel situation is extremely important. If you want primes I get them after this kit, it's so versitile and still gets you good bokeh and lowlight capabilities.
Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!
Do you really think the zoom-capabilities is worth the extra weight when travelling? I'm quite skeptical on especially the 70-200 f/2.8 IS - that's quite a load, when trekking in the mountains.Originally Posted by FastGass
I would suggest renting one for a bit. I was ready to buy a 70-200mm F4L IS and decided to rent one first. I wasn't happy with the bulk and weight (and it's lighter than the F2.8L). I decided to go with the smaller, lighter 135mm F2 prime and a 1.4x extender. Having said that, I haven't bought either yet, so I can't tell you how well my plan worked.
Mark - Flickr
************************
Thanks for all the comments!
I think that might be a good compromise weight-wise, even though I'll miss IS as HDNitehawk notes. Nonetheless I'd be very interested in hearing your experiences with the kit if you plan on executing the planI would suggest renting one for a bit. I was ready to buy a 70-200mm F4L IS and decided to rent one first. I wasn't happy with the bulk and weight (and it's lighter than the F2.8L). I decided to go with the smaller, lighter 135mm F2 prime and a 1.4x extender. Having said that, I haven't bought either yet, so I can't tell you how well my plan worked.
But yes, I'd probably better rent it all before the final buy - just to make sure.
HDNitehawk:
Very interesting thoughts! It sounds to me like you prefer the 24mm f/1.4 II over the other wide-angles. As you seem to own both the 24mm and 35mm, I'd like to hear if there are any specific kinds of photos you only use the 35 for and of those shots could essentially be solved with the 24? You definitely got me leaning towards the 24
I'll give the 100mm macro another look, even though I'm currently quite keen on the 135. As to the longer lenses, I think I'll save those for the third lens-slot, but it's definitely worth checking the options beforehand to make sure it suits the rest of my setup.
Fastgass:
Hmm, that comes a bit like a punch to the kidney
Perhaps I should reconsider the whole primes thing and get an all-round zoom as well. But then I'm afraid I'd just resort to that all the time, and leave my primes on the shelf. Decisions, decisions... Appreciate the input though
Edit: HDNitehawk managed to sneak another post in before me. Interesting points, I'll have to think about which side I'm leaning more towards.
Last edited by panopticon; 04-08-2012 at 05:36 PM.
The 70-200mm F/2.8 II would be a good compromise instead of primes. I wouldn't agree with any of the other zooms as I wouldn't be happy with the IQ.Do you really think the zoom-capabilities is worth the extra weight when travelling? I'm quite skeptical on especially the 70-200 f/2.8 IS - that's quite a load, when trekking in the mountains.
Really you are comparing two different points of logic.;
Some people would rather have all the range covered with the best zoom they can get, and deal with the IQ being slightly less than a primes at a paticular length.
Some people would rather have the best prime that can give the best IQ at a paticular length. That way when they have the chance at a properly framed picture it has the chance of having the quality only a great prime would give , and then they deal with lower IQ because of cropping all other framings if they have to.
I fall in to the second category. Weight really isn't an issue because to get coverage you are going to have 4 or 5 primes compared to 2 zooms.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote