What to pack!?

[d0051m]

Hi All (again)

I'm lucky enough to be off to Peru next year on holiday and am wondering what lenses to take/buy. I have a 450d with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 70-200mm f4 lens. I'm going to buy a canon 10-20mm or sigma 10-22 lens. I will prob leave my 70-200mm at home as my travelling buddy is taking the 100-400mm. I'm thinking of also buying 50mm f1.8 and leaving the kit lens. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks all in advance,

Edd

[neuroanatomist]

An ultrawide like the Canon 10-22mm plus a 50mm prime (short tele on APS-C) does leave you without a 'normal' lens - maybe that's ok, but I'd be tempted to bring the 18-55mm. As long as you have ready access to your friend's 100-400, leaving the 70-200/4 behind makes sense. But you'll want a telephoto lens along, IMO.

People associate wide angle lenses with landscapes, but many times it's very effective to be able to isolate elements of a landscape. Also, if you've never used an ultrawide lens, they take thought and planning to make the most of them. Just shooting a wide shot to capture the majesty of a scenic vista almost always produces disappointing results that don't measure up to your memory. Instead, have a very close subject in the frame to draw the eye into the image.

I know you asked about lenses, but also be sure you have a decent tripod!

[Poik]

I would bring the kit lens, or maybe rent a 24-70 or something similar for the trip. I think that a 10-22 and the 50 1.8 is a great idea, but I think you will be disappointed and not able to get all the shots you want with just those two lenses. I've been using those two lenses for like 90% of my shots in the last 6 months because they provide great image quality, but the 50 is a little too long to be used say in a bar to take photos of friends, and I really think you will want some coverage in the 20-40mm range for walking around, etc. Just my 0.02.

[Busted Knuckles]

rent buy a 17-40 or a 15-85. I have never wanted for anything wider than the 15.

If wanted something with a faster f-stop I love my 17-55 2.8 on my crop body. It is really only one stop slower than the 50 1.8.

My .0000002

[eldarhau]

Peru sounds like lots of jaw dropping sceneries, combined with colorful details around the people, like ponchos and blankets, city details etc. That requires a certain setup. If you add wildlife, the pack grows a lot. Since you don´t mention it, I drop it.
For most people photography is like golf. Everyone is practicing their hundreds of yards drives for hours, but the games are won on the putting greens. In photography that means everyone thinks they need big lenses (your 100-400mm), but 95% of your images will (most likely) be shot at less than 100mm (on an APS-C). If your friend is willing to carry the 100-400, let him do that and concentrate on the stuff below 100mm. I know I would. If you can´t afford to buy the right gear, rent it (How often will you be going to Peru?)
I also agree with neuroanatomist. It is much easier said than done to make spectacular wide angel shots. Get the 10-22 mm in time, with a circular polarizing filter and a tripod, and practice a lot before you go. I would also get the 85mm f1.8. It is (in my view) the best value for money prime carrying Canon´s name (I use the 85mm f1.2L II a lot, but on FF bodies). Portraits, shallow depth of field, sharpness, color, you name it, this lens delivers.

A different alternative you could think of was to get the 24-105 f4.0L IS. Optically this lens outperforms the others you have on your list and it is now sold for very acceptable prices. I use that a lot (but on a FF body). But with your APS-C body, you will need something in the wide angel area. The 10-22mm would solve that. For some shots there is no alternative, but for the wide sceneries, where nothing moves, you can stitch multiple pictures (requires the tripod) and make the need for a true wide angel lens less apparent. That is a fun and creative process (practice before you go), where you have to think before you shoot. It requires a tripod though.

If only budget was not a problem and a mule could carry the stuff ....

Good luck with your selection! Peru is a great destination (which deserves the right stuff

Eldar

[d0051m]

People associate wide angle lenses with landscapes, but many times it's very effective to be able to isolate elements of a landscape. Also, if you've never used an ultrawide lens, they take thought and planning to make the most of them. Just shooting a wide shot to capture the majesty of a scenic vista almost always produces disappointing results that don't measure up to your memory. Instead, have a very close subject in the frame to draw the eye into the image.

I know you asked about lenses, but also be sure you have a decent tripod!

Do you have any tips, tricks or links for a crash course on wide angle shots. The 10-20mm is something I've wanted for a while

rent buy a 17-40 or a 15-85. I have never wanted for anything wider than the 15.

If wanted something with a faster f-stop I love my 17-55 2.8 on my crop body. It is really only one stop slower than the 50 1.8.

My .0000002

Never wider than15mm? Even taking wide shots like landscapes?

Peru sounds like lots of jaw dropping sceneries, combined with colorful details around the people, like ponchos and blankets, city details etc. That requires a certain setup. If you add wildlife, the pack grows a lot. Since you don´t mention it, I drop it.
For most people photography is like golf. Everyone is practicing their hundreds of yards drives for hours, but the games are won on the putting greens. In photography that means everyone thinks they need big lenses (your 100-400mm), but 95% of your images will (most likely) be shot at less than 100mm (on an APS-C). If your friend is willing to carry the 100-400, let him do that and concentrate on the stuff below 100mm. I know I would. If you can´t afford to buy the right gear, rent it (How often will you be going to Peru?)
I also agree with neuroanatomist. It is much easier said than done to make spectacular wide angel shots. Get the 10-22 mm in time, with a circular polarizing filter and a tripod, and practice a lot before you go. I would also get the 85mm f1.8. It is (in my view) the best value for money prime carrying Canon´s name (I use the 85mm f1.2L II a lot, but on FF bodies). Portraits, shallow depth of field, sharpness, color, you name it, this lens delivers.

A different alternative you could think of was to get the 24-105 f4.0L IS. Optically this lens outperforms the others you have on your list and it is now sold for very acceptable prices. I use that a lot (but on a FF body). But with your APS-C body, you will need something in the wide angel area. The 10-22mm would solve that. For some shots there is no alternative, but for the wide sceneries, where nothing moves, you can stitch multiple pictures (requires the tripod) and make the need for a true wide angel lens less apparent. That is a fun and creative process (practice before you go), where you have to think before you shoot. It requires a tripod though.

Good luck with your selection! Peru is a great destination (which deserves the right stuff

Eldar

I will only be going once I think! For now anyway. Wow so much information on here so quickly and now I'm even more confused! The 15-85mm and the 17-55mm have always been other possibilities as well but thought for this the 10-20mm would be the best. Not so sure now! So how hard is wide angle shots, worried now if I take this lens I'll just come back with rubbish!

Thanks for all your help

[Poik]

If you are trying to decide between the 10-22 and the 15-85/17-55, I would recommend picking up one of the latter lenses first. The only time I go lower than 15mm on my 10-22 I would say would be for taking starscape photos where I want to capture a LOT of range in the sky. Get the 10-22 if you plan to spend the night on Machu Pichu, that would be an incredible starscape!!! But 15 or 17 would be perfect I would think for 95% of the shots you would want to take, and I kind of wish I had bought either the 15-85 or 17-55 before I bought my 10-22. I had a 28-135 at the time and thought that with those two lenses I would cover the range nicely. The area between 22 and 28mm on my 7D is probably the area I wish I had the most. I definitely like having the 10-22, but I suspect when my 17-55 arrives it will see less use.

But you have the 18-55 now, so I guess you should have an idea of what 18mm can give you. Good luck!

[thekingb]

In photography that means everyone thinks they need big lenses (your 100-400mm), but 95% of your images will (most likely) be shot at less than 100mm (on an APS-C).

That depends on what you like to shoot. 95% of my wildlife shots are at 300mm on my 7D and that's usually not long enough. Even outside the wildlife realm I spend a lot of time in the 150-300mm range.

I'd invest in a general purpose zoom before an ultra wide. I took the sigma 8-16 to Asheville, NC. While it was a fun lens to use, it's actually very challenging to use effectively. I can't overstate how distant and small objects can appear if they aren't close in range.

The 15-85 or 17-55 f/2.8 are great alternatives. I love the 24-105L on my 7D too, but the wide angle limit is probably too restrictive for a trip to Peru.

Good luck and have fun!

[neuroanatomist]

Agree with all the recommendations of 15-85mm or 17-55mm. While the 17-55mm would be my personal first choice, I think the 15-85mm is better as a travel lens.

On a 3.5-week trip to China last year, with a FF body, the 24-105mm got the most use, followed by the 70-200/2.8, then the 35/1.4. The 16-35mm was used only rarely, and the only times I really *needed* 16mm (= 10mm on APS-C) were for indoor shots.

So...I'd say get the 15-85mm!

[ahab1372]

I second the 15-85mm. IQ and AF is much better than the kit lens, and it covers a nice focal length range. It is very convenient to leave most of the gear behind sometimes and go for a walk (boat ride, bus tour, etc) with just one camera and one lens, and still be be able to cover wide to short telephoto.

You can still pack the 10-22 on top of that if you think you'll enjoy ultra-wide, but as others have said already, landscape doesn't mean automatically ultra-wide