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.
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.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
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.
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!
100% agree with Neuro on this one.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Fast Glass; 01-31-2022 at 10:11 PM.
Neuro has a very solid point about Europe and the need for wider.Originally Posted by Minerve101
14 mm
small-7740 by kayaker72, on Flickr
small-7075 by 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
small-7644 by kayaker72, on Flickr
24 mm
small-7545 by kayaker72, on Flickr
50 mm
small-7817 by 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.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 01-31-2022 at 10:40 PM.
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:
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.
IMG_1335 by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr
IMG_1326 by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr
IMG_1322 by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote