Apparently, recruitment for travel abroad this summer is going swimmingly. This means that I’ll probably be teaching in London beginning in June. Wow. That seriously rocks. We only have about fifteen slots available, so if you want to go, you need to commit soon. This news also means that I need to get busy planning.
Part of that planning entails camera gear. This is a once-in-a-lifetime trip: I’ll be in England for five weeks, living near the British Museum and having the opportunity to travel every weekend. The last time I was in London, I had an old Sony digital camera — one that saved images to floppy disks, if you can imagine. The photos were terrible, and I promised myself that if I ever went back, I’d have a good camera. I would have been better off with a disposable. Well, now I have a pretty damn good kit, but I’d like to add to it before I go.
While it would be perfect to be able to get a whole new kit, complete with the 5D Mark II and a couple of L lenses, the likelihood of that happening is about as small as the US economy getting back on it feet in 2009. I need to be happy with the 30D (a perfectly good camera) and a new lens — perhaps my first in the L series. I could seriously consider the over $4K it would take to by a new kit if I had regular photography gigs, but that hasn’t materialized. Just a couple of weddings would do it. I know I have a wedding coming up in October, but shooting that will be an expense, since it’s for friends in Las Vegas. Anyway, I might have the budget for a new lens. Now, what should it be?
I originally thought a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM would be the best choice. The fast 2.8 is attractive, as is the pretty good reach of this zoom. With the 30D 1.6 crop, I’d get 320mm with this lens. The reviews of this lens are excellent, but it has three issues that would preclude me from taking it to England: the price, the weight, and the size. The non-IS version has these same drawbacks, though it is five bills cheaper at about $1.2K. I wonder if I need the f/2.8? The reviews of the entry-level Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM are also very favorable. More than likely, the choice out of this family of lenses will be between the f/4 flavors. Then, the decision centers around to-IS or not-to-IS. But, I have to say: $600 is a lot more attractive than $1600, or even $1200.
I have always been in love with the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens. It takes stunning photos: the bokeh and focus have no match, in my opinion. Just spend a bit of time perusing the Flickr group — and the user reviews are just as stellar. The 35mm L is a compact and fast lens, perfect for carrying around all day in London. It’s wide enough to get some great landscapes and fast enough to give me that clarity and rich detail for close-ups in St. Pauls. And, this lens would also be great for weddings and portraits when I get back from England. However, it does not have that telephoto reach that I’ll likely want in the city and even in the museums.
Giles recently purchased a Nikon 100-300mm that he really likes. Canon has a similar lens: the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. Yes, it has reach, but not too much else. There’s a 70-300mm flavor, but that’s approaching the price of the entry-level 70-200mm L above. I just don’t think these are an option, especially after seeing some sample images.
There’s also the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM. This, coupled with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM would allow me to leave my 50mm and 85mm at home. These two lenses together would run about the same price as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Now, I’m starting to get pricey, but having two complimentary L lenses might be worth it.
Opinions? What am I forgetting? What is your experience? Any suggestions or comments would be much appreciated.
Man, I could write pages in reply to this.
The short version: 24-70 at least. Upper end open for discussion, but IS is a must.
Oh, and mine is Nikon’s 70-300 VR, not a 100-300 as listed.
More later.
Yeah, I knew it was 100-300 or 70-300. Sorry about that. You’d really choose the 24-70 as a must over the 70-200?
I hear you about the IS, too, but the f/4 flavor is less than 2 lbs. I guess I need to try it.
Thanks, man.
I think it is different is hot climates BC I only travel camera now to HAWAII is my canon sd 1100 and that’s perfect. I have actually sold larger than 20 inch prints with a 5 mb Nikon. I know you did not want to hear this though.
Autumn just got an SD 770, and it takes nice pictures. However, i really want my pro camera in London, especially since I’ll likely not be back there again for a while.
I might be able to get away with just taking the Rebel, though.
Hey Jerry,
I faced the same decision last year with the Nikon 80mm – 200mm 2.8. I chose to go sans IS (it was about an $600 option, so my choice was a bit easier), but I haven’t looked back. Oddly enough I find that I don’t shoot that much with that lens not because the lack of stabilization, but the low-end focal length (80mm) is still too tight for me to consider it a “regular shooter”.
I’m not sure if Canon offers anything comparable to the Nikon 18mm-200mm 3.5 (VR), but I’m finding it the only lens I need.
Best,
Mark
Hey, Mark. Thanks for responding. Canon does have a couple of inexpensive lenses in that wider category, but neither seem very good. I see what you mean about the range: in fact, several reviews said that it’s not wide enough nor long enough. Hm.
I say put the money you’d spend on a new lens toward your Paris excursion, our Italy dreams, etc. You take amazing photos with the equipment you have, and this is just not the year to drop any Ks. Sorry, baby love.
But, it’s not over yet…we have some time to think about it
xoxo
Yer no fun.
I have nothing to gain with your lovely bride by saying this, but I think I agree with her. Lately I’ve finally realized it’s probably more about experiences than it is about stuff. Although stuff is cool.
That said, I have a strong bias towards the the EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM. I definitely understand the merits of a far-ranging zoom, but you know me: (1) I prefer to move my body to change the photo (yes, not always practical), and (2) I have always regretted when I have carried my zoom as my only lens. I usually convince myself it makes the most sense because of the flexibility, yet I’m rarely happy with the results and end up wishing I had my 50/1.4 instead. I’d love to see what you’d do with the 35/1.4 on your camera all day.
But what do I know? Most of my best photos have been made with a crappy $16 Holga and my 20 year old N90s 35mm body.
Regardless of your final decision, don’t look back, man.
Thanks. I actually want the 35mm. I had decided to do just that last night, but woke up indecisive. $1100 is an awful lot to pay for a piece of glass…
Thanks for your input, man.
Indeed. That is a load to pay for a lens. I suppose you can look at it two ways. Pay a lot for a centerpiece lens like that, one that really goes beyond this trip (future trips, future paying gigs, etc.) and will also still be a centerpiece if you eventually upgrade bodies. Or, pay half as much for a still-decent non-IS, f/4 zoom that will give you some flexibility when kicking around the UK, but might not be the first lens you grab in most other situations.
I’d go all or nothing, honestly. $1,100 for the 35/1.4, or make some damn good photos with what you have and save that cash.
Or, imagine what you could do with a nice HD video camera…
Oh, and I’ll definitely be taking the Holga with me. Maybe I should invest in a used 35mm Canon body that would work with my lenses? Hm…
Well, I’d be all over that used film body, but it’s a pain to carry around two bodies, a few lenses, and all the other equipment.
But yes, definitely the Holga. Holga does London.
Hi Gerry, congrats on the 5D! For my 2 cents, I’d say get the 24-70 or 24-105. During travel…it’s so rare for me to pull out my 70-200 and I kick myself for having lugged it along. If you’re going for a long term stay, then by any means, bring a zoom along. However, my most used lens by far is the 24-70. I find 24 to be wide enough for most cases and it’s rare for me to pull out the 17-40 when I do wide shots. That along with the 85mm would be a great everyday combo.
Thanks, Bernard. I appreciate your insights. I was considering the Canon’s 16-35 for my main lens, though I know a 24-70 would not only be potentially more useful, but also a bit less expensive.