What is a good travel lens?

[miniUltraman]

Convenient as they may be, you are never going to get excitingly sharp, contrasty photos from a superzoom, any superzoom. I don't think there is any superzoom that can defy this, (and I know some Nikonians who swear that the 18-200 is a godsent, best-ever-walkabout-ever-made lens. Oh c'mon, it's just convenient.)

:bsmilie: sorry I chuckles cos that is exactly all my Nikon friends said.. 18-200 is a godsent and is sharp.. I'd felt the lens wow.. it is really good travel lens.. lighter and smaller than my 70-200f4L. I think the image quality is reasonable (don't think it is super sharp.. at least compared to my 70-200f4L).. consider such a superzoom (with VR) and for about $1.2k, it is a great buy and good to have :lovegrin:

 

[calebk]

:bsmilie: sorry I chuckles cos that is exactly all my Nikon friends said.. 18-200 is a godsent and is sharp.. I'd felt the lens wow.. it is really good travel lens.. lighter and smaller than my 70-200f4L. I think the image quality is reasonable (don't think it is super sharp.. at least compared to my 70-200f4L).. consider such a superzoom (with VR) and for about $1.2k, it is a great buy and good to have :lovegrin:

Good to have, but not absolutely god-sent unless I really dont want to change lenses at all. Plus, it's 3x the price of a 3rd party superzoom, and the premium is for ED glass and VR.

 

[xunjas]

Good to have, but not absolutely god-sent unless I really dont want to change lenses at all. Plus, it's 3x the price of a 3rd party superzoom, and the premium is for ED glass and VR.

does canon has any lens that is comparable to that nikon 18-200?

 

[miniUltraman]

does canon has any lens that is comparable to that nikon 18-200?

Not that I know of... Canon largest zoom
a) 28-200 f3.5/5.6
b) 28-300 f3.5/5.6 L IS

 

[xunjas]

Not that I know of... Canon largest zoom
a) 28-200 f3.5/5.6
b) 28-300 f3.5/5.6 L IS

i vote for B.. the price is power too. hehe..

 

[miniUltraman]

i vote for B.. the price is power too. hehe..

not too good a travel lens. 28mm is not enough for general landscape during travel. I prefer a wider lens than zoom if I can only bring 1

 

[Adelfin]

i vote for B.. the price is power too. hehe..

Are u seriously sure u wanna carry that as a travel lens??? :bigeyes:
it's heavier than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.....

 

[ExplorerZ]

Good to have, but not absolutely god-sent unless I really dont want to change lenses at all. Plus, it's 3x the price of a 3rd party superzoom, and the premium is for ED glass and VR.

not exactly 3x ba... probably just 2x (1200+ and 500+)... but you get SWM, VR and ED...:bsmilie:

 

[syl]

I have the Canon 28 - 200mm f3.5-5.6 but for travel I use the 17 -35mm f2.8L and the 35 - 350 mm f3.5 - 5.6 L (Heavy...). On a full frame they are ok. All I need.

BTW what body do you have - the crop size will determine what you need.

 

[hpi3evo]

I just sold my Sigma 18-125mm lens and am planning to get a better replacement. Preferably one that covers equally wide range as I'm not the type who will travel with more than one lens. Any recommendation? Thanks in advance.

Canon EFS 10-22 & EF85 (1.8) , u will cover both nice scenery & nice potrait if u dun mind to change len.:thumbsup:

 

[Hoky]

not too good a travel lens. 28mm is not enough for general landscape during travel. I prefer a wider lens than zoom if I can only bring 1

Go for the Bigma 50-500 lar... need wide, juz walk 20 steps back and take your shots.
Like perspective, take a few shots then stitch up and PP..

 

[Snoweagle]

Go for the Bigma 50-500 lar... need wide, juz walk 20 steps back and take your shots.
Like perspective, take a few shots then stitch up and PP..

Dun forget that this lens is quite heavy.

 

[antitrust]

renting's not a bad option to consider..

i would think a 19-35mm, and a 28-105mm would be enough if you're on FF or film.

Forget about the primes. too ley chey.

 

[calebk]

renting's not a bad option to consider..

i would think a 19-35mm, and a 28-105mm would be enough if you're on FF or film.

Forget about the primes. too ley chey.

True. Only primes I would consider are either 35/2 or 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, if they were in my inventory (which they are not).

 

[xunjas]

Are u seriously sure u wanna carry that as a travel lens??? :bigeyes:
it's heavier than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.....

weight is secondary for me bah.. hehe.. more impt is serve the purpose well.. hee

 

[xunjas]

renting's not a bad option to consider..

i would think a 19-35mm, and a 28-105mm would be enough if you're on FF or film.

Forget about the primes. too ley chey.

yup.. renting is a feasible option..

 

[xunjas]

Dun forget that this lens is quite heavy.

upz this lens for arnold.. hehe..

 

[Snoweagle]

If one doesn't mind the weight and size of the Sigma 50-500, then it is a gd option, but more practical for FF.

 

[calebk]

weight is secondary for me bah.. hehe.. more impt is serve the purpose well.. hee

Wait til you bring it on a 10-day trip. Your opinion of weight versus performance on a trip will change drastically.

 

[xunjas]

Wait til you bring it on a 10-day trip. Your opinion of weight versus performance on a trip will change drastically.

still alrite to me.. no problem on the weight..