What two lenses would you Pick to travel with and why?

[Chuckanut]

As I get smarter - and older - I no longer want to carry a lot of gear with me when I travel. So, my next trip will be one body and two lenses. I have some idea what they may be, but I would like to hear from others as well.

 

[Walt34]

For travel I'd get a 18-300 mm or thereabouts zoom. Since I have a Nikon camera I'd look at theirs first but Tamron and someone else I forget the name of make them too and all have had good reviews. For the second lens depending on the type of area I was going to I'd bring either a macro or longer telephoto. But I'd probably lean toward the macro.

 

[CRLLS]

Back in the day, when I took 35mm film shots, I would have chosen my trusty 55mm F1.4 lens and a 35-135 zoom. I might have cheated your choice and added a 2x converter which doesn't take up much more room.

I don't have my SLR anymore. I wonder if low F stop lenses for low light shots are as important anymore as digital post-editing can be do so much.

 

[neihn]

I would have chosen my trusty 55mm F1.4 lens and a 35-135 zoom.

+1

 

[Walt34]

I wonder if low F stop lenses for low light shots are as important anymore as digital post-editing can be do so much.

It still matters a lot. The effects are much the same too - digital "noise" instead of grain in the image. In Lightroom and Photoshop you can clear up a lot but it comes at the cost of sharpness.

 

[sterlingmossy]

As I get smarter - and older - I no longer want to carry a lot of gear with me when I travel. So, my next trip will be one body and two lenses. I have some idea what they may be, but I would like to hear from others as well.

My favorite lens is my 50mm f1.2. Easy to carry, great pictures. makes you work for the shot.

The other lens I will pack if I am feeling strong is my 70-400mm f4. Just an increadible range of options but bloody heavy to lug around.

 

[Midpack]

Since I only had an 18-105mm and a 70-300mm, that’s what I always took.

 

[braumeister]

I don't bring the big camera much any more, but when I do my normal lens is an 18-200 zoom. That takes care of all my needs, but I'm not a serious photographer.

 

[OldShooter]

We travel a lot. In fact, we just got back from Myanmar and Vietnam last night. I have also had many cameras over the years, from Hassleblads to various Nikon film cameras.

My current "best practice" is three lenses in Micro Four Thirds (Panasonic GX8): Olympus 9-18mm, Panasonic 14-140, and Panasonic 100-300 (only if birds or wildlife are involved).

I always carry two identical bodies for redundancy in case of breakage or theft. I generally shoot only one except on wildlife safaris where there is no time to change lenses. Then it's the 14-140 on one body and the 100-300 on the other.

I have experimented with the Oly 7-14; it is too big and heavy and does not have a flexible enough zoom range. I have also tried the Panny 100-400. It is a fantastic lens for wildlife but also big and heavy, so a specialized tool. I bought one for a trip to Kenya and Tanzania a couple of years ago and sold it afterwards. I will do the same thing again if we take a similar trip.

HTH.

 

[frayne]

Two Canon lenses would be 24-70 and 70-200.

 

[Texas Proud]

Going on a bit of memory since DW took them with her...

She made me buy an 18 to 55 (could be to a bit higher) so she could get wider outdoor shots... she always complained that the all in one was not good enough.. when collapsed not much bigger than a standard 50....

The other is the all in one 28 to 300... nice compact when collapsed and not a heavy monster....

Before it got stolen, I had a 70 to 400 (IIRC) but that was HEAVY.... but it took great pics... I would never use one unless someone paid me to take pics....


Not sure as I did not see one when I was looking, but they did have a 28 to 400 that was not fast, but a bit heavier than the to 300.... I think it did cost a bit more also which is why I chose the 300...

 

[6miths]

For the DSLR I have an 18-270 F3.5-6.3 Tamron that is all I use now. Also have a fish-eye lens and an full frame Minolta APO 300mm F2.8 but I don't lug them around much anymore. Often I don't even take the DSLR.

 

[Ronstar]

When I travel light, I bring my 24-70 and 70-300.

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

I've been getting by with a short wide angle zoom and a fast prime lens which I use for low lighting.
I've stopped taking a long zoom lens with me. Too heavy and I wasn't taking a lot of heavily zoomed shots, other than one trip with a lot of wildlife shots.

 

[ggbutcher]

I don't like to have to change lenses in the thick of things, so I use wide-to-tele zooms. Started in 2006 with a Nikon D50 and the Nikkor 18-200mm zoom, which is a great combination of camera and lens. Later, I upgraded to a Nikon D7000, and the 18-200 started to show it's posterior on the more resolute sensor, so I got a Nikkor 18-140mm for the D7000 and put the 18-200 back on the D50.

I found going over my travel photos, that I split my shots between wide and tele. For wide, I usually rack it all the way back, most are at 18mm; for tele, the majority are racked all the way out but a significant number are between 80 and the max focal length, probably reflecting my usually poor attempts to properly frame a composition. It was almost never about 'reach', I find I don't miss the extra 60mm of the 18-200, until I go to shoot something like a bird.

I hear a lot of good about the Nikkor 18-300mm, and the Tamron equivalent. Thing is, with any of these superzooms, your're going to probably be less enamored with any depending on your camera's resolution. When I put the 18-200 back on the 6MP D50, it looked great again in my small web and photo-album JPEGs. The 18-140 on the 16MP D7000 does the same. I hear (roughly) that the 18-140 looks okay up to 24MP. If you have the opportunity somewhere, you might want to take your camera and shoot a few images with the available lenses, take 'em home and see how it plays.

Regarding weight, I find that less challenging than the size of things, competing for space in my backpack with computer, water, wife's things . Well, starting to notice weight at age 60, ask me again in 5 years...

FWIW

 

[braumeister]

I should add that my 18-200 (on a Nikon D90) was perfect on last year's Galapagos trip. Constantly changing the zoom and used the entire range for the various critters. It was exactly what I needed and I would have missed a lot of great shots if I had to switch lenses or cameras. That lens cost nearly as much as the camera IIRC, but well worth it.

 

[gerntz]

I take clear & tinted for sun.

 

[HFWR]

I have a 18-55mm (that came with the camera) and a cheapy 75-300mm. The 300mm is too much for most “city” use, but the 55mm is not quite enough. So maybe a 18-200 or so would be versatile enough to eliminate carrying two.

 

[NavAir]

I loved my Canon 35-105mm zoom. Small and light enough to travel, versatile enough for >90% of the shots I wanted to take. Occasionally I would also pack the 24mm wide angle, which was very light.

I haven't shot film in over 15 years, though, and all of my expensive gear, including Nikonos underwater gear, is in the closet waiting for someone to develop a cheap digital back for all of our legacy cameras.

 

[Ed B]

Its hard to beat the Nikkor 18-200 lens for multi-purpose travel photography. One of my most popular images was taken with this lens on a D90 several years ago. I gave the D90 with the 18-200 to DW when I graduated to the D700 and started collecting faster glass for sports photography and wildlife, but I passed that 18-200 to her because of how good it is for generalist photography.

If you already have them or are thinking about renting lenses you won't regret the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S II and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S II.... for Nikon bodies of course. They are both fabulous lenses. Canon has their equivalent set which are also excellent and the 3rd part lens makers Tamron and Sigma make nice versions for both Nikon and Canon bodies.

edit: Here are two images taken with the 18-200 from both ends of the focal length. The metadata will tell for sure but I may not have been all the way down to 18 when I took the wider image.

 

[Lsbcal]

My Google Nexus 6p phone takes great pictures. Fits in left pocket. Saves to cloud. No lenses.

 

[HI Bill]

Nikon or Canon? For Canon, I'd choose the 24-105 (not the sharpest lens ever, not the heaviest or largest, and the most versatile, IMHO) and the Canon EF 70-300mm, if you want to shoot anything far away. I like the 70-300 for airshows, and close-up nature photography. I'm a bit of a lens snob and also really like the Canon EF 16-35 mk III for landscapes. Of course, it depends on what you like to shoot. For birds, whales, and distant wildlife, my wife likes the really large Tamron 150-600...so many choices!

 

[audreyh1]

I just carry one lens, a wide angle zoom. I find I can’t be bothered to change lenses while i travel. The longer zoom almost never got used a small switching was a pain.

I’m usually inside a building or trying to grab architectural stuff from not that away so I’m using usually going wide, 24mm or less. And I need a reasonably fast lens for low light, even if I’m shooting high ISO. My camera has great low noise characteristics, but inside museums there are always low light issues.

I have a Canon full frame camera body and I think it’s the 17-40mm f/4 zoom I use almost exclusively.

I have the wider faster one but it’s quite a bit heavier and larger. So I only use several it for night sky photography on tripod and nor when flying overseas.

 

[walkinwood]

I use a sony mirrorless and love the 16-50 lens. So that always comes with me. It is a f/4-5.6, so for indoors, I take a 20mm f/2.8 pancake. The combo is light and small. The camera/lens combo can fit in a coat/jacket pocket. That would be it, if I were limited to 2 lenses.

If I know I'm going to go to tight spaces like churches or medieval streets, I'll take a 10-18mm f/4. Also a small, light lens. If I were limited to 2 lenses, I'd leave the 20mm behind.

If I know I'm going to want to photographs wildlife, I'd lug the 70-300mm. I'd need a really good reason to do that.

 

[Chuckanut]

Thanks for the contributions.

I currently own an Olympus micro 4/3 body and have been considering limiting myself to bringing just two of the my lenses with me. Even these smaller lenses get heavy and bulky on a long trip when you have to carry them everywhere. (There are huge advantages to doing car trips since there is plenty of room for the extra lens, flash, etc.).

I currently have the 12-40mm f/2.8, 45mm f/1.8, and the 75mm f/1.8 and the 40-150 f/4-5.6 lens (which I only use out to 100mm as image quality falls off after that point) . Note: double the mm numbers to get full frame equivalent.

You will notice three of these four lenses are all fast or at least 'faster' lenses. I seem to be more towards speed and less towards reach these days. Though the 75mm gives me lots of speed and some good reach also. But, it weighs in at 11 ounces.