I'm planning a trip to Europe and I'm trying to decide what would be the best type of lense to purchase for when I go. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and i have two zoom lenses but I was looking for a lense that would require less changing so that I don't have to worry about that when touring around in cathedrals and stuff.
Does anybody have any suggestions on a lense that's still good for normal photography, like the standard 18-55 lens but has a large zoom on it? Or any suggestions on what you would suggest traveling with?
I like to carry two:
the canon 50mm it's dirt cheap, good in low-light and forces you to get much closer to your subject ...it's so much more intimate. I might actually pick up a spare before I leave for australia. Since it's so cheap you don't feel like you've lost a child if you break it.
and the canon 28-135mm is a decent one.. it's got decent range without being too big or expensive.
I might pick up a 70-200mm F4 L-lens but idunno I like to travel lite
On a camera with a smaller-then-35mm-film sensor, I suggest that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens would be a better choice than the 50mm lens previously recommended. The wide aperture will allow you to use your camera to get some good night cityscapes.
For an additional lens (or perhaps your only lens) you might consider a zoom with 18-200mm focal length capabilities. These lenses can't yield "top quality", however, they are extremely flexible - although not well suited to low light. The main advantage of such a lens is it is relatively compact and light weight.
Just my thougts.
don't forget the conversion ratio on your rebel is 1.6x.
thus making a 28mm lens 45mm and a 50mm=80mm,not very wide.
this is due to the cmos sensor not being full frame like film cameras and the 5d and 1d.
the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM would be a good lens for you as it converts to 28mm-135mm
still relatively wide and with a good zoom for cathedral shots also has image stabiliser for low light shots.
alternatively if you want to spend more then go for the L series lens for far superior and sharper shots.
good luck and enjoy europe
When I travelled on my RTW trip I carried by Sigma 18-200mm with me with my Canon 50mm as a backup. However, the image quality is not very very good, but it was very easy and convenient as it covers a large range.
i have a nikon d80 with 18-135mm lens. works pretty good, i don't have to worry about changing lenses all the time. easier to carry, too.
i just did 7 months with my SLR and i only took 1 lens due to wieght and changing them! i would recomend to sigma 18-200 fitted to my Canon 400d (rebel XTI) its not the best lens on the planet but i got some great sharp pics and value for money and pure range and the luxury of zooming from 18-200 its great.
I have a Pentax K100D I am India at present, I have a DA50-200mm and a DA16-45mm ... the cheaper of the two, the 50-200mm, is my walk around lens, though I do recommend a prime as suggested above, but I needed a zoom for India and thus chose the 50-200mm when it came down to purchasing for the trip. It does have it's limitations, not being able to close focus for one, and being relatively poor in low light, but my 16-45mm makes up for the short comings.
I have a similar question: I have a Nikon D70s with the kit lens 18-70mm. I like it but afraid it may be to limiting.
This may sound crazy, but i'm deciding between buying a 18-200mm, or a 12-24mm. I'll only be traveling with 1 of these (i do'nt like changing lenses).
My 18-70mm is great, very sharp. I hear bad reviews on the 18-200mm, but i like the idea of 'all-rounder'. And I love wide angle photos - even for portraits!
Am I right to even consider these lenses?
I used to have a D70 - now have a D200 - and resisted buying the 18-200 VR until I also had enough money to buy the 12-24. I love the versatility of the 18-200, and it's the default lens on my camera when travelling - but yeah, it's decidedly weak on the wide end (I did some tests comparing it to the 18-70, and that one was superior all the way; sharper, and much less prone to suffering from chromatic abberration), and since I shoot a lot of landscapes, I just knew I needed something to make up for that weakness of the 18-200.
I really don't like changing lenses, or having to carry a second heavy lens - but I do think that 12-24 + 18-200 combo is the best possible lens-setup you can currently get, and I know I couldn't make do with just a single one. Due to the overlap between the two lenses, you'd switch lenses a lot less often than you might otherwise (I used to have 18-70 + 70-300, and that was completely painful), and can usually remain shooting with just one until you reach a good resting point to switch the lenses undisturbed.
Still, if you're adamant that you want to only ever use a single lens, I'd recommend sticking with the 18-70 if you often shoot wide, and otherwise getting the 18-200.