Choosing Lenses for Travel Photography

By Dwight Arthur, 2011/01/28

Q: What lens or lenses would be best for vacation travel?

A: It seems like we are always in some kind of dilemma as photographers: wanting the best quality results while trying to prevent undo strain on our bodies or our pocketbooks! I'll try to offer several options that lean one way or another in that vicious triangle so you can pick your own poison.

First off, I am replying based on the knowledge that you have a 1.6X crop sensor Canon camera. It really makes a difference what size of sensor your camera has when choosing lenses since it affects the angle of coverage significantly. I also know that you long ago said goodbye to the 18-55 or 17-85 kit lenses and are looking for a solution that doesn't try to supplement that lens with additional ones. Finally, I know that you are serious enough about getting great results that you are willing to spend some money to arrive at the best solution and won't balk at the idea of more than one lens in your kit. Based on this I offer the following response:

My experience is that it's necessary to think both wide and telephoto at all times for travel photography. Versatility is key. When I'm exploring unfamiliar territory with eyes alert to explore whatever potential subjects come my way, I want to be able to respond with little effort at a moment's notice, which means a minimum of changing of lenses.

"I'm not at all a fan of super-zooms. While they are undeniably convenient, that's as far as you get on the list of pros--it's all cons after that."

This calls for either a super-wide-range zoom; or two lenses (maybe three or for) that are quickly accessible. When exploring a city I tend to see opportunities for wide shots most, while in the country it's the long lens that gets used the most, but both are needed at all times. I'll say right now that I'm not at all a fan of super-zooms. While they are undeniably convenient, that's as far as you get on the list of pros--it's all cons after that. There is no way that you can have extreme zoom range and extremely good image quality in one lens. They reside at odds with each other and I don't see that changing significantly any time soon. Engineers must compromise on almost every other aspect of quality to achieve that one goal. Granted they are far better than they were twenty years ago, but compared to moderate zooms of comparable price you'll find that these 'super' lenses are noticeably less sharp; vignette significantly more; exhibit greater distortion of straight lines: barrel at wide angle and pin cushion at the long end; flare dramatically when shooting towards bright lights; and suffer from additional chromatic aberrations. It's simply the laws of physics that dictate that you can't have it all, and what you have to give up for super-zoom range is a whole lot more than any discriminating photographer is going to accept. They might be fine for filling albums with 4x6 inch snapshots but not for the images I want/need to create!

It's two or more lenses if you insist on great image quality.

If you are wanting good range and truly great image quality you really must think on the lines of at least two, if not three or four lenses. My preference, were I using a 1.6X cropping sensor camera would be found in the following kits:

1) For the city I'd have the camera fitted with a Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, and I'd have the 70-200 f/4.0 IS lens at the ready in a top-load bag. I gave the new 18-85 lens a pretty good workout recently and was very impressed with the quality of this lens. It goes wide enough to and long enough to cover a large part of the opportunities you'll discover without a lens switch. In a pinch it is a great single lens option for when you want to travel extremely light, and when coupled with the 70-200, this dynamic duo should cover about 90% of what a photographer would want to shoot on a typical travel excursion. If you are wondering why I'd give the nod to the 70-200 f/4.0 over the f/2.8 version, it's all about the weight. The f/4.0 lens weighs in at half that of the f/2.8. Enough said. You can read my blog post comparing these two fine lenses for more thoughts on this.

2) For the second option, one would want to consider options that further extend your reach at both ends of the focal length range, about as far as is practical. By practical I mean manageable in weight and bulk, plus taking into consideration the difficulties encountered when trying to create decent images with ultra-wides and super-telephotos--they are both hard to use well. In order to expand the range of coverage I'd add two lenses: the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the super-wide side (a look that I love to shoot but realistically only occasionally find suitable subject matter for), plus the Canon Extender EF 1.4X III to add reach to the long end to about as far as is feasible without carting along a bulky tripod. Combined with the 70-200 lens it is by far the best way to get great optical quality in a long telephoto lens, with minimum weight and size, plus a reasonable cost. It's a great way to travel!

Full-Size Sensor Solutions

For those with a full-size sensor camera like a 5D or 1Ds, my recommendations of course differ. That's the kind of camera I use for my assignments, and therefore I find that my favorite travel kit is very different: the 24-70 f/2.8L combined with either the 70-200 f/2.8L or the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L. If I want to go wider I'm using a Sigma 12-24 (which definitely takes a full-size sensor camera into the ultra-wide range), or my 17mm TS lens, which when used to create composites covers a scope impossible to match with any other lens. Both of these lenses are big and heavy so it's always a struggle to decide whether to take them or not. In fact, none of these lenses are light so I'm weighted down pretty good when I travel, but I generally accept the pain for the significant gain of quality that comes from using these fine lenses. You really can't have it all!

My Weight-Saving Temptation

That being said, I do now own a Canon 60D, which, after quite a bit of testing, has gained my confidence as a 'serious' camera. Its excellent performance, combined with it's lighter weight (compared to my ridiculously heavy 1Ds MkIII the 60D is about 1/3 lighter), has me thinking about using it more often when I anticipate being on foot for long. If I were to make a switch I'd be looking at that Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens as the all-purpose core of my travel kit, supplementing it with my Sigma 12-24 for even wider coverage, and with the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L for longer reach. Still not a light-weight kit but certainly a very capable one, and a solution requiring the purchase of only one more lens to add to my dozen or so I already own. No, the all-in-one solution, as attractive as it might be, is no where near arriving on my doorstep it seems. I guess that in the end there are no simple solutions for the serious shooter!

Conversations

Paul Howard

Thanks Dwight! That's pretty close to what I thought you would say, although I didn't consider the 15-85mm. I think that might be a great option. I have the 10-22mm, the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/2.8L, which I know would cover things, but makes for a not too light bag. Swapping the 24-70mm for the 15-85mm would certainly give greater range, and saves another pound (almost) in the camera bag. Now, if I could afford that and the 70-200mm f/4.0L for the weight savings on that one..... Yikes.

Dwight Arthur

Hey, Paul. You didn't mention price as an issue when posing the question! Weight, ease of use, image quality, low price: pick two, or maybe three, you can't have all four!

Brian Olstad

I remember taking photos in Siem Reap in Cambodia with one camera, one lens and a tripod. I searched and searched for one specific spot - and i was standing beside a guy who had carted a massive 4x5 kit through the jungle. Now... who got the better shot? I would suspect he did. The 11 x 17 print of my shot hangs in my office and I am plenty happy with it though. Traveling is an exercise in planning - so much space, so much weight, so many activities to do. Is it an adventure vacation? or a photographic vacation? Setting a priority first is key.

Brian Olstad

It's funny - this post relates almost directly to the previous post about the Canon 70-200L 2.8 or 4.0. Comparing the technical review to this "boots on the ground" review is interesting. My bag is heavy as it is, and I don't have the luxury of having a nice case rolling on wheels, with porters and servants mopping the sweat from my brow like some of the pros out there. Maybe light is the way to go. PLUS I sell 0% of my photography, so perhaps as long as no one criticizes the softness in eh corners on my grab shots, I'll be ok.

Dwight Arthur

Let's face it. Everyone has their own purposes for photographing, with varying expectations and need for best possible results; each of us have our own limits for how much physical effort we will expend in achieving excellence in the craft; we all have our own financial constraints; etc. While some people get totally caught up in just finding the best specs for lenses there are lot of other factors to weigh in to choices of gear that are equally or even more vital than flat out bench-test performance.

Archie Richardson

Its difficult to settle on just one lens for travel. As you become more serious about your photography and the quality of your images, you soon realize the limitations and compromises from using just one lens for every situation. I shoot 4/3rd's format which means I have a 2x crop factor, but I still always carry my 12-60mm and my 50-200mm and more often than not, my 7-14mm. Packing three lenses does add bulk and weight, but I'm not nearly frustrated or disappointed anymore with the results of my images, at least from the quality of my glass. I find that I actually have much more versatility and satisfaction by carrying more glass. To me, having to carry more is worth the effort.

Dwight Arthur

Archie wrote: "Packing three lenses does add bulk and weight, but I'm not nearly as frustrated or disappointed anymore with the results of my images." That's my sentiments exactly, but there a lot of people who WILL sacrifice quality for ease. It often boils down to degree of passion...nothing seems too onerous when engaged in something you have a real love for!

Paul Howard

Wow, I should have changed the question to, "If you could only take ONE lens on vacation....". I love the idea of an 18-200, because I'm lazy. But I know what I might get taking the 10-22 & 24-70 & 70-200. The seed that planted my question is a trip planned to Cuba at the end of this month. I think I've opted to take the three lens option, despite the weight. I'd have no problem going to get the 70-200 f/4 instead of f/2.8 BUT for essentially a one pound difference, I don't see the value. Not when I could put that toward a different lens entirely. All comes down to the fact that there just is no easy answer and we can't have it all! Besides, maybe the extra weight in the bag will make me burn more calories and I'll lose the weight around my waist and it'll all come out even!! :-D

brian olstad

If I could choose one lens... I'd pick my 24-105L. The workhorse that does family snaps well. I'm wanting to learn about extender rings more now. I think a workhorse lens and an extender could add some serious diversity.

Colin Orthner

Just to throw another idea out there. I have been using a fisheye lens a bit for the odd time i need something wider than my 21mm. I am shooting a full frame camera, which means for a crop sensor Canon, the 21mm equals about a 13mm. I then will use software to de-fisheye the image with some pretty decent results. Fisheyes are really quite small to pack around and don't weigh much, but they pack quite a punch as a superwide that is easy to add to your kit. Fisheyes are available for just about any camera. I recall Tamron having a great one lens kit in their top-of the-line 24-135mm SP lens. That or something close to it would be what I would want to carry around. That's pretty much the Canon 15-85mm lens for a cropped sensor Canon. I completely agree with Dwight that the super-zooms are a lot of hype. Super convenient but not of great quality, decent yes, but not great. Depending a bit on where I was heading, I may be tempted with Canon's new 70-300mm L-Series which is getting great reviews for a long lens if you are willing to pack some extra glass. one lens = 15-85mm two lenses = add a 70-300mmL (possibly the lighter and smaller 70-200mmL f/4) three lenses = add a fisheye 70-300mm L Canon website - http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6l_is_usm 70-300mm L review - http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

Dany

Hi I own a Canon Rebel. I want to buy good lenses then after use those lenses with a full frame. I'm mostly a landscape photographer. What do you suggest?

Paul Howard

Now that I'm back from vacation and had time to reflect, I've determined that, like most of the comments above alluded to, it all depends on what your goal is. For me, the main goal was to have my first ever vacation. My second, bonus goal, was to take what I hope would be some great pictures. I think I got some. But. Hauling around two camera bodies and four lenses proved to be a distraction to the vacation. I found it difficult to concentrate on the aspects of a photo, keep all my gear in tow, and enjoy my family and new environment all at once. If, on the other hand, I went to a new location expressly for the purpose of taking photos, I think my outlook would be different and, in fact, there's a little more equipment I might have taken. So for me, it still comes down to the "why factor" for travel. If it's a vacation and the purpose is to enjoy it and relax, I think I'm going to end up taking a multi-purpose lens or even a compact and be as creative as I can with that. If I'm going to take photos first, I'm getting a bigger truck! ;-)

Dwight Arthur

Re: Paul's observations on his return from his vacation. A family vacation should be just that: a time to spend with family rather than absorbed in creating photographs. It may surprise you, but when I go on a family holiday I just bring a point-and-shoot, or did until I dropped my G9 and totalled it. Now I will take my 60D with just the 15-85 IS lens. That range does most of what I want and it seems so ridiculously compact compared to my usual camera and gear when I'm really looking to create great photos. I will likely have a 100-400 with me too but it for the most part will stay in the car to be pulled out for road-side opportunities that come along. When it comes to holiday photographs, I find that I'm not really in the zone that I need to be to observe and create anyway, even if I have all my gear with me. I might get the odd shot that catches my ever active eye, but I'm sure that if I covered the same ground just focusing on creating--rather than holidaying--that I'd see and take the time to capture many more satisfying images. It takes a lot of concentration and time to find and create if you are seeking to achieve high quality 'art' images, and that once again is not what a family vacation is, or should be, all about. If I discover something worth photographing I'll need to spend some time to do it justice and that will almost always put me at odds with those who are with me and it just isn't worth making them endure the wait, so I don't even try! Instead, I'll get up insanely early and go shoot solo while they are still asleep. Then I'll get back to enjoy their company and maybe get back to shooting later on when they're settled in for the evening. It's a great solution that keeps my family happy and gets me out undistracted and unpressured when the light is at its very best anyway. It truly is all about priorities and I so I do my best to try to set aside specific time for both family and photography. This isn't alway convenient but I love both enough to make it happen. It means I'm tired a lot but it's a price I'm willing to pay :-)

Dwight Arthur

Re: Dany's question about lenses for landscapes that work with a crop sensor camera but will also work on a full-frame sensor camera when it's time to upgrade. Unfortunately, there are no perfect choices that will seamlessly move you from best choices for crop sensor but still be ideal for full-frame sensor cameras when you make a switch. It's well worth looking to the future when building up a kit of lenses, as you are doing. if you have the budget to buy quality lenses right off the bat it will be the lowest cost route in the end if you want to end up with the best tools as your end goal. For landscape work with the above being factored in I'd probably suggest the Canon 24-70 as a great workhorse lens that is of high quality. It is a very good lens, noticeably superior to lower cost option, although it won't be either long enough for some shots or wide enough for broad vistas with your crop-sensor camera. It does cover most of what I shoot in this genre with my full-frame 1Ds though. You'd have to add a longer lens like the 70-200 and a wider lens like a 14mm to cover all potential landscape subjects either way though. When it comes to choosing a super-wide lens the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM would be a pretty decent option, although the jump from 14 to 24 mm is pretty extreme. The choices for zooms that bridge that range well and will also work on a full-frame sensor are very slim though. I opted for a Sigma 12-24 . Its image quality is very good when stopped to f:11 or so except for the extreme corners (especially at 12mm), and is very good right to the corners when cropped, as it naturally is, with a smaller sensor. When on a full-frame sensor camera this lens is ridiculously wide, so much so that it's hard to shoot with as most of the things you think will look awesome just end up looking very weird due to the extreme perspective and scaling distortion it creates. When you find the right subject and use it well though the look is amazing! I also am a huge fan of the wide angle Tilt and Shift lenses for landscape work. I own both the 17mm and 24mm Canon TS lenses and they open up a whole new world of quality and creative control, if you have the budget, the patience, and the necessary skills to use them effectively. They are powerful tools for going super-wide when you have the time to set up on a tripod and optimize the tilt and shift settings. By shifting the lens to the right and to the left (or up and down), taking one shot at both positions and then stitching them together in Photoshop you have the potential to go as wide as an ultra-wide lens but with far superior detail and less distortion. The superior detail comes from the quality of the optics plus the fact that you are joining two full res frames totaling many more pixels than an ultra-side lens shot would. I`ve done massive prints with this technique and the results are amazing. It is a great way to go but these two lenses are between 2,500 and 3,000 dollars each. If buying one I'd go with the 17mm which goes pretty wide without stitching with a crop-sensor, and super-wide when stitched. If that doesn't fit your budget for going wide you can also consider stitching multiple frames with any wide angle lens. The resulting distortion from swinging the camera won`t usually be an issue with landscape and nature subjects but it sure won't work for architecture or other more rigidly geometrical subjects, or for ones where movement is taking place during the capture process.

Depp Daniel

I prefer landscape and portrait photography. I own EOS 7D, which one the best lens for it's? and which one the best lens for general purpose lens, can i consider 17-55mm?

Dwight Arthur

My feeling is that the best all-round lens for a lot of Canon photographers looking for one work-horse lens under $1000 is to look at the 15-85 IS, as mentioned in this post. It is wide enough for most landscape shots and long enough for portraits, and is IS equipped for low light. It is optically very well corrected for distortion and chromatic aberration and is pretty sharp too! It's not ideal for any of these subjects but is very good at all of them. The 17-55 is not in the same class at all either in quality or range, being not quite wide or long enough to be a good one lens option for a generalist photographer. If this is too much money I'd at least look at an 17-85, which adds quite a bit of reach compared to the 17-55 and should be available used at a good price as it is often purchased as a kit lens and there is always someone wanting to trade up (likely to the 15-85 or a 24-105L).