Lightweight travel lens debate

[SchralphMacchio]

Humoring the idea of a lightweight "do-it-all" compromise zoom lens with reasonably fast focus to pair with my Rebel XSi.

For shitzengiggles I hauled out my 7D and two lenses out on a 18.5 mile overnight ski tour this last weekend. The lenses certainly weren't the heaviest - Tammy 17-50 and Canon 70-200 f/4L. But damn, between being out of shape and having reactive airways (a fancy word for, not-quite-asthma-but-dehydration-will-fuck-you-at-elevation) I definitely noticed that extra weight. On the last 2 miles to the car it was just getting borderline ridiculous. Okay, maybe the leftover half-bottle of Remy Martin VSOP in the pack had something to do with it too (serious fail on my part for not reducing enough weight before the exit). But I'm not Corey Rich, I'm not Jason Hummel - I'm barely scratching the nose of easy-access Sierra terrain and bitching about pack weight.

So I'm now convinced I can tour not-super-deep objectives with the big camera (awesome), but also possibly convinced that I should haul the light camera and a light lens for longer tours (all seasons).

So what is this ... a 15-85 IS? A 28-135? A 18-200? A Tamron 18-270?

Debate! (Or just tell me to sack up and carry all of my shit with me)

[splitter]

only take half a split board. that will make it less heavy.

[couloirman]

Love my 15-85 IS on my 7D. Compact and lightweight enough for sure. I carry it on a think-tank belt system (ahem, fanny pack) and barely even notice it while touring. I have multiple lenses now, but only ever take a single one with me on hikes. I barely have the energy to finish the tour let alone swap lenses out for a shot.

[systemoverblow'd]

I would suggest you look at what the MAJORITY of your shots are shot at focal length wise and go with the best lens suited for those. Will you not get everything you want? Sure. But none of those crazy zooms are very good. I'd rather have all my shots be good and miss a couple than all my shots be mediocre but get everything.

[leftfield]

I would suggest you look at what the MAJORITY of your shots are shot at focal length wise and go with the best lens suited for those.

^^^This.
The IQ on the 15-85 is the best of the ones you listed. I love mine, it's the one i always ski wiht. But if you need more reach, maybe the 28-135? I haven't loved any of the photos i've seen that have been taken with those last two you listed.

[summit]

Sigma 18-135 OS HSM is a decent do-it-all for a good price... good in the coulis...

I use a Sigma 18-200 HSM a lot when traveling. Believe me, I have a HUGE quiver. 10-22 USM, 17-55 IS USM, 18-200 OS, and a 50 1.4 are my top 4 lenses.

I'll sell you either of those Sigmas cheap though. I don't need both.

[SchralphMacchio]

Well, I've been shooting all over the place, but honestly lately it's been around 20mmish and 85-100mmish (on crop).

2 primes?

Summit, you're making me think about those Sigmas, as I know where you go ... Did you haul one of those into Animas? You mind pM'ing me a smugmug/flickr/whatever gallery?

[summit]

Two primes indeed... I'd pick:

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 or Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon 100mm f/2 USM or 85mm f/1.8 USM

I do have a prime quiver for the 5D: Sigma 24mm 1.8, Canon 50mm 1.4, Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro... but that is for creativity and when photography is the primary goal... but when I'm traveling or skiing, a zoom is needed for time and convenience: those traveling with me don't want to wait for lens changing and zooming with my feet.

I'm quite disorganized with my photography. I'd share if I could. Most of it just lives on an external RAID, not online.

In a chute where you are skiing long pitches, being able to zoom from 100 or 150 all the way back to 18 allows you to get 2 or 3 compositions per athlete pass instead of just one with a more limited zoom and keeps you from constantly switching lenses. Zoom in as they come in from the top, hit the sweet spot and shoot, then zoom wide and compose for a passing shot, shoot when they pass... you might even be able to zoom in again and shoot them in a parting shot if you are leap frogging. You can't do that with a 17-55.

With the ability of a modern DSLR to dial up the sensitivity to 400 or even 800 without much or any quality loss, you can get away with these super zoom's low max apertures even in shadow shots or cloudy days (obviously the OS/IS is nice for stills, not action, I almost always track skiers). Your AF will be limited though. Super zooms provide far better image quality than they did 15 years ago in the late 90s, but they still are not primes or L lenses.

So on long slogs to chutes I usually grab my superzoom and either the 50 or the 10-22.

[Hugh Conway]

for travelling/skiing in the summer/whatever lens changes introduce dust. An 18-200 or the like is flexible and light

[kalisto]

I'm not Jason Hummel - I'm barely scratching the nose of easy-access Sierra terrain and bitching about pack weight.

Hah... Actually met Jason last Sunday out past Whistler. What a machine.

Anyway, The thing about a quality lens is... you can crop in post, and it'll still look good (well, better). Personally, I'd rather have less range with a more quality photo vs. more range with a bunch of photos that look mediocre.

If I'm going light, I shoot with my 17-40 (which is pretty small/light), if I don't really care about weight, I bring the 70-200 f/4 along. Yeah, I miss some shots with the 17-40, but it does take up much space in my pack, and the shots that I do get look great.

Bigger question is... what are you trying to get from your shots? Are you merely just documenting the trip, or you trying to get some quality photos out of it?

In my opinion, if you're just documenting the trip, don't even both with a huge range zoom lens. Just toss the 7D and get a P&S. You have a quality camera, why put a crappy lens on it?

The two prime lens is ideal, but then you're switching in the field.

24-105 L is a decent choice...

Or just suck it up, lose some range, and deal.

I'd recommend the 17-40 L. It's not too pricey, decent range for a crop body, weather sealed to go along with the 7D, light and solid.

[summit]

There is no comparison between a P&S and an SLR when it comes to shooting skiing in terms of control, speed, and responsiveness.

[LeeLau]

OP - I use the 15 - 85

Summit - what price for the 18- 200? Come visit and hand-deliver it.

[SchralphMacchio]

Hugh, reasonable point about dust ... but I'm already changing glass outdoors/on the trail on my 7D when I'm going to Yose or wherever to shoot something. Cost of doing business.

And Summit, those 2 primes each weigh more than the superzoom! The point is to shed weight!

So we're back to finding the fastest AF mechanism and lightest weight on an 18 to 100ish size lines. Really sounds like the 15-85 is the winner here.

Bigger question is... what are you trying to get from your shots? Are you merely just documenting the trip, or you trying to get some quality photos out of it?

Yes to both. Not generally looking for prints unless that is a goal of the trip, and then the big kit + 7D comes out with me (i.e., the 70-200 + other lenses). If it's not the goal of the trip, I'd rather go lighter and faster and come home with respectable images, but maybe not 14GB of RAWs ...

I know, the TR is the most overrated form of media, but that's what I do:
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...e-4-16-2011%29
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ernet-fubar%29

Anyways, you misread the first line. I'm looking for a lighter solution for my Rebel XSi (all of my images in the posted TRs from that camera). I wouldn't put chintzy glass on the 7D.

[kalisto]

^ Touché

Another vote for 15-85 then.

[Hugh Conway]

Hugh, reasonable point about dust ... but I'm already changing glass outdoors/on the trail on my 7D when I'm going to Yose or wherever to shoot something. Cost of doing business.

I come from the Nikon world where the 18-200 isn't "L-level" whatever that means but is better than crappy - and coupled with an SLR body makes a really flexible useful camera package out in the woods. Better in so many ways than a P+S - Summit listed a few; better weather sealing, battery life, less shutterlag and quicker turnon are a few more. If I had the money for an M9 or whatever that'd be better, but no dice. In the summer and winter the 200 end is really nice for shooting wildlife/distance shots and IME a 200 on a "crappy" lens looks a fuckton better than a 100 crop. Not sure what's out there for other makers in the 18-200 range

[splitter]

I have the Nikon 16-85 which I think has decent, sharp IQ. It is the one that usually gets taken skiing. Sometimes I wish I had more reach but the 16-85 is my typical landscape lens as well, so less of a quiver lens and a decent nearly do-it-all.

Having said that the 11-16 and 35 I seem to shoot with more. For a single lens for ski tours that won't be relegated to ski tours, it sounds like a good option.

But Lee seems to have that lens and also wants summit's superzoom and to cuddle apparently.

OP - I use the 15 - 85

Summit - what price for the 18- 200? Come visit and hand-deliver it.

but I think you oughta sack up and take it and a UWA and a fast prime

[Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer]

Schralph - what about (i) you carry the 7D and 15-85 and (ii) I will carry your 70-200, extra filters, extra batteries, etc... for a small service charge of you taking all pictures of me skiing and me in sick terrain! Then I don't even have to bring a camera! Everyone wins!


Really thinking about this further overnight after your email, I have similar lenses to you (albeit with a 60D) and if I was going to take it on a big trip like the SHR, Evo, or something like that, I would want the 15-85mm as (i) it is lighter and (ii) wider for big scenics. I know there are definitely awesome advantages to having a tele lens for landscapes (DOF, etc..), but I just think in the remote Sierra having a really wide lens is good. But you still get some zoom to be able to cut in on a skier if you want to. Not the lightest setup, but not the heaviest either. And frankly, if you are with someone else, they can carry your tele lens and the fuel to balance out the weight and not bring a 2nd camera (and just swap camera duties).

I guess another added benefit of youir 15-85 would be it goes F/2.8, which would be better for moonlight and star shots up high in the range.

[SchralphMacchio]

^ you mean my Tamron 17-50 going to f2.8?

I've actually been thinking that if I get a 15-85 the 17-50 would stay at home and I would just have a 20/28/30mm fast prime to complement the single-lens zoom for that exact purpose. I'd probably sell or shelve the 17-50 at that point.

[Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer]

Yeah, that is what I meant. But if you get the 15-85mm (which you know I love) and then a fast prime, likely gets you to the same spot. The weight on a fast prime is negligble I would think.

[kalisto]

Get rid of everything and get the 17-55 2.8?

[bobrmr]

Hey Schralph, I actually have the same setup as you (7d w/ tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f4L). While the weight doesn't really seem to bother me, I keep finding myself wanting the 17-50 to go a little further. So... I just bought the 15-85 and plan on selling the 17-50. I figured the 15-85 is wider and goes longer and from the reviews has fantastic IQ. If i would have been wiser when i bought the 17-50 (like 2 months ago) i would have just bought the 15-85 then. Also, if I ever did just want to take one lens, the 15-85 would be it.

My $.02

[LeeLau]

Im going to take a look at the sigma 18-200. Its a local sale and it'll stay on a rebel xt body which would make that nice and light. the 7d is nice but its so heavy with the combo of the 15-85 that sometimes it'd be nice to have more reach. Besides with backcountry skiing many times i just don't want to be that close to people so the shots with the 15 - 8 have to be cropped quite a bit.

Summit never responded so cuddling is out!

[SchralphMacchio]

Hey Schralph, I actually have the same setup as you (7d w/ tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f4L). While the weight doesn't really seem to bother me, I keep finding myself wanting the 17-50 to go a little further. So... I just bought the 15-85 and plan on selling the 17-50. I figured the 15-85 is wider and goes longer and from the reviews has fantastic IQ. If i would have been wiser when i bought the 17-50 (like 2 months ago) i would have just bought the 15-85 then. Also, if I ever did just want to take one lens, the 15-85 would be it.

My $.02

Yeah but then you can't use the same polarizing filter on your f4L and your 15-85 without a stepdown ring, and then if you do that I dunno if you can use the hood on your f4L ... that is super convenient when you have both lenses, but when you have just the 17-50 it's just not long enough ... and the autofocus isn't fast enough for action.

[smmokan]

LeeLau (and others).... I just got done using a Sigma 18-200 OS HSM in Costa Rica for a week, I'll post pics up soon if you want to see some examples. Not many action shots (or any?), but it'll give you a good idea of color, sharpness, etc. I thought it did the job for a trip like that- where I wanted a solid landscape lens, but I also wanted to zoom in for shots of small animals and longer-range subjects.

If I were taking one lens for landscapes and/or skiing shots, it would be my Canon 15-85mm, no question. Best lens out there for a Canon crop DSLR.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I'll echo splitter's sentiments coming from the Nikon world, and it sounds like other Canon shooters are thinking the same. My 16-85 almost never leaves my camera. Occasionally I want more reach but for skiing it's great. Compact, rugged, sharp, fast focusing and a really nice range. If the Canon 15-85 matches those parameters, that's what I'd go with and just don't put yourself in situations where you really need more reach.

Every ski shot I've taken this last year has been taken with that lens. Just go to my photobucket album and look through there for examples if you want.

http://s114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/willhbaker/