1-lens quiver help?

[backpack]

So I would like to bring my SLR with me for two months in south america, but I'm having trouble deciding what lens to slap on it for that time since I'll be backpacking around and don't want to haul a whole boatload of glass for both weight and muggability reasons.

So... if you could have one lens on a Canon DSLR (reduced frame) for everything from cities to mountains to beaches to rainforest, landscapes, wildlife and people, what would it be?

I'll also have a little sd1000 for backup/random shots when I don't want to have the big camera with me.

Lenses I currently have: 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro, ef-s 10-22.

[summit]

Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS

Or upgrade to the EOS-5D and get the EF 24-105 f/4 L USM IS

[yesIsaidyes]

17-40 f/4 L - cheaper than the other two and a great all around lens.

[summit]

17-40 f/4 L - cheaper than the other two and a great all around lens.

The capability of that lens does not begin to compare to the other two.

[Junker]

+1 for the 17-55mm

I just got back from a 10 day road trip, and it was on my camera 98% of the time. The IS and F/2.8 are super sweet!

[chuckh]

Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 USM IS

Or upgrade to the EOS-5D and get the EF 24-105 f/2.8 L USM IS

#1 good choice.

#2 $$$, and the the 24-105 is a constant f/4 aperature lens w/IS (still, an awesome lens though).

[MeatPuppet]

If it were me, for two months with only one lens?

I would buy a Nikon body and get the 18-200 VR. I just bought this lens for my dad as an early Christmas present. I haven't been able to get it away from him long enough to really put it through it's paces yet, but my initial impressions are very positive. The pictures it produces are far better than what I would expect from an 11x zoom.

If you don't do that, then the 17-55 would be good. I had a 18-70 on a Nikon body and(variable aperture aside) it made a really good walkaround lens.

[Tippster]

#1 good choice.

#2 $$$, and the the 24-105 is a constant f/4 aperature lens w/IS (still, an awesome lens though).

So turn the IS off when you want to shoot 2.8 - you're more likely to need it at slower settings anyway. It's a sick lens.

[backpack]

Hmm... 17-55, eh?

[summit]

So turn the IS off when you want to shoot 2.8 - you're more likely to need it at slower settings anyway. It's a sick lens.

no i made a typo... it's f/4 max at any time

[chuckh]

Hmm... 17-55, eh?

Another option to consider is the Canon 35 f/2. You may find one used on Fred Miranda's Buy & Sell forum at a very reasonable price. It is a very good performer and provides you with an effective 56mm lens with a 1.6 FOV Canon DSLR. It creates a very compact package.

The Canon 35 f/1.4 is also very much worth considering but the cost is a little dearer. Another forum to check for quality used lenses is dgrin.

[Tippster]

no i made a typo... it's f/4 max at any time

Right - I was thinking about this lens, but it has no IS:



EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

[backpack]

Another option to consider is the Canon 35 f/2. You may find one used on Fred Miranda's Buy & Sell forum at a very reasonable price. It is a very good performer and provides you with an effective 56mm lens with a 1.6 FOV Canon DSLR. It creates a very compact package.

The Canon 35 f/1.4 is also very much worth considering but the cost is a little dearer. Another forum to check for quality used lenses is dgrin.

Yea, I was looking at the 35/2, 28/1.8, 28/2.8, 24/2.8, and the 20/2.8 initially because I don't want to stand out any more than I have to and I want something that will still be a little bit wide on a reduced frame camera. The 17-55 is a good range, though... just seems kind of monstrous for subtle shooting.

[warthog]

If it were me, for two months with only one lens?

I would buy a Nikon body and get the 18-200 VR. I just bought this lens for my dad as an early Christmas present. I haven't been able to get it away from him long enough to really put it through it's paces yet, but my initial impressions are very positive. The pictures it produces are far better than what I would expect from an 11x zoom.

If you don't do that, then the 17-55 would be good. I had a 18-70 on a Nikon body and(variable aperture aside) it made a really good walkaround lens.

What he said.

[backpack]

What he said.

Yea, as much as I appreciate the snipiness, I don't have any problems with my current camera body. A new lens is expensive enough.

I'm leaning toward the 35/2 now for a combination of small size/weight and cost... I can afford to spend around $1000-$1500 but I'm not sure I want to be wandering around with such expensive equipment.

[summit]

I have a 20mm f/2.8 USM I'll sell for $299 or a 17-35mm f/2.8 L USM for $850

[Eldo]

...I don't want to stand out any more than I have to and I want something that will still be a little bit wide on a reduced frame camera. The 17-55 is a good range, though... just seems kind of monstrous for subtle shooting.

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion, why not get a Canon G9 and leave the SLR at home? It would be a much more discrete camera to shoot with, covers from slight wide angle to telephoto, and can shoot RAW. Canon probably even makes a waterproof case for it.

From what I've seen the G9 has output that is as close to an SLR as you can get in a P&S camera. Might even cost less than buying a lens.

[yesIsaidyes]

The G9 would be a great way to go...

[backpack]

The G9 would be a great way to go...

I have a G6 and an SD1000 in addition to my 350D. I plan on bringing my SD1000 in addition to my 350D, but the SLR is just so much better at higher ISO that it seems odd to bring a second camera with an itty bitty sensor that goes crazy above ISO 100. I did look at the G9, though... it's tempting but its image quality isn't that much better than any other Canon all-in-one other than the RAW potential which for me is all theoretical at the moment because while I shoot in RAW+JPEG all the time I have CS1 which doesn't open any RAW files for cameras more recent than my G6. Also, the 350D with a small lens is pretty tiny for an SLR.

Anyway, yea. I'm going to buy whatever it ends up being tomorrow... still trying to decide.

[Eldo]

It didn't sound like you would be shooting much indoors or under low light, but certainly for those situations you are right in sticking with your SLR.

But I have to say that at its base ISO the G9 produces some rather amazing results for a P&S.

Best of luck whichever lens you decide to go with.

[truth]

no i made a typo... it's f/4 max at any time

Correct. I have it and love it. Hands down the best 1 lens quiver. Even on a 1.6 crop body. It shoots stunning images from the street to the studio. He has the 10-22 if he needs wider glass and that's a really small light lens to drag along is need be. It also plays along very nice with the speedlight flashes.

[Hugh Conway]

17-50f2.8 Tamron? The f2.8 can be nice.

I found making the camera inconspicuous color wise made more difference than lens size. wrist strap. gaffers tape on the logos. gets much fewer looks.

[ak_powder_monkey]

I really like my 28-135 USM IS, its cheap, decently sharp and has IS

[Natedogg]

Sell me the 10-22 for more money to get other lenses.