which lens for nepal/india

[mojitomax]

hi all,

i'm off to nepal and india for a couple of weeks and was thinking of hiring a lens (canon) for the trip. at the moment i have a kit 18-55mm, wide-angle 10-22mm and a 50mm prime.

i'm really after a do it all lens that i can leave on the camera for most of the trip without the hassle of changing lenses etc. i'll be trekking for several days and also don't want to be changing lenses in the hot dusty environment.

i had a look on lenses for hire and they have a 18-200 IS which i know isn't optically a fantastic lens but perhaps it will be sufficient?

or should i be looking at the 15-85 f3.5/5.6 IS or the 17-55 f2.8 IS?

or something completely different?

thanks for your help chaps

[RobDickinson]

Havnt been to nepal but I would take a 17-55 and something longer, 70-200f4, lots of big views that may need a longer lens.

[mojitomax]

hmm, that's why i was thinking of the 18-200mm. it may not have the best optics but at least i won't have to keep changing lenses (which i don't really fancy doing out whilst trekking!)

[dibbly dobbler]

I've a Tamron 18-270 which is a great do-it-all lens if you just want to take one. I've had some nice sharp bird shots at the long end and 18 is probably as wide as you'll get without taking a separate lens ( if you want some decent reach).

Alternative would be to forget about the long end and maybe try something like a 15-85 perhaps ?

[Gemm]

I agree the convenience does have to be the priority sometimes. Inferior optics is better than missing a shot completely just because you couldn't change the lens.

[mojitomax]

hmm, have been googling and it seems that the 17-55mm 2.8 is is a great lens. it doesn't offer any more reach than my 18-55 old kit lens but has superior optics and can be rented for about 100.

i can also rent out the 18-85 or 18-200 for about the same.

aargh, which to go for? superior optics (on an old and slightly battered 1000d) or more reach?

HELP!!!

[andyroo]

I'd go for superior optics and then use my feet a little more - 50mm is what your eye sees (roughly) so it gives you a very nice reportage style for your snaps, whereas longer lenses take out the perspective in an image and can often leave them looking a little flat and characterless. Nepal is probably quite dusty too, so I wouldn't want to be swapping lenses outside either. Make sure the hire company knows you're taking the lens abroad.

[mojitomax]

or do i purchase a refurbed 550d for about 400ish with the 18-55IS lens. i can put the IS lens onto the 1000d and give it to my betrothed, and i can put the 17-55 onto the 550 for me to play with?

damn interweb - too many shiny things and too little willpower

[Simpo Two]

I think you have to decide - 'What is more important, my travel or my photography?'

If you are basically a traveller then take a camera that is convenient; you won't mind when that Alamy-award-winning shot comes into view and you only have a compact.

If photography is more important then you will tool up 'just in case' and put up with it

(and the Alamy-award-winning shot will never come into view, doh)

I always come down to the conclusion that it is better to have the gear and not need it, than not to have the gear and then find you DO need it.

[Dogsey]

mojitomax said:

or do i purchase a refurbed 550d for about 400ish with the 18-55IS lens. i can put the IS lens onto the 1000d and give it to my betrothed, and i can put the 17-55 onto the 550 for me to play with?

damn interweb - too many shiny things and too little willpower

If you're taking two bodies why not put a wide-to-general on one (18-55IS) and a general-to-telephoto on the other (70-200 f4)? Both ends of the spectrum covered with reasonable optics all around.

[mojitomax]

Am not going to buy another body. It's not in the least bit justifiable and I have resisted the lure of the interweb.

So that leaves me choosing between the 17-55, the 18-85 or the 18-200.

Hmm...

[dibbly dobbler]

Not trying to be a smart arse but do you mean 15-85 rather than 18-85 ?

Is it going to be mostly landscapes and people shots etc ? If so I would take the 15-85, much better IQ than the 18-200 I think ?

[RobDickinson]

Get/take a 17-55. Its a fantasic people and landscape zoom.

But also take something longer, 70-200f4 if you can, as with a lot of big landscapes you will need longer than 55.

Dont be afraid of changing lenses, dust can be cloned out. If your worried take a blower and sort it out in the evenings.

[Cybertronian]

I would suggest taking a serious look at the 15-85mm from Canon. Has image stablisation, true USM focusing motor and is a touch wider than a lot of walkabout lenses. It can be quite slow up on the long end (f/5.6) but as long as you're in decent light or not shooting fast moving action, you should be OK. It's one of the most modern EF-S lenses from Canon and really is sharp even into the corners since it was designed for their larger megapixel cameras like the 7D and 550D.

Failing this, you could probably buy a used version of the older 17-85mm from Canon for the price you'd rent the 15-85mm at (recently sold mine with accessories for 130) - there's plenty of them about.

Edited by Cybertronian on Monday 19th March 15:59

[mojitomax]

Thanks for all the advice. I think really it's going to be a toss up between the 17-55 and the 15-85.

Still not sure which to for, longer reach or faster? If only there was a fast 15-85!!

[andyroo]

mojitomax said:

Thanks for all the advice. I think really it's going to be a toss up between the 17-55 and the 15-85.

Still not sure which to for, longer reach or faster? If only there was a fast 15-85!!

I believe the 17-55 has L spec optics, so that would be my picking. You'd be surprised how soon you start you start needing the extra aperture, particularly when your body can't handle particularly high iso's well.

Come to think of it, a decent flash might be handy for fill lighting too.

[RobDickinson]

15-85 is technically a better lens optically than the 17-55 I think. Only by a touch. Though it is also slower.


What do you want/need, bit more reach or faster? For landscapes in that area you wont need faster. But for portraiture and indoor shots you will.

[mojitomax]

RobDickinson said:

15-85 is technically a better lens optically than the 17-55 I think. Only by a touch. Though it is also slower.


What do you want/need, bit more reach or faster? For landscapes in that area you wont need faster. But for portraiture and indoor shots you will.

for the holiday i suppose we will be predominately outdoors trekking in nepal and seeing dusty indian cities around dehli/jaipur etc. so perhaps the 15-85 will be the best lens.

i had a look on camerapricebuster and the 17-55 is £750ish. i nearly fell off my chair! the 15-85 is £529 which i suppose is justifiable as a general walkabout lens for mainly outdoor stuff. i'll certainly be renting not buying for this trip though.

i have a nifty fifty that i use exclusively for indoor stuff and people. however it's a bit long on a crop body. i think a 35mm prime may be better? the sigma 30mm f1.4 is £350, so perhaps it would be more economical in the long term to stump up £750 and just get the 17-55?

i think for this trip though i'll rent the 15-85mm.

[anonymous-user]

Nikon user here... So I can't comment on the Canon lenses but I will say this:

The Nikon 18-200mm VR lens I bought has literally been the best lens I have ever bought.

Worth every single penny of the £600 it cost me about 4 years ago.

It has been dragged all over the world and used in virtually all situations you can think of from New York, to 9000ft up the Eiger, to the jungles of Asia.

I have a selection of lenses from 11-16mm F2.8 super wide through 50mm 1.8 primes and then going up to 300mm etc but if I'm off abroad travelling, which I am at least 2 or 3 times a year then the 18-200 gets put on and I don't take anything else.

It just shoots everything from wide landscapes and architecture, and with a twist of the zoom, you can be picking out interesting characters in a crowd and shooting wildlife at a good distance away.

The VR (same as Canon's IS?) is also a lifesaver in lower light and evenings etc as it does away with the need for a tripod a lot of the time, and does an extremely good job.

I find the shots I get out of this lens are absolutely more than satisfactory (I've printed some onto large canvas and they look fantastic).

To me, the slightly better images I MIGHT get from using a prime or a zoom with a lesser range are totally negated by the sheer convenience of only having one camera and lens combo and never having to fart about changing lenses.

For me, I'm a traveller/tourist first and a photographer second, and with an 18-200 it stays that way which suits me fine.

I think you know what my advice is!

Get the Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS and simply forget about it, snap away freely at whatever takes your fancy and enjoy your holiday

If its anything like my Nikon 18-200, you will be loving it every holiday for years to come.

Edited by NinjaPower on Tuesday 20th March 00:31

[RobDickinson]

Pretty sure the canon 18-200 isnt near as good as the nikon version.