Thailand - would one lens suffice?

[catfood49]

Hi there

Ive just got myself a 60D and the next step is to get myself a lens or two, ready for a two week holiday in Thailand coming up soon.

I was originally thinking of buying myself an all-round general use lens and also a wide angle lens. Whilst I would really like to get a wide angle lens, with a limited budget I'm wondering whether I would be better to hold off from getting the wide angle lens for now and just buy myself something that will suit me for most situations. I have a budget of about £500. Is that enough to get me a couple of lenses I am going to be happy with? I'm certainly no pro and can't justify to myself spending more than about £300 on one lens.

Sorry if that all sounded a bit waffley, I'm just a little unsure what to go for so any advice or recommendations gratefully received!

[Mr Bump]

Hi catfood49,

A couple of questions: Will this be a 'smart' holiday with suitcase and nice hotel in one resort or will you be roughing it with a back-pack and travelling around the country? Is there anything you especially want to photograph that might require a particular lens focal length or are you just hoping to shoot anything and everything that looks interesting/attractive?

The answers to these questions will infuence the suggested lens(es) - at least as far as your holiday is concerned. Also, the type of photography you are most interested in while at home in the UK might have a bearing on lens choice.

Bump

[catfood49]

Thanks for the reply.

It's a half smart, half backpacker kind of thing. I was in New Zealand for 6 months with just a 18-55 for my old sony A350 and it did me ok but I did always want a wide angle as I am interested getting some good landscapes. I do need something that is very 'general use though as I know my girlfriend's not going to enjoy me stopping to changes lenses all the time and I will be taking photos of all sorts, it's not just landscapes.

In terms of being back in the UK I suppose it's similar to the time away. A lot of general photos but some landscape stuff as well.

[Mr Bump]

In view of all that you have said and wanting something for general use the excellent Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM would seem like the most logical choice, being a bit wider than your 18-55 at the short end and having more reach. RGB Photo in Middlesbrough have them for £515 - only just above your budget.

If you need to go wider there is the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM but then you'd need something longer to go with it. At around £400 it does not leave much from your £500 budget - perhaps just enough for a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, which is nice for 'portraits' and low light use but I can't help feeling you'll need a bit more than that.

The alternative is to look at used lenses to get more for your money.

Let's see what others have to say but it seems to me that the 15-85 might be your best bet. And don't forget a circular polariser if you don't already have one to fit.

Bump

[matt wilson]

Canon's 18 to 200 makes a good general purpose lens ,certainly better than a kit lens .I own several lenses including the Sigma ultrawide and Canon 100 to 400 L but a recent trip to Prague and baggage restrictions meant I could only take the 18 to 200 and a 50 mm 1.8.

It was over a year before I went for the Sigma (I found both landscape and interiors limiting a 18mm.) but as you say having a girlrfiend who is not keen on you stopping to change lenses makes it difficult.

You will have a lens that covers several angles is quite well built and so long as you realise it is not A 1 quality at either extreme of it's range should keep you happy. it has very good stabilisation and hand holding at 1/30th is possible .

Certainly worth a look.

[MattUK]

Personally, I use this (well, the Nikon version), and would recommend it as an excellent value all-rounder:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-27...9831684&sr=8-1

You are sacrificing a very small amount of quality and a bit of speed with this lens, but the "one lens suits all situations" aspect of it is awesome.

[catfood49]

Definitely gives me something to think about and alot to consider. Am thinking the 18-200 may be a good all purpose lens for me as it's in my price range without blowing my whole budget on a single lens. My only concern is it will not be wide enough for my landscape shots. Do budget wide-angles lenses exist (and by budget I probably have to mean less than £250).

Once again, thanks for the replies. Good to get advice from people in the know!

[MattUK]

17mm-18mm is fine for all landscape shots apart from super wide angle panoramics. But it's easy to just take 2 shots and stitch them together if you want to go for super wide.

I purchased a 12-24mm Tamron for my landscapes, simply because I do a lot of them - but that's a £400 lens...

You could look at a Canon 17-40mm http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...3208/show.html - but this is limited to fairly wide angle shots only

Or a 15-85mm http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...6545/show.html - but this is £600...

[chris-p]

An 18-200mm will be your best bet if you don't want to carry lots of lenses. As Matt said, 18mm is fine for landscapes and if you really really want wider just stitch shots together when you get home, it takes seconds and you get a higher resolution file.

There aren't really any decent budget wide anglesl. £300 is your starting point. You can get wide angle adaptors though which would be a very cheap way to widen the field of view but you'd sacrifice quality a fair amount.

If it was me, I'd take 2 lenses, a 30 or 35mm and an 85 or 105mm prime and thats it.

[Mr Bump]

Originally Posted by MattUK

Or a 15-85mm http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...6545/show.html - but this is £600...

Or £515 at RGB Photo - as mentioned in my post, and is an altogether superior lens to the 18-200. I went down the 18-200 route at one time for travelling (I have back-packed a lot in many far-flung places) and found it compromised image quality too much to gain the long zoom. The Canon 18-200 also lacks the USM of the 15-85 and its extended length doesn't exactly make it discrete when you need to be. So the question is which is most important - the extra 115mm of reach of the 18-200 or the altogether better quality and compactness of the 15-85? And is 18mm (29mm full-frame equivalent) really wide enough?

I don't think you will realistically achieve all that you ideally wish for within your budget catfood49 unless your are lucky in picking up used lenses but superwide zooms tend to hold their value due to popularity.

Bump

Edit: Having just seen Chris-p's post I heartily endorse his last comment. Having found the superzoom too impractical for the type of travelling I like to do I went over to taking just three MF prime lenses - 24mm, 50mm and 100mm which worked a lot better for me.