Best travel lens for Canon 7D?

[JMorton6]

Currently have a stock 18-55 lens, but want something better. What's the one lens that's best to have to take great photos while traveling abroad?

 

[twistedlogic]

There is no one "best" lens. All lenses are a compromise.

If you want something that covers all focal lengths, Canon offers the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6, good at everything but not great at anything. But such a lens wouldn't be so useful if say you went on a safari and need more reach. Similarly if I was say to go to the Grand Canyon, I'd want something much wider, maybe a 12-24mm fast zoom.

 

[JMorton6]

I don't mean a long lens - 200mm is a bit much since if I went some place that required so much zoom, I could rent / borrow a lens for the day.

 

[BigSmooth]

Tough to say without knowing a budget or what kind of photographs you want to take. The Canon 15-85mm IS starts out relatively wide and gives you more reach than your current lens. It's a bit spendy but well regarded. A cheaper alternative is the Sigma 17-70mm OS. Less range but it has a bit larger maximum aperture.

 

[Madwand1]

I agree the 15-85 IS is a great range for a single lens on a crop -- it's ~ 24-135 FF-equivalent, which is better than the range of the 24-105 L IS, which is the single lens I'd take on a FF.

 

[Kanalua]

For me, right now, it's my 17-135mm. Really depends what type of shooting you want to do. I need more wide, and will probably get a 10-22mm for my hiking lens.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I'd say the 18-55 is fine but for most of my vacations I find that UWA is more important than telephoto (besides the typical zoom range).

I have my 17-55mm lens mounted 85% of the time, but often I will carry my Tokina 11-16 if I have room.

Once again, this depends person to person.

 

[finbarqs]

if you can, get the 18-200. End all Be all. The End.

 

[AkumaX]

For me, right now, it's my 17-135mm. Really depends what type of shooting you want to do. I need more wide, and will probably get a 10-22mm for my hiking lens.

you mean 18-135mm right? haha

anyways, really depends on what you plan on shooting. (generally) you can do:

~$300-400
-- 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6
-- 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
-- 17-85mm f/4-5.6
-- tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

~$500-600
-- 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6
-- 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
-- 17-40mm f/4L
-- 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

 

[speg]

I just travelled the world with only a 50mm. Big mistake. I often couldn't get entire landmarks in one shot. Next time I'm bringing a 24mm.

 

[Kanalua]

you mean 18-135mm right? haha

Nope...I had Canon make me a special lens because I needed that extra 1mm...

 

[NutBucket]

I just travelled the world with only a 50mm. Big mistake. I often couldn't get entire landmarks in one shot. Next time I'm bringing a 24mm.

Can afford to travel the world but not afford another lens?

 

[acx]

The new 15-85mm is very good if you want to cover your wide angle shots while travelling. I used it while on a trip to Shanghai and Tokyo and found that I ended up using the wide end more than the telephoto end. The 15mm really helps to let me capture landscape and building shots that I couldn't otherwise have gotten. There's only so much space to back up when you are standing on a sidewalk. Whereas, getting a bit closer to the subject usually wasn't too much of a problem; unless there was a river in the way, heh.

 

[AkumaX]

The new 15-85mm is very good if you want to cover your wide angle shots while travelling. I used it while on a trip to Shanghai and Tokyo and found that I ended up using the wide end more than the telephoto end. The 15mm really helps to let me capture landscape and building shots that I couldn't otherwise have gotten. There's only so much space to back up when you are standing on a sidewalk. Whereas, getting a bit closer to the subject usually wasn't too much of a problem; unless there was a river in the way, heh.

would you say.. you'd rather walk around w/ the canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, or the tokina 11-16mm?

 

[NutBucket]

Are you talking purely from a mm perspective or including factors such as price and image quality?

 

[acx]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but not the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. I mostly used it for skyline shots of the city. The lens was stopped down to f/8 or f/11 most of the time so the f/2.8 didn't matter. I wouldn't carry either of them around as a general walkaround lens. It was way too much of a hassle to change lenses to get a shot between the 15-85 and the 11-16. I ended up keeping the 15-85 on most of the time and only breaking out the 11-16 when I knew I was going to go ultra wide for a series of shots at a location. But if you could only use one of the two lenses then I'd suggest going with the canon. The extra reach really helps unless all you plan to do is take lots of wide angle shots.

 

[speg]

Can afford to travel the world but not afford another lens?

Backpacking is not luxurious.

 

[mchammer187]

if you can, get the 18-200. End all Be all. The End.

I have that lens but it certainly is not the be all and end all

My next lens is definitely gonna be the tokina 11-16 or the 24 mm f/1.4 prime

It depends on what kinds of pictures he will be taking

if he is doing a lot of indoor stuff than 24 mm f/1.4 would be a great walk around lens its pretty wide so you get decent landscapes but really excels at night / low light and portraits

18-200mm would be great outside during the day for sure though and has excellent range and it would be great for hiking assuming you are not hiking in a really dense forest

 

[AkumaX]

I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but not the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. I mostly used it for skyline shots of the city. The lens was stopped down to f/8 or f/11 most of the time so the f/2.8 didn't matter. I wouldn't carry either of them around as a general walkaround lens. It was way too much of a hassle to change lenses to get a shot between the 15-85 and the 11-16. I ended up keeping the 15-85 on most of the time and only breaking out the 11-16 when I knew I was going to go ultra wide for a series of shots at a location. But if you could only use one of the two lenses then I'd suggest going with the canon. The extra reach really helps unless all you plan to do is take lots of wide angle shots.

is the 15-85mm for ~$650 worth the upgrade over the 17-85mm for ~$300?

 

[intogamer]

Hey guys, what about the Sigma 10-20mm?

 

[acx]

is the 15-85mm for ~$650 worth the upgrade over the 17-85mm for ~$300?

$300 for a new 17-85mm is pretty good deal. When I was buying the 15-85mm last year it was $650 vs $500 and the image quality and wider wide angle was worth the extra $150. Buy the best lens you can afford. If you keep the lens for 2-3 years, you'll still be able to sell it for most of the cost when you are done with it since Canon doesn't update their lens models for years and years.

 

[Eug]

17-55 IS, with 10-22 in my pocket.

I also have the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS. All excellent lenses.

 

[AkumaX]

$300 for a new 17-85mm is pretty good deal. When I was buying the 15-85mm last year it was $650 vs $500 and the image quality and wider wide angle was worth the extra $150. Buy the best lens you can afford. If you keep the lens for 2-3 years, you'll still be able to sell it for most of the cost when you are done with it since Canon doesn't update their lens models for years and years.

alright, last question: canon 17-85mm vs tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC ??

 

[BigSmooth]

alright, last question: canon 17-85mm vs tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC ??

The 17-85mm IS is pretty slow at f/4-5.6 compared to the Tamron. So it depends on whether you want more reach, or a faster lens.
Personally, I would choose the Tamron; I take a lot of indoor shots so I often shoot wide open. For a walkaround lens when you are outdoors doing some hiking or something, you would probably appreciate the additional zoom capabilities (and the IS when zoomed in) of the Canon.

 

[acx]

Like BigSmooth said, it depends on where you are planning to walkaround. Tamron if you are indoors alot or in areas where flash photography is not allowed like museums. Canon if you walk around outside.