Opinion on a lens for a trip. Maybe 1 or 2 lenses

[jacqg]

Hello, so my family's going on a trip in the summer and it'll last 10 days. I have a 40D, a 17-40mm 4L, and a 50mm 1.8. And also a 430EX II speedlite but I'm thinking of selling the 17-40mm to pay off a debt that I owe a friend and I was thinking of just renting out a lens or two for that trip. Honestly I might end up selling the 50mm and the speedlite but I don't really know yet.

I'm looking for opinions on what to rent for the trip. There are four of us so mostly group shots. And perhaps wide lenses would be better for the framing.

That said, the list I'm thinking of is like this:
-Canon 24mm or 14mm 1.4
-Sigma 14mm 2.8
-Canon 17-55mm 2.8

Or even the 24-70mm but I'm kinda worried that it might be too zoomed in cuz of the crop factor.

I haven't really decided to sell the gear so if you guys think the 17-40mm or any of the gear I've mentioned should stay, just say so.

Oh also, should I lug around a tripod or it really is not necessary?

Thanks!

 

[Paolo]

I have a 60D (same crop factor) and am partial to wide angle lenses. My tamron 10-24 is a favorite. That or a sigma 10-20 + the 24-70 would give you considerable range. Unless you are planning on long exposure or high def photography don't lug around the tripod. I also have a 50mm 1.8 but rarely use it. My sigma 30mm f1.4 is my "normal" lens and I love being able to use it in low light and its tight DOF wide open. Great Bokeh.

 

[DarkRogue]

Personally, the last time I went on a family vacation, I brought my T2i and my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. That was it. It worked great, as it was light and fast. Unfortunately, as we were sight seeing, I regretted not renting a 70-200 F/4 IS, because 50 is not long enough to get some of those shots.

If you're just shooting family pics, I would say the 17-55 is a no-brainer. Don't bother with the 24-70, IMO. The ultrawides seem interesting, and you could throw that in if you plan on making extensive use of it.

Also, unless you're planning a lot of night shots, I'd ditch the tripod, too. When you're on vacation, I'm not sure you really want to be carrying all that photography gear. If you don't, then it winds up sitting in the hotel, which is just as useless as not having it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

IMO you should get rid of the 17-40L. It's pointless on a crop body. It was designed to be a UWA zoom on a full-frame body. On a crop, it turns from a moderate-wide-angle-to-normal zoom. There is a reason why nobody makes a 27-64mm zoom lens for a 35mm SLR. (Ok, there were the 35-70mm zooms back in the day, but those were the first zooms to be widely available.) It is not a great focal length range. It is only a 2.3x zoom which would be good for back in the 70's, but it is pretty bad for today. The 17-55 gets you up to 3.3x, which is getting respectable. You at least have some long end with the 17-55.

The 24-70 would be a bad choice too. It is way too heavy.... a waste of glass on a crop body. But the 17-55 is a great lens for a crop body. It takes both of those options (17-40 and 24-70) but combines them and improves on them. There are off-brands (Sigma, Tamron) with similar range for less money.

The 10-22 is another that I would recommend. Again, there are other choices in similar focal lengths. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great choice for crop. I had one once, and I think I prefer it to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 on a full-frame. IMHO, if you only have one fast prime then it should be close-to-normal focal length.... not too wide, not too long. I guess the 24mm would be close enough on a crop body. But you really are missing out on the real benefits of a wide-angle "L" lens by using it on a crop body. You are carrying a ton of weight/bulk just to waste that light around the sides of your sensor. (This applies to telephotos too, but in that case then the extra effective length in a crop body might be looked at as a benefit.) It sucks that there aren't many good primes available for crop bodies, but that's how it is at the moment. I really did like my Sigma 30mm though.

I do not generally carry a full-size tripod on normal family vacations. Only when I'm specifically going out to take photos. I do carry my Slik Mini-V with me most of the time that I have my SLR gear.

 

[Madwand1]

Look beyond just this trip in terms of overall cost. You'll have to replace the 17-40 if you sell it, and you're probably not going to do better with less money.

I suggest keeping the 17-40 and 50, and getting a 55-250 EF-S for the reach. I used a 17-40 on a crop body as the primary lens, and found myself using it most of the time. I've taken a 70-200 f/4 L on vacation and ended up mostly leaving it at the hotel due to the size and weight. I agree that 40 is not enough on the long side though. The 50 f/1.8 is great for low-light and close portrait usage -- something you're not going to better for a reasonable price. The 55-250 is of course for the additional range. All of these are relatively light lenses, so portable enough if you're already taking a DSLR on a trip.

An alternative more towards the all-in-one would be the 15-85 EF-S. This would be a great single travel and all-around lens, but it costs about as much as the 17-40 L.