Timeline for What is a good all-purpose, single-lens choice for a 7D, to take trekking in the Himalaya?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2010 at 18:34 | comment | added | jrista | Eh, I guess thats it. I'll have to rework my answer I guess to put the lens people "expect" at the top to be at the top. | |
| Oct 31, 2010 at 17:47 | comment | added | che | @jrista: Most people don't read very much on the web (see jdem.cz/hsny5), so it's possible that if they see long post about single-lens setup for trekking that starts with recommendation of 70-200 telezoom they don't read any further. | |
| Oct 30, 2010 at 1:55 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 197 characters in body
|
| Oct 30, 2010 at 1:54 | comment | added | jrista | Whats with all the down-votes? Are people only reading the first half of my answer, and leaving it at that? Read the whole thing before you leave a down vote... | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 22:41 | comment | added | jrista | Yeah. I don't really know what the OP needs specifically. I was just spitting out the options that are. I myself would use a combination of lenses. Probably the 18-200 and the 300 prime would be my choice, I think they cover the best range for a decent price. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 22:35 | comment | added | che | @jrista: As I'm thinking about it, telephotos are good for landscapes, so 70-200 would cover all of those three things OP asked for. Which brings the question whether this is something he actually wants :-) | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 22:29 | comment | added | jrista | @che: Very true, its difficult to get wide angles on an APS-C body. I did recommend the 18-200mm EF-S lens, its in the last paragraph. The only reason I mentioned teh 28-300 and 50-500 was they were the only lenses that really covered the "wide" to "supertelephoto" range, that would do well for landscape, portrait, and wildlife photography in a single lens. At 200mm, you still have to get pretty close to get a decent wildlife shot. It should also be noted that you can get some pretty amazing landscape shots with a telephoto. A LOT of my landscapes are done with my 100-400mm. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 22:00 | comment | added | che | @jrista: The main issue I have with your single-lens recommendations is the focal length. 28mm on APC-S makes 44mm equivalent, which isn't really a wide angle. So the only lenses which cover full focal range are those 18-to-somethings, so what you're recommending would really be the best thing only if OP wanted to focus on the wildlife exclusively. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 21:40 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 92 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2010 at 21:33 | comment | added | jrista | @ninesided: Read the rest of my answer. There are some other options that don't have the weight problem. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 21:31 | comment | added | ninesided | weight is most certainly a con, hence the "I'm trying to travel light", but thanks for the input anyway | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 21:18 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 234 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2010 at 21:03 | comment | added | jrista | @che: I wasn't particularly recommending them, they are monsters. But they are the two lenses that cover the full focal range in a single lens, which was what was asked for. (Weight was not mentioned as a con.) It was just one option out of several, its up to the OP to decide what might work for him. The tough part is getting a single lens that can handle landscapes (wide) as well as wildlife (telephoto). I would say 200mm is about as "short" as you could go to get decent wildlife shots, and you would have to be pretty close. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 20:52 | comment | added | che | I'm sorry, I have to downvote this. I wouldn't be very happy with 28-300 as my only lens on an APS-C camera. (Not to mention taking 50-500mm f/4-6.3 Sigma monster on a trek.) | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 20:33 | history | answered | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |