If you could only take two lenses on a trip, no budget, what would you take? [closed]

Question

Let's say you are going on a trip and want to balance covering different types of shots (landscapes, portraits) and are limited to 2-3 lenses. What would you take?

For example, it seems like Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a popular choice for a telephoto lens, likewise something like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM would cover wide angle, but have you then lost too much in the middle?

I am assuming something like the Tarmon 18-270mm would distort images too much, any other suggestions for combos?

Answer 1

Since you said 2 or 3 lenses and "no budget" I'm going to go for:

• Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L Perhaps the finest lens ever produced by Canon, sadly discontinued due to the use of lead in it's manufacture. Short enough to be usable in a city/town but still long enough to to provide a comfortable distance to your subject. Entrance pupil the size of a dinnerplate to amazingly blurred backgrounds (where required).

• Canon TS-E 17mm f4.0L the ultimate landscape/architectural lens. Tilt allows you to maximise depth of field for sweeping vistas, or minimise it for creative cityscapes. Shift allows architectural photos in confined spaces without converging vertical lines. Can be used to generate "camera shift" medium format size panoramas with no parallax for easy stitching.

• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II An all rounder, one of the finest zooms available for 35mm. Will provide flexibility and handle anything in the mid range whilst still being good in low light and provided shallow depth of field toward the long end.

With the rest of the unlimited budget I would get a pair of 1DXs, video grade tripod and a Sherpa to carry everything.

Answer 2

As you sugggest, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM is an excellent choice and in addition, the new Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II would cover the rest of the range nicely.

This is assuming you are using a full frame lens.

If you were super nice i'd also get the Sigma 12-24mm and happily have all of 12-200 covered. However anything under 24mm and over 200mm is heading towards 'specific' types of photography (sports, nature, etc etc)

Hope that helps.

Answer 3

For a trip I would bring:

• One lens that covers both sides of a normal focal length, like the EF 28-135mm IS USM.

• A tele zoom like the EF 70-300mm DO IS USM.

They are both zooms with a reasonable length, with image stabilisation, and they are reasonably small. The diffraction lenses in the 70-300 makes it small compared to regular lenses with that range. Besides just the weight/volume to carry around, a reasonably small lens attracts less attention.

When considering the focal lengths of the lenses, the camera that you use is of course a factor. I have a EOS 5D mk II with a full-size sensor, so 28mm is often wide enough. For a camera with a smaller sensor you might want a wider angle.

A super-tele is less practical for travel. Either it's large and expensive (even if you have the budget for it, you might not want to lose it), or it's a big compromise optically.