moeronn

and what to leave at home.

I have the habit of bringing too much gear on trips. Most of it stays in the hotel or in my backpack, doing nothing other than adding unnecessary weight. This summer we're planning on going back to London and spending a few days in Paris and I want to travel lighter.

This is what I was thinking of bringing:
30D
430EX
17-55
50mm 1.8 and/or 85 1.8
10-22 (need to get)
Tripod (need to get)
1.4x teleconverter

Leaving at home
70-200 f4/IS
Grip
Extension Tubes

I thought I was leaving more than I was bringing. I guess not. I guess the main thing is the 70-200. I don't use it enough to justify bringing it. Last time in London (before having the 17-55) I had the 17-40 on nearly the entire time and I missed having something wider.

Thoughts? How much gear do you usually bring?

jupitersolo

If you're not going to take the 70-200, leave the 1.4 at home as well.

moeronn

But it's small and works with the 50 and 85.

Sarlacc

Take the 10-22, 17-55, & teh 70-200, leave the rest.

waTSX

When we went to Hawaii I took a good part of my kit, and I'm glad I did:

40D
17-55
10-22
70-200
100 macro
580 EX flash
Tripod

And also battery charger, several CF cards, polarizer, etc. All of it fit into my Expedition 5 backpack and I used it all. See my Flickr page for the Kauai shots as examples. If I didn't think I'd be using a particular lens for that day, I'd leave it in the room, otherwise everything went. No big deal.

moeronn

The main reason for bringing a prime is for some of the museums. I'm still not sold on bringing the 70-200. Not only does it not get used much, but it's also a bit of a standout while walking around.

If we were going somewhere tropical, I'd have to consider getting a proper macro.

I did leave off accessories, including wireless shutter release, which I will be bringing. Still debating on wireless flash trigger.

I'm planning on using the backpack only for transporting the equipment - many places won't let you bring in bachpacks. Also considering getting a smaller carry bag for walking around.

Sarlacc

When I went to England a couple years ago all I used were my 24mm and my 70-200.

I usually take all my lenses with me and I had my back pack everywhere.

When I WAS going to go to india and malaysia I was just going to bring the 24, 70-200, and 105 macro.

einsatz

I agree.

moeronn

You guys wouldn't even bring a flash? I find it essential (along with the tripod) to take night shots with us in them.

BTW - a little, though very important, background info. My wife hates that I come back with so many photos with very few of us. That is the main factor for the tripod and the flash.

Sarlacc

so take the tripod and flash..I was just talking lenses.

I never use a flash, dont even own one, I dont like them at all.

Tripod, dont own one of those either, but I have total access to my friends back up now...so yeah I'd definitely take that.

sixsixfour

for the most part:

30D
430EX
17-55

these three should do just fine.

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

I'd bring all my geat except like the little things.

70-200 is great to have since you own one, but if you know your never going bring it out then leave it. I usually bring it only to certain outings likes sports or concerts, and if i'm allowed to.

einsatz

I dunno... I can't think of going to Paris carrying a tripod around. I mean, if you're spending time setting up a long exposure shot of the city at night or something like that, you're probably wasting time in an amazing city. For other shots where you need some stability, IS will do fine, for everything else, rest the camera on an object.

Really, take whatever you want then let us know what you actually used

BIGTUFFGUY

i would bring the 30 + grip, more shots and better feeling when shooting vertical, which you will be doing.
10-22 Europe is tight.
17-55 2.8 is fast enough esp with IS. for a nice portrait shot. leave the 50 at home.

85+70-200 are too long for the city.
you're not allowed using flash in most museums, and how useful is it while at 10mm?
its extra weight for nothing IMO.

Have fun, share the pics with us when you get back.

Mizouse

is this a strictly photo trip or are you just bringing your camera gear along with the trip?

if its the later, i just say your 30D 430ex and 17-55 and call it a day

its a pain in the ass carrying around everything.

Sarlacc

I very much disagree.

This lens is great for grabbing abstract shots, or portraits or interesting people during your travels. It has enough reach when you really need it.

the 70-200 happens to be a VERY practical lens.

ChodTheWacko

My kit is basically the 10-22, 24-70, 70-200, 1.4x.

I agree with jupitersolo, if you aren't going to bother with the 70-200, I see little
point in bringing the 1.4x. Bring it if you like, I just don't see you using it.

70-200 is still useful in cities for closeups of stuff. A comfortable backpack makes bringing extra gear not a big deal. Clip on the chest strap and you won't even notice the weight.

But the bottom line is - bring what you think you will use. I used to bring more, and
just didn't use it enough to bother anymore.

Oh, and who cares if it makes you stand out? I would only be worried in really rural areas where I think I might get mugged.

- Frank

lcrazyaznl

iTrader: (1)

I carry this everyday to school in case i run into a shoot or a random idea with my friend whose doing a 365.

Tamarac 9 5549
http://www.epinions.com/prices/Adven...pack_5549_Gray

Carry d300 gripped
70-200 vr 2.8
17-55 2.8
50mm 1.4
2 sb800
1 sb600 which i am borrowing currently.

its pretty heavy but hey i know i need whip out that 70-200 here and there, but i do leave this bag at home when i'm strictly using only one lens.

sixsixfour

great minds think alike

unless there will be some serious shooting, for a recreational "travel" setup, the aforementioned should be more than enough.

Osamu

i would probably take the 10-22, 17-55, and flash.

I'd be really tempted to take the 70-2 but I think I used a telephoto like 3 times when I was in Europe last time. Actually if I went back, i'd probably try to take a telephoto, and force myself to try some different shots.

tripod would be way too much hassle for me. but that might just be my personal opinion. It might've come in handy a few times, but I was always on the move and even a relatively small travel tripod is a pretty big piece of equipment to be carrying around. I was staying at a different hotel everynight for like a week, and a few other hotels after that, so never really had a place to leave anything behind.

moeronn

Lots of varried opinions. Food for thought.

waTSX

I disagree as well. The 70-200 is one of the most versatile lenses I own. I use it for a wide range of applications, including city shooting and landscapes. If I was going on an important trip, I'd never leave that one behind.

waTSX

For me it comes down to the reasons I invested in an SLR system in the first place, and that's the versatility of it. I can't count how many times I've read people complaining about the weight and bulkiness of multi lens systems. I don't get it. If it's such a big deal, why buy it in the first place? Buy an advanced compact and call it good.

With todays quality packs, there's little excuse, IMO, to leave the bulk of your kit at home. Sure you should tailor it if you really think you're not going to use something, but carrying this stuff around just isn't a big deal to me. The very reasons I bought in the first place are why I want to take it with me on trips.

moeronn

^^ I think it comes down to taking what I think I will use for this specific trip. Being that many places don't allow backpacks, I can't carry everything with me all the time. The 6MDH gets heavy if putting everything in it and carrying it for 8-12 hours a day.

This is meant to be a vacation with some (okay, a lot of) picture taking, but not a dedicated photography trip.

Sarlacc

It'll make you more of a man.

wackjum

Since you have a 30D, get the stabilized 18-200.

That's the only lens I bring whenever I go on vacation.

But then again, I also don't take very many pictures. I don't think I've ever looked back on pictures I've taken during vacation.

yohan81718

sometimes, photographs may leave us with great memories that can be held on our hands.. but you should also remember that you may miss a lot of things while you are occupied taking them.. not to mention a lot of weights you have to carry around the whole day!!

when i was in europe last summer, i brought my 40d, grip, 17-55 and 85... when i was in europe, i just had 40d mounted with 17-55 the whole time... grip and 85 was left in my luggage


so.. like mizouse, i say 30d with 17-55.. and enjoy your moments..

Mizouse

yea if i could do japan, shanghai and hong kong over again, i wouldve just brought the 17-55, 40D w/o grip and flash.

moeronn

Not that I don't appreciate all the input, but there is NO WAY I'm going without a 10-22.

ChodTheWacko

What places don't allow backpacks? Museums?
I can't think of a place I've gone to that didn't allow backpacks, museums
perhaps? But you won't need the long lenses anyway for inside, so in those
scenarios, just leave the lens.

That's the problem with slings - too much weight on one shoulder.
Backpacks FTW.

But it is still about shooting style. You should have a pretty good idea now of what you shoot, and how you shoot, and can decide what to best bring with you. Lenses that get used rarely, you can probably just hack it.
(crop for longer shots, etc).

- Frank

Mizouse

If you need to shoot that wide then stand further back.

moeronn

Many of the museums, especially the Louvre, require you to check backpacks. Mine is also rather bulky and I tend to bump people if I turn too quickly.
That may work for some things, but not everything, especially inside some of the cathedrals/churches.

Here's an example of when backing up can hurt the composition. Going to ~12mm would have made a huge difference over 17mm. Too many trees in the way and I still couldn't get the whole damn thing in the picture.

.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/68088083@N00/345026057/" title="London Eye by MoeRonn, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/345026057_025db63611.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="London Eye" /></a>

The other option would be to get a full frame. But then I'd have to replace the 17-55.

LIPPSTUH

iTrader: (2)

for what i would shoot:

Body
Flash stofen and index card
Tripod + Head
10-22
17-55
and probably the 85
chargers, cf cards, bag.

Sarlacc

Wow...I read this and think "this dude is actually claiming to know something about photography?"

Think about for a couple seconds, because this is a SILLY statement.

ChodTheWacko

You can't always stand further back. (or closer, in the case of zooms).
And ultra wides are just a whole new ballgame.

And to second the points made previously, it is actually quite different to
stand closer and user a wider lens, than stand further back and use a zoom.
This is partially due to depth of field, and depth of field compression.

If you haven't experimented with this before, then you should - it is quite
interesting and useful.

- Frank

Mizouse

ok maybe i shouldve made it in red, geez no one can take a joke these days

BIGTUFFGUY

i'm not telling anyone to keep their 70-200 at home. I'm not saying its a bad lens. I've owned one. I have a 300L F4 IS now, that I've used in the city. Sure you'll get a good shot of something up close. Cool, some nice candids too. Is that what your trip is about?

Would you rather take a nice shot of the square, or a candid of a random person 100ft away? The 300 is arguably sharper than all versions of the 70-200 (so i've read) Does that mean i'll take it? no.

I've travelled my fair share, have I ever wanted more reach... nope. Have i wanted wider shots, yup.

Call me a witch and burn me at the stake, I through in my 2 cents, take them for what they are worth. By all means, bring ALL your kit and tell us what you used and what never left your bag.

Sarlacc

I cant deny saying the desire to go wider doesnt out weigh the desire to longer...But I wouldnt leave my longer lens at home either

moeronn

I was on the fence about that post since you've seemed a bit pissy lately.

My wife desires that I go longer, but that's a completely different topic.

The 70-200 is great for trips to the zoo/sea world and the like, but it will most likely say at home... or at least at the hotel most of the time.

waTSX

This part of your post sums up the issue. It's up to shooing style, and it's up to the individual shooter to make that determination. For me, the 70-200 is an extremely useful and versatile lens, even on a crop body, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be caught thousands of miles from home without it. Landscapes, cityscapes, portraits, sports, the 70-200 excels at them all. Again, your mileage may vary. Moeronn's mileage may vary. For me, it's making the trip.

And of course the 300 is sharper, it's a prime lens.