Advice - what to take to Europe

[Rob-downunder]

Hi All,

I am a hobbyist photographer who has been getting back into photography over the last 3 years. I will be going on a holiday to Europe with approx. 6 days in London and 6 days in Paris. T24here will also be short stop overs in Dubai and the Maldives when going to and from Europe. The time in Europe will be spent pretty much exclusively in London and Paris - there may be a single day trip to the country - but consider that all my time will be spent in the cities.

Currently my kit consists of a 6D body, 16-35 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L, 70 - 300 L, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. I am definitely going to take the 24-105 and the 16-35, but I am wondering if I will use the 70-300 or will I be lugging it around the world and not using it because everything in London and Paris will be close and crammed in, negating the need for longer focal lengths. I am also considering taking the 85 1.8 for some wide open portraits, but once again I am not sure whether it is worth taking it. Also I will be purchasing a Gorillapod SLR Zoom to take with me.

I will be travelling with the wife, who can't understand why it can take longer than 15 seconds to take a photo, and why would you bother walking around to find another angle. So I am normally under time pressure which also means that constantly swapping lenses just ends up annoying the wife, which in turn end up annoying me. But I am sure a lot of you can understand that situation !!!

I will be taking standard tourist type photos, and expect to have the 24-105 on the camera probably 80% of the time.

So for those of you who have experience visiting and photographing in London and Paris - would you recommend that I take the 70-300 L and / or the 85 1.8 or should I just stick with the 16-35 and 24-105 and travel lighter?

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

 

[Aichbus]

I own all lenses that you also own, except that I have a 50 mm 1.4 instead of the 1.8 version. In your case I would take the 16-35, 50 and 70-300, and leave the 24-105 at home - IF you don't want to take all you have with you. Each photographer has different needs, but I definitely could not go to Paris or London without a tele lens. Never ever. I would even rather leave the 16-35 at home as well before you could separate me from the 70-300. My minimum requirement would be 70-300 + 40 STM. The latter si sooo small that you can ALWAYS have it with you and if you need more wide angle, in many cases you can take several picture with the 40 and stitch them together.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I understand the part about the wife does not like to take had taken photos ... Certainly, 16-35mm and 24-105mm will be the most used lenses. I would like to take the 85mm mounted on a second body, for spontaneous portraits where there is no time to change the lens.

Did you get a second body Rebel or EOS-M?

 

[Ian_of_glos]

First of all may I extend a warm welcome to you. You have chosen two of the most interesting and exciting cities in the world, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.
In answer to your question, if you mainly want to take pictures of the buildings and tourist attractions then for me the 24-105 would be enough. This lens is on my camera for most of the time when I am travelling.
Do you find you often use the 16-24 range on your 16-35 F4? If so, then take that lens as well.
I cannot think of why you would need anything longer than 105mm - but again it all depends what you shoot. If, for example you plan to visit London zoo then you might find the 70-300 lens useful. If not then I would be inclined to leave it at home.

 

[Tinky]

I would go 16-35 and 70-300.

Gives you epic uwas and frame filling zooms. If you need a '50' you can always crop from the 35... plenty of resolution to play with.

 

[neuroanatomist]

... I am wondering if I will use the 70-300 or will I be lugging it around the world and not using it because everything in London and Paris will be close and crammed in, negating the need for longer focal lengths.

I haven't spent a lot of time in London or Paris, but I have spent ample time in other major cities (and I'm in Boston daily). The 70-300L is part of my urban travel kit precisely because everything is 'close and crammed in'. The longer focal length allows you to isolate subjects – people, architectural elements, etc. – from all that clutter.

FWIW, the rest of my kit comprises the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses. I also take CPL filters, and 10-stop ND filters so I can blur people out of scenes, but that obviously requires a stable tripod. For your kit, a 77mm filter with a 67-77mm step up ring would work well.

I used to take the 16-35/2.8L II and TS-E 24, sold the 16-35/2.8 planning to get the f/4 IS version, but opted for the TS-E 17 instead. I like the TS lenses to correct verticals when shooting architecture. You can correct them in post, but you'll get cropping of the FoV if doing so, so if that's your intent be sure to frame very loosely.

I am also considering taking the 85 1.8 for some wide open portraits, but once again I am not sure whether it is worth taking it.

The 85/1.8 would allow you to get strongly OOF backgrounds...consider that if you're taking portraits while traveling, you might want that background blurred slightly but still recognizable (as opposed to explaining to everyone that the vertical blur is the Eiffel Tower and not a telephone pole).

Also I will be purchasing a Gorillapod SLR Zoom to take with me.

Good idea - you'll want to be in some of the pictures!

I will be travelling with the wife, who can't understand why it can take longer than 15 seconds to take a photo, and why would you bother walking around to find another angle. So I am normally under time pressure which also means that constantly swapping lenses just ends up annoying the wife, which in turn end up annoying me. But I am sure a lot of you can understand that situation !!!

One option to consider is taking just two lenses on any given outing (24-105 and pick wide or long depending on agenda). A Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW will hold the 70-300L (and thus any of your other lenses), and the design makes lens swaps easy (it expands to hold both lenses while swapping). Wear it on a sturdy belt (or on a Lowepro Light Utility Belt with two of the three 'pads' removed).

Have a great trip!

 

[AlanF]

First of all may I extend a warm welcome to you. You have chosen two of the most interesting and exciting cities in the world, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.
In answer to your question, if you mainly want to take pictures of the buildings and tourist attractions then for me the 24-105 would be enough. This lens is on my camera for most of the time when I am travelling.
Do you find you often use the 16-24 range on your 16-35 F4? If so, then take that lens as well.
I cannot think of why you would need anything longer than 105mm - but again it all depends what you shoot. If, for example you plan to visit London zoo then you might find the 70-300 lens useful. If not then I would be inclined to leave it at home.

He's visiting London and Paris, not London and New York! Normally I would recommend just the 24-105 but I got some great shots with the Tammy 150-600 in Paris last summer. So, the 70-300 would be useful. Below is the Eiffel Tower at night shot through the windows of a restaurant using the EOS-M and 18-55. The Eiffel Tower using the Tammy at 150mm, and the Arc de Triomphe at 226mm. I take the big lens for bird photography, but the EOS-M with the 18-55 and 55-250 would be very handy and discrete. Of course, I wouldn't travel without the 100-400 II in future!

 

[Ian_of_glos]

First of all may I extend a warm welcome to you. You have chosen two of the most interesting and exciting cities in the world, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.
In answer to your question, if you mainly want to take pictures of the buildings and tourist attractions then for me the 24-105 would be enough. This lens is on my camera for most of the time when I am travelling.
Do you find you often use the 16-24 range on your 16-35 F4? If so, then take that lens as well.
I cannot think of why you would need anything longer than 105mm - but again it all depends what you shoot. If, for example you plan to visit London zoo then you might find the 70-300 lens useful. If not then I would be inclined to leave it at home.

He's visiting London and Paris, not London and New York! Normally I would recommend just the 24-105 but I got some great shots with the Tammy 150-600 in Paris last summer. So, the 70-300 would be useful. Below is the Eiffel Tower at night shot through the windows of a restaurant using the EOS-M and 18-55. The Eiffel Tower using the Tammy at 150mm, and the Arc de Triomphe at 226mm. I take the big lens for bird photography, but the EOS-M with the 18-55 and 55-250 would be very handy and discrete. Of course, I wouldn't travel without the 100-400 II in future!

Why would it be different if he were visiting New York?

 

[AlanF]

First of all may I extend a warm welcome to you. You have chosen two of the most interesting and exciting cities in the world, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.
In answer to your question, if you mainly want to take pictures of the buildings and tourist attractions then for me the 24-105 would be enough. This lens is on my camera for most of the time when I am travelling.
Do you find you often use the 16-24 range on your 16-35 F4? If so, then take that lens as well.
I cannot think of why you would need anything longer than 105mm - but again it all depends what you shoot. If, for example you plan to visit London zoo then you might find the 70-300 lens useful. If not then I would be inclined to leave it at home.

He's visiting London and Paris, not London and New York! Normally I would recommend just the 24-105 but I got some great shots with the Tammy 150-600 in Paris last summer. So, the 70-300 would be useful. Below is the Eiffel Tower at night shot through the windows of a restaurant using the EOS-M and 18-55. The Eiffel Tower using the Tammy at 150mm, and the Arc de Triomphe at 226mm. I take the big lens for bird photography, but the EOS-M with the 18-55 and 55-250 would be very handy and discrete. Of course, I wouldn't travel without the 100-400 II in future!

Why would it be different if he were visiting New York?

It was a joke meaning that London and New York are more exciting than London and Paris!

 

[Ian_of_glos]

First of all may I extend a warm welcome to you. You have chosen two of the most interesting and exciting cities in the world, and I am sure you will enjoy your visit.
In answer to your question, if you mainly want to take pictures of the buildings and tourist attractions then for me the 24-105 would be enough. This lens is on my camera for most of the time when I am travelling.
Do you find you often use the 16-24 range on your 16-35 F4? If so, then take that lens as well.
I cannot think of why you would need anything longer than 105mm - but again it all depends what you shoot. If, for example you plan to visit London zoo then you might find the 70-300 lens useful. If not then I would be inclined to leave it at home.

He's visiting London and Paris, not London and New York! Normally I would recommend just the 24-105 but I got some great shots with the Tammy 150-600 in Paris last summer. So, the 70-300 would be useful. Below is the Eiffel Tower at night shot through the windows of a restaurant using the EOS-M and 18-55. The Eiffel Tower using the Tammy at 150mm, and the Arc de Triomphe at 226mm. I take the big lens for bird photography, but the EOS-M with the 18-55 and 55-250 would be very handy and discrete. Of course, I wouldn't travel without the 100-400 II in future!

Why would it be different if he were visiting New York?

It was a joke meaning that London and New York are more exciting than London and Paris!

I see. Is New York and Paris an option?

 

[jhpeterson]

I agree with Neuro about definitely taking the 70-300. Just because somehwere is close-in and cramped doesn't rule out tight shots. There's beauty in the details. Besdies, there will always be the places you can't get near enough anyway.
There's no question about taking the 16-35 along, either. You'll find you likely use it for half your pictures, as the wide panoramics it gives are a nice counterpoint to the longer views.
I'd take along one of the other three. The 24-105 is the most versatile, but it's larger, heavier and an f:4. Your other lenses are more than two stops faster, great when working in low light or you want a background definitely out of focus.
My personal choice would be the 85. Yes, its focal length is covered by the 70-300, but it gives a different look, especially wide open and it focuses to under three feet, which makes it perfect for all those subjects right around you.

 

[martti]

24-70mm. 100-400mm and a 35mm f/1.4
A monopod is handy against beggars and a bean bag to stabilize the camera.
I think that the 35mm is the best focal length for Europe on FF.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

if it were me i would take the 16-35 and the 70-300. save the 85 for night images the 24-105 is not really that necessary. When I fly out of NY i take the 17-40 and 70-200 however today added will be my 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.2 for low light

 

[canonistic]

I've been to both cities, and used the wide lenses the most.
So, given your list my first choice would be the 24-105 as it is very versatile.
My second lens would be the 16-35.

On a different topic, please be very careful in Paris especially, the are near the Eiffel tower is known for pickpockets and thiefs. Assume any disturbance is part of a pickpocket attempt.
I purchased a pacsafe backpack to carry gear in with numerous anti theft measures built in, for instance you cannot cut it with box cutters or knives to get inside, and the zippers require several steps to unlock and open.

I purchased a CHEAP tripod, it was small, light, and easy to travel with. It had a carrying case it fit in that went through my belt loop so I could have it with me and my hands free. I threw it away at the end of the trip to save weight and make room in my suitcase for souvenirs.

 

[tomscott]

I'm Currently in my 3rd month out of 5 traveling I did South America Rio to Lima and everything in between now in the US doing Miami to San Francisco for 3 months.

I took 5DMKIII 24-105mm f4 L 16-35mm f2.8 L, 70-300mm L and 50mm 1.8 I would leave the 1.8 at home barely used it.

Also took iPad mini 128gb(write small jpgs to ad and send put them on the pad via sd to lightning connector) it's been a brilliant alternative to my 11" MBA but in heinsight wish I had brought it, a 1tb hyperdrive for transferring and back up, and a 2tb hdd usb3 so when I'm in the hotel lobby I can make a second back up and erase cards.

I took 6 cards 3x32gb 1x16gb and 1x8gb CF Cards 1x32gb 2x16gb SD cards in a little memory card water/dust proof case and 2 battery's. Along with that I also brought a cpl and 10 stop nd and a goby gorilla pod. Worked awesome for me so far.

 

[romanr74]

I'm living in this Europe place and there is no way I'd visit any city without bringing the 16-35mm (or in my case the TS-E 17mm) and the 24-70mm. I usually leave the 70-200mm at home for city trips.

 

[te1973]

Silly question.
In Europe in general - and specifically in London & Paris there are no photo motives beyond 105mm and below f4.........

 

[Arty]

The only place in Paris where I would want a long lens is Notre Dame. For just about everything else, I'd want a fast normal to wide prime (35F2 IS) or the 24-105L for outdoor
stuff. In London, you can make good use of the 24-105L, but the wide zoom will be useful for the Tower or other
large outdoor architecture. I like a fast prime for very low light, as in Louvre. While high ISOs are usable, I still like the
IS in combination with a fast prime and lower ISOs.

 

[rfdesigner]

Bring a brolly and a mac. (rain coat or similar)

10 years ago I would have said always take a brolly every day, these days the BBC weather forcast can be relied on at least for the next 24 hours, and will give you an idea for the next 48, beyond that it's still hit and miss.

London is relatively cramped with fewer clear views due to almost no road being straight (a few are but not many), Paris has a lot more in terms of open boulivards, and they've had a planning policy limiting building height so once you get above about 6 stories there's not too much beyond the eiffel tower.. so longer may be useful there.

Speaking as a brit, you'll find most of us do not think of ourselves as being in Europe, that starts the other side of the "channel", also London is not the same as England (population is >50% "ethinic minorities", unlike England which is about 90% white british.. mostly from old anglo-saxon stock), if you get the chance to get outside the capital you'll find a different environment. Some very pretty olde worlde places.. I live just outside the New Forest.. but it's not the only nice place.

whatever you do have a great trip and pray for good weather.

 

[Pookie]

Lots of money!!!!