One lens for vacation

[ScottFielding]

I am going on holiday with the family and ideally would like to take just one lens. I am interested in what others would regard as a popular lens for a beach/pool holiday with young kids??

I have a 5D III and currently own a 50L and 70-200 f2.8 II. I will have enough on my hands with one lens and am therefore considering taking the 50L as love using a wide aperture for capturing my kids. I will not have a chance to take many scenery shots, so will be doing mostly candid/portraits.

I could justify purchasing a new lens before I go and have been considering the 135 f2 for a while now, but my friend recently captured some great shots with his 16-35 II.

If I am purchasing a new lens I need to get it right as don't want it gathering dust when I get back. I mainly use the 50L and nearly always try to have it at 1.2. I have previously considered the 85L but with fast kids I need a quick focus lens, and feel the 135 f2 would suit better.

I live on a small Island and have no access to wide lenses, so don't want to jump into an expensive prime.

Would appreciate any advice as my only concern with the 50L is that I would have to be close to the water to capture the kids. I am not looking to get any group shots.

Cheers,

Scott

 

[mrsfotografie]

May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.

 

[Random Orbits]

If you're used to the 50L, just take the 50L. It's what you and your kids are used to, but it just might mean that you get a bit more wet than with the 70-200 II. :

 

[bholliman]

50mm is an excellent general purpose lens. Probably a better choice than your 70-200 if you are just taking one lens. The 70-200 II is also really large and heavy. If you plan to do a lot of walking, the extra weight can take away from the enjoyment of your vacation.

If you are thinking about purchasing another lens, a 24-70mm 2.8 zoom would be an excellent choice both for your vacation and almost everything else. The constant 2.8 aperature will allow you to take great portraits and family shots in low light without flash. Both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70mm VC would be excellent choices. The Canon 24-105mm 4.0 is another option, but will not be as capable in low light indoor settings as the f/2.8 lenses.

The 135L f/2 is an awesome lens and I recommend it as a future addition to your kit. That said, its probably not an ideal choice if you are just taking one lens on a trip. It has a 3 foot minimum focal distance and you usually need to be much further away from you subject than that to get more than just their face in the frame. Not ideal in small rooms or tight quarters.

 

[RGF]

what do you want to shoot? Scenics, family pix, group scenes, ... The big orange ball as it sets or rise with a tree right in front of it?

What are you going to do with the images? Web, 4x6, ... Don't need a great lens for these. Might consider an 18-200 for general purpose any goes photography. or 18-135 STM is fairly sharp but not as long.

 

[pierceography]

I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. It covers the range of the 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm and is just as sharp. For me, the 24-70 range is my focal wheelhouse.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 'ultimate' one-lens solution is the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. I often take that on trips - you get a huge range and good IQ, but it's a big lens (same size as the 70-200 II).

A 24-105L is also good one-lens option for a more reasonable size/weight, but I'll likely take my 24-70L II instead, as that can do portraits, landscapes, etc.

The 24-70/2.8 II and 70-200/2.8 IS II would make a wonderful two-lens kit.

Might consider an 18-200 for general purpose any goes photography. or 18-135 STM is fairly sharp but not as long.

I'd really, really, really recommend against taking a 5DIII (which the OP stated as the body) and just one EF-S lens that can't be mounted on that body.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Here's another vote for a standard zoom, either the 24-105 or the new 24-70.

There's a reason they're called standard zooms, and that they're the lenses the manufacturers sell in the box with the camera. You'll find plenty of edge cases where a specific lens outdoes the standard zoom, but the standard zoom is going to be good to excellent at everything.

Your 50, for example, as good a lens as it unquestionably is, makes for an absolutely miserable 24mm lens. And while the 135 will be great for headshot portraits, it's going to suck royally at most everything else. A standard zoom, on the other hand, will do quite well at both wide-angle landscape work and headshot portraits, even if it's not the absolute best lens for either.

If you know specifically what you'll be shooting, grab the specific tool for that specific job. But if you don't know what you'll be shooting, you want a Swiss Army Knife that'll get the job done (and do it well even if not perfectly) no matter what. And that's what a standard zoom is.

Cheers,

b&

 

[bwfishing]

Just my two cents....

I would always recommend taking at least one back-up lens, even if is just a pancake Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens. Because you never know what can happen.

+1 for the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens is a easy winner to me regarding the information provided.

I hope you and yours have a GREAT time on vacation!

 

[tiger82]

The 17-40 f/4L with your 50 should work. The 17-40 is fairly compact and light and half the cost of a 24-70 II f/2.8L or a 16-35 II f/2.8L.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
reasons. It's relatively cheap to buy - around $300 - but has good enough image quality that it has been a standard package zoom with many Canon bundles. It's relatively cheap to buy so you're not going to break the
bank if it's damaged or stolen. It doesn't weigh as much as some of the alternatives suggested here and most vacations I've been on involve a lot of walking without many "rest stops". You can sell it after your vacation if it doesn't fit nicely into your long range lens plan and you won't lose much, if any, money. If you decide to take the
50 crop sensor, the 18-135 is another similarly priced option.

 

[tiger82]

au contraire! I'd suggest the best single lens to take with either of your cameras is the 28-135is for the following
reasons. It's relatively cheap to buy - around $300 - but has good enough image quality that it has been a standard package zoom with many Canon bundles. It's relatively cheap to buy so you're not going to break the
bank if it's damaged or stolen. It doesn't weigh as much as some of the alternatives suggested here and most vacations I've been on involve a lot of walking without many "rest stops". You can sell it after your vacation if it doesn't fit nicely into your long range lens plan and you won't lose much, if any, money. If you decide to take the
50 crop sensor, the 18-135 is another similarly priced option.

Have you shot with it? With a 5D3, I don't think the OP wanted to sacrifice IQ. If IQ is not paramount, then an SX50 or SX40 P&S will serve the OP well.

 

[TAF]

May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.

+1 for the 24-105L.

I would also recommend (as others have) getting the 40mm pancake as a small (in your pocket) spare, just in case.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

+1 for 24-105mm for vacation.

+1 for at least one back up lens...... 40mm or 50mm....

 

[spinworkxroy]

I would strongly advise on the 24-70ii over the 24-105.I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again

 

[neuroanatomist]

I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again

Ditto. Still have my 24-105, too...I've gone so far as to shoot product pics of it and dig out the original box, although I haven't actually listed it yet.

 

[tiger82]

If this were an exercise in reading and interpreting te OP's request, most of you will get a FAIL. He has his hands full with kids, won't have time to explore, and likes to shoot wide open. Surely, a bulky lens won't work and neither will a small aperture solution.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I personally own both and the reason I kept both is I keep telling myself I'm going to bring the 24-105 for travels as a one lens option. However, once I start using the 24-70, I soon found the difference between the 2 is way more than I imagined. Till today, I still own both bit I've not touched my 24-105 since for anything whatsoever. I don't think I'll ever sacrifice what the 24-70 can give to use the 24-105 again

Ditto. Still have my 24-105, too...I've gone so far as to shoot product pics of it and dig out the original box, although I haven't actually listed it yet.

Out of curiosity, how much did you shoot the 24-105 at 105, and how're you dealing with the shorter focal length?

I’ll observe that there's a bigger difference between 70 and 105 than there is between 85 and 100, the two most popular primes in that range...and that most people used to shooting a 100 chose it over an 85 for a reason, even if you can compensate....

Cheers,

b&

 

[AudioGlenn]

+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II. I used mine on my cruise to the Bahamas WAAAAAy more than I thought. BTW, I brought everything but used this most of the time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ditto. Still have my 24-105, too...I've gone so far as to shoot product pics of it and dig out the original box, although I haven't actually listed it yet.

Out of curiosity, how much did you shoot the 24-105 at 105, and how're you dealing with the shorter focal length?

I’ll observe that there's a bigger difference between 70 and 105 than there is between 85 and 100, the two most popular primes in that range...and that most people used to shooting a 100 chose it over an 85 for a reason, even if you can compensate....
[/quote]

I haven't missed the 70-105mm range, yet. For many scenes, a step closer does the trick. Where I might actually miss the 24-105 (and probably the main reason I haven't sold it) is 'studio' portraits (lighting + backdrop). I do that at f/9-10, the 24-105's IQ is excellent there, and the 105mm means decently tight portraits whereas 70mm doesn't work (too close, wrong perspective).