Boo wrote:
> If you could only take one lens out of the following for a Canon 350D
> for 2 weeks away from home,
Why would you only be able to take one lens? Is it illegal to carry more
than one lens on the C2C route? Are there camera police waiting to pounce
and arrest you? ;-)
If you only take one lens, that's a personal choice, not an actual
limitation.
> which lens would you pick and why ?
I think the real question is which lens do *you* want to carry, but since
you asked, the simple answer is...
It depends!
> Lenses are :
> 18-55 f3.5-5.6 206g
> 17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS 500g
> 10-22 f3.5-4.5 420g
First you need to determine your main objective. What is the point of this
walk? Is it to walk from A to B as efficiently, conveniently and as
enjoyably as possible? Or is it to capture a superb photographic record of
all the scenery enroute?
In other words, what's more important, the walk (i.e. travelling light), or
the photography?
Once you've decided this, the answer is simple.
If the walk (travelling light) is more important, take the 18-55.
If the photography is more important, take the 10-22 *and* the 17-85.
If you really must choose between the latter two, then it depends on what
kind of landscapes you prefer to take. The 17-85 has a better focal range
overall, giving a good range from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto.
Given that it also has IS, I'd say it's pretty close to the ideal "travel"
lens, although not quite wide enough for my liking. (In the past I often
used to carry only a 24-48, which would be equivalent to 15-30 on a 350D).
If you're obsessed with wide angle photography, as I used to be, then the
10-22 would be the better choice, but you'd be stuffed if you wanted to zoom
into anything. This rarely bothered me when I was younger, but these days I
take a lot more telephoto shots. I'm now more interested in zooming into
details within the landscape rather than trying to "get it all in".
It really depends on what kind of shots you're looking for. If you're
looking for wide angle shots, that's what you'll find. If you're looking for
telephoto shots, that's what you'll find instead. I've found that looking
for one type of shot can blind you to the other. So it really depends on
what kind of shots you want to take.
If you have specific viewpoints in mind, a wide angle can work well, but if
you don't really know what to expect, the 17-85 would be more versatile. If
your photos are more opportunistic in nature, it's handy to be able to zoom
in and cut out distracting foreground features, which I think is more
appropriate for a *walk* as opposed to a *photo trip*. If you don't have a
wide angle but you really need one, you can always take a few shots at 17mm
and stitch them together later. Alternatively, if you only have the wide
angle but you need to zoom in, you'd have to crop the shot later, so you'd
lose a lot of resolution. This would probably be fine for website images,
but not for prints.
> I'm interested to hear about other options as well but I won't be
> buying any new ones this year at least...
I recently did a walk with my 400D and my G9. I put the 10-22 (16-35 equiv)
on my 400D, expecting it to be a good complement to the 35-210 (equiv) on my
G9 (giving a total coverage of 16-210). That arrangement would be a good
option if you had a G9.
However, the first shots I wanted to take required an even longer telephoto,
so I put the 90-300 on my 400D instead. It stayed there for the rest of the
walk. I took most of my shots on the G9 and I didn't take any wide angles at
all. I just don't seem to be looking for wide shots much anymore (or maybe
it was just that particular walk/location).
For lightweight travel in the past I've carried only the 18-55 and 90-300
(not a brilliant quality lens, but very light), but I have missed the 10-22
when I wanted to do some creative photography.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
