Which Lens?

[ghassert]

I will be going to both Yosemite and Lake Tahoe for the last week of August and first week of September.

My question is:

If you could only take 1 or maybe 2 lenses, what would you bring. My camera is a Canon Digital Rebel xt. I don't want to bring too much, both because of flying with them and when I get there it will probably be mostly day hikes and I wouldn't want to leave anything of value in the car when hiking, so I would want to carry them with me.

I currently own a Canon EF 24-104 F4 L IS, a Canon 100mm EF F2.8 Macro, Canon EF 100 - 400mm F4.5 - 5.6 L IS and Canon EFS 10 - 22mm F3.5 - 4.5.

I have already ruled out the 100 - 400.

I also would not be adverse to purchasing another lens if it made sense.

Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions.

Glenn

 

[DougPaul]

Depends on what kind of pics you like to take.

The following is from my 35mm film days. I had a choice of 28, 50, and 135mm lenses with a 2x tele-extender:
I tend to like large scenes taken with the 28mm lens and have done trips where that was the only lens that I took. I have on occasion taken the 28 and 50mm lenses with the tele-extender as a medium weight combo.

So from your collection, I would take the 10-22mm lens (14oz) and maybe the 24-104mm lens (heavy at 24oz). You might consider a lighter non-L lens to save weight if you don't mind the lower quality.

The Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens (16 oz) might be a nice one-lens-does-almost-everything approach or might be nice in combo with the 10-22mm lens.

And if you really want to save weight, the USM version of the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm, F3.5-5.6 USM) is only 6oz (at a somewhat lower optical quality). If you want to add a light-weight telephoto you could add a EF 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 II USM at 11 oz or the EF 75-300 f4-5.6 III USM at 17oz.

Doug

 

[darren]

I'd take the 10-22 and the 24-105. With the 1.6x crop body that gets you ~ 16 - 165mm and that will cover everything but wildlife, sports, and macro. That is why I have been thinking about getting the 24-105.

The weight difference between the 17-85 vs the 24-105 is not worth the cost IMO.

As for macro, I have found that I do not shoot much macro when going to a place for the first (or second) time. Macro can take so much time that I rarely do it in a new place. So I woudn't carry the 100 macro even though it is an awesome lens.

Have fun.

- darren

 

[ghassert]

Thanks...

Thanks Doug and Darren,

I've been leaning towards the 10 - 22mm and the 24 - 105. I have also seen some good reviews of the new Tamron 18 - 250mm. But, most likely I will take the other two.

Again, Thanks,

Glenn