Canon or Sony FF with 24-105 f/4. The additional reach is worth more to me than the extra stop of light, but that's just me. I have to say Tony's Olympus setup is intriguing, but maybe gives up too much low light capability.
Same. Used to do this when I was Canon, first lens I bought when I switched to Sony was the 24-105. Lighter lens and extra reach is a fair trade for the loss of 1 stop vs. the 24-70 2.8
I used to shoot Olympus, and I will say that the E-M5II with the Olympus PRO 12-40mm F2.8 (24-80mm FF equivalent) was a pretty amazing setup for travel. Light, very well weather sealed (held up in Iceland, in the rain, on a glacier), great IBIS, attractive, durable build, excellent handling. The thing that ends up lacking is dynamic range, but I have to also admit that the pixel/sensor-shift produces amazing results if you're setting up landscape and long exposure shots (something like 60 MP RAW files) that have amazing color, detail, and dynamic range; not a perfect solution all the time, but certainly gets the job done. For travel alone, I think it's hard to beat.
I own both the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 II and the EF 24-105 f4 IS. For travel, the IS and the extra reach makes the 24-105 a more versatile lens. Whether it's immobile subjects in low light or controlled motion blur (such as with waterfalls), the IS gives me more flexibility than does the extra pop of the f2.8. To be fair, this isn't always an easy question because I do like the flexibility that f2.8 offers with DOF options. Maybe next year, Canon will offer a 24-70 f2.8 IS lens and make this an easier choice for me.
I like the Fuji X-T2 with the Fuji 18-135. Light and affordable. If I think there my be birds or wildlife on my trip I’ll include the Fuji 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter. AND if there will be night photos I’ll throw in the Rokinon 12 mm manual focus. But lightest and easiest is #1.
I would suggest the Olympus OM-D EM5 MKII with the Olympus 14-150 for travel. Light, excellent range and weatherproof. It is so nice to not to have to worry about the rain or snow when out and about. I can still get some great separation, its really about zoom and distance to subject compared to background. With a tripod and the highres shot function, I can get some very large high pixel files. Not for windy days or moving subjects, but its a nice feature that I have used on occasion.
I just pack a nice sharp prime lens, and use post-processing methods like stitching, cropping and stacking. It's not perfect, but it's a lot easier and lighter to carry around, which means I actually bring my camera everywhere.
Recently, per your suggestion, I purchased a 24-70 2.8 Tamron; have it on my D780, for my travels to a couple national parks; best lens I have ever purchased, & the best advice I have followed in quite a while. Just wanted to say thanks for the video.
I've found I'd much rather have a light lens and camera when I travel than haul around big lenses. I've also found that sticking with a good prime, like a 50mm, helps me worry less about framing and enjoy the trip more.
Shimon Galiley - I agree, you can’t beat a nifty fifty for a great all around lens. They are compact, light weight and work under all lighting conditions.
Ditto. I’m usually happy in most situations with a prime from 35mm to 85mm (although the 85 is limiting at times) on my A7RII. I can always crop in, but I rarely feel the need. My all time favorite set up was walking around with a crop sensor Nikon and a nifty fifty. Easy to get great images.
Shimon, let me play devil's advocate here by proposing that perhaps people should spend much more time thinking about clean composition than just getting everything into one image. For that, a zoom with a wide range of focal lengths is best. When I am traveling, the overall gestalt is important to me, yes, but it's the details that I want to take home with me as images. The artistic challenges of composition grow exponentially as the number of primary image elements grows. If your skill level causes you to stop enjoying your trip, try zooming in as far as possible on the most interesting detail. If you feel comfortable with that, zoom out a bit to bring one more detail in. Make certain that the two elements relate nicely to each other. Keep zooming out until you think you are trying to juggle too many balls at once, then zoom back in a bit and take your shot.
I did a trip once with one prime (50mm equivalent). Too limiting - never again. Maybe if it was a 35mm equivalent. One zoom, one prime is perfect for me.
I would go with the Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 for travel. It lets in so much more light than that superzoom. It is also a bit sharper and a little more contrasty. Weather sealing is great and it is built like a tank. When I travel the that is super important. I know MFT doesn't have as shallow DOF as a 35mm size sensor, but at 80mm you can get some bokeh in tigher portraits. When I travel that is my main lens and I bring a prime for when I want a shallower DOF, but most of the time this Olympus 12-40mm is perfect. The Panasonic 12-35 is a bit smaller, but I find that extra reach 40mm versus 35mm is worth it and to take quite a lot at 80mm.
@@benwilde4337 I had a telephoto zoom way back when I shot Canon Rebels, hardly ever used it. I don't really get a boner shooting flying birds so it isn't really my deal.
I travel with a Leica SL and the Leica Vario-Elmarit zoom 24-90mm. This combo pretty much covers all my needs. Going up to 90mm instead of the usual 70mm was a wise decision by Leica.
My landscape/walking around setup is D800 and 24-120mm F4 and 20mm 1.8. The 24-120mm F4 was basically free. Nikon included it with the cost of a D750 a while back. So I bought the kit, kept the 24-120 and sold the D750.
I'm with team Tony. I travel for work a lot and also ride a bicycle, so small and easy to tote is important. My travel setup is an E-M10 MkII with a Tamron 14-150. Rokinon 7.5mm in the bag, just in case I want some superwide shots. If I need to go even smaller, I have an Olympus E-PM2 with a 14-42 pancake lens and VF-4 viewfinder. For cycling, it's a Canon G7x, which fits in a jersey pocket.
I have a Canon DSLR with 5 lenses, but I just bought a Sony a6000 with the kit lenses and I am going to change that out for the 18-105 and also get the 55-210 and use that super small and light setup for travel. I did a couple of overseas trips and out of state big trips with the big Canon setup and I'm not doing that again.
That a6000 setup is exactly what I was using and I have to tell you, it is brilliant! But I just went ahead and shot myself in the foot and bought an A7III. I haven't had a chance to travel with it yet, but I doubt it will be as convenient and versatile as the a6000. Time will tell. Good thing is I can always go back.
I’m limiting myself to a Fujifilm X100F for travel to city destinations. I travel with just carry-on luggage. My whole kit fits in a tiny Tenba BYOB 7 insert with room to spare. In my (long gone) student days I traveled with a compact SLR , a 50mm f/1.8, and a dozen rolls of Ektachrome, and I did not find it too limiting.
My last vacation I traveled with Sony RX10 mark 1 and Fuji XT2, but used RX10 the most. RX10 advantages: 1) actually weatherproof and inexpensive. 2) somewhat compact compared to what you recommend here. 3) constant aperture 24-200/2.8 lens . 4) BIG one for me: Build in ND filter that turns on automatically. 5) Big one for me: Flash Xsync is 1/2000. That + ND filter, means my Flash can fire without need to go to HSS at midday on the beach. Great for beach destination. 6) Lens is Image Stablization. 7) When shooting Raw that Sony sensor has some DR recovery, more than you would expect from 1 inch sensor, 8) is cheap second hand - something happens to it - no big deal, 9) Face recognition even in backlit situation is actually superior to Fuji XT2 , 10) battery life is surprisingly good for mirrorless.
Just bought a used Mk1. Next week, off on vacation for a test run. Last vacation had my A6000, got caught in a shower, had to cover up and head back to the car. Decided to go for the RX10, for all the reasons you listed. 24-200 is close to my normal range without lens changes.
here are couple of shots I took of my wife during last vacation. This RX10 was getting soaked by sea water (!) of Sea of Cortez. c2.staticflickr.com/2/1793/43287828454_5354c00122_b.jpg c2.staticflickr.com/2/1818/43957903032_6b1c3bdf8a_b.jpg I'd be very careful with A6000. My A6000 died instantly after 0.5 sec contact with Caribbean sea 3 years ago on a cruise. Together with 16-70/F4 and HVL43M flash. Zero weather resistance and I mean zero. I never touched a A6000 since that. That RX10 can take some abuse.
I just bought a D850 but I am NOT taking it on holiday. I will carry on with my D7200 with the kit 18-70 mm plus a 35 mm 1.8 DX for low light. That's it! Last year I went to Iceland and took a lightweight tripod as well. I came back with great pics of the northern lights.
No olympus 12-100mm f4? I had that lens with me when traveled to the Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan last year. Its an absolute beast on a lens
@@qassemaleid9774 99% of travel photography doesn't require low light and fast lenses. I take a fast prime too, for the odd time that I'm out shooting at night. The primary purpose of fast zooms is to get you to part with large amounts of your money.
I only have one camera, but I love it. Canon 5D IV. I generally use either a 24-70 f/2.8L II, or 35MM f/1.4L, but lately I've been pulling out my 50MM f/1.4. It's all good!
I shoot mostly cityscapes, with interest on-going construction (e.g., cranes, skyscrapers before they are completed), and a 70-200 (sometimes with a 2x converter) is what I find myself using a lot. When I go walk around, I usually have a 24-70 and 70-200 with me. But if I had to choose one lens, I'd go with a 24-70.
I recently purchased a Tamron 18-400mm for travel. I am planning on taking it with a Nikon 10-20mm. I managed to organise the bag to just fit everything in there snug and compact
My go to travel kit is a Canon aps-c (either 7d or 600d) with Ef-s17-85 IS usm in a sling bag. Back at the hotel in my big case, I will have, a tripod, a Tokina 11-16mm (great for interiors), a 70-300, and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for low light work. At a pinch I can lug the full kit, but generally I will just take the 17-85 and maybe one other lens depending on what I have planned for the day.
To me, a better m43 than the E-M10 is the ideal travel kit. E-M1 M-II & 1-3 lenses. Personally I'm a big fan of primes - but I do get the need for a zoom depending on the travel location. Still, m43 is in my opinion the way to go when traveling, especially with light luggage.
If there was an OMD E-M5 Mark III, I think it would together with the E-M1 Mark II, sit right up there at the top of my personal list of travel cameras. Olympus in Body stabilization is still king, their pro lenses are all weather sealed and unlike Panasonic (which I by no means dislike) they keep their m43 cameras rather small. Perfect for lightweight travels!
For travel a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM with an EOS 80D. Usually also carry an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and an ET-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The stabilised 17-55 is good all round and has fair low-light capability. The 10-18 and 55-250, both stabilised, very light and better than they ought to be for what they cost, add a lot of extra opportunity.
I keep a zoom lense 70-300 AF-P attached to my Nikon for the optical zoom shots / extra reach. Its not that heavy either. For landscape or wide shots, I simply use mobile. I find this setup much more convenient and practical for a casual photography. No need to worry about changing lenses outdoors.
Olympus em1 MarkII with a Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8. Ive upgraded from the tiny em10 1st Gen as it was a dated model already in regard to video capabilities. I love the em1 - very lightweight and portable with fantastic capabilities for landscape and walk around lense.
I don’t usually print larger than 12x18 and am not a professional. The Olympus OMD EM 5 Mark 2 has plenty of resolution. I’m still experimenting with which lenses to travel with, but so far my favorite is the 14-150 plus the 60mm Olympus macro.
Just releasing my 2018 Africa expedition video series now, I primarily shoot video, but stills are also very important. Sony A73 with 16-35mm f2,8 is a stunning beauty-shot combo. Also Sony A6300 with a 10-18mm F4 for handheld vlogging type shooting. Small, light and really amazing images for such a small package. I don't like the look of very long ratio zoom lenses.
It depends on where I'm going and what I know I'll be photographing, but for general sightseeing and traveling I'll take my Sony A7 III or Sony A7r IV with the FE 24-105mm f/4. Covers just about every situation. I SO WISH it was an f/2 but then that would add weight no doubt and I'm just not into being weighed down or schlepping a bunch of gear (depending again on why I'm traveling and where I'm going). If I'm really wanting to go light (like on a shopping trip to NYC with the girls), then my little Leica C-Lux is the one I choose. Easy to use, great photos, and it goes in this cute little crossbody. No weight, no fuss. Great pictures. I say it depends on where you are going and what you know you will be photographing, then you pack for that purpose.
I own the Sony a7iii and am receiving the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in about four hours. I hope that this will be a great travel combo with maybe a faster prime lens thrown in for low light situations. Comments or alternative suggestions, anyone? Thanks!
Chryseas, for what it’s worth I use and like the Sony 85mm f1.8 on an A9. A lot depends on your style. I like tight compositions rather than wide ones. Best to determine your optimal focal length first.
Skipper I feel like Japan streets are pretty tight for 85mm. If you have a fast wider prime I would suggest you bring that just in case the 85 doesn't work. Let us know how it goes!
Oh sorry I got yours and Stuarts comment mixed together. I felt like I just barely got away with 35mm in Japan because their streets are extremely tight especially in the busier districts. I could always step in closer but I could never step back to get a wider shot. I also have the option to crop in if I need to later if I want. For that reason, I kept the 35m on my camera for Japan the whole time. If you have a fast wider prime, I suggest bringing it in case you run into that same problem ;)
Went to Disney World this past summer and brought my Nikon D500 with the Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 VC lens. Covered all ranges and as long as I was outdoor, it was perfect. Surprising sharpness, and allowed an incredible range with only one lense. Mighty recommend.
I like to travel light as well. I carry a Nikon D7200 and the Nikkor 16-80 f2.8-4.0 on my shoulder and a Tokina 12-28 f4.0 in a small backpack. I considered going to full-frame with the D750 and the 24-120 f4.0 but decided to stick with APS-C which I have been shooting with for a long time and it just feels normal to me.
If I want to travel super light I go with a Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 VR, 50/1.4 AF-D and a Domke F6 bag. For all other travel it's a D810, 16-35/4 VR, 70-200/4 VR, 50/1.4 AIS made in Japan MF lens, not the made in Taiwan AF junk in a Billingham Hadley Small camera bag.
I just spent 2 weeks in Ireland with a Fujifilm X-T1 with 3 prime lenses: 35mm f1.4, 23mm f2 and 50mm f2. It was very enjoyable not lugging heavy equipment. Next trip I will take the 18-135mm and see if the extra weight is worth the greater range.
I like (and use) a setup that falls somewhat in between the two shown: Nikon D7500 with Sigma 16-50mm F/2.8. Yes, it´s a cropped sensor, but one of outstanding image quality and superb high-ISO performance, so the 25-75 f/4 (35mm equivalent) is an excellent compromise at a fraction of the price and weight of the full-frame setup! Shoot close to your subject at 50mm f/2.8 and you´ll get full-frame-like subject isolation.
I go in between your setups for travel. APS-C body + 30mm f/1.4 and a wide angle zoom in my pocket. But mostly I just use the prime lens. I sometimes even add a small tele zoom and second APS-C body if I'm really serious about flexibility. That whole setup with 2 bodies and 3 lenses fits into a waist pack which is practical albeit not stylish. Thankfully my wife doesn't take pics of me and post them to Instagram...
I recently traveled with my a7riii and 24-70gm and was very happy with the images I got. With that said I believe my favorite setup, was traveling with my just my a6500 and 35 f1.8 prime. I feel like I am more creative when limiting myself to just the one prime.
Lately I have fell in love with the Canon 10- 18 on my Canon 80D. I have been walking around with that and can take just about any photo for city use. :)
Can we pause a moment here, at 35sec in this video. You said you like to travel light and then you continue by saying that your gear of choice is a A7 with adapter and the Canon 24-70 F2.8. How is that light ? 😅
"Light" is relative. That setup may not be light to you, but it is to her. -- I think in general what she means when she says light is, that she's not carrying a bunch of different gear. In any case, it's light to her.
Nikon D810 with Nikon 24-120VR with a Nikon 20mm f1.8 for low light wide shots. If I want lighter but still APS-C I use my Sony 6300 with 18-135mm. And for very lightweight travel, I use my Nikon Coolpix A APS-C with a 28mm f2.8 lens in a point and shoot sized body and some of the best colours around.
I think the Olympus set is so versatile for fun. I use the Olympus OM-10 MkII +14-150. I have the Pro camera and lenses but I think Tony has my vote. It's retro glass with class ;-)
As a 50 + year enthusiast I prefer - One camera - 1 lens. I have used the Fiji 16-80 f4 at 15.52 oz. I do not the extra weight, F4 and bulk for travel but that is thr trade off with zooms in general. I learned to shoot with one prime so for travel street and interior detail photos I prefer faster primes. I have the zoom when traveling in vast landscape days that take me into the city as well so the zoom provides focal length flexibility. I also have rented the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 lens but it weighs 23+ oz. and feels front heavy on a Fuji XS 20.. Great lens but just do not like the weight on me all day. Just a personal choice.
At 3:20 Tony says that f/5.6 on micro four thirds is like f/11 on full frame. I thought that was true in terms of depth of field. But I didn't think that was true in terms of light sensitivity.
f5.6 on MFT is going to give you the same exposure time under the same lighting conditions as f5.6 on full frame, or any other format. Exposure settings are format agnostic.
Full Frame doesn't cost like Medium Format and it can be cheaper that MFT as well. FF F5.6 ISO800 1/500sec = MFT F2.8 ISO200 1/500sec - Same conditions, same exposure, same depth of field, same look, same noise, same everything. Now, let's say we use a tripod for a landscape shot or something, then: FF F11 ISO100 1/15sec = MFT F5.6 ISO25 1/15 - Good luck with that ISO25 on MFT :). So you just use that same ISO200 and have noisier, lower quality image. Why is that when a lens is two stops faster, it deserves a respectfully higher price tag, but when a larger sensor provides two stops more light with ALL of your lenses and you don't really have to pay extra for it, then it's not a big deal for you guys? You are still stuck at the "getting the right exposure" square. Move on, have fun with photography. Stop worshiping the "mighty F-number" and realize that you have been fooled by it. I would gladly use a Full 645 sensor camera even if my fastest lens would be F5.6, but it doesn't exist yet, and the closest thing (which is like 53x40mm) costs a million. While all the 33x44 pseudo-medium format systems are still too expensive to justify the tiny jump above the FF. I mean, It's 50% better, but it's twice the price. And there are some overpriced MFT toys that I can't afford too, like the Panasonic 200F2.8. Oh, look, it's $2500 now, down from $3000. Still, it's nonsense. I'd rather have the EF 100-400F4.5-5.6L II on FF for $2200.
All's I'm saying is when I load provia 100 in a 4x5 and provia 100 in a 35mm camera, the exposure is the same between the two. I believe that was the core of the question, though I get the whole value assessment. Though if that's how I'm supposed to gauge what digital gear to use them I'm just gonna keep on loading provia and let y'all figure that one out.
I use the nikon 18-300mm 3.5-5.6 VR for my all around go to and travel lens. I slap it onto my Nikon D300 and go to work. It has great wide angle to zoom. It has decent close focus. This lens is my travel work horse lens. In low light I use a tripod or bump up the ISO. I spend more time shooting and less time changing lenses with this puppy. Of course that doesn't mean I don't carry other lenses in my back pack (2.8 24-70 and 70-200, along with a 85mm macro). For traveling I probably shoot 80-90 percent of my stuff with this lens. It's not super fast, its a little bulky, focus is a little slow. But this lens works great for me...
Maybe they are trying to cover most of the popular brands on the market? There are Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic product on the video, yet they mentioned other brand as well.
@@ToolCraze it is not, but the Olympus costs more because is a fully weather sealed lens and makes little sense on a non WS camera. If you have an EM-5 MkII suddenly the olympus lens become a lot more appealing. Imo the 12-40 is also a strong contender here with its excellent quality optics and full WS: you give away reach but you gain 2 stops of light.
My carry around setup is a canon 6D and the 24-70 f2.8. I have a waist bag that I use which is easy to carry and adds room for my 70-200 f4, a spare battery and cards. I have lugged this configuration hundreds of miles of backcountry hiking as well as family vacations and events. It is heavy, my family thinks I am crazy to carry the extra weight, but to me, the photo quality I get is worth the effort.
Depends on where you are going and what you'll be shooting. I'm trying to decide on what to take on my next trip. If I could just take one lens, it would be the 24-105mm Sony. But, since I know that I'll need to shoot wider than that, I'm thinking about taking my 16-35mm GM, 70-200mm f4, 50mm Loxia and leaving the 24-105mm at home.
I love you guys! I was surprised to see Chelsea using an adapted Canon lens on her a7r iii when Tony just this week recommended in his a7iii/EOS R review that serious shooters with Canon glass should opt for the EOS R over the a7iii.
For the weight the Chelsea carrys around Tony can also put (additional to the superzoom) the mZuiko 17mm f1.8 and the mZuiko 45mm f1.8. My Travel-Kit is the M10 II with the mZuiko 12-50. In the bag also the 9-18mm / 17mm F1.8 / 45mm F1.8 and a mini Tripod
I shoot a Fuji (X-Pro-2) and I'm still lamenting ditching the 18-55 "kit" lens. For travel it was awesome. Now I usually take the 16 f/1.4, 23 f/2, and 35 f/1.4 and leave the 50-140 at the hotel. And I take 4 to 6 batteries and a charger because Fuji batter life is total crap.
It depends on where you are going. I loved the Nikon 18 - 200 mm with my Nikon D7100 for a trip to Alaska. The histogram of focal lengths used peaked at the two extremes but there were many values in between as well. 200 for wildlife and wide angle for landscapes. Portraits of course were in between.
Wow .. that’s quite an extreme ends of a spectrum.. can u guys plz suggest something in between with Fuji X-T3 or A7III?? As always ❤️ watching u guys ..
Fuji X-T3 ($1,499) with Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS ($599) [27-84mm 35mm equivalent] is superlative - if you want cheaper then Fuji X-T3 with Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ ($299)[23-69mm 35mm equivalent].
Azeem, I've been in the same boat for the past few weeks... both great cameras, but really depends on what you're looking for in a camera. What's most important to you? The Sony system will probably cost a little more, but you have way more options, faster glass, more options, technically better overall and so on... Fuji will be slightly cheaper, depending on the lenses you want and the whole kit looks nice, but has drawbacks. The battery doesn't last as long, the grip isn't as prominent (I like a nice grip), the lenses are older, louder and aren't as fast (esp with APS-C sensor), lens selection is pretty limited (depending on your needs), no IBIS and so on. However... the camera is really excellent. It takes excellent photos, makes awesome video and is really inviting to go shoot. It's much more tactile, looks awesome IMO. It has that je ne sais quoi and produces awesome images out of camera. Even when I cranked up the ISO on mine and started to get grain, the grain was actually pleasing and artistic, not just digital noise. The film simulations are very nice and you don't need to do any post processing, which is my preference. The only reason I haven't committed are the limited lens selection, which happens to have (relatively) slow to focus motors, louder and so on. Still torn.... curious which way you'll decide to go. One day I'm all in on the X-T3 another I'm all over the A7 III. My wife thinks I'm crazy... LOL :)
I love my 16-80mm f2.8-4 on my D7500 for short trips and walking around. MY holy trinity for extended trips are Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 16-80mm f2.8-4, Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6.
Japanese Market 50mm F1.8 Nikkor Pancake on a D700. Cheap, light, tiny, ultra tough, almost pocketable. That's my go-to setup if the camera is a companion. But sometimes I also like to walk around with my D3 and a 180mm F2.8D when the camera is the REASON I'm walking around.
I used to travel with a lot of heavy DSLR gear. But often I would leave it at he hotel and just bring my Sony RX-100 instead. I recently sold all my Nikon gear and got a Fuji XT2 with an 18-55 instead, and I actually bring my camera with me almost everywhere I go, because it's so lightweight and compact.
Italy outdoor/indoor trip next mo. Canon 5D IV. Would love only 2 lenses! Canon 16- 35 f/4 IS . Thinking 70-200 f/4 IS II for outdoor reach. Canon 24- 70 f/2.8 II for walk around. Can't seem to eliminate a lens. Like Chelsea's set up, but not interested in 3K+ jump to Sony. Want to see Canon's next mirrorless foray. Suggestions?
In my opinion. Prime lens are not ideal to be use while travelling because sometimes you cant move around as you wish unlike using zoom lens which can help you get extra reach
Kant, I'm of the complete opposite opinion. I love the form-factor of primes for travel, and also prefer (in most cases) the images shot with high quality primes. I'm of the opinion that zooms vs primes is often "capture more moments" vs "get more keepers" respectively. To Keerthi, I'd suggest starting with a 35-50mm prime. If it turns out you don't like the limitations of shooting exclusively primes, it'll still be a useful lens for you.
I love prime lenses. They are affordable, light and besides their sharpness they´ve wide appertures. I´d consider a 35mm or 50mm. (On Aps-c 24-35mm). It depends on your personal style... The 50mm on fullframe or 35mm on a crop-camera might be a bit better for seperation but i think you wouldn´t be dissapoited with a 35mm. Also with a 35mm (or 24 on crop) you will have a wider backround and especially for travelphotography i think that this is great. You want to remember the location and places you´ve been. With the backround completely blurred you can´t recognize the location. Wish you great pictures ;)
Personally, I've traveled with primes and found the 24mm f/1.4 on a full frame to be the best prime for travel. I'd probably go a bit wider if I could find an equally fast lens at 16. Lately I've given up 2 stops and I'm traveling with the 16-35 f/2.8 on a ff. It's a toss up. I miss the speed at night, but I love the wide end.
I spent two weeks in Europe with a Canon EF-M 18-150mm STM Lens on an M5 and was very pleased. Did not have to bring another lens. Since then, I got the M 18-55 and M 11-22 for close ups and wide angles. Their apertures aren't the best but they get the job done.
Good short informative video! I used to use a Nikon 28-300 for my D800 and D810 for travel and as a walk-around lens. However, with my D850, that lens just can’t handle the resolution of my D850 with the same sharpness as the D800 and D810. So, like you, I use the Nikon 24-70VR lens as my walk-around and travel lens. Chelsea, what camera strap are you using for the D850 and the 24-70? Is it really strong enough to handle the weight?
I am a Pentax user, not a pro. I have had several Pentax cameras and nowadays, I have the 17-70Sigma C, the Sigma 70-300 and the Pentax 50mm 1.8. If I had to choose one, I would travel with the 17-70. I also have the Pentax Q-s1 with the standard zoom, prime and tele (great alternative for travel). Thanks for your video!
Really surprised Chelsea's go to is adapted. Why not the Sony native 24-70 f2.8? The MC-11 isn't heavy, but it definitely adds some weight. I thought the native glass was just so much better for AF. Also, once you add the MC-11 to the cost, you're pretty much the same as just going native. Thoughts?
Hmm.. maybe its just me.. but i think its quite obvious isnt it. Video like these.. are more of an advertisement videos... They are trying to sell gears. Dont u realize. Nikon body + camera. Sony body + Canon lens. Then tony.. of cos.. had to pick up another brand that is not from the above. I'm surprise they didnt put a Fuji on the sofa tho. HAHA
I have the 24-70 f2.8 GM native but the lenses distortion is quite heavy, and it does kill my joy a little, taking it out alone. Although sharpness & bokeh is superb.
I shoot with a Sony A6500 because it is smaller and lighter then a FF camera. I am not a pro and I am not going to blow up my photos on a huge print. My go to travel lens is the Sony 18-105mm F4. If I can, I do also take the Sony 30mm F1.8 that I use at night. I find a lot of people prefer the focal length of 50mm equiv. Frequently I will just leave the 30mm on my A6500 and I am perfectly happy with it. It is super small and light and I love it.
RX10 is indeed the best bridge camera, if I wasn't so demanding and needy of full frame sensor quality and just a casual shooter, RX10 would be my choice.
Really depends on what you call travelling also don't forget that a Sony a7riii for instance has a crop mode which effectively turns a 24-70 into 36-105 so less glass is needed! If flying OS there are weight restrictions which influence glass selection: Africa/ Amazon: 'wildlife, fauna' would be a 24-70, 70-200, 150-600 and a 50mm (I'd leave out the 70-200 and 50 if needed). Europe: 'people, arts, structures' would be 24-70, 70-200 and 85mm. Iceland or the Alps: 'landscape, wildlife' would be 12-24, 24-70, 150-600mm. I forgot this once.... Never travel without a good, sturdy tripod :)
70 is too short for me, lens that I use the most is Nikon 24-120mm, this range is absolutely phenomenal! I used to use the 28-300mm a lot, but that quality is not always satisfying, and 24-70mm was always too short for me so both lenses were frustrating in a way. Then with a D850 I finally took the 24-120mm, and I cannot be happier with it as general multi purpose lens, 120mm is enough zoom for probably 80% of situations, and you still have that magical 24mm as starting focal length, now it is my most used lens by far
D7200 & Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 - Shoot multiples for wide panos, use the 1.5x crop factor to get the 105mm equiv on the long end. *Relatively* light, stabilized in the lens, decent res, and fantastic glass.
I think Tony puts his extra lenses in Chelsea's bag.
lol
I think he probably does - and she would be a good sport about it no doubt - sort of - lol
Dohhh!!!
I take two lenses, 16-35 and the 70-200 which is heavy but the results are always epic
Canon or Sony FF with 24-105 f/4. The additional reach is worth more to me than the extra stop of light, but that's just me. I have to say Tony's Olympus setup is intriguing, but maybe gives up too much low light capability.
This. This is my setup as well and it's pretty fantastic for travel.
Same. Canon with a 24 to 105, f4. Good all rounder.
Same. Used to do this when I was Canon, first lens I bought when I switched to Sony was the 24-105. Lighter lens and extra reach is a fair trade for the loss of 1 stop vs. the 24-70 2.8
I used to shoot Olympus, and I will say that the E-M5II with the Olympus PRO 12-40mm F2.8 (24-80mm FF equivalent) was a pretty amazing setup for travel. Light, very well weather sealed (held up in Iceland, in the rain, on a glacier), great IBIS, attractive, durable build, excellent handling. The thing that ends up lacking is dynamic range, but I have to also admit that the pixel/sensor-shift produces amazing results if you're setting up landscape and long exposure shots (something like 60 MP RAW files) that have amazing color, detail, and dynamic range; not a perfect solution all the time, but certainly gets the job done. For travel alone, I think it's hard to beat.
I own both the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 II and the EF 24-105 f4 IS. For travel, the IS and the extra reach makes the 24-105 a more versatile lens. Whether it's immobile subjects in low light or controlled motion blur (such as with waterfalls), the IS gives me more flexibility than does the extra pop of the f2.8. To be fair, this isn't always an easy question because I do like the flexibility that f2.8 offers with DOF options. Maybe next year, Canon will offer a 24-70 f2.8 IS lens and make this an easier choice for me.
I travel with a Leica M 28, 35, and 50. They are extremely small and fit in a small bag or coat pocket. All bought used.
Who needs notifications when you live on UA-cam!
Right on, I love a UA-cam when I have idle time.
I like the Fuji X-T2 with the Fuji 18-135. Light and affordable. If I think there my be birds or wildlife on my trip I’ll include the Fuji 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter. AND if there will be night photos I’ll throw in the Rokinon 12 mm manual focus. But lightest and easiest is #1.
I would suggest the Olympus OM-D EM5 MKII with the Olympus 14-150 for travel. Light, excellent range and weatherproof. It is so nice to not to have to worry about the rain or snow when out and about. I can still get some great separation, its really about zoom and distance to subject compared to background. With a tripod and the highres shot function, I can get some very large high pixel files. Not for windy days or moving subjects, but its a nice feature that I have used on occasion.
Just travelled through Europe and was very happy using a 5D Mk IV and 35mm 1.4. Felt like a perfect combination between lighter weight and versatility
I just pack a nice sharp prime lens, and use post-processing methods like stitching, cropping and stacking. It's not perfect, but it's a lot easier and lighter to carry around, which means I actually bring my camera everywhere.
Recently, per your suggestion, I purchased a 24-70 2.8 Tamron; have it on my D780, for my travels to a couple national parks; best lens I have ever purchased, & the best advice I have followed in quite a while. Just wanted to say thanks for the video.
I've found I'd much rather have a light lens and camera when I travel than haul around big lenses. I've also found that sticking with a good prime, like a 50mm, helps me worry less about framing and enjoy the trip more.
Shimon Galiley - I agree, you can’t beat a nifty fifty for a great all around lens. They are compact, light weight and work under all lighting conditions.
Ditto. I’m usually happy in most situations with a prime from 35mm to 85mm (although the 85 is limiting at times) on my A7RII. I can always crop in, but I rarely feel the need. My all time favorite set up was walking around with a crop sensor Nikon and a nifty fifty. Easy to get great images.
Shimon, let me play devil's advocate here by proposing that perhaps people should spend much more time thinking about clean composition than just getting everything into one image. For that, a zoom with a wide range of focal lengths is best. When I am traveling, the overall gestalt is important to me, yes, but it's the details that I want to take home with me as images. The artistic challenges of composition grow exponentially as the number of primary image elements grows. If your skill level causes you to stop enjoying your trip, try zooming in as far as possible on the most interesting detail. If you feel comfortable with that, zoom out a bit to bring one more detail in. Make certain that the two elements relate nicely to each other. Keep zooming out until you think you are trying to juggle too many balls at once, then zoom back in a bit and take your shot.
I've been finding myself doing the same.
I did a trip once with one prime (50mm equivalent). Too limiting - never again. Maybe if it was a 35mm equivalent. One zoom, one prime is perfect for me.
I would go with the Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 for travel. It lets in so much more light than that superzoom. It is also a bit sharper and a little more contrasty. Weather sealing is great and it is built like a tank. When I travel the that is super important. I know MFT doesn't have as shallow DOF as a 35mm size sensor, but at 80mm you can get some bokeh in tigher portraits. When I travel that is my main lens and I bring a prime for when I want a shallower DOF, but most of the time this Olympus 12-40mm is perfect. The Panasonic 12-35 is a bit smaller, but I find that extra reach 40mm versus 35mm is worth it and to take quite a lot at 80mm.
...and if you pair that with the 40-150mm F2.8 PRO you have a heck of a combination. :)
@@benwilde4337 I had a telephoto zoom way back when I shot Canon Rebels, hardly ever used it. I don't really get a boner shooting flying birds so it isn't really my deal.
@@peterjohn428 lol! That's an expensive lesson I've learnt the hard way. But when I feel boyish, I do like my Superzooms!
Those lenses are huge, not light.
I travel with my Nikon A900 (24-840mm) or Lumix ZS60. Both pocket cameras, discrete, with great zoom, and cover my photographic needs.
I travel with a Leica SL and the Leica Vario-Elmarit zoom 24-90mm. This combo pretty much covers all my needs. Going up to 90mm instead of the usual 70mm was a wise decision by Leica.
My landscape/walking around setup is D800 and 24-120mm F4 and 20mm 1.8. The 24-120mm F4 was basically free. Nikon included it with the cost of a D750 a while back. So I bought the kit, kept the 24-120 and sold the D750.
My gear is a fitness opportunity ;-)
Positive thinking i like that..
Same here:)
I'm with team Tony. I travel for work a lot and also ride a bicycle, so small and easy to tote is important. My travel setup is an E-M10 MkII with a Tamron 14-150. Rokinon 7.5mm in the bag, just in case I want some superwide shots. If I need to go even smaller, I have an Olympus E-PM2 with a 14-42 pancake lens and VF-4 viewfinder. For cycling, it's a Canon G7x, which fits in a jersey pocket.
I have a Canon DSLR with 5 lenses, but I just bought a Sony a6000 with the kit lenses and I am going to change that out for the 18-105 and also get the 55-210 and use that super small and light setup for travel. I did a couple of overseas trips and out of state big trips with the big Canon setup and I'm not doing that again.
That a6000 setup is exactly what I was using and I have to tell you, it is brilliant! But I just went ahead and shot myself in the foot and bought an A7III. I haven't had a chance to travel with it yet, but I doubt it will be as convenient and versatile as the a6000. Time will tell. Good thing is I can always go back.
I’m limiting myself to a Fujifilm X100F for travel to city destinations. I travel with just carry-on luggage. My whole kit fits in a tiny Tenba BYOB 7 insert with room to spare. In my (long gone) student days I traveled with a compact SLR , a 50mm f/1.8, and a dozen rolls of Ektachrome, and I did not find it too limiting.
16-35 f2.8, 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 with A7R3. Still carry an A6000 as a backup and mate it with 85 for a little more reach in the street.
That is not close to being light.
My last vacation I traveled with Sony RX10 mark 1 and Fuji XT2, but used RX10 the most. RX10 advantages: 1) actually weatherproof and inexpensive. 2) somewhat compact compared to what you recommend here. 3) constant aperture 24-200/2.8 lens . 4) BIG one for me: Build in ND filter that turns on automatically. 5) Big one for me: Flash Xsync is 1/2000. That + ND filter, means my Flash can fire without need to go to HSS at midday on the beach. Great for beach destination. 6) Lens is Image Stablization. 7) When shooting Raw that Sony sensor has some DR recovery, more than you would expect from 1 inch sensor, 8) is cheap second hand - something happens to it - no big deal, 9) Face recognition even in backlit situation is actually superior to Fuji XT2 , 10) battery life is surprisingly good for mirrorless.
Just bought a used Mk1. Next week, off on vacation for a test run. Last vacation had my A6000, got caught in a shower, had to cover up and head back to the car. Decided to go for the RX10, for all the reasons you listed. 24-200 is close to my normal range without lens changes.
here are couple of shots I took of my wife during last vacation. This RX10 was getting soaked by sea water (!) of Sea of Cortez. c2.staticflickr.com/2/1793/43287828454_5354c00122_b.jpg
c2.staticflickr.com/2/1818/43957903032_6b1c3bdf8a_b.jpg
I'd be very careful with A6000. My A6000 died instantly after 0.5 sec contact with Caribbean sea 3 years ago on a cruise. Together with 16-70/F4 and HVL43M flash. Zero weather resistance and I mean zero. I never touched a A6000 since that. That RX10 can take some abuse.
If you're a Sony FF user the Tamron 28-75 is a no brainer!
Its super cheap to rent too.
What about the AF issues??
AF issues are fixed with newer firmware. I've been using it and it works great on my A9.
@@BradlySchlenker that's awesome
Nope
I just bought a D850 but I am NOT taking it on holiday. I will carry on with my D7200 with the kit 18-70 mm plus a 35 mm 1.8 DX for low light. That's it! Last year I went to Iceland and took a lightweight tripod as well. I came back with great pics of the northern lights.
No olympus 12-100mm f4? I had that lens with me when traveled to the Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan last year. Its an absolute beast on a lens
is it good in low light ?
@@qassemaleid9774 99% of travel photography doesn't require low light and fast lenses. I take a fast prime too, for the odd time that I'm out shooting at night. The primary purpose of fast zooms is to get you to part with large amounts of your money.
Agree. I've travelled with this lens attached to either the EM1ii or the Pen-F, and never regretted it.
I only have one camera, but I love it. Canon 5D IV. I generally use either a 24-70 f/2.8L II, or 35MM f/1.4L, but lately I've been pulling out my 50MM f/1.4. It's all good!
Current Favourite travel lens is the Sony 28mm f2. It's small, light and discreet, no one will tell me to stop taking photos.
Me too, I call it the great 28!
Used to be my most used lens until the Tamron 28-75. Thing is really clean. I liked it more than the 35mm f2.8.
I shoot mostly cityscapes, with interest on-going construction (e.g., cranes, skyscrapers before they are completed), and a 70-200 (sometimes with a 2x converter) is what I find myself using a lot. When I go walk around, I usually have a 24-70 and 70-200 with me. But if I had to choose one lens, I'd go with a 24-70.
Do you want to touch it?
Oohoo🙃
That line made my day!!😂😂
I recently purchased a Tamron 18-400mm for travel. I am planning on taking it with a Nikon 10-20mm. I managed to organise the bag to just fit everything in there snug and compact
My travel lens is 18-400 Tamron F3.5-6.3 with a Canon T6i I have lots of options
I also use the 18-400 Tamron for vacation travel. Don't have to pack photo equipment - just carry the camera (D5500) and lens with me.
Wife got that lens for her Canon 7D and I think it is a great lens. I may use it more myself.
For me the same but with 80D. And the plastic fantastic (50mm 1.8) in my pocket.
18-400 Tamron has some sample variation. My first sample was very good at tele end. My second copy is not as great at tele end.
You can have the lens calibrated (for free) to your camera by Tamron. That's what I did...just a FYI
My go to travel kit is a Canon aps-c (either 7d or 600d) with Ef-s17-85 IS usm in a sling bag. Back at the hotel in my big case, I will have, a tripod, a Tokina 11-16mm (great for interiors), a 70-300, and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for low light work. At a pinch I can lug the full kit, but generally I will just take the 17-85 and maybe one other lens depending on what I have planned for the day.
To me, a better m43 than the E-M10 is the ideal travel kit. E-M1 M-II & 1-3 lenses. Personally I'm a big fan of primes - but I do get the need for a zoom depending on the travel location. Still, m43 is in my opinion the way to go when traveling, especially with light luggage.
If there was an OMD E-M5 Mark III, I think it would together with the E-M1 Mark II, sit right up there at the top of my personal list of travel cameras. Olympus in Body stabilization is still king, their pro lenses are all weather sealed and unlike Panasonic (which I by no means dislike) they keep their m43 cameras rather small. Perfect for lightweight travels!
And those oly primes (f1.2) are amazing and eliminate the low light and subject isolation problems.
For travel a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM with an EOS 80D. Usually also carry an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and an ET-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The stabilised 17-55 is good all round and has fair low-light capability. The 10-18 and 55-250, both stabilised, very light and better than they ought to be for what they cost, add a lot of extra opportunity.
"i like to travel light"
Metabones and Canon 24-70...
WTF
The lady is strong.
LOL Seriously!
Lol!!
I keep a zoom lense 70-300 AF-P attached to my Nikon for the optical zoom shots / extra reach. Its not that heavy either.
For landscape or wide shots, I simply use mobile. I find this setup much more convenient and practical for a casual photography.
No need to worry about changing lenses outdoors.
Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8, perfect travel lens.
Olympus em1 MarkII with a Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8. Ive upgraded from the tiny em10 1st Gen as it was a dated model already in regard to video capabilities. I love the em1 - very lightweight and portable with fantastic capabilities for landscape and walk around lense.
“You wanna feel?” 😏
😂😂😂
It's wet! Lol
"oooh" LMAO
I think the best lens is the one you love using the most to create your vision of what you are photographing.
'I have dreams!' - Chelsea 😂😂😂
I don’t usually print larger than 12x18 and am not a professional. The Olympus OMD EM 5 Mark 2 has plenty of resolution. I’m still experimenting with which lenses to travel with, but so far my favorite is the 14-150 plus the 60mm Olympus macro.
Just releasing my 2018 Africa expedition video series now, I primarily shoot video, but stills are also very important. Sony A73 with 16-35mm f2,8 is a stunning beauty-shot combo. Also Sony A6300 with a 10-18mm F4 for handheld vlogging type shooting. Small, light and really amazing images for such a small package. I don't like the look of very long ratio zoom lenses.
It depends on where I'm going and what I know I'll be photographing, but for general sightseeing and traveling I'll take my Sony A7 III or Sony A7r IV with the FE 24-105mm f/4. Covers just about every situation. I SO WISH it was an f/2 but then that would add weight no doubt and I'm just not into being weighed down or schlepping a bunch of gear (depending again on why I'm traveling and where I'm going). If I'm really wanting to go light (like on a shopping trip to NYC with the girls), then my little Leica C-Lux is the one I choose. Easy to use, great photos, and it goes in this cute little crossbody. No weight, no fuss. Great pictures. I say it depends on where you are going and what you know you will be photographing, then you pack for that purpose.
I own the Sony a7iii and am receiving the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in about four hours. I hope that this will be a great travel combo with maybe a faster prime lens thrown in for low light situations. Comments or alternative suggestions, anyone? Thanks!
You will not be disappointed, I use the Tamron and it is a brilliant lens.
Chryseas, for what it’s worth I use and like the Sony 85mm f1.8 on an A9. A lot depends on your style. I like tight compositions rather than wide ones. Best to determine your optimal focal length first.
Skipper I feel like Japan streets are pretty tight for 85mm. If you have a fast wider prime I would suggest you bring that just in case the 85 doesn't work. Let us know how it goes!
Oh sorry I got yours and Stuarts comment mixed together. I felt like I just barely got away with 35mm in Japan because their streets are extremely tight especially in the busier districts. I could always step in closer but I could never step back to get a wider shot. I also have the option to crop in if I need to later if I want. For that reason, I kept the 35m on my camera for Japan the whole time. If you have a fast wider prime, I suggest bringing it in case you run into that same problem ;)
My favorite traveling setup: Sony A6000 + 18-135mm f 3.5-5.6. A lot of reach and back friendly enough for me! Decent i.q. too!
I like these short 5 min videos you guys are doing
I use the Panasonic GH5 with 12-35mm f2.8 love this setup i shoot videos a lot, great for pictures too, battery life, it’s light weight and reliable.
Leica M10 with Summicron 28mm
My only change to this would be a 35 mm Summicron.
I can imagine. I also went that way first. But I finally added a Summicron 50mm to the Summicron 28. For me this combo covers everything.
Went to Disney World this past summer and brought my Nikon D500 with the Tamron 18-400 f/3.5-6.3 VC lens. Covered all ranges and as long as I was outdoor, it was perfect. Surprising sharpness, and allowed an incredible range with only one lense. Mighty recommend.
I like to travel light as well. I carry a Nikon D7200 and the Nikkor 16-80 f2.8-4.0 on my shoulder and a Tokina 12-28 f4.0 in a small backpack. I considered going to full-frame with the D750 and the 24-120 f4.0 but decided to stick with APS-C which I have been shooting with for a long time and it just feels normal to me.
If I want to travel super light I go with a Nikon D7000 with the 18-105 VR, 50/1.4 AF-D and a Domke F6 bag. For all other travel it's a D810, 16-35/4 VR, 70-200/4 VR, 50/1.4 AIS made in Japan MF lens, not the made in Taiwan AF junk in a Billingham Hadley Small camera bag.
I just spent 2 weeks in Ireland with a Fujifilm X-T1 with 3 prime lenses: 35mm f1.4, 23mm f2 and 50mm f2. It was very enjoyable not lugging heavy equipment. Next trip I will take the 18-135mm and see if the extra weight is worth the greater range.
M43 all the way! Panasonic 12-35 II f2.8 and the 25mm f1.7 on the GX85
Schwingi I’m considering getting the GX85 for travel. Is there a zoom you’d recommend with a further reach than that?
I like (and use) a setup that falls somewhat in between the two shown: Nikon D7500 with Sigma 16-50mm F/2.8. Yes, it´s a cropped sensor, but one of outstanding image quality and superb high-ISO performance, so the 25-75 f/4 (35mm equivalent) is an excellent compromise at a fraction of the price and weight of the full-frame setup! Shoot close to your subject at 50mm f/2.8 and you´ll get full-frame-like subject isolation.
I go in between your setups for travel. APS-C body + 30mm f/1.4 and a wide angle zoom in my pocket. But mostly I just use the prime lens.
I sometimes even add a small tele zoom and second APS-C body if I'm really serious about flexibility. That whole setup with 2 bodies and 3 lenses fits into a waist pack which is practical albeit not stylish. Thankfully my wife doesn't take pics of me and post them to Instagram...
I recently traveled with my a7riii and 24-70gm and was very happy with the images I got.
With that said I believe my favorite setup, was traveling with my just my a6500 and 35 f1.8 prime.
I feel like I am more creative when limiting myself to just the one prime.
Lately I have fell in love with the Canon 10- 18 on my Canon 80D. I have been walking around with that and can take just about any photo for city use. :)
Posted a reply before I saw this. I use the same 80D and 10-18.
24-70 2.8 equivalent Pentax lens on my Pentax K3 for me. Use it 95% of the time and is very small. And waterproof!
Can we pause a moment here, at 35sec in this video. You said you like to travel light and then you continue by saying that your gear of choice is a A7 with adapter and the Canon 24-70 F2.8. How is that light ? 😅
"Light" is relative. That setup may not be light to you, but it is to her. -- I think in general what she means when she says light is, that she's not carrying a bunch of different gear. In any case, it's light to her.
1 body + 1 lens = light. As opposed to a whole bag of lenses and possibly multiple bodies.
Is the nikon d850 and 24-70 heavier?
I was thinking the same thing. That lense is huge!
Is that rhetorical? D850 body alone is 2.2lbs.
Nikon D810 with Nikon 24-120VR with a Nikon 20mm f1.8 for low light wide shots. If I want lighter but still APS-C I use my Sony 6300 with 18-135mm. And for very lightweight travel, I use my Nikon Coolpix A APS-C with a 28mm f2.8 lens in a point and shoot sized body and some of the best colours around.
I think the Olympus set is so versatile for fun. I use the Olympus OM-10 MkII +14-150. I have the Pro camera and lenses but I think Tony has my vote. It's retro glass with class ;-)
As a 50 + year enthusiast I prefer - One camera - 1 lens. I have used the Fiji 16-80 f4 at 15.52 oz. I do not the extra weight, F4 and bulk for travel but that is thr trade off with zooms in general. I learned to shoot with one prime so for travel street and interior detail photos I prefer faster primes. I have the zoom when traveling in vast landscape days that take me into the city as well so the zoom provides focal length flexibility. I also have rented the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 lens but it weighs 23+ oz. and feels front heavy on a Fuji XS 20.. Great lens but just do not like the weight on me all day. Just a personal choice.
At 3:20 Tony says that f/5.6 on micro four thirds is like f/11 on full frame. I thought that was true in terms of depth of field. But I didn't think that was true in terms of light sensitivity.
For light gathering capability that's true but not for exposure. The exposure will be based on f/5.6 and not f/11.
It's true in terms of everything. MFT is a scam :)
f5.6 on MFT is going to give you the same exposure time under the same lighting conditions as f5.6 on full frame, or any other format. Exposure settings are format agnostic.
Full Frame doesn't cost like Medium Format and it can be cheaper that MFT as well.
FF F5.6 ISO800 1/500sec = MFT F2.8 ISO200 1/500sec - Same conditions, same exposure, same depth of field, same look, same noise, same everything.
Now, let's say we use a tripod for a landscape shot or something, then:
FF F11 ISO100 1/15sec = MFT F5.6 ISO25 1/15 - Good luck with that ISO25 on MFT :). So you just use that same ISO200 and have noisier, lower quality image. Why is that when a lens is two stops faster, it deserves a respectfully higher price tag, but when a larger sensor provides two stops more light with ALL of your lenses and you don't really have to pay extra for it, then it's not a big deal for you guys? You are still stuck at the "getting the right exposure" square. Move on, have fun with photography. Stop worshiping the "mighty F-number" and realize that you have been fooled by it. I would gladly use a Full 645 sensor camera even if my fastest lens would be F5.6, but it doesn't exist yet, and the closest thing (which is like 53x40mm) costs a million. While all the 33x44 pseudo-medium format systems are still too expensive to justify the tiny jump above the FF. I mean, It's 50% better, but it's twice the price. And there are some overpriced MFT toys that I can't afford too, like the Panasonic 200F2.8. Oh, look, it's $2500 now, down from $3000. Still, it's nonsense. I'd rather have the EF 100-400F4.5-5.6L II on FF for $2200.
All's I'm saying is when I load provia 100 in a 4x5 and provia 100 in a 35mm camera, the exposure is the same between the two. I believe that was the core of the question, though I get the whole value assessment. Though if that's how I'm supposed to gauge what digital gear to use them I'm just gonna keep on loading provia and let y'all figure that one out.
I use the nikon 18-300mm 3.5-5.6 VR for my all around go to and travel lens. I slap it onto my Nikon D300 and go to work. It has great wide angle to zoom. It has decent close focus. This lens is my travel work horse lens. In low light I use a tripod or bump up the ISO. I spend more time shooting and less time changing lenses with this puppy. Of course that doesn't mean I don't carry other lenses in my back pack (2.8 24-70 and 70-200, along with a 85mm macro). For traveling I probably shoot 80-90 percent of my stuff with this lens. It's not super fast, its a little bulky, focus is a little slow. But this lens works great for me...
Why the Panasonic 14-140 on the E-M10 II and not the Olympus 14-150 II lens?
Maybe they are trying to cover most of the popular brands on the market? There are Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic product on the video, yet they mentioned other brand as well.
Probably because it's more compact and sharper than the Olympus equivalent.
Woodenarrows I had both lenses and I agree the Panasonic is slightly sharper and has built in Stabilization
The om d em 10 mark up had 5 axis stabilization, so you don't really need it in the lens.
@@ToolCraze it is not, but the Olympus costs more because is a fully weather sealed lens and makes little sense on a non WS camera. If you have an EM-5 MkII suddenly the olympus lens become a lot more appealing. Imo the 12-40 is also a strong contender here with its excellent quality optics and full WS: you give away reach but you gain 2 stops of light.
My carry around setup is a canon 6D and the 24-70 f2.8. I have a waist bag that I use which is easy to carry and adds room for my 70-200 f4, a spare battery and cards. I have lugged this configuration hundreds of miles of backcountry hiking as well as family vacations and events. It is heavy, my family thinks I am crazy to carry the extra weight, but to me, the photo quality I get is worth the effort.
0:27 Tony's reaction to Chelsea's "It's a pretty small setup"
Depends on where you are going and what you'll be shooting. I'm trying to decide on what to take on my next trip. If I could just take one lens, it would be the 24-105mm Sony. But, since I know that I'll need to shoot wider than that, I'm thinking about taking my 16-35mm GM, 70-200mm f4, 50mm Loxia and leaving the 24-105mm at home.
I love you guys! I was surprised to see Chelsea using an adapted Canon lens on her a7r iii when Tony just this week recommended in his a7iii/EOS R review that serious shooters with Canon glass should opt for the EOS R over the a7iii.
For the weight the Chelsea carrys around Tony can also put (additional to the superzoom) the mZuiko 17mm f1.8 and the mZuiko 45mm f1.8.
My Travel-Kit is the M10 II with the mZuiko 12-50.
In the bag also the 9-18mm / 17mm F1.8 / 45mm F1.8 and a mini Tripod
I shoot a Fuji (X-Pro-2) and I'm still lamenting ditching the 18-55 "kit" lens. For travel it was awesome. Now I usually take the 16 f/1.4, 23 f/2, and 35 f/1.4 and leave the 50-140 at the hotel. And I take 4 to 6 batteries and a charger because Fuji batter life is total crap.
It depends on where you are going. I loved the Nikon 18 - 200 mm with my Nikon D7100 for a trip to Alaska. The histogram of focal lengths used peaked at the two extremes but there were many values in between as well. 200 for wildlife and wide angle for landscapes. Portraits of course were in between.
Wow .. that’s quite an extreme ends of a spectrum.. can u guys plz suggest something in between with Fuji X-T3 or A7III??
As always ❤️ watching u guys ..
Fuji X-T3 ($1,499) with Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f2.8-4 R LM OIS ($599) [27-84mm 35mm equivalent] is superlative - if you want cheaper then Fuji X-T3 with Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS PZ ($299)[23-69mm 35mm equivalent].
Fuji X-T20 ($749)[13.5 oz.] is even lighter and much cheaper, with 90% of the goodies of X-T3.
Sony 28mm f2
Azeem, I've been in the same boat for the past few weeks... both great cameras, but really depends on what you're looking for in a camera. What's most important to you? The Sony system will probably cost a little more, but you have way more options, faster glass, more options, technically better overall and so on...
Fuji will be slightly cheaper, depending on the lenses you want and the whole kit looks nice, but has drawbacks. The battery doesn't last as long, the grip isn't as prominent (I like a nice grip), the lenses are older, louder and aren't as fast (esp with APS-C sensor), lens selection is pretty limited (depending on your needs), no IBIS and so on. However... the camera is really excellent. It takes excellent photos, makes awesome video and is really inviting to go shoot. It's much more tactile, looks awesome IMO. It has that je ne sais quoi and produces awesome images out of camera. Even when I cranked up the ISO on mine and started to get grain, the grain was actually pleasing and artistic, not just digital noise. The film simulations are very nice and you don't need to do any post processing, which is my preference.
The only reason I haven't committed are the limited lens selection, which happens to have (relatively) slow to focus motors, louder and so on. Still torn.... curious which way you'll decide to go. One day I'm all in on the X-T3 another I'm all over the A7 III. My wife thinks I'm crazy... LOL :)
I will be renting both of them ... let see where I land ..😇👍🏽
I love my 16-80mm f2.8-4 on my D7500 for short trips and walking around. MY holy trinity for extended trips are Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 16-80mm f2.8-4, Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6.
If it’s one lens only, I’ll use my 18-300mm on my Nikon d7200
“Do you want a feel? Oooh...” OMG Chelsea, I’m dying here 🤣🤣🤣
Lol full frame and micro 4/3.....what about same vid but for APS-C
When I bring my Canon crop, the choices are clear Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 most of the time, and occasionally the Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 :)
Japanese Market 50mm F1.8 Nikkor Pancake on a D700. Cheap, light, tiny, ultra tough, almost pocketable. That's my go-to setup if the camera is a companion.
But sometimes I also like to walk around with my D3 and a 180mm F2.8D when the camera is the REASON I'm walking around.
Travel sucks. What's the best lens for staying home and eating chocolate?
Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM
The biggest wide angle you can find!
I used to travel with a lot of heavy DSLR gear. But often I would leave it at he hotel and just bring my Sony RX-100 instead.
I recently sold all my Nikon gear and got a Fuji XT2 with an 18-55 instead, and I actually bring my camera with me almost everywhere I go, because it's so lightweight and compact.
Sorry Chelsey, MFT is the way to go for travel and looks totally cool.
Italy outdoor/indoor trip next mo. Canon 5D IV. Would love only 2 lenses! Canon 16- 35 f/4 IS . Thinking 70-200 f/4 IS II for outdoor reach. Canon 24- 70 f/2.8 II for walk around. Can't seem to eliminate a lens. Like Chelsea's set up, but not interested in 3K+ jump to Sony. Want to see Canon's next mirrorless foray. Suggestions?
For travelling Nikon D850 + Tamron 15-30 + Nikon 70-200 FL + Travel tripod and Haida filters
Those are really heavy to bring around. I just bring my d750 with a sigma 35
@@TofuCate 35 is not wide enough for me ....ya those r heavy but i dn have lighter ones
I travel with feather-light d5200 to save on weight, but it's hard to notice when I take my Sigma 150-600 with it.
@Ethan Deshaies well for portraits subject separation and low light shooting f2.8 lens r really helpful
What about primes...
What if I had to choose only 1 lens...
As a beginner...
Please answer me....
In my opinion. Prime lens are not ideal to be use while travelling because sometimes you cant move around as you wish unlike using zoom lens which can help you get extra reach
Kant, I'm of the complete opposite opinion. I love the form-factor of primes for travel, and also prefer (in most cases) the images shot with high quality primes. I'm of the opinion that zooms vs primes is often "capture more moments" vs "get more keepers" respectively. To Keerthi, I'd suggest starting with a 35-50mm prime. If it turns out you don't like the limitations of shooting exclusively primes, it'll still be a useful lens for you.
I love prime lenses. They are affordable, light and besides their sharpness they´ve wide appertures. I´d consider a 35mm or 50mm. (On Aps-c 24-35mm).
It depends on your personal style... The 50mm on fullframe or 35mm on a crop-camera might be a bit better for seperation but i think you wouldn´t be dissapoited with a 35mm. Also with a 35mm (or 24 on crop) you will have a wider backround and especially for travelphotography i think that this is great. You want to remember the location and places you´ve been. With the backround completely blurred you can´t recognize the location.
Wish you great pictures ;)
Personally, I've traveled with primes and found the 24mm f/1.4 on a full frame to be the best prime for travel. I'd probably go a bit wider if I could find an equally fast lens at 16. Lately I've given up 2 stops and I'm traveling with the 16-35 f/2.8 on a ff. It's a toss up. I miss the speed at night, but I love the wide end.
If I had to choose just ONE prime, it would be the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm :D
I spent two weeks in Europe with a Canon EF-M 18-150mm STM Lens on an M5 and was very pleased. Did not have to bring another lens. Since then, I got the M 18-55 and M 11-22 for close ups and wide angles. Their apertures aren't the best but they get the job done.
Good short informative video! I used to use a Nikon 28-300 for my D800 and D810 for travel and as a walk-around lens. However, with my D850, that lens just can’t handle the resolution of my D850 with the same sharpness as the D800 and D810. So, like you, I use the Nikon 24-70VR lens as my walk-around and travel lens. Chelsea, what camera strap are you using for the D850 and the 24-70? Is it really strong enough to handle the weight?
1.15.... Chelseaaa...size does not matter!! :D
I am a Pentax user, not a pro. I have had several Pentax cameras and nowadays, I have the 17-70Sigma C, the Sigma 70-300 and the Pentax 50mm 1.8. If I had to choose one, I would travel with the 17-70. I also have the Pentax Q-s1 with the standard zoom, prime and tele (great alternative for travel). Thanks for your video!
Really surprised Chelsea's go to is adapted. Why not the Sony native 24-70 f2.8? The MC-11 isn't heavy, but it definitely adds some weight. I thought the native glass was just so much better for AF. Also, once you add the MC-11 to the cost, you're pretty much the same as just going native. Thoughts?
Hmm.. maybe its just me.. but i think its quite obvious isnt it. Video like these.. are more of an advertisement videos...
They are trying to sell gears. Dont u realize. Nikon body + camera. Sony body + Canon lens.
Then tony.. of cos.. had to pick up another brand that is not from the above.
I'm surprise they didnt put a Fuji on the sofa tho. HAHA
I have the 24-70 f2.8 GM native but the lenses distortion is quite heavy, and it does kill my joy a little, taking it out alone. Although sharpness & bokeh is superb.
So is the distortion is worse on a native GM lens than an adapted Canon lens?
So they don't actually use that gear when they travel?
the 24-70 L is sharper than the GM
Sony 35 mm f1.8 on a Sony a6500 and a Sony 16-105. The 35 mm is a great all around lens, and you don't get to change it too much.
Darn! I wish I saw this before I flew to India. Completely forgotten about panorama ideas for wide angle with a standard zoom. Oh well.
I honestly never knew you could do it or thought about trying it to simulate a W/A, but without the distortion.
I shoot with a Sony A6500 because it is smaller and lighter then a FF camera. I am not a pro and I am not going to blow up my photos on a huge print. My go to travel lens is the Sony 18-105mm F4. If I can, I do also take the Sony 30mm F1.8 that I use at night. I find a lot of people prefer the focal length of 50mm equiv. Frequently I will just leave the 30mm on my A6500 and I am perfectly happy with it. It is super small and light and I love it.
The Sony RX10 IV is also a "perfect travel camera"...
RX10 is indeed the best bridge camera, if I wasn't so demanding and needy of full frame sensor quality and just a casual shooter, RX10 would be my choice.
Agreed.. I have the"5" going to use it on a trip in a few weeks.. Can't wait to really use it.
I take a RX10 and a RX100 Mk II and I absolutely love this combo.
I've been traveling with Fujifilm X‑T1 and XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4!
Fujifilm XT20 w/ 18-55mm F2.8-3.5 seems much better than the Olympus setup for lightweight travel.
Really depends on what you call travelling also don't forget that a Sony a7riii for instance has a crop mode which effectively turns a 24-70 into 36-105 so less glass is needed!
If flying OS there are weight restrictions which influence glass selection:
Africa/ Amazon: 'wildlife, fauna' would be a 24-70, 70-200, 150-600 and a 50mm (I'd leave out the 70-200 and 50 if needed).
Europe: 'people, arts, structures' would be 24-70, 70-200 and 85mm.
Iceland or the Alps: 'landscape, wildlife' would be 12-24, 24-70, 150-600mm.
I forgot this once.... Never travel without a good, sturdy tripod :)
So 28 days before his MFT is DEAD video Tony Northrup's travel camera is ... MFT !!
Him liking and using it has nothing to do with the longevity of MFT...
70 is too short for me, lens that I use the most is Nikon 24-120mm, this range is absolutely phenomenal! I used to use the 28-300mm a lot, but that quality is not always satisfying, and 24-70mm was always too short for me so both lenses were frustrating in a way. Then with a D850 I finally took the 24-120mm, and I cannot be happier with it as general multi purpose lens, 120mm is enough zoom for probably 80% of situations, and you still have that magical 24mm as starting focal length, now it is my most used lens by far
Those lenses are huge, not light at all.
I'd trade some weight for maximum quality. You can't easily take the trip again for the photos that didn't meet the qualification needed.
D7200 & Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 - Shoot multiples for wide panos, use the 1.5x crop factor to get the 105mm equiv on the long end. *Relatively* light, stabilized in the lens, decent res, and fantastic glass.