Travelling-Best all around lens?

mac123

I have a Canon EOS 450D. Im planning on going travelling around South America later in the year and I only want to bring one lens with me for space reasons.

Does anyone have any recommendations on a good lens with decent zoom that would work well for landscape and sport photos?

Thanks

slimboyfat

I'd say the Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Macro or Canon EF 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM.

jaybeeveedub

whats your budget??

mac123

Thanks for the replies.

My budget will be around 300-500, depends how much I can save between now and the summer really.

I may sell some of my lenses to cover the cost.

K_user

Something in and around the 18-200 is the best all round lens you can get.
After that is down to budget.

ozymandius

Think of it another way. If you're travelling and stuck for space would you not be better spending the budget on, say, a bridge camera. How about a Nikon P7000, Canon G12 or Fuji HS10, for instance. Or maybe something even smaller and cheaper. Seems pointless bringing an interchangeable lens camera and only one lens, and all-in-one lenses are generally regarded as compromising IQ anyway.

K_user

ozymandius wrote: »

Seems pointless bringing an interchangeable lens camera and only one lens, and all-in-one lenses are generally regarded as compromising IQ anyway.

When going away I'd only bring one lens. Course I'd be heading away with my family. And, from past experience, going places with the wife and kids means you get little time for changing lenses and fiddling with all the photographic gadgetery that we all know and love. One lens, maybe a filter and then you are set.

Thecageyone

It takes about 15 seconds to switch lenses, inclusive of popping the caps on and off for each and reaching in and out of your bag. I don't get the big issue with it. I'd rather have 2 lenses covering the same focal length as an 'all in one' jobbie. You don't need a big awkward bag for an extra lens either, a basic shoulder bag will fit an extra lens, flash, all the filters, cloths, batteries and cables you'll need when traveling. You're going to have a bag for the camera anyhow.

How about a nice prime for your landscapes? Something like a 35mm f/1.8. And a decent mid-range zoom for your sports?

Promac

I always take a zoom and a 50mm prime.

The kit lens for the 7D/550D is a good runabout lens. It's 18-135 so loads of zoom with a nice bit of wide too and you should be able to pick one up cheap enough.

One here on adverts.ie:
http://www.adverts.ie/lenses/sale-canon-18-135mm-is-efs/385781

leche solara

+1 for the Tamron 18-270. But you should try and take a 50mm 1.8 as well.

joepenguin

+1 for the likes of an 18-200 (perhaps with IS budget permitting)or similar plus a 50mm 1.8. Its so small and light and takes amazing shots.

Thats if you go the SLR route. Do consider bringing a bridge camera if you are not going to bring a very sharp lens. It will save you space and give good results.

Zillah

Thecageyone wrote: »

It takes about 15 seconds to switch lenses, inclusive of popping the caps on and off for each and reaching in and out of your bag. I don't get the big issue with it. I'd rather have 2 lenses covering the same focal length as an 'all in one' jobbie. You don't need a big awkward bag for an extra lens either, a basic shoulder bag will fit an extra lens, flash, all the filters, cloths, batteries and cables you'll need when traveling. You're going to have a bag for the camera anyhow.

You realise you'll always have a ton of other stuff with you when travelling, right? I spent months back packing around South America with my DSLR, even one extra lens would have been a nightmare.

I'm not saying it can't be done but you seem to think that all you'll be carrying while travelling is camera equipment. And swapping lenses isn't exactly a trivial proposal when you're on a raft on a river, in a jeep in a sand swept desert, knee deep in a swamp or crunching along salt flats, all of which I did with my Nikon.

Thecageyone

If that extra lens is a very small prime though ...

The combined weight of a prime plus very light tele like a 55-200 VR [I realise that's Nikon, there is a Canon alternative far as I know?] is less than the weight of most 18-200+ lenses.

I'm always suggesting it, as I think it's a great lens - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

Great walkabout/all rounder lens for most situations. Add something like a 55-200 VR which is very light, and you've got most ranges covered.

If you're going to opt for an 18-200 or 18-270, at least get the OS/IS/VR version, definitely worth the extra money.

Zillah

I only had a Sigma 17-70mm with me. Only point that I had any regrets about not having a different lens was taking photos of wildlife in the jungle, would have killed for a 300+mm.

joepenguin

Another way of looking at is do you want to cover wide-telephoto reasonably well or would you rather have an excellent lens for a particular range.

Eg an 18-270 to cover almost everything,
op you mentioned decent zoom, landscape, and sports.

the 70-200 2.8 would be a good choice as it has decent zoom and great for sports. I dont do much landscape but imagine that would limit you?

Also what kind of sport and how close would you be?

If you 100% against bringin more than one lens regardless just say.