What lenses would best comprise a travel photography kit?

Question

On a crop sensor camera, eg Canon 7D, what would be the best kit to travel with around Europe for a few weeks? My shooting style will focus on landscape, architecture, and general purpose travel shots(Of note would be my lack of interest for portraits).

• Limit to around 1-3 lenses, and I prefer light ones.
• Crop sensor camera chosen to save on weight over a full frame option.
• Question is open to all brands for general guidance, but I will be using a Canon body.
• Cost is not a factor, I will rent the lenses I do not already own.
• Quality is of paramount importance.
• I will not have a tripod.

I understand some may consider this subjective, but I do believe that for a crop sensor body, with weight as a consideration, and a limit to the amount of lenses, a true best kit can be determined.

Answer

I literally just got back (a few days ago) from spending a few weeks in Europe with my 7D, 10-22mm, 17-55mm, 50mm and 55-250mm. I too have little interest in portraits, and took a lot of landscapes, architecture and "detail" shots on my trip. And I left my tripod at home... so perhaps some of my experiences/thoughts will be useful...

I carried the 3 zooms around with me most of the time, occasionally taking the 50mm out, and if I wasn't really feeling up to carrying it all, I'd just take the 17-55. I remember at the time thinking the 10-22 and 55-250 were by far the most useful lenses, though oddly the proportion of all photos from each lens was:

• EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM — 44%
• EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 — 28%
• EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM — 24%
• EF 50mm f/1.8 II — 4%

I've yet to sort through my photos, so if I remember I'll come back and update the percentages based on the photos I actually liked (; I'm quite sure the best will be from the wide and telephoto.

I remember thinking often that I'd have probably been happier with the 10-22mm and a better telephoto (70-200 f/4L or 70-300L), and just a 30mm in the middle (for weight reasons). The other thing I wanted was a second body... As much as I like my 17-55 (especially if it's the only lens I'm carrying), I have a feeling that two bodies, one with a good wide angle, the other a good telephoto, and a 'normal' (30mm for crop) prime in the bag, just in case, is all one really needs... but it's hard to justify a second body just to be switching lenses less frequently! But for travel or events, when lots of things are new and unexpected, it seems to make sense.

I found the 10-22mm great for the big old churches, even though the 17-55 has a wider aperture, 17mm just didn't cut it in some of them. I think a similar lens that goes as wide as 11 or 12mm would also be fine (e.g. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina offerings), but the 17 or 18mm wide end of 'normal zooms' wouldn't cut it.

The tele was great for odd details, especially interesting people (I'm not one to approach people to take a photo), a bit of wildlife and the like. Mine's the kit one I got with my 450D a few years back which I'm saving up to replace with something with a wider aperture, but even so it was very useful and sufficient quality at f/8 to f/16.

The 17-55 was most useful when I didn't want to carry a lot, since its kind of wide and kind of long, so I'd probably still take it again, (even if I had a 30mm prime), unless I was expecting to have all my gear with me at all times, and wouldn't be comfortable leaving it behind somewhere on shorter day trips.

So if you want to stick to 3 lenses, I'd suggest an ultra-wide like the Canon 10-22mm, a good tele zoom like the 70-200 f/4L IS USM (or 70-300 if you like wildlife which I usually find I'm wanting more than 250 for) and a 30mm prime like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM.

Edit: I guess if you're aiming for highest quality, I should be suggesting the 35mm f/1.4L instead of the Sigma.

Edit 2: In hindsight, with a bigger gap than I had between the wide and zoom (i.e. 22 to 70mm instead of just 22 to 55mm, you may be wanting more than just a 30mm or 35mm prime in the middle there... especially if you don't already have a 30mm and use it regularly enough to be comfortable with it!)

Check more discussion of this question.

Does the size of the front glass mean anything?

Question

Considering the Nikon lenses:

Prime lenses:

• AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED has a huge front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G has a tiny little front glass, deep inside the body (∙₁),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED has a tiny little front glass (∙₁),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED has a huge front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II has a huge front glass (●₃),

Zoom lenses:

• AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has a large front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED front lens is still much larger compared to non-professional lenses of the same range (●₃),

• AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II has a large front glass (●₃).

• AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II front lens is much smaller than any of the three lenses above, but, well, it's a DX lens (•₂),

• AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED front lens is small too compared to the lenses below (•₂),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED front lens is again quite small (•₂),
• AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED front lens is pretty small compared to 200mm or 300mm or the 70-200mm (•₂).

I don't see any relation between the size of the front glass and the focal length, focal range or image quality.

If we take only zoom lenses, there would be a link between the maximum aperture and the size of the glass, larger aperture requiring a larger glass. Actually, this is not true, since AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED has a large maximum aperture, but a small front glass. Also, this doesn't work at all for prime lenses, where the lens with the largest aperture has the smallest front glass.

The quality of the lens doesn't seem to influence the size of the front glass neither, at least not for the prime lenses.

So what forces to make larger lenses with larger front elements?

Answer

Generally speaking, a larger front element is necessary to achieve a wider maximum aperture. More specifically, a larger front element helps achieve the necessary "entrance pupil" diameter required for a given lens, provides the necessary primary light-gathering power of a lens, and helps achieve the necessary angle of view of the lens. (The entrance pupil is the diameter of the physical aperture as viewed through the front of the lens.)

The physical diameter of a lens generally must increase as the maximum aperture increases, and once you pass f/2.8, each additional stop greatly increases the physical size of the lens. Additionally, once you pass f/2.8, each additional stop requires a considerably greater amount of light, and larger front lens elements are a key factor in gathering that additional light.

For ultra-wide angle lenses, such as the 14mm f/2.8, a larger lens element is often necessary to assist in capturing light rays from a wide enough angle of incidence, more so than for achieving a wide aperture (14/2.8 = 5mm physical aperture, quite small.)

For wider-aperture telephoto lenses, the physical aperture tends to be much larger, which tends to dictate the size of the front lens element more than the necessity of gathering wide-angle incident light rays. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses have a physical aperture of 71.4mm, some 14 times larger than the 14mm f/2.8 lens.

Lenses like the 70-300f/4.5-5.6 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 have much smaller maximum apertures for their focal lengths. 300/5.6 = 53mm, some 1.5 times smaller for 100mm greater focal length. A 300mm f/2.8 lens would require a 107mm aperture, which is twice as large as a 300 f/5.6, and would require a much larger front lens element to gather enough light to accommodate such a large aperture. The 80-400mm again has a fairly small maximum aperture at its longest focal length...400/5.6 is 71.4mm again, vs. 100mm for the 200/2 and 107mm for the 300/2.8. The 80-400mm lens has a larger front element than say the 14/2.8 or even a 50/1.4 due to the physical size of its aperture...which even at f/5.6 is considerably larger than any wide angle lens. A 50mm f/1.0 lens would have a physical aperture of 50mm, which over 20mm smaller than the 71.4mm of a 400/5.6 lens.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do super-super-lightweight tripods exist?

Question

Are there are any "ultra-portable" tripods out there? I'd like to find one for backpacking that weighs 500 grams or less, but none seem to exist... there are tabletop tripods that weigh considerably less, and the full-size tripods that seem to bottom out around 1000g. But nothing in between?

I'm happy to sit down while photographing, but I'd like to make photos without needing a rock or log to put a tabletop tripod on, or a tree to strap one to.

In the spirit of a tripod is better than no tripod, I'd give up a lot. But I have not been able to find a product like this.

I would also be interested in directions for building one.

Clarifications

• The 500g budget includes a complete tripod: both legs and head.
• The goal is to support about 1.5kg (e.g., D90 + 18-200).
• The 500g budget is for additional weight above and beyond what I'm already carrying. So, if an item I'm already carrying on a backpack can be repurposed or a new item substituted, only the net mass increase counts against the budget.

Answer

An alternative tripod that may serve your needs is the TrekPod. It might be the closest thing you are going to get from a weight perspective, but it has an interesting capability that may make its weight a moot point. The TrekPod XL weighs 630g (including the ball head), and is a cross between a tripod and a monopod. It can get up to 62" in height, but breaks down very small so it can easily be packed away. The real kicker: it can also double as a hiking staff! As a hiking staff, it wouldn't need to be something you have to stick in your pack, so the weight might not matter.

I chose the Gitzo over this since I needed a full tripod with the flexibility that a full set of telescopic legs offered. The TrekPod is probably the lightest full-height tripod I've ever encountered, though. Its 130g over your limit...but maybe it will still work.

Check more discussion of this question.