telephoto for the city

Flats

Flats

Messages
1,285
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
For a trip to NY, and attempting street photography, is taking a telephoto in the 85-135-200 range a waste of time? I have a wide-angle zoom (on FF) that I imagine I will use for a lot of shots, for long-range candids though would a small 200 prime be useful? I want to travel as light as possible, but I would be irritated to know that I have a lens at home that would have been ideal.
Thanks
Jonathan
 
If you want to Travel Light, then i'd take a wide angle and a 'SuperZoom' But for me when i'm out doing street stuff, i just take a 50 Prime.
 
A wide angle is a must and a medium zoom, but then there'll always be something a bit further away that you want to shoot. :shrug:
 
For NY I'd take my 10-22 and 18-135, ideal!
 
Im going for sept 11th this year with my sister who works for toronto fire.

i will be taking a sigma 10-20 a sigma 24-70 f2.8 which are the 2 lenses i would use most but also a canon 28-300L just in case. i wouldnt of thought you would need any more then 70mm in the city
 
Unfortunately the widest I currently have is 24mm, and relatively slow at f4. I don't really want to invest in a UWA. For candids, I have some relatively fast telephoto primes as mentioned above, and not wanting to take them all I wanted opinions on which focal length might work best. Although the 85mm is fast, it conflicts with the 24-105 zoom, the 135 is slower, but more of a difference. The 200 is slower again, but offers much more reach.
 
In the city, I shoot mainly architecture (inside and outside) and panoramas from tall buildings, so I find (on a DX camera) a fast wide angle to be much more useful...and would seldom have a real need for a longer telephoto. But different people have different interests and styles. You will likely never have all the lenses along to cover every possible shot. But then if you bring too many options you'll find yourself changing lenses all the time and missing shots. :lol:
 
I am still struggling with what to take - 24-105 is a decent lens but I'm not sure I like f4, I'd far rather have something really fast in the same range I think. So rather than take a 24-105 and, say, a 200mm f2.8, perhaps a 35mm f1.4, and 135mm f2 (I don't own all these lenses I should of course say, but I can dream). 35mm is not so wide vs 24mm, but NYC at night, f1.4 could be really useful.
 
Flats said:
I am still struggling with what to take - 24-105 is a decent lens but I'm not sure I like f4, I'd far rather have something really fast in the same range I think
Click to expand...
Why? Unless the laws of nature are different, NYC at night stays stationary (ok the people/cars move, but I'm assuming architecture) and the 24-105 has IS.

What the digital picture has to say about the IS (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)

TDP said:
Theoretically, IS enables this lens can be shot handheld at shutter speeds as low as 1/3 second at 24mm on a full frame body. Your results will depend on how steady you are, but I am seeing sharp shots at 1/3 second (and many longer) at 24mm and 1/6 second (and longer) at 105mm. Very nice. A tripod was not used for most of the 24-105mm sample pictures (link below) with shutter speeds below 1 second. I would unscientifically rate this lens as delivering a keeper rate as high or higher than any lens I own or have owned. And most of my throw-aways are the fault the person behind the lens.
Click to expand...

I.e. the 24-105 will beat almost any prime (except in DoF and ability to stop action) if the subject is stationary.... This really came home to me when I visited Canterbury Cathedral. I swapped the 24-105 for a fixed 50mm f1.8. Everything I took, I could have taken just as well with the 24-105 with slower shutter and IS on....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top