Lenses for a Hawaiian Holiday - DPChallenge Forums

05/27/2004 06:44:14 AM · #1

I am going on my honeymoon to Hawaii later this year... We will be cruising the islands for 7 days with some stops on some of the islands... What Canon lenses would you recommend?

They will be used outside the cabin ;)

05/27/2004 07:23:24 AM · #2

Bump

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/27/2004 07:47:50 AM · #3

What lenses do you already have to work with?

05/27/2004 07:49:16 AM · #4

Originally posted by richterrell:

What lenses do you already have to work with?

At the moment I have the 18-55, 28-135 and 100-300

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/27/2004 08:01:40 AM · #5

Originally posted by BooZon:

Originally posted by richterrell:
What lenses do you already have to work with?

At the moment I have the 18-55, 28-135 and 100-300

If it were me, I would take them in the following order of preference:

1. 18-55 - you are likely going to take quite a few landscape shots, and will want the ability to go as wide-angle as possible.
2. 28-135 - terrific utility and "walking around" lens, very versatile.
3. 100-300 - I don't know if you will be taking any real distance shots.

When I went to Italy, I took a 17-40, a 28-135, and had a 75-300 in my suitcase just because it did not weigh enough for me to leave it at home - I figured if I needed it, it would be there. You might choose to do the same.

I figure I shot about 80% with the 17-40, 20% with the 28-135, and the 75-300 never made it out of the bag. But still - it never weighed me down, not sitting in the hotel room.

Anyway, Hawaii is not Italy, but I would still absolutely take the wide-angle first. The other two are more of a personal preference thing, and what you might think you will be shooting at longer ranges.

Take care,
Rich.

05/27/2004 08:12:51 AM · #6

Originally posted by richterrell:

Originally posted by BooZon:

Originally posted by richterrell:
What lenses do you already have to work with?

At the moment I have the 18-55, 28-135 and 100-300

If it were me, I would take them in the following order of preference:

1. 18-55 - you are likely going to take quite a few landscape shots, and will want the ability to go as wide-angle as possible.
2. 28-135 - terrific utility and "walking around" lens, very versatile.
3. 100-300 - I don't know if you will be taking any real distance shots.

When I went to Italy, I took a 17-40, a 28-135, and had a 75-300 in my suitcase just because it did not weigh enough for me to leave it at home - I figured if I needed it, it would be there. You might choose to do the same.

I figure I shot about 80% with the 17-40, 20% with the 28-135, and the 75-300 never made it out of the bag. But still - it never weighed me down, not sitting in the hotel room.

Anyway, Hawaii is not Italy, but I would still absolutely take the wide-angle first. The other two are more of a personal preference thing, and what you might think you will be shooting at longer ranges.

Take care,
Rich.

Thanks mate... I was leaning that way myself. I am toying with buying the Canon 15mm fisheye (the only way to go super wide with 1.6 crop factor) any merit considering I have the 18-55?

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/27/2004 08:39:48 AM · #7

I have not had any experience with a super wide angle yet on my camera, so I cannot really say - I have a friend with a 14mm, and he has some great shots with it.

Don't discount stiching photos together! You can get some great panoramas that way with the gear you currently have. Try it out on whatever landscapes you have available to you now and see how it works out - if you have a good feel for what focal lengths work best for you when stitching before going over, you should be able to get some fantastic landsacape composites!

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

05/28/2004 04:16:35 AM · #8

Originally posted by richterrell:

Thanks Rich. I didn't think of stitching. I will give it a go.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

05/28/2004 06:34:47 AM · #9

If you're talking about investing in a wide angle prime then its my understanding that the 14mm comes with software to approximate rectilinear shots; I don't think its truly rectilinear but you can supposedly fix up a photo is a short time to take almost all the "fish eye"-iness out of your photos.

The difference between your 18-55 and a WA prime is not just the 3 or 4 extra mm in focal length, it'll be (A) probably a wider field of view and (B) better optics in just about any of the WA primes you get.

As this is a together experience, tho, I'm betting your 18-55 will take superb photos for the two of you as you walk along (or drive or even fly) that gorgious scenery. Hope you both have a blast on the trip and share some of the photos with us.

Kev

Lensbaby 1.0 (The Original)

05/28/2004 07:09:57 AM · #10

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Thanks for the advice Kev... I will most definately share my pics with you guys.

alanbataar

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/28/2004 07:41:24 AM · #11

Hi gang.... just got back from a vacay to France, both in Paris and the countryside. As was mentioned, the long lens (and it's not even that long at 28-80) wasn't used very much. My newest lens, a Sigma 12-24 was on the camera for about 75% of the shots: it's awesome for architecture, but you absolutely will have to correct for perspective in photoshop. Downside: it's not very fast, so shooting indoors handheld is limited. Regarding the distortion, yes, it has it, but it's not very noticable at the 24 end -- and I was shooting art in the Pompadeau [sp?] center, so it would be quite obvious. You really have to pay attention to getting the frame vertically centered and the camera perpendicular to the art. The 12 end definitely has some distortion, but not nearly as much as you'd think.

My only other comment is to bring and/or buy a circular polarizer -- it's really a tremendous asset for brightly lit landscape photography, which, hopefully, will be exactly the type of weather you get on your honeymoon. Travel well and have a great time!

PS: the 12-24 can't use a front-mounted filter, but if it did, the polarizer would have been a blessing for shooting art under glass in order to get rid of the reflections.