If you could start from square 1, and were going to travel in developing countries and shoot landscapes and portraits, what would be your choice for a:2 Lens Kit:3 Lens Kit:4 Lens kit:My own opinion (for my type of shooting)2 Lens: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4 IS3 Lens: 16-35 II, 50L, 70-200 F4 IS4 Lens: 24-105, 16-35, 24L, 135LMaybe not... just musing to myself....

I would take the 24-105, 70-200 -- Steve Canon 5D2 Canon G9 Canon Rebel XT 60mm Macro 100mm Macro 18-50mm 28-105mm 24-105Lmm 70-200mm http://www.pbase.com/spbimages

We are currently traveling. 5D 24-70L and Sigma 80-400 OS and left the 70-200 2.8L at Home. Jak.

2 lens kit: 24-105mm L IS 100-400mm L IS3 lens kit: 16-35mm L 24-105mm L IS 100-400mm L IS4 lens kit: 16-35 24-105 100-400 50mm f2.5 MacroWith the exception of the macro lens, all of the others use 77mm filters, adding efficiency and simplicity. I would fit in my Cokin filter adapter and square filters, in particular my graduated ND filters.With all three lens sets I would also pack the 1.4X converter, and with the 4 lens kit I would pack the Life Sized Converter.

Travelinbri_74wrote:If you could start from square 1, and were going to travel in developing countries and shoot landscapes and portraits, what would be your choice for a:2 Lens Kit:35L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L3 Lens Kit:35L, 85L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L4 Lens kit:35L, 16-35L, 85L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS LMy own opinion (for my type of shooting)2 Lens: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4 IS3 Lens: 16-35 II, 50L, 70-200 F4 IS4 Lens: 24-105, 16-35, 24L, 135LMaybe not... just musing to myself....

Travelinbri_74wrote:If you could start from square 1, and were going to travel in developing countries and shoot landscapes and portraits, what would be your choice for a:2 Lens Kit:17-40L, 24-105L3 Lens Kit:17-40L 24-105L, 70-200L4 Lens kit:17-40L 24-105L, 70-200L, 135L 2.0 All (but the 135L) are F4 L lenses for good IQ and relative light weight.Yep, some overlap between the lenses. This prevents you from swapping your lenses too often thus reducing the risk of contaminating you sensor.135L great lens for portraits and shooting people in their own habitat and keeping some distance when desired.Anyone suggestions for travel bags/backpacks for the 2, 3 and 4 lens combos. And what would your choice be for 1 and 2 bodies (xxD and 5D) in combination with the 3 lens combos above?My own opinion (for my type of shooting)2 Lens: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4 IS3 Lens: 16-35 II, 50L, 70-200 F4 IS4 Lens: 24-105, 16-35, 24L, 135LMaybe not... just musing to myself....

mmmh if you go for landscapes in your 2 lens combo i would put 16 35 instead 24 70 i mean for landscapes wa is more important

most probably a two camera setup and four lenses, 28, 35, 50, 90 with 28 - 50 or 35 - 90 depending on the location. -- I wanted a better viewfinder and now I need more money

this is mine:2 Lens Kit: 24-105 L 50mm 1.43 Lens Kit: 24-105 L 50mm 1.4 17-40 L4 Lens kit: 24-105 L 50mm 17-40 L 70-300 DO

2 lens kit: EF35mm f/1,4L + EF135mm f/2,0L3 lens kit: EF24mm f/1,4L + EF50mm f/1,2L + EF135mm f/2,0L4 Lens kit: EF24mm f/1,4L + EF35mm f/1,4L + EF85mm f/1,8 + EF135mm f/2,0LThat´s right: No zoom either way !But what I like the most is a twin 5D-solution with the EF35mm f/1,4L on one and the EF135mm f/2,0L on the other.Z

Teosaxwrote:mmmh if you go for landscapes in your 2 lens combo i would put 16 35 instead 24 70 i mean for landscapes wa is more importantFor some maybe, but for me the 24-70 and 70-200 is used much more often for landscapes than the 16-35 which in my opinion is great to have but a specialty lens for landscapes.Se my landscape galleries and see how often a longer lens is used. http://www.pbase.com/hkruse/my_best_landscape_pictures and http://hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes

My own choices are:2 lens: Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L IS 3 lens: Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L IS4 lens: 3 lens: Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS and 300 f/4L ISAll combined with a 1.4x TC (for the 70-200 and 300).And camera bodies 1Ds mk3 and 5D

I've done alot of backpacking since 2001 with Canon film cameras, where I used:-17-35L f2.8 70-200L f2.8ISon a (don't laugh) Canon 300 film camera - just becuase it was light & small to compensate for lenses being big & heavy. I now use these on a 20D (hopefully soon to be a 5dmk2).for a 3 lens setup I'd add a 2x converter.....if I can have that as a lens!For a 4 lens setup I'd take my 50 f1.4 to 'plug the gap'......or my 1.4x converter too if a lot of distant wildlife was expected on the trip.......but to be honest, if I was travelling, I'd just take the two zooms & the matching 2x converter, purely to keep weight down.......as an aside, on one trip i shot over 1700 shots on 100ASA film (about 56 rolls I think that I carried around with me) & there was only one time when the gap between the two zooms was an issue.......also note that I have not been anywhere near as satisfied with the wide end since moving to the 20D, which is a major driver to moving to 5dmk2 for me......& while it may seem that I loose out on the long end due to lack of 1.6x sensor crop, I can still post process crop the 5dmk2 images down to something similar to 20d field of view & still have similar or better MP's final image. Interestingly, I also note that the pixel density between 20d & 5dmk2 is similar, but hi iso from 5dmk2 is still superior by at least a couple of stops or so it seems.The only downer is that the DSLR's are bigger & heavier than a cheap old film camera.....but then you save on the weight fo 56 rolls of film with a DSLR

I suppose Hans had what I considered the most classic lineup (perhaps with a 35 prime)His choices are:2 lens: Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L IS 3 lens: Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L IS4 lens: 3 lens: Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II, 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS and 300 f/4L ISReally interesting to get so many different takes.

Travelinbri_74wrote:If you could start from square 1, and were going to travel in developing countries and shoot landscapes and portraits, what would be your choice for a:2 Lens Kit:3 Lens Kit:4 Lens kit:My own opinion (for my type of shooting)2 Lens: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4 IS3 Lens: 16-35 II, 50L, 70-200 F4 IS4 Lens: 24-105, 16-35, 24L, 135LMaybe not... just musing to myself....

1) Adapted Zeiss ZF 18/3,5 2) Adapted Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 3) EF 85/1.8If I were forced to go with just two lenses: 1) EF 17-40/4L 2) EF 100/2.8 MacroTravelinbri_74wrote:If you could start from square 1, and were going to travel in developing countries and shoot landscapes and portraits, what would be your choice for a:2 Lens Kit:3 Lens Kit:4 Lens kit:My own opinion (for my type of shooting)2 Lens: 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4 IS3 Lens: 16-35 II, 50L, 70-200 F4 IS4 Lens: 24-105, 16-35, 24L, 135LMaybe not... just musing to myself....

17-40 f4 24-105 f4 70-200 f4 300 f4 -- Image's In Light North West http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/

About to go travelling with a whole new setup: 24-105 4.0L, 70-200 IS 4.0L, and a 50 1.4.Much heavier than what I'm used to, but worth the sacrifice I think.

A year ago I was in Kenya with the following setup350D Tokina 12-24/4 EF 50/1.8 EF 70-200/4LI was quite happy with the reults, with 1.6x crop the reach of 70-200 was quite ample even in a Maasai Mara safari.With a FF body I´d probably take 17-40L over the Tokina. I would also perhaps consider the EF 70-300IS over the 70-200L. 50/1.4 might also be preferable over the 1.8, but OTOH the nifty fifty is so a small and light that you can keep it in your front pocket...Mind you, this isn´t a "dream kit" but built with portability and a realistic budget in mind. While it would be nice to have a bag full of best L glass (and a personal assistant to carry it around), in real life the combination of two relatively lightweight zooms and one large aperture prime is a good compromise IMO.

......yes, I would not complain with Hans's choice either.....having done a fair bit of backpacking with my camera gear, I know I could get by with just a two lens line up plus a converter & have 99.9% of MY shooting covered......I just would not want the bulk or weight of the 3 & 4 lens line ups......prior to my first major back pack trip (round the world in 86 days!) in 2001, my main camera was an Eos 5 + grip with Canon's non-L EF lenses (28-105 & 70-300). I was happy with this UNTIL I did a back to back comparison with the 17-35 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8 IS L series lenses - even at 6x4cm (film) prints there was a very noticeable difference, so prior to going on my 'holiday of a life time' & deciding that I wanted at least 10x8 prints up on the wall of my travels I went for these two L series lenses......but the kit was so big & heavy, I decided to save weight & bulk on the body side by picking up a cheap (£150) Eos 300 film camera - figuring that in the film world, its mainly the film & lens that dictates the end quality & not so much the body - even Canon's entry level SLR's are more than capable......but it did look funny having a huge, expensive L piece of glass on the end of the cheapest smallest plasticy-est body.when i tested the 70-200 f2.8 IS L, I also did it with the 1.4x & 2x converters (I also tested against canons 100-400 f5.6 IS L & sigma & tamron 28-300's vs my own EF's mentioned above). The 70-200 f2.8 IS L, even with converters was at least equal to the 100-400 - hence I look the more flexible 70-200 + converter approach, so i also had the option of 70-200 range at f2.8 f required.What was surprising was how relatively poor my non-L series Canon EF lenses were - even the Tamron 28-300 was better - sitting about half way between the EF's & the 70-200 L series in subjective quality at 6x4cm prints.The 17-35 F2.8 L series was not as hugely impressive quality wise as the 70-200 f2.8 IS L, but still better, & the wide angle on a film was fantastic - to be honest, when i bought it, I thought that I would hardly ever venture near the 17 end - that I'd be mainly around the 24 mark, but there were so many times on our travels where I was space restricted & the 17mm end was used time & time again.When I moved to the digital world with the 20D, the 70-200 f2.8 IS L was even better - just on the longer reach due to the sensor. the 17-35 however has become a disappointment in some respects - I just got so used to the wide angle that it just does not perform to my liking on a crop sensor......not the lenses fault granted, but the body/lens combo fault. & this is a major justification in my mind for me to move to 5dmk2 - to regain the wide angle with this lens.I'm sure the latest 16-35 f2.8 mk2 is superior to my old 17-35, but I can't justify the upgrade yet......maybe if Canon put IS on a wide angle zoom I might be tempted.......alot of people may find that an odd comment - IS not being seemingly so effective on a wide angle lens as it is on a tele.......but I think it might be nice to have while using the video capability on the 5Dmk2 for handheld shooting - just to help smooth things out a little - I know that steady shot on my sony camcorder really helps with the watchability of the footage regardless of where the zoom lens is. But I accept I may be totally unique with this wish, & its highly questionable if Canon would ever stick IS on such a lens. Maybe I'll have to upgrade the 17-35 when i see it on the 5Dmk2 anyway