Travel - 3 primes or a zoom?

[RenesisEvo]

I've been going round in circles on this one for a while, so I thought I'd ask for some advice from the sages on the forum.

I'm off on foreign travels in May, and having the usual photographer's dilemma over what lenses to take. Adding to the issue is some of the internal flights means I'm more limited on baggage allowance than normal, so I need to be lean with my kit.

I have a Canon 600D (APS-C). I'd love to get a 24-70 f2.8 and be done with it (rented one, loved it), but my budget won't go there (£3-450 for now). I'm trying to settle on an alternative as a general walkabout lens - I'm not big on wildlife so big zoom or macro isn't something I desperately need, but a bit of reach would help. Portraits, cars and general street photography is more my thing.

Two approaches so far:
1. Take 2 or 3 primes - I have the EF-S 24mm f2.8, and the EF 50mm 1.8 (my go-to lens but can be a bit long, hence the 24mm). To this I could purchase a longer prime.100mm f2.0 or f2.8 macro (non-L) look good candidates. Any others out there? What about a 35mm go-between, or 85mm?
Upside - lots of sharp, fast glass for difficult situations.
Downside: having to swap lenses and filters regularly - time-consuming and introduces risk. More weight/space than one zoom. Long prime a bit 'niche', and would be quickly redundant if I ever got a 70-200 (another lens I've rented, loved, and want to save for. Too big/heavy for this trip.)

2. Go for a decent zoom - I've been eyeing up the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. Anyone familiar with this lens? This would make the 24mm redundant. I'd likely bring the 50mm anyway because I've got filters for it and I love it to bits.
Upside: no need to change lens (unless I want to use the 50mm). Only need one filter.
Downside: lack of reach (112mm equiv at best), not quite so good for low light/sharpness against a prime.

Bear in mind in the future I aim to progress to a 24-70L, 70-200L (then full frame body) so I don't want to invest in something that will end up being quickly redundant. I also have the 18-55 kit lens (never use it) and the 75-300mm f4-5.6 (does the job sometimes but it's way too soft and short on aperture). I have borrowed an 18-135 kit lens and found it very flexible and the results were fine but I don't think it will deliver when the going gets tough.

So what's your thoughts/experience? Got a better idea? I'd love to hear it.

[Lynchie999]

... just stick with the 24 and 50 ... unless you want tele range ? those are good for travel... will make you think more about shots too!

[DibblyDobbler]

My 2p worth - get a nice zoom that covers the range you want, convenience wins the day for travel photography. If the 18-135 is decently sharp and light then it should do you

[chandrew]

When I had a canon set-up with the smaller sensor (first a 10D then a 20D) then the 17-40 was my favourite lens. It's smallish and light and a good all round lens. I also had the 24-70 and the 70-200 f4.

When I then moved to full frame the 24-70 became my usual lens.

I'm now on Fuji and prefer the primes, but part of the attraction is that everything is just so much smaller / lighter. I can get 5 lenses and a body in my small Billingham bag.

[Zod]

I travel light with 16-35 f2.8L and 24-105 f4L, unless I know I need something more specialist. They are both great lenses and cover most things I'd want to photograph. The 16-35 is much nicer than the 24-105 at the wide end. This is for full frame use.

[Simpo Two]

My default travel combo (Nikon DX) is 17-55 f2.8, 70-300VR and a Speedlight.

And a shirtpocket compact for when you just want a quck snap without a DSLR in tow.

[Zod]

Simpo Two said:

My default travel combo (Nikon DX) is 17-55 f2.8, 70-300VR and a Speedlight.

And a shirtpocket compact for when you just want a quck snap without a DSLR in tow.

My compact (Canon S95) only get used for diving now. The iPhone X camera is good enough in most circumstances. Of course, the difference is obvious when I bring out an SLR with good glass, but the phone does a great job.

[Simpo Two]

True, I hear that most people carry telephones around all day that have cameras in them.

[JulianHJ]

17-40L. Get the 24-70L when you go full frame.

[toohuge]

I usually travel with just prime lenses...

On my most recent trip I took a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm.

I never used my 50mm, the 24mm and 35mm were on all the time.

I prefer to shoot with prime lenses, but when I travel I do prefer to go a little wider, hence the 24mm.

Furthermore, with how inexpensive the 35mm and 50mm are on Nikon -I am never worried about the dings that are picked up when on the subway etc. Even if I have a disaster, I can easily go out and pick another up relatively inexpensively.

[Zod]

JulianHJ said:

17-40L. Get the 24-70L when you go full frame.

I had one, but sold it and bought the 16-35L. It’s more expensive, but much better.

[RenesisEvo]

Thanks all. I've had another look around - a Canon 35mm prime is seriously pricey. I'm leaning towards trying out the Sigma 17-70 as the best value for money. Paired with the 75-300 I've got everything covered (except very low light, but the 17-70 might be fast enough to negate the 50mm. Or just pocket it anyway as it's so small and light).

I had considered a compact but as has been said, a mobile phone now is good enough for that purpose, I don't mind carrying around an SLR - I use a sling strap which makes a significant improvement on carrying for long durations. Will mull it over

[Simpo Two]

RenesisEvo said:

I'm leaning towards trying out the Sigma 17-70 as the best value for money. Paired with the 75-300 I've got everything covered (except very low light, but the 17-70 might be fast enough to negate the 50mm.

Or add a flashgun to the mix; they work in no light at all!

[tog]

RenesisEvo said:

Thanks all. I've had another look around - a Canon 35mm prime is seriously pricey.:

There's a Yongnuo 35mm f2 prime for about £80. A mate has the Yongnuo 50mm and is very happy with it.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Yongnuo-YN35-Lens-Canon-C...

[JulianHJ]

Zod said:

I had one, but sold it and bought the 16-35L. It’s more expensive, but much better.

Ditto, but on a budget I'd still recommend it.

[RenesisEvo]

Simpo Two said:

Or add a flashgun to the mix; they work in no light at all!

very true! Proper flash photography is something I've yet to learn (on the to-do list). The type of photos I have in mind won't necessarily work with flash, plus there will be places I won't be able to use it, e.g museums.

That Yongnuo 35mm is incredibly cheap, worth trying as very little to lose at that price. Will look into reviews (EDIT - quite favourable actually! This is definitely going on the shortlist). Thanks for the suggestion.

Edited by RenesisEvo on Sunday 4th March 19:18

[Simpo Two]

RenesisEvo said:

The type of photos I have in mind won't necessarily work with flash, plus there will be places I won't be able to use it, e.g museums.

I was taking photos at an aquarium in La Corunna.The sign said 'no flash' and I didn't use flash (it would have wrecked the photos anyway). But a grumpy Spanish woman had a go at me because of the momentary glow of AF assist light and said 'Noa flasho!'. I hope she understood 'It's the AF assist light you donkey'

[tonyb1968]

Im off on holiday shortly and my options i've packed are the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8, a 24-70 f4 and a 50mm f1.8, chances are I wont need the 50mm but its light (so is the 24-70 f4) and it covers pretty much everything I will need them for.

[Craikeybaby]

I prefer to travel light and use the 24-105mm on full frame. I'd recommend a similar EF-S zoom, I've heard good things about the 15-85mm. The 17-55mm f2.8 is also a meant to be a good lens and would have a better focal range than a 24-70.