Lenses for Mediterranean cruise in November

We are on the Riviera traveling from Istanbul to Barcelona.

I have a Canon 5DIII and was planning to take a 17-40mm f/4.0L and a 24-105mm f/4.0L IS.

I think these will cover what we will see on our excursions but would appreciate any suggestions for other lenses.

Thanks.

I would say you can't go wrong with a super wide.

I would say you can't go wrong with a super wide.

17mm is pretty wide on a full-frame. Like an 11mm on an APS-C camera.

Dave

I have been on Med cruises the past two years and have used a zoom greater than 105mm more than I can say. My DLSR has an 18 - 270. I also have a 35X bridge camera.

I have been on Med cruises the past two years and have used a zoom greater than 105mm more than I can say. My DLSR has an 18 - 270. I also have a 35X bridge camera.

OP is shooting full frame. That's an APS-C lens.

If you're just DYING to find a reason to buy the brick (24-70 f/2.8), then far be it from me to suggest otherwise :). Barring that, you've got a pretty good kit.

The serious consideration would be whether a 70-200 would make any sense? That's a high priced piece of glass, even if you go Sigma! I tend to think of Europe as mostly tight, frequently shadowy, spaces. But, if you want reach, and others suggest it's justified, I might look at a 70-200 f/2.8, but I'd probably go with the Sigma...

As always, YMMV....

We were on a very similar cruise this past June - Barcelona to Venice. I used my 24-105 on a 5DMII for probably 90% of the photos. I used my 16-35 on the other 10% and mostly inside. The images are here if you are interested.

Larry

Edit. It is my style of shooting, but I really did not feel the need for anything longer than the 105mm.

We were on a very similar cruise this past June - Barcelona to Venice. I used my 24-105 on a 5DMII for probably 90% of the photos. I used my 16-35 on the other 10% and mostly inside. The images are here if you are interested.

 

Larry

 

Edit. It is my style of shooting, but I really did not feel the need for anything longer than the 105mm.

Thanks Larry.

Very nice photos. I think those two lenses should cover pretty well everything. I have the 70-200mm f/4.0L but it doesn't look like I would use it very much.

Do you see any reason to take a fast prime for some inside shots? The 5DIII is great when I have to bump up the ISO but I guess some places could be quite dark.

I also see that you took an EOS-M. I am going to take mine to use on the ship when I want something that will fit in a pocket.

We were on a very similar cruise this past June - Barcelona to Venice. I used my 24-105 on a 5DMII for probably 90% of the photos. I used my 16-35 on the other 10% and mostly inside. The images are here if you are interested.

 

Larry

 

Edit. It is my style of shooting, but I really did not feel the need for anything longer than the 105mm.

Your pictures are awesome. I love the composition. I may be in the minority but I like the ability to go from

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_2930_zpsac3abc17.jpg

to

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_2931_zps0d9ec4e0.jpg

Your pictures are awesome. I love the composition. I may be in the minority but I like the ability to go from

 

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_2930_zpsac3abc17.jpg

 

to

 

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff386/mmkbx75/IMG_2931_zps0d9ec4e0.jpg

I totally agree with you. I like to be able to get that kind of detail on buildings, etc. I was going to suggest to the OP to consider something longer than 105mm.

 

Do you see any reason to take a fast prime for some inside shots? The 5DIII is great when I have to bump up the ISO but I guess some places could be quite dark.

 

I also see that you took an EOS-M. I am going to take mine to use on the ship when I want something that will fit in a pocket.

I would tend to think that nice fast prime would be handy if it was as wide as your 17-24. Otherwise the MIII could easily handle a significant bump in ISO to make an f4 lens work.

I did take an EOS-M and enjoyed having it around the ship. I just up dated the frimware and it does focus faster, so If would recommend doing that if you haven't.

As to a longer lens. Different people, different styles, different desires for cruise vacation pictures. My style is wider shots, others are obviously different. Like I said, I didn't miss a longish lens on the trip.

Larry

I would tend to think that nice fast prime would be handy if it was as wide as your 17-24. Otherwise the MIII could easily handle a significant bump in ISO to make an f4 lens work.

 

I did take an EOS-M and enjoyed having it around the ship. I just up dated the frimware and it does focus faster, so If would recommend doing that if you haven't.

 

As to a longer lens. Different people, different styles, different desires for cruise vacation pictures. My style is wider shots, others are obviously different. Like I said, I didn't miss a longish lens on the trip.

 

Larry

My widest prime is a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 so I don't think it will be useful on this trip. I haven't updated the firmware on my EOS-M but have been quite happy with focussing using the touch screen.

Thanks mskaufman and Turtles06, I may end up taking my 70-200m afterall. The good thing about a cruise is that you only have to carry all of your gear when flying. On excursions you only need to take the appropriate lenses for that day.

My experience from my trip is you can't go too wide, at the time I had 16mm ( 16-85 ) on cropped sensor, wished for scenics, interiors my current 14-24.

ALso many places you can't be too fast so a nice fast prime should be considered 35 1.4, or 24 1.4.

There were only a few times I wished or needed more than 100mm.

+1 in support of you already having enough range. I took my 100-400mm on a similar itinerary and can't recall using it but maybe once or twice.

I don't know that there is anything special about the Mediterranean that would not also apply to most cruise situations.

I have cut down my lenses I normally take to just 4:

1. Either a Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5~5.6 or a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

2. Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8

3. Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6

4. Nikon 18-200mm f/3.6~5.6

If I am going to take a lot of landscape or cityscapes, I pick the Sigma 8-16mm. But if I plan on going inside buildings, such as cathedrals or museums, I will opt for the Tokina 11-16 due to it's low light superiority over the sigma.

The Sigma 17-50mm is already a decent light lens, so I use it most often. But I may replace it with a Nikon 28mm f/1.8 prime if I feel the need for low light. I can use the 18-200mm as a backup if I need a particular focal length the prime cannot provide.

The 70-300mm is used for all telephoto use. I quit carrying my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 as it was too heavy for travel. Also, I do carry a Nikon V1 as a backup, and with the FT-1 adapter and the 70-300mm, I can get an effective 840mm telephoto - so that satisfies my long reach needs.

I use the 18-200 primarily for excursions or times when I only want to carry one lens. And I also carry a 18.5mm f/1.8 on my Nikon V1 as it's normal lens (equivalent to 50mm)

I may sometimes add another lens or two if needed, but that is rare. For the 4 lenses and two cameras, my total focal length range in 35mm equivalent is 12~840mm. I cannot think of any situation where one of these lenses won't work.