Help with dilemma.

[gsk]

I am going to Japan for a couple of weeks this month and do not want to carry around a lot of gear. I can't decide whether to take my 40D with 17-55 lens and also buy a efs 55-250 lens ( don't really want to keep buying efs lens cause want to go to new 5d later this year) or go with a canon G9 ( although some say this fall will be a new G10). What would you all do? Any help appreciated. Are there any compacts with manual settings that are better in less noise than the G9 at iso's above 200? Thanks.

[cyclohexane]

Bring your 40D. You'll feel left out with all the DSLRs/SLRs floating around in Japan.

[aam1234]

Agree with Michael, take your 40D with you, you won't regret it.

[JohnC]

I'd go the 40D route, too. I just picked up the 55-250 lens last week to photograph a parade. Worked out pretty well. Not quite as nice as the 70-200L I had on the 5D, but still held its own. This Flickr gallery at Fremont Solstice Parade 08 - a set on Flickr has a combo of the 40D/55-250 and the 5D/70-200.

[aam1234]

Good photos there, John.

A guy posted a couple of good pictures from the same event in the competition I participate in. He used the EF-S 10-22, though he cropped one of them. If interested I can PM you the link.

[gsk]

John.
Thanks for the link...Great photos. I just wish it wasn't a ef-s lens.

[aam1234]

If there are budget constraints, gsk, I'd go with 70-200 f4. It's small (compared to the 2.8 version) and definitely light. Haven't seen the f4 IS so can't comment on that. Others will hopefully do.

[gsk]

Thanks aam1234 but I already have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and cannot see dumpming the money on the f4.

[aam1234]

Got it.

Out of curiosity, why do you need a long lens when traveling. I'll be traveling later this summer and will be taking the 17-40, 24-70, and for its small size and weight I'll throw the 50 1.4 in the bag too. Won't be taking any long lenses.

[ohenry]

I bought a Tamron 28-300 for those times when I want to travel light. The quality doesn't come close to my L lenses, but the convenience is often its own reward.

[JohnC]

I was more interested in price and weight than it being ef-s. I figure I'll probably always have a 1.6-crop body as well as a full-frame. So it works well on the second camera.

[gsk]

Originally Posted by JohnC

I figure I'll probably always have a 1.6-crop body as well as a full-frame. So it works well on the second camera.

Very good point John. I guess I want it all : very small and light weight yet same dynamic range of a SLR.

[richardpcrowe]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Got it.

Out of curiosity, why do you need a long lens when traveling. I'll be traveling later this summer and will be taking the 17-40, 24-70, and for its small size and weight I'll throw the 50 1.4 in the bag too. Won't be taking any long lenses.

I am guessing that you might be shooting full frame...

I shoot 1.6x and my standard travel set up is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on two bodies.

I couldn't get by without my long lens. I love it for isolating subjects and for compressing distances. And the reason I opted for the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens is that I can carry this lens everywhere. The f/2.8 version is too heavy.

I also have a 12-24mm Tokina and a 24-70mm f/2.8L which I used to carry along with the 70-200mm f/4L IS on three bodies. By substituting the 17-55mm for BOTH the 12-24mm and 24-70mm lenses, I save a LOT of weight.

[gsk]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and agree it's too heavy for travel. I am wanting to go as light as I can.
I have the 24-105 f4.0L and may just take that and also the 17-55 f2.8 ( for low light).

[richardpcrowe]

Originally Posted by gsk

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and agree it's too heavy for travel. I am wanting to go as light as I can.
I have the 24-105 f4.0L and may just take that and also the 17-55 f2.8 ( for low light).

That would certainly be a reasonable compromise. After all, the 25-105mm has an equivalent focal length of 168mm. I like my 17-55mm for low light work. The f/2.8 aperture and IS combined with Canon's ability to use high ISO makes it a great performer. In fact, I no longer carry my 50mm f/1.8 Mark I because the 17-55mm will beat that lens.