Best single-lens travel option for a Canon 7D on a Himalayan trek?
Asked 10/29/2010
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m taking a Canon 7D on a 3-week trek in the Nepal Himalaya in winter, with cold, dry conditions and high altitude. I want to travel as light as possible and would strongly prefer one lens if possible. I mainly shoot landscapes, but I’d also like to capture some portraits and occasional wildlife. What focal range makes the most sense on an APS-C body like the 7D, and are lenses like the 24-105mm f/4L or 24-70mm f/2.8L good choices for this use?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
7
The 17-55/2.8 should suffice for both landscapes and portraits; wildlife is a little more tricky, since 55mm on a crop is still a little short. Since weight is always a concern while trekking, I would recommend either a 70-200/4 IS or a 135L.
Edit: Just to respond to your question about the 24-105 or 24-70, both are excellent options on a full-frame camera, but the focal lengths are sort of "neither here nor there". 24mm on a crop body gives you a FOV equivalent to 38mm, which is not that wide. If you can live with that, then the 24-105 is a great travel lens to bring along. THe 24-70 is much heavier and I won't recommend it since one of your primary considerations is weight.
I used the 24-105 on a 50D for about a year, and it served me well, but I don't usually shoot landscapes wider than 35mm so it made very little difference to me. This is something to keep in mind.
Originally by user1868. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1868
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For a one-lens setup on a Canon 7D, the main tradeoff is width versus reach. On APS-C, 24mm behaves like about 38mm equivalent, so lenses like the 24-105mm f/4L and 24-70mm f/2.8L are not very wide for landscapes. The 24-105 can work as a travel lens if you can live without true wide-angle coverage, but the 24-70 is heavy and less ideal if weight matters.
A more balanced single-lens choice is the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8: it gives you a genuinely useful wide end for landscapes and enough reach for portraits, with a bright aperture for lower light. Its weakness is wildlife, since 55mm is short for that.
If maximum versatility matters more than image quality, a superzoom like the Tamron 18-270mm VC gives far more range in one lens, which is attractive for trekking, though it’s slower and won’t match the image quality of shorter-range zooms.
If weather sealing and light weight are priorities and wildlife is less important, the Canon 17-40mm f/4L is a strong landscape-oriented option. If you can carry a second lens, a 70-200mm f/4 IS is a good lightweight wildlife/telephoto complement.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Best walkaround zoom for a Canon 7D: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L?
Which lens should I buy first for travel on a Canon 7D Mark II: EF 24-105mm f/4L or EF 70-200mm f/4L?
Best single zoom lens and filters for a Canon 60D trek to Everest Base Camp
How can I tell whether a zoom lens is parfocal, and are these Canon and Sigma zooms parfocal?
Which Canon lens setup makes more sense for landscape photography on a 500D?