[soppy]

Thanks, thats why I am not planning on getting the 70-200mm any longer. I can deal with carrying 2.5-4 pounds in a good bag, I have been doing it in a crappy bag thus far without too much issue, I have a 75-300 now, its just slow and I will probably canibalize it to get some of these other ones. If you read my other posts, you will see why I am not interested in having a ton of primes for this particular trip. Thanks for the help though.


irishwhite: I replied to you in the other thread, I'll definitely need to make sure I buy one with the filter already on it lol.

[Lowell Goudge]

I think you need to consider what you are doing at any time, and whether your bag carries all your kit, or you have one bag to get you from A to B and another to use at B.
Hear's my logic, and this is from someone who has the old sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 a tamron 28-75 F2.8 and the sigma 70-200F2.8 EX
While I might take all 3 of these, (plus perhaps a 300F4, my 1.7x AF TC, both sigma 1.4x and 2x TCs as well as several other primes, including an 85F1.4 and a fisheye) in a backpack or camera case from home (point A) to a vacation spot (Point B) it is unusual I carry 100% of my kit everywhere with me.
Most times I take a small shoulder bag as well, with the capacity for one body and an attached lens, or 2-3 other lenses, along with batteries or memory cards.
The idea is that a lot of times, taking say the 10-20 and 28-75 for touring a city is all I take. the 70-200 is usually for wild life, and unless I know I am doing a wild life shoot on a trip, it actually stays home.
I have done several trips to europe with only these two lenses, or with the same small bag and 3or 4 M42 primes.
I might toss in another lens, like my 135F2.5 to get a little reach, and this is a lot lighter and smaller than even the 50-135. which I think would get very little use, considering a 10-20 and some middle focal length zoom.
Just remember there is a difference between how to get your gear somewhere, and how to carry some of it once there.

[soppy]

Thanks for the tips. I am pretty much planning on doing that. I will be visiting London, so I will take all my photo gear (tripod, body, lenses, filters, etc.) and have that in London, but then from London I will take weekend trips to other places, like France and Ireland (I'm hoping). So I will likely not need the telephoto for city shooting, especially in Ireland where I will be doing mostly landscapes with the 10-20. I'll bring my 75-300 to London, but I will unlikely take it everywhere I go.

Overall I am more curious if these are the best lenses I could buy in these focal ranges and have good IQ (and aren't $2000 per lens). Though I do appreciate all of the valid points that have been made, and they have given me more to consider about my gear for this trip.

[soppy]

The gap is not too bad between 20 and 24 mm but the sigma 24-70 is a huge lens with 82 mm filter. The other two lenses I believe are 77 mm filters. You might want to look at the sigma 24-60 also

I use a tamron 28-75 between. The 10-20 and 70-200 the gaps are not that bad and I can fill it with the FAJ 18-35 if needed

I must have missed this earlier, but I looked into the 24-60 a little. What are the notable differences over the 24-70 aside from the $600 price difference?

[Lowell Goudge]

I must have missed this earlier, but I looked into the 24-60 a little. What are the notable differences over the 24-70 aside from the $600 price difference?

Biggest difference is the filter size 77 vs 82 I think

Both are well regarded bit I don't own either I have the Tammy and live with the 8 mm gap between 20 and 28

[Muse]

Well I was thinking the 24-70 would be enough range for the walk around, I don't want to lose IQ to barrel distortion if possible, which is what tends to happen on super zooms from what I have read...

I bought the DA 18-250mm a few weeks ago. Barrel distortion is high at 18mm, but much improved 20mm and higher, so I'm told. I got it for those situations where I want versatility but don't want to carry extra glass or don't want to deal with changing lenses.

[interested_observer]

A recent thread here on the board, the poster was asking about why her images were somewhat distorted more than she anticipated with her wide angle lens. She was using a 10-20. There are several wide angle lenses by Sigma, Pentax and Tamron, in a number of ranges and speeds.

They all do the various aspects of wide angle shots ranging from superior to OK. No one single lens does everything at a superior level. For instance the wider the lens, the more distortion you are going to have on the edges and corners. None of the wide angle lenses are inexpensive. So, other than saying - I want/need the widest, I would suggest that you consider; distortion, focal length range, weight, speed (constant aperture), flare resistance, etc., so that when you acquire the lens, you know and understanding what you are acquiring - the strengths and weaknesses. This is more desirable than getting to where ever (say - Scotland), and coming back with images that you may be dissatisfied with due to something that you did not consider.

I have seen images from all the lenses that are striking and wonderful shots. Even with wide angle lenses, you can stitch even wider....

[soppy]

Alright, so for right now I think my plan will be to get the 24-70 sigma first. That way if I get nothing else, I can still do panoramas for stitching, have improved IQ over my kit lens, and have a good general all around lens that I can hang on to for a while to come.

The reason I want the wide angle lens is not only for panoramas, but also for one shot "wow" photographs, such as the interior of a cathedral or castle, or even for street shots. I can see a lot of use for it even if I never went overseas. I understand that there will be distortion, it is an inherent factor the shorter the focal length of a lens, but the distortion on the wide angle lens is still far less than that on my Kenko fish-eye converter, which would be the alternative for these types of shots.

What I ultimately would like in that wide angle lens is something with a low, constant aperture so I can shoot in dim light without issue of needing a tripod (think cathedral where tripods often aren't allowed). I would like a short focal length so I can get really wide shots (this is the main reason I came up with the 10-20, because it is the widest). Flare resistance would be nice as well, but I think I can work around that if need be. Weight is something I won't mind as I will likely end up carrying only this and the zoom with me, and I think I can handle that.

Thanks for the suggestions interested observer, if you know of a lens that is better for these things than the sigma 10-20, I am open to suggestions.

[bimjo]

Camera Lens Rentals is ur friend.

They don't have the 24-70, but they do have the older version of the 10-20 & the HSM 70-200. Try before you buy. Could save yourself a lot of money & grief that way.

I have the older 10-20, the Tammy 28-75, and the older EX 70-200. They are a load to tote around. I did it in Hawaii. I'd take the Tammy 18-250 & either the 10-20 or the DA 10-17 if I went back.

For tourist type shots it just isn't worth humping all that weight around. Now, if I'm going after "masterpiece" shots I'll hump the weight, but if I'm on vacation I'd rather not play pack mule. Takes all the fun out of being on vacation.