I own a t2i and am will be going to Switzerland, is it worth it to get a full frame camera,opinions?

[Randalt2i]

I am a novice photographer in training, I am planning a once in a life-time trip to switzerland and want to get the most out of the landscape/mountain shots that I can.

Any opinions on whether my t2i will suffice, or how to make the most of this camera, a certain lens mm etc. (ofcourse I do not want to buy a lens that is above the t2i's paygrade)

or

get a full-frame camera with a high caliber lens, L-wide angle stuff etc.

Thanks for your consideration.

Randal

[cicopo]

Nothing wrong with that camera but we'll need to know what lenses you have / intend to take.

[Skirball]

If you have to ask the question, then the biggest thing you can do to improve your photography is to practice with what you have.  You most certainly do not need to move to full frame to get great trip photos, especially if you’re talking about landscape photography.  If you really feel the need to buy some stuff then I’d recommend a decent lens.  But honestly, and not to be critical, but based off the jargon in your post you don’t know your way around a camera all that well.  You can’t just buy a fancy lens and expect it to produce award winning photographs.  At this stage in the game technique will do far more than technology.

Make sure you have a decent range covered (e.g. 18 mm to 250 mm) and just go have fun.  Shoot in RAW so you can fix (some of) your mistakes after 😉  Practice as much as you can before hand and learn to use the semi-auto functions like Av.  Make sure to not only take practice pictures, but review and edit them…  you learn the most from your mistakes.  Try to make the mistakes before the trip.  As someone who bought his first dSLR before a year long backpacking trip around the world, I wish I had the time to follow this advice beforehand. 

[Randalt2i]

Thanks for the reply...

I currently have the stock 18-55, and another 55-250mm with IS.

I plan to practice and work through an insruction video before I go as suggested(which was good advice), that being said....

I was considering something like: EF 16-35 f/2.8 II for wide angle landscape/mountain shots and to use in general.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

[cicopo]

By itself that's a very good lens but it's only slightly wider than what you have. On full frame it's very wide but on your crop body you may want wider, and you can easily answer that part of the question from using your kit lens. Do you wish it went wider on a regular basis? If so you may want to consider one of the 10-20something lenses available for crop bodies.

[Skirball]

+1 to what Cipoco said.

I would not recommend that lens unless you were absolutely going to get a full frame in the relatively near future.  And, providing that you're not getting a full frame soon, the Canon 10-22 is a great lens.  It's only downfall is that it won't work on FF, but if you don't have one that's not really an issue.  I love mine for any type of architecture and _some_ outdoors work.  Though you'll probably find that coming home with a bunch of shots that are primarily ultrawide gets a bit boring.

There's also the Canon 15-85 which is a great lens, but you have to weigh it against the fact that you already have lenses that cover this range.  The 15-85 is better optically, and has great range, but your money would probably be better spent filling in gaps than improving what you already have.

And there's the 17-55 f/2.8, which is both optically superior, and has a pretty wide aperture for low light situations.  But it's not cheap and again is replacing a focal range you already have.