which telephoto for travel?
- Thread starter jd7
- Start date
I have similar choice to make in June I am taking a Alaskan cruse. so far I have narrowed it to the 10-22 18-135 stm 70-200 f4 is and the 400 5.6lusm. I also paired the two teles with the 1.4 extender mk3. will it be better to take my 50 1.8 mk1 and drop the stm? or just forgo the range from 22-70 as not needed? my wife will have her sl1 with the 40mm pancake.
Upvote
0
Thanks all for your replies! The only thing is now I feel like I need to keep the 70-200 4L IS and buy a 135L and a 70-300L ... 
And that's leaving out the Tamron 70-300 and the 1200 ;D Lots of good points have been made for and against the various options, so plenty for me to think about.
To respond to some of the ideas people have raised ...
As much as I'd like to shoot birds and other wildlife, for now I'm resigned to not having anything longer than 200 (or perhaps 300 I suppose) in my kit at the moment. The 100-400 IS II sounds great, and obviously there are other options around, but for the time being I don't think a lens like that is what I'm looking for as a travel zoom for hiking/backpacking and I don't think I'd use it enough to justify spending the money. Over the last year or two I've been generally trying to reduce the amount of gear I have and make more use of what I have, than add more gear.
Marsu - I certainly understand what you mean about having both the f/4 and f/2.8 70-200s being too much duplication. It does feel a bit like that sometimes, but the difference in weight is significant enough it does make a real difference to me. The f/4's biggest drawback as a travel lens is, in my opinion, the fact it is still quite long.
Regarding the 70-300L - nice photo Georgecpappas! - I am going on a four day photography course just after Easter and I know one of the other people who will be there has a 70-300L. If I do nothing else, I'll try to spend a while playing with it then. At this point I'm still having trouble getting excited about the idea though. Compared with the 70-200 4, I get 100mm extra range and a lens which is easier to pack (since it's shorter), but at the expense of almost 50% more weight and a variable aperture which gets progressively slower at longer focal lengths (OK, it's only 1 stop at most, but still). The fact gregorywood bought a 70-300L to replace his 70-200 4L but is having trouble parting with the 70-200 isn't encouraging me either. Hhmmm.
I did think about the 200 2.8L prime, but I'd been leaning towards the 135L because I thought it added more to my kit overall - faster aperture, and should be a little easier to hand-hold noting neither has IS. I might give it a bit more thought.
I'd also thought about the option of a 70-300 non-L too. I decided against though after reading reviews. I don't think any are weather sealed and perhaps not even that robust, plus it seemed like they were all pretty ordinary optically ...?
And that's leaving out the Tamron 70-300 and the 1200 ;D Lots of good points have been made for and against the various options, so plenty for me to think about.To respond to some of the ideas people have raised ...
As much as I'd like to shoot birds and other wildlife, for now I'm resigned to not having anything longer than 200 (or perhaps 300 I suppose) in my kit at the moment. The 100-400 IS II sounds great, and obviously there are other options around, but for the time being I don't think a lens like that is what I'm looking for as a travel zoom for hiking/backpacking and I don't think I'd use it enough to justify spending the money. Over the last year or two I've been generally trying to reduce the amount of gear I have and make more use of what I have, than add more gear.
Marsu - I certainly understand what you mean about having both the f/4 and f/2.8 70-200s being too much duplication. It does feel a bit like that sometimes, but the difference in weight is significant enough it does make a real difference to me. The f/4's biggest drawback as a travel lens is, in my opinion, the fact it is still quite long.
Regarding the 70-300L - nice photo Georgecpappas! - I am going on a four day photography course just after Easter and I know one of the other people who will be there has a 70-300L. If I do nothing else, I'll try to spend a while playing with it then. At this point I'm still having trouble getting excited about the idea though. Compared with the 70-200 4, I get 100mm extra range and a lens which is easier to pack (since it's shorter), but at the expense of almost 50% more weight and a variable aperture which gets progressively slower at longer focal lengths (OK, it's only 1 stop at most, but still). The fact gregorywood bought a 70-300L to replace his 70-200 4L but is having trouble parting with the 70-200 isn't encouraging me either. Hhmmm.
I did think about the 200 2.8L prime, but I'd been leaning towards the 135L because I thought it added more to my kit overall - faster aperture, and should be a little easier to hand-hold noting neither has IS. I might give it a bit more thought.
I'd also thought about the option of a 70-300 non-L too. I decided against though after reading reviews. I don't think any are weather sealed and perhaps not even that robust, plus it seemed like they were all pretty ordinary optically ...?
Upvote
0
beforeEos Camaras said:
Since it's a cruise and I assume your gear should be safe on the ship, maybe you can just take the 50 1.8 as well?
For what it's worth, if it was me and I wanted to leave a lens behind, I'd take only one of the 18-135 STM or the 70-200 f4, and in my case I think I'd take the 70-200 f4 - although I've never owned an 18-135 STM so I don't really know what it's like. Still, assuming you're happy to be changing lenses a bit, I would have thought 10-22, 70-200, 50 plus 400 would give you plenty of options, and having the 50 in there gives you a low light / shallow depth of field option you wouldn't have otherwise.
Upvote
0
The Bad Duck said:
I've been trying to resist, but the lure of a fast 50 is starting to get the better of me. Having the 24-70 4L IS means I lack wide aperture in that range. I thought the 35 2 IS might remedy that, and it does to a degree, but the idea of a fast 50 particularly for indoor people/events shots is tempting ... In fact, am looking at a second-hand Sigma 50 1.4 EX (ie the old Sigma, not the Art) at the moment, but maybe it's just GAS and I should resist.
As for selling the 40 2.8, I've thought about that but given I wouldn't expect to get much for it and the IQ is good, I feel like it's probably worth hanging on to it for the occasional use I make of it ... probably ...
Got the bag and the shoes for travel, what I need is more time!
Upvote
0
I am currently in maui on vacation with my wife photographing humpbacks and birds and our kit consists of 70d + 70-300L that my wife uses ,my gear is the 6d and the 7d II and lens include 24-105 L -100 L macro and 100-400II with the 1.4x III for a little extra range for birds.
Upvote
0
I have a 6D and T5i, a Sigma 24-105 Art, EF 70-200 2.8 ii and TC 1.4 iii among many others. Just ordered a 7Dii. I think next time I travel (not a specific photo trip), I think I'm gonna travel with the 24-105 on the 6D and the 70-200 on the 7D2, plus the 1.4 TC on hand. That will give me good coverage from 24-320 without changing lens, and 24-448 if I put the TC on the 70-200. Will fit easily in a normal backpack. I hate changing lenses while traveling unless I'm specifically travelling just to take pics. Too much risk for dropping, wetness, dust, falling behind, no place to set the lenses down, plus just general pain-in-the-ass-ness.
Upvote
0
Runnerguy said:
1+
I think that's probably my ideal vacation kit, also. Haven't bought the new 100-400, though. Got to cool my jets for a while.
Upvote
0
wsmith96 said:Your not bitter at all are you......Marsu42 said:
I wouldn't say so, but I'm probably more easily annoyed by companies squeezing as many €€€ out of customers as they possibly can. Next to the tripod collar, for example not providing cents-worth lens hoods for the non-L lenses is simply ridiculous.
Mt Spokane Photography said:
jd7 said:
No worries - if you're a capable photog and know your equipment, Canon's dr is plenty!
Upvote
0
This. With regards to traveling light you can pry the 70-200 f/4L IS from my cold, frost-bitten fingers. It is such a versatile lens for the size and weight, and the quality of the images it captures always surprises me when I get home. As an alternative to carrying a telephoto, perhaps you can switch to the 5D S and shoot 50 megapixel images with a normal focal length lens, then crop them to magnify. Just kidding... ;^)The Bad Duck said:
Upvote
0
gregorywood
Always in learning mode
jd7 said:
My quandary with why I haven't given up the 70-200L yet is simply because I love it for shooting sports. The 70-300L is great for more static applications where you aren't needing the fixed aperture and the "faster controls" and I find that it is great for nature/wildlife or anything needing more reach. I'm thinking I may have to just keep both as much as they seem to overlap. The 70-300L is f/4 only up to 100mm, f/5 at 150mm and f/5.6 from about 230-300mm. The zoom "throw" is much longer from stop to stop, and the reversed controls, combined with the added girth and weight make it a clumsy lens for me to use in sporting applications. Also when I zoom from 200-300mm the difference is not all that much, at least to my eye. I hope those details help to clarify my reasons. Your needs and application may be entirely different.
I had the non-L for a very short time and it is rubbish. It's not true ring USM, it's slow and the IQ beyond 150mm is awful. That was my experience on a Rebel T2i and a 7D. I dumped it for the 70-200mm f/4L IS and was stunned at the difference.
Upvote
0
I am a firm believer of the theory "The less you have, the more you do". Especially when you travel or hike you have to come down to compromises, having too much gear will only give you back stories like "I managed to transport this much of stuff from here to there".
A good rule is to have focal lenghts doubling themselves: 25-50-100-200-400. You don't need to have 45, 63, 72, 75mm and so on, use your feet and your mind.
Personally I favour primes over zooms especially for their small size and top quality. My usual gear is Zeiss 28, Zeiss 85, 135mm and 400mm 5.6. This will fit most of my needs when traveling or trekking.
I see you are covered quite well up to 200mm. You could consider selling both your 70-200s and buy the new 100-400 II. If I were you, with your gear, I would take the 24-70, the 100-400 and the 85 1.8
A good rule is to have focal lenghts doubling themselves: 25-50-100-200-400. You don't need to have 45, 63, 72, 75mm and so on, use your feet and your mind.
Personally I favour primes over zooms especially for their small size and top quality. My usual gear is Zeiss 28, Zeiss 85, 135mm and 400mm 5.6. This will fit most of my needs when traveling or trekking.
I see you are covered quite well up to 200mm. You could consider selling both your 70-200s and buy the new 100-400 II. If I were you, with your gear, I would take the 24-70, the 100-400 and the 85 1.8
Upvote
0
