Euro Trip Lens selection.

[RLPhoto]

Paris & London for a week. I will shoot alittle of everything and want to travel light with f/4 zooms and a fast 50mm.

- 5D3
- 17-40L
- 50L

but I don't know to rent the 70-200 F/4L IS or the 70-300L. Which should I take?

 

[Random Orbits]

70-300L. Slightly shorter and heavier but fatter, but the key is 100mm more range for a fractional stop. Unless you know you won't go beyond 200mm, the 70-300L will be more versatile.

 

[Loswr]

Which should I take?

It doesn't matter, take whichever is more convenient.

 

[jsixpack]

it depends on your particulars, but I'd keep what you have, maybe adding in a 24-70 or a 100mm macro L, if you like things. I was in London for 2 weeks this winter and don't think I used the 70-200 once, but I tended towards museums and churches, so a lot of interiors and landscape stuff. On a crop sensor I used primarily 14mm and 18-55, as well and the 60mm macro for objects.

JSP

 

[7enderbender]

Paris & London for a week. I will shoot alittle of everything and want to travel light with f/4 zooms and a fast 50mm.

- 5D3
- 17-40L
- 50L

but I don't know to rent the 70-200 F/4L IS or the 70-300L. Which should I take?

I would take a 135 and a small flash instead. But I also like the idea above with the 100 macro. Make for good portraits and "street"/people photography in addition to the macro option. And it's smaller and lighter than a big white lens.

 

[Vossie]

bring your 24-105L for its reach and versatility and your 135L for the longer stuff. Agree that you probably don't need much beyond 135 mm

 

[j1jenkins]

I agree with the posts above, but I would like to add a different selection.

24-70 2.8 v2 and the 70-200 2.8 v2

They will give you a great range and stellar IQ.

Nothing wrong with the other lenses mentioned, but those are my suggestions.

Enjoy the trip!

 

[Haydn1971]

Having just done this - used my 24-70mm mostly.

The 16-35mm, was less useful than the 135mm, but seriously, if I had the choice again, a 24-105mm would have done 98% of my shots. Take comfy walking shoes, soft insoles for your shoes and buy some Compeed blister plasters !

Take a river cruise, use an Oyster in London, but buy a canard of 10 tickets for the Paris metro

 

[fegari]

I would bring the 70-200F4 IS. You´ll likelly be walking a lot and that lens is very light actually.
I also I don´t think you´ll need a lot of reach beyond 200mm in those cities.

 

[spinworkxroy]

Well, that depends on what you want to shoot and how much weight are you willing to tug around daily
if you have a 24-70, bring that..i'm pretty sure that can suffice for both landscapes and street…
Tele lenses only IF you really need it..like zooming into big ben or the Eiffel tower etc…if you don't do such shooting then a tele lens will only be dead weight..
Just ask yourself on a daily basis at home..what do you normally shoot? Because i don't think going on a trip will drastically change the way you shoot
For me, when i went to both Paris and London last time, i only brought my 24-105. i'm going again this august and i'm only going to bring my 24-70…and a 70-300 in the luggage because i'm going to a safari and i will only bring that one when i go there..

 

[tron]

Paris & London for a week. I will shoot alittle of everything and want to travel light with f/4 zooms and a fast 50mm.

- 5D3
- 17-40L
- 50L

but I don't know to rent the 70-200 F/4L IS or the 70-300L. Which should I take?

I would take a 135 and a small flash instead. But I also like the idea above with the 100 macro. Make for good portraits and "street"/people photography in addition to the macro option. And it's smaller and lighter than a big white lens.

+1 for the flash (if you are going to visit madame Tussaud's museum)
How about a tripod for night time photography near big ben?
A TS-E lens would be suitable too... (St. Paul's church would need the TS-E17mm ....)
Also I would avoid the very big whites. They attract attention... (The 70-200 f/4L IS would be the bigger I would choose...)

 

[docfrance]

I'm going to France for two weeks (Paris, Normandy, Tours, Toulouse, Avignon, Reims) and with my 5D Mk III I'm taking the 8-15L fisheye, 17-40L, 24-105L, and 70-200 f2.8L Mk II. Might as well slip in the 40mm pancake, too.

 

[s2kdriver80]

During my European trips, I take along 2 5D3s, 2 430EX II flashes, 16-35mm II (architecture/interiors), 24-105mm (general/portrait), and 70-200mm f/4 IS (portrait/detail/compression). Redundancy might be overkill though. With a 5D3, 3 zooms and a flash should be more than enough, prime not really needed with great ISO, unless you want shallow DOF.

 

[gary]

I am doing a similar trip and having lived in London most of my life I would suggest your 24-105 and throw in a flash, I'm only taking a 24-70. Travel light as you will be very likely to walk a lot, thats the best way not to miss anything

 

[nWmR12]

I would say 24-105 also and maybe take a prime or two depending on what types of pictures. I think it is all matter of personal taste and style.

I have been to Europe many times (will actually be going to London in three weeks, and Paris for a month). When I went there last I brought my standard 24-105, 35, 135. I would say most were taken with the 24-105 specially when there is enough light otherwise f/4 was sometimes too slow. I also really like my primes, and 35L I can use almost all the time. I think it depends on the city also. In Rome, I always wanted wider. This time when I am going I will be taking my 21ZE in addition to those, since that lens is almost glued to my camera these days.

 

[bholliman]

I don't know to rent the 70-200 F/4L IS or the 70-300L. Which should I take?

I would rent a 70-300L based on what I've read about it recently. But, you may not need that much reach.

I agree with Haydn1971 that a 135L, possibly with a 1.4 TC would be a nice option. I seldom leave my 135 at home these days.

 

[sdsr]

Since the 70-200 f/4 IS doesn't weigh much less than the 70-300L or take up much less space, you might as well go for the latter; even if you don't need the extra reach, the 70-300 is very good at isolating subjects and creates superb bokeh at 300mm. They're both excellent lenses, but I don't think I've used my 70-200 f/4 IS since buying the 70-300L.

As for the rest, while your other two suggestions make a lot of sense to me, if you like photographing in low light you might want to consider increasing the proportion of lenses you have with IS (e.g., unless 17-24 matters a lot to you, the 24-105, with its good IS, might prove more useful than the 17-40) instead. Flash and tripods are all very well, but in London and Paris I doubt there are many interiors where you will be allowed to use either, let alone both (and even if they did, they're annoying to everyone else - it's hard to avoid crowds in either city, and in Paris, at least, people actually do still use churches for their intended use and don't seem entirely delighted by those who treat them as tourist attractions).

You could always lighten your walk-around load by taking the 40mm pancake with you as well; unless you're more of a wide-angle guy, you might find that you can happily spend all day with nothing but the 70-300L on your camera, with the 40mm in your pocket just in case.

(It probably goes without saying that no matter what lenses you leave behind you'll wish you had brought at least one of them, and that there will be at least one lens you take with you that you'll never use.)

 

[tron]

Since the 70-200 f/4 IS doesn't weigh much less than the 70-300L or take up much less space, you might as well go for the latter; even if you don't need the extra reach, the 70-300 is very good at isolating subjects and creates superb bokeh at 300mm. They're both excellent lenses, but I don't think I've used my 70-200 f/4 IS since buying the 70-300L.

I value your opinion since you have used both. I do have the 70-200 f/4L IS.

However, to me there is difference in weight and in size. True the 70-300L can be shorter at 70mm but it is thicker! This can be a problem or not depending on the bag used. To me it is.

Also, the fact that it is thicker and (more important) the rings are reversed makes the 70-300 a more difficult to handle lens (otherwise I would think seriously about it...)

As for the rest, while your other two suggestions make a lot of sense to me, if you like photographing in low light you might want to consider increasing the proportion of lenses you have with IS (e.g., unless 17-24 matters a lot to you, the 24-105, with its good IS, might prove more useful than the 17-40) instead. Flash and tripods are all very well, but in London and Paris I doubt there are many interiors where you will be allowed to use either, let alone both (and even if they did, they're annoying to everyone else - it's hard to avoid crowds in either city, and in Paris, at least, people actually do still use churches for their intended use and don't seem entirely delighted by those who treat them as tourist attractions).

Flash could be used in Madame Tussaud Museum and in some internal dark places in London Zoo.
Tripod can be used for night shots around the Big Ben, parliament and the Trafalgar square. 17-24mm is a very useful focal range too.

(It probably goes without saying that no matter what lenses you leave behind you'll wish you had brought at least one of them, and that there will be at least one lens you take with you that you'll never use.)

That is the best comment ever and I believe it applies to all of us.

P.S Irrespective of my opinion regarding 70-300L I am very interested on your further comments on that lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

I didn't want to bring the 24-105L as it's redundant but I'll squeeze it into my carry-on. I might use it, I might not but everyone agree's I should take it.

Most everyone here agrees that 300mm is seldom used in these citys. So the 70-200 f/4L IS is the choice for me.

That makes this

-5D3
-17-40L
-50L
-70-200L F/4 IS
-24-105L
-600RT

Should I take one of my additional fast primes like the 24L II or the 135L? I could fit one more in my carry-on.

 

[Random Orbits]

I didn't want to bring the 24-105L as it's redundant but I'll squeeze it into my carry-on. I might use it, I might not but everyone agree's I should take it.

Most everyone here agrees that 300mm is seldom used in these citys. So the 70-200 f/4L IS is the choice for me.

That makes this

-5D3
-17-40L
-50L
-70-200L F/4 IS
-24-105L
-600RT

Should I take one of my additional fast primes like the 24L II or the 135L? I could fit one more in my carry-on.

Honestly, I'd suggest bringing what you use regularly: 24L II, 50L, 135L and then add a 1.4x III if you want more reach. You'll know exactly when to use each lens, and you'll have low light/shallow DOF capability across the range. How often will you really need the UWA at 17mm instead of using the 24L II? If you plan on using it indoors, renting a TS-E 17 for perspective corrections might be an option but that will require a tripod to do it well. If you're not bring a tripod, is the 17mm really going to be used well to make it worth it?