which telephoto for travel?

[jd7]

Hi all

Short version - should I switch out my 70-200 4L IS, or even my 70-200 2.8L IS II, for a 135L?

Longer version ...

Over the last 12 months I have bought and sold a few lenses and I'm generally pretty happy with my kit now. I have a 6D with:

35 2 IS - general walk around / street / indoors / low light / shallow depth of field / wider portraits

40 2.8 pancake - haven't used it much since I got the 35 2 IS but for the price useful when you want the camera to be as compact as possible or to have in a pocket as a wider option if carrying a long zoom

85 1.8 - portraits / low light / shallow depth of field / occasionally as small and light short telephoto for travel (esp if hiking long distances)

24-70 4L IS - general walk around / travel zoom, landscapes, some close up ability (I know it's not really a macro despite its macro mode, but I've never got into macro photography). I know the 2.8L II would be "better" in most respects but I find the 4L good for travel, especially when doing a lot of hiking, and the 35 2 IS gives me better low light ability than the 2.8 zoom.

70-200 2.8L IS II - portraits / events / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size is not an issue / anything and everything which works in that focal range

70-200 4L IS - travel telephoto zoom / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size of the 2.8L is an issue. Either 70-200 is great for landscapes, but I tend to use the 4L more for that, because it's the one I'm more likely to carry to places which have nice landscapes!

I would quite like to add a fast 50 to my kit, and otherwise I'm not keen to add more lenses to my kit - I think I have more than enough already! I do occasionally think about the 16-35 4L IS, but am trying to resist. Don't think I'd make enough use of the 16-24 range to justify it.

So, the question is whether any of you would recommend a different travel telephoto option? In particular, I'm thinking about the possibility of switching out my 70-200 4L IS for a 135L. Good idea or bad idea? I've also considered switching my 70-200 2.8 for a 135L, but in the end I think the 70-200 2.8 is probably too good and too useful to part with.

The 70-200 4L IS has the advantages of the flexibility of a zoom, weather sealing, and IS.
The 135L has the advantages of being easier to pack/carry (it's shorter), draws less attention (being black and shorter), two stop faster aperture, and being a fantastic portrait lens as well.

I've also thought about the 70-300L, but I've used it a few times and just never been taken by it. It's not the photos it takes - they're great - but I just didn't enjoy using it that much. Maybe I just need to use it more to get used to the reversed placement of the zoom and focus rings but ... well ... I think I'd rather keep my 70-200 4 than switch to the 70-300L.

Obviously this is a question I will have to answer for myself in the end, but I figured if there was anywhere I might get some useful advice, it's CR ...

Thanks for any thoughts!

 

[WillThompson]

The best travel lens is the Canon EF 1200mm f5.6 L USM!

 

[rpt]

;D ;D ;D (for the 1200L advise)

I prefer zooms.

My standard lens on the 5D3 is the 24-105. I use the 100-400L for birding and the 100L for macro. I have hardly used my 70-200L and the 40mm pancake.

On the 300D I used the 18-55 a lot! zoomed in with my feet. Again, 100-400L for birding.

 

[jd7]

The best travel lens is the Canon EF 1200mm f5.6 L USM!

Well I wouldn't be short of reach, and I'd get fit carrying it around! Hhhmmm, think maybe I'll wait for the 1200 DO ...

 

[jd7]

;D ;D ;D (for the 1200L advise)

I prefer zooms.

My standard lens on the 5D3 is the 24-105. I use the 100-400L for birding and the 100L for macro. I have hardly used my 70-200L and the 40mm pancake.

On the 300D I used the 18-55 a lot! zoomed in with my feet. Again, 100-400L for birding.

No doubt zooms have their advantages, and especially for travel when you don't know exactly what you're going to find and you often aren't going to get much chance to set up a shot. I do like the wider apertures of primes though, and the fact they tend to be smaller ... Carrying a 24-70 4L IS and a 135L seems like a nice travel set, but then again so is the 24-70 plus 70-200 4L IS.

Maybe in the end it just doesn't matter that much. Both options are good, and both options have advantages and disadvantages. Still, I have to decide one way or the other ...

Did try out a 135L in a store today. Liked it! But perhaps that's just new toy enthusiasm talking.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Jd7,
I was in very similar shoes not long back when I realized I was missing a tele lens simply because I couldn't carry my 70-200/2.8 everywhere. I decided to go for the 135L, not sure if it would be the right solution (I was also considering the 70-300L and 70-400L). However, I can happily say that I have not looked back.
It is one of my most often used lens nowadays (other than my 24-70) and I try to shoehorn it into every job- I like it so much! It is great for portraits, indoor sports, events, shows, zoos, just to name a few of my recent uses.
So yeah, I would wholeheartedly recommend it. Your only limitation will be sticking to speeds above 1/160, but if you are shooting anything moving you'd have to do that anyway. And the high ISO capabilities of the 6D will help you out here.
(BTW, I have access to only the 35L and the 135L at the moment, and I just love the combo on my 6D).

 

[gwflauto]

If you are interested in wildlife and small birds while travelling, 135mm will hardly be enough. On longer trips, where wildlife may cross my path, I have recently taken the Tamron 150-600. The 70-200 /2,8 IS Mk II with a good tele-extender like Canon Mk III is another good option imho.

 

[Marsu42]

I've also thought about the 70-300L, but I've used it a few times and just never been taken by it. It's not the photos it takes - they're great - but I just didn't enjoy using it that much. Maybe I just need to use it more to get used to the reversed placement of the zoom and focus rings but ... well ... I think I'd rather keep my 70-200 4 than switch to the 70-300L.

70-200 4L IS - travel telephoto zoom / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size of the 2.8L is an issue

I'd still advise you to switch this for a 70-300L - roughly same iq and aperture, but longer reach and shorter pack size. I know the switched zoom/focus rings and direction can be an issue to some, but imho you might get used to it unless you shoot with two bodies in parallel.

Having both the 70-200/4 and 70-200/2.8 seems like too much of a duplication to me, and the f4 version is really awkward to pack as it's so long (and thin). Great lens and internal zoom mind you, but not the ideal travel setup which is probably why you wrote this thread.

 

[WillThompson]

The best travel lens is the Canon EF 1200mm f5.6 L USM!

Well I wouldn't be short of reach, and I'd get fit carrying it around! Hhhmmm, think maybe I'll wait for the 1200 DO ...

With the 1200 you sell it and use the $100k to pay for the travel, a lot of travel.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

So, the question is whether any of you would recommend a different travel telephoto option? In particular, I'm thinking about the possibility of switching out my 70-200 4L IS for a 135L. Good idea or bad idea?

Bad idea, simply horrible. For someone that values portraits the 70-200 f4 is the ideal travel lens. A photographer with more general interests may wish to swap the larger aperture for increased focal length and get a 70-300 f4.x-f5.6.

A travel telephoto should be relatively lightweight, compact and flexible. The 135L scores for the first two but fails at being flexible whereas the 70-200 f4 IS suceeds:

• You cannot control the background i.e. with subject the same size, 70mm will include more of the beautiful vista behind than 135mm.
• You still cannot control the background i.e. with subject the same size, 200mm will cut out the distracting, cluttered or ugly part of the background that 135mm forces you to include.
• 200mm at f4 gives you a sufficiently shallow depth of field that not having 135mm at f2 will likely not be an issue.
• IS gives you low light capability and sufficient depth of field to get the subject/s in focus. The f2 aperture at 135mm means that even if you can get the subject in the frame you may not be able to get a deep enough depth of field.

Don't kid yourself about zooming with your feet; you'll be time limited with little control over backgrounds, angles and other gawping tourists and wanting to catch spontaneous shots so will have little time to relocate. The 135 is a general purpose telephoto prime but it makes for a very limiting general purpose travel telephoto.

 

[AlanF]

The 100-400mm II is a must for nature and useful for some landscape and architecture etc. For, travel, it beats the Tamron 150-600mm, being significantly shorter for packing, lighter and looking less like a bazooka when carrying in urban situations.

The 70-200 f/4 is a lovely lens for travel, but lack the length for nature.

 

[The Bad Duck]

No. Don´t switch.

24-70 /4 L IS and 70-200 /4 L IS is a perfect travel kit. Use more money on location to get more interesting shots instead.

If anything, sell your 40 /2.8 and don´t get a 50 mm. Your 85 /1.8 should handle low light or shallow DoF portraits fine.

For travel, less is more. You have great gear already. Get a great bag and good shoes.

 

[georgecpappas]

JD,

Your description of need directly points to the 70-300L. It has longer focal length reach, it collapses into a smaller profile for upright packing in a backpack, and it is light/strong/weatherproof.

I have had this lens for several years and it is one of my goto lenses for travel...It has been my most used lens in places like Iceland where isolation of so many beautiful forms for me is part of the photographic experience.

Here is an example; I was able to wander around with the camera on a tripod, find the right perspective, and then choose the framing with the zoom and its reach....

Perhaps you should consider renting the lens again and giving it a few weeks to see if your ergonomic objections are temporary or not..

Best of luck in your search.

George

 

[COBRASoft]

You could sell the 70-200f4 and go for the 200f2.8. Same sharpness as the 70-200f2.8, but black and much lighter.

 

[TeT]

70-300L

its compact, but more importantly you have the 200 to 300 range available to you. with 24 105 IS or 24 70 and the 70 300 in tow you will not miss a shot (except indoor action pics)

 

[Marsu42]

Same sharpness as the 70-200f2.8, but black and much lighter.

BLACK!? How could I feel important and pro with a *black* lens?!?! :->

 

[gregorywood]

Hi all

Short version - should I switch out my 70-200 4L IS, or even my 70-200 2.8L IS II, for a 135L?

Longer version ...

Over the last 12 months I have bought and sold a few lenses and I'm generally pretty happy with my kit now. I have a 6D with:

35 2 IS - general walk around / street / indoors / low light / shallow depth of field / wider portraits

40 2.8 pancake - haven't used it much since I got the 35 2 IS but for the price useful when you want the camera to be as compact as possible or to have in a pocket as a wider option if carrying a long zoom

85 1.8 - portraits / low light / shallow depth of field / occasionally as small and light short telephoto for travel (esp if hiking long distances)

24-70 4L IS - general walk around / travel zoom, some close up ability (I know it's not really a macro despite its macro mode, but I've never got into macro photography). I know the 2.8L II would be "better" in most respects but I find the 4L good for travel, especially when doing a lot of hiking, and the 35 2 IS gives me better low light ability than the 2.8 zoom.

70-200 2.8L IS II - portraits / events / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size is not an issue / anything and everything which works in that focal range

70-200 4L IS - travel telephoto zoom / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size of the 2.8L is an issue

I would quite like to add a fast 50 to my kit, and otherwise I'm not keen to add more lenses to my kit - I think I have more than enough already! I do occasionally think about the 16-35 4L IS, but am trying to resist. Don't think I'd make enough use of the 16-24 range to justify it.

So, the question is whether any of you would recommend a different travel telephoto option? In particular, I'm thinking about the possibility of switching out my 70-200 4L IS for a 135L. Good idea or bad idea? I've also considered switching my 70-200 2.8 for a 135L, but in the end I think the 70-200 2.8 is probably too good and too useful to part with.

The 70-200 4L IS has the advantages of the flexibility of a zoom, weather sealing, and IS.
The 135L has the advantages of being easier to pack/carry (it's shorter), draws less attention (being black and shorter), two stop faster aperture, and being a fantastic portrait lens as well.

I've also thought about the 70-300L, but I've used it a few times and just never been taken by it. It's not the photos it takes - they're great - but I just didn't enjoy using it that much. Maybe I just need to use it more to get used to the reversed placement of the zoom and focus rings but ... well ... I think I'd rather keep my 70-200 4 than switch to the 70-300L.

Obviously this is a question I will have to answer for myself in the end, but I figured if there was anywhere I might get some useful advice, it's CR ...

Thanks for any thoughts!

We have similar kits. I've been through similar gyrations. I currently have both the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mmL. I bought the latter to possibly replace the former...6 months ago and I can't get off the fence about selling the 70-200. The 70-300 is a bit clumsy, but I love the quality of photos I get from it on both the 7D and 6D. I don't like the variable aperture and that's where I LOVE the 70-200.

I think I want a 135mmL also, but can't pull the trigger due to the fact I already have everything around it in focal length.

GAS sucks.

To your query on advice. If I had your kit and understanding what you want, I'd keep the 70-200mm f/2.8 and dump the f/4 version and buy the 135mm. That seems like a tidy solution from where I sit, FWIW.

 

[RGF]

70-300L

its compact, but more importantly you have the 200 to 300 range available to you. with 24 105 IS or 24 70 and the 70 300 in tow you will not miss a shot (except indoor action pics)

+1 Agree with TeT. I know you said you don't like this lens but it is not that hard to learn to use, it is light weight, you can store in vertical in a backpack, you can use it w/ or w/o the tripod collar.

 

[tcmatthews]

I would keep the 70-200f4L IS as the travel zoom. I have used the non IS version for years. My current light DSLR travel kit consists of a Lowepro Adventure 170 bag , Canon 6D, Tamron 28-752.8, 70-200f4L and 24f2.8 IS . When I used my 60D I could get the 70-200, EF 15-85, and Sigma 10-20 in there. The thing is the 70-300L is just to fat for use in that bag. The f4 70-200 long thin body is actual beneficial in the Lowepro Adventure bag.

As for drawing less attention I bought a Tamron 70-300 VC for that. It has very good IQ from 70-200. It is a little soft from 200-300 and pennies compared to the Canon 70-300L and better than any of the other canon 70-300 lens. I sometimes take it instead of my 70-200f4L. It normally runs around $450. But I picked it up when they were offering a $100 manufactures rebate.

If I had to do it all over again I would have saved my money and bough the IS version of the 70-200f4L. My next purchase will be the Canon 16-35f4L IS. It will round out my three lens travel kit.

 

[Marsu42]

you can use it w/ or w/o the tripod collar.

Which is nice because for only €1300, you don't get a tripod collar with the lens from Canon ... but I won't bitch around, they did include the lens hood so there's good value for you :->