which telephoto for travel?

[jd7]

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

That's an interesting idea about the 100-400 II. I haven't been considering that lens at this stage, but perhaps I should. I'd be reluctant to part with both 70-200s though, I think, plus as a travel lens I'm really looking for something lighter. It's not that the 100-400L II is necessarily prohibitively heavy or large for all travel, but I'm thinking about times when I'm doing multi-day hikes with all my gear (tent, food, etc) on my back, with people who aren't as interested in photography as I am. Anyway, I will give it a bit more thought.

I agree with the idea of generally trying to limit the amount of kit I carry, and in fact I've been trying to streamline my kit overall, with some success even though I know my current kit is hardly minimalist. In that vein, I at least managed to fight off the GAS attack which had me thinking about picking up a fast 50 With a 35, 85 and 24-70, I really don't need it ... although I'm pretty sure it will be a continuing temptation!

 

[jd7]

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'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 ...?

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.

Thanks for the further explanation. I agree that the difference in magnification between 200mm and 300mm seems surprisingly little - I've thought exactly the same thing when comparing my 70-200 and the 70-300.

I would generally use my 70-200 2.8 for sports/action, so that does make my situation a bit different. I guess another option I have is to sell the f/2.8, keep the f/4 (it's been good for outdoor sports when I've used it) and add the 135L (and keeping some change). I thought about that possibility a while ago and decided I didn't want to part with the f/2.8, but I suppose 35, 85, 135, 24-70/4 and 70-200/4 has a certain symmetry Just not sure I could part with the f/2.8 seeing I already have it though.

 

[RGF]

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.

I am considering the new 100-400 (II). How well does it AF with 70D and 7D M2 and the 1.4x III?

.
I am really impressed with the 7d mII and the 100-400 mk II they work really well together along with the 1.4x III the AF is super fast and dead on .the 70d works well on the 100-400 II also

Hi Runnerguy

Does the 70D and 100-400 II support the 1.4 for AF?

 

[jd7]

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.

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... ;^)

I agree the 70-200 f/4L IS is very good, and versatile, for its size and weight. And for some reason I often feel slightly surprised by the images when get home too. I think it's so overshadowed by its bigger brother's reputation that you don't expect as much from it, but it really is excellent. The only thing it doesn't do is open wider than f/4.

 

[Runnerguy]

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.

I am considering the new 100-400 (II). How well does it AF with 70D and 7D M2 and the 1.4x III?

.
I am really impressed with the 7d mII and the 100-400 mk II they work really well together along with the 1.4x III the AF is super fast and dead on .the 70d works well on the 100-400 II also

Hi Runnerguy

Does the 70D and 100-400 II support the 1.4 for AF?

Nope will only work with the 100-400 II. I should have been more clear

 

[jd7]

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).

Hi SR

Interesting to hear how much you like your 135L, and the places you're using it. Have you had many occasions when you had the 135L with you but wished you'd brought your 70-200? Is it just the smaller size and lighter weight of the 135L which you are liking, or is it more than that? The thing I'm trying to decide is how much I would miss the convenience of the zoom in travel situations. I do spend a fair bit of time wandering around with my 35 and 85 though, so maybe I'd be fine with the 135 (and I'd enjoy the f/2 aperture).

thanks!

 

[photonius]

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.

regarding zooming with feet. With longer focal lengths, the objects tend to be further away. As a consequence, foot zooming can be more tedious, i.e. if something is 400 meters away, to get closer to double it in size, you have to walk 200 meters. With a wide angle, when you shoot something you tend to be close, so maybe you only have to walk from 40 meters to 20 meters to get that church into the frame.
With landscape images (large distance to infinity) this consideration doesn't apply, as walking with any focal length makes little difference on the frame, the easiest way to frame is by choosing different focal lengths.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

less is better, lighter is best. I now travel with only a single body, a 35mm and a 75mm and rarely miss a shot.
With the camera around my neck and the other lens in my pocket, I don't have to worry about carrying anything,
have my hands free and can concentrate on "seeing" what's around me. IF you "have" to buy something for travel, get a SL1, the 24mm pancake and take the 55-250 zoom - surprising image quality, next to nothing weight wise and the whole package is less that your 200L price wise.

 

[Schmave]

I shoot on a crop body (70D), so my advice might not exactly apply to you, but here are my thoughts.

My gear is a 70D, EF-s 10-18, EF-s 18-135 STM IS, and 70-200 f/4 IS. I only recently got the 10-18 (which I really like BTW).

My wife and I went to Norway last summer and I wanted to travel light, so I only took the 70D and 18-135. I didn't have the 10-18 at that point (which I would have taken), and I seriously debated taking or not taking the 70-200. I ended up leaving it at home so I could use my photo backpack for more than just camera gear (snacks, hiking stuff, etc.). I liked using a single lens that covers a large zoom range, even if it isn't as sharp or as fast as other lenses. Most of the photos I took were of landscapes and cities during the day, so the 18-135 was fine for me. We did a lot of walking and hiking and even the pack I had would get heavy at the end of the day.

That said, if I were you I would keep it light. The 70-200 f/4 IS is still an awesome lens, so I would keep it and your 24-70 since the 24-70 doesn't have much telephoto range. If anything I would also bring a wider lens for landscapes, but that depends on where you go and what you like to shoot.

For me, I like to travel first and take photos second, hence the light kit. If you're the opposite though, and the images are the most important thing, I would bring more gear.

Here are photos from my Norway trip. I think I got some good shots in there.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/justinkane/sets/72157647625647860/

 

[pwp]

Less is better, lighter is best. I now travel with only a single body, a 35mm and a 75mm and rarely miss a shot.
IF you "have" to buy something for travel, get a SL1, the 24mm pancake and take the 55-250 zoom - surprising image quality, next to nothing weight wise and the whole package is less that your 200L price wise.

Great advice...+1

After a couple of decades of lugging an insane weight of gear around the planet, I have reduced trip-by-trip down to a de-gripped 5D (Classic, II & III) and 24-105 f/4is. Then the last trip was with an SL1 and the brilliant EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8is. For travel...go as light as you possibly can. Next trip will see a change of direction..I'll take the MFT Panasonic GH4 with 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8. 4k video and extremely respectable stills in an insanely small package.

-pw

 

[Tripod]

Packing for me all depends on the trip. If it is an out and out photo trip necessitating air travel such as a MotoGP or a wildlife holiday, I pack a gripped 70D and my old reliable 100/400L with monopod, along with a Tamron 17/50 2.8 and possibly a 10/24mm ultra wide. The 100/400L is a constant traveling companion down through the years and thankfully the weight has never presented a problem to date

If I am going away on a city break or a simple downtime holiday with the "Commander in Chief", I tend to travel camera light. I ungrip the 70D and use a Tamron 16/300mm which is ideal for non photo specific trips, after 2 months of use it has become my everday default lens.

 

[chas1113]

jd7:

You have a strong kit, which makes fine-tuning all the more difficult. One of the things that I consider when refining/downsizing my kit is: what can this lens accomplish photographically that THIS lens can't. The differentiating factor, as it were.

In your case, there is nothing the 4.0 version of the 70-200 can do that the 2.8 70-200 IS II can't do (except BE LIGHTER). I know how hard it is to lose the 70-200 f/4 IS (I had to choose between it and the 70-300L). It took me about four months to finally let it go and keep the 70-300L. Why? Because it could do two things the 70-200 f/4 IS couldn't: shoot at 70mm @ MFD better and shoot at 300mm better w/o a teleconverter. Being smaller to pack was just a bonus.

Similarly, the 50mm f/1.4 can shoot at 1.4 which the 40mm pancake can't. The 135mm can shoot at f/2 which the 70-200 f/4 IS can't.

Conclusion: Lose the 40mm pancake AND the 70-200 f/4 IS and get 135/2.0 AND the 50mm 1.4. Fast glass rules!

—chas

 

[jd7]

Less is better, lighter is best. I now travel with only a single body, a 35mm and a 75mm and rarely miss a shot.
IF you "have" to buy something for travel, get a SL1, the 24mm pancake and take the 55-250 zoom - surprising image quality, next to nothing weight wise and the whole package is less that your 200L price wise.

Great advice...+1

After a couple of decades of lugging an insane weight of gear around the planet, I have reduced trip-by-trip down to a de-gripped 5D (Classic, II & III) and 24-105 f/4is. Then the last trip was with an SL1 and the brilliant EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8is. For travel...go as light as you possibly can. Next trip will see a change of direction..I'll take the MFT Panasonic GH4 with 12-35 f/2.8 and 35-70 f/2.8. 4k video and extremely respectable stills in an insanely small package.

-pw

I understand the thinking - and am generally trying to go with the lighter is better approach. That said, I looked pretty closely at m4/3 a few years ago and thought about switching, but eventually ended up going the other way and moving from crop to full frame. If I was still shooting crop I would defintely get the 55-250 STM (my Dad has one so I have used it), and I used to have a 17-55 2.8 IS and I agree it's excellent. I am not very keen to get a crop body now though - partly because I'm trying to have a kit where everything gets a fair bit of use rather than having things gathering dust, and partly because when I travel is usually my best chance for photography so I like using my "good stuff" then. Of course, I know I am the one looking for a light travel zoom so ...!!

 

[jd7]

jd7:

You have a strong kit, which makes fine-tuning all the more difficult. One of the things that I consider when refining/downsizing my kit is: what can this lens accomplish photographically that THIS lens can't. The differentiating factor, as it were.

In your case, there is nothing the 4.0 version of the 70-200 can do that the 2.8 70-200 IS II can't do (except BE LIGHTER). I know how hard it is to lose the 70-200 f/4 IS (I had to choose between it and the 70-300L). It took me about four months to finally let it go and keep the 70-300L. Why? Because it could do two things the 70-200 f/4 IS couldn't: shoot at 70mm @ MFD better and shoot at 300mm better w/o a teleconverter. Being smaller to pack was just a bonus.

Similarly, the 50mm f/1.4 can shoot at 1.4 which the 40mm pancake can't. The 135mm can shoot at f/2 which the 70-200 f/4 IS can't.

Conclusion: Lose the 40mm pancake AND the 70-200 f/4 IS and get 135/2.0 AND the 50mm 1.4. Fast glass rules!

—chas

You know, I'd just avoided picking up a second-hand Sigma 50 1.4 EX, and now you've got me thinking about a fast 50 again. Sigh The problem with liking fast glass (and I do) is wanting primes in lots focal lengths! Yes, losing the pancake might not be a bad idea - it isn't getting much use these days, and a 50 1.4 would offer something much more interesting. Or I could lose the pancake and not replace it - I'd still have the 35 and 85 primes, and the zooms. (Trying to convince myself about I don't "need" a fast 50!)

What I'm still trying to decide is whether I'd enjoy the f/2 of the 135L, and it's small / easy to carry size, enough to make it worth giving up the conventence of the zoom of the 70-200 4 IS as a travel telephoto when I don't want to carry the 70-200 2.8. I hear what you say about it offering something "more" than anything else in my kit since it's a telephoto which goes to f/2.

I know I'm lucky to have a pretty good kit (I'd say excellent but then I look at the gear lists of a few other CR members!!) and perhaps i already have the best kit for me. Not sure which way I want to jump with this one. Equally, I'm not keen to add to the size of my kit. Hhmmm. I think I need to find a way to try out a 135L for a little while so I can experience it for myself.

 

[geekpower]

135L is definitely on my shopping list

took a powershot with equiv of 35-105 on vacation last year, and it wasn't enough on either end

am playing around with a 70-200 2.8 IS II of my buddy's right now, and while it is a great lens, it is a beast, and I just can't imagine lugging it and a wide angle up and down canyons/mountains in 100 degree heat.

of course i don't intend to shoot wildlife. i would be using a tele just for picking out individual landscape features that would otherwise be lost in the vastness of a wide angle.

 

[bholliman]

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).

Hi SR

Interesting to hear how much you like your 135L, and the places you're using it. Have you had many occasions when you had the 135L with you but wished you'd brought your 70-200? Is it just the smaller size and lighter weight of the 135L which you are liking, or is it more than that? The thing I'm trying to decide is how much I would miss the convenience of the zoom in travel situations. I do spend a fair bit of time wandering around with my 35 and 85 though, so maybe I'd be fine with the 135 (and I'd enjoy the f/2 aperture).

thanks!

I own both a 70-200/2.8 II and a 135/2 and both have a permanent place in my kit. When I want to travel light, I often take my 24-70/2.8 II and 135/2 as a very effective two lens combo.

For me the 135/2's advantages are size/weight, f/2 aperture and being pretty inconspicuous due to its size and color. The extra stop of light gathering ability is huge. The 135/2 is a terrific indoor sports lens that allows lower ISO's and cleaner, better quality pictures. Sure, you give up the flexibility of the zoom, but when not reach limited it does a great job.​

 

[pwp]

135L is definitely on my shopping list

Took a powershot with equiv of 35-105 on vacation last year, and it wasn't enough on either end.

Am playing around with a 70-200 2.8 IS II of my buddy's right now, and while it is a great lens, it is a beast, and I just can't imagine lugging it and a wide angle up and down canyons/mountains in 100 degree heat.

Agreed, the 1,490 gram (3.28 lb) 70-200 f/2.8isII it is big & heavy. And fabulous. It's my most used lens.

But for travel? This is where the extraordinary 760 gram (1.68 lb) 70-200 f/4is gets a big mention. It's one of the all-time-great travel lenses with two notable advantages over the almost identical weight 750 gram (1.65 lb) 135 f/2. For a start, the obvious flexibility of a zoom plus the incredible IS performance of this lens. Don't underestimate IS power in helping deliver keepers. I had a stellar 135f/2 and sold it within a year. Maybe I've got slightly shaky hands, but my keeper rate with the non-IS 135 f/2 was disturbingly low compared to my 70-200 f/2.8isII.

A revised 135 f/2 with IS will sell it's socks off. It'll come eventually.

-pw

 

[jd7]

I own both a 70-200/2.8 II and a 135/2 and both have a permanent place in my kit. When I want to travel light, I often take my 24-70/2.8 II and 135/2 as a very effective two lens combo.

For me the 135/2's advantages are size/weight, f/2 aperture and being pretty inconspicuous due to its size and color. The extra stop of light gathering ability is huge. The 135/2 is a terrific indoor sports lens that allows lower ISO's and cleaner, better quality pictures. Sure, you give up the flexibility of the zoom, but when not reach limited it does a great job.[/left]

Agreed, the 1,490 gram (3.28 lb) 70-200 f/2.8isII it is big & heavy. And fabulous. It's my most used lens.

But for travel? This is where the extraordinary 760 gram (1.68 lb) 70-200 f/4is gets a big mention. It's one of the all-time-great travel lenses with two notable advantages over the almost identical weight 750 gram (1.65 lb) 135 f/2. For a start, the obvious flexibility of a zoom plus the incredible IS performance of this lens. Don't underestimate IS power in helping deliver keepers. I had a stellar 135f/2 and sold it within a year. Maybe I've got slightly shaky hands, but my keeper rate with the non-IS 135 f/2 was disturbingly low compared to my 70-200 f/2.8isII.

A revised 135 f/2 with IS will sell it's socks off. It'll come eventually.

-pw

And those posts pretty much summarise the arguments and differences right there One lens shorter, less conspicuous and with the aperture advantage; the other with zoom flexibility, and IS which more than offsets the slower aperture if your subject is still.

I still feel tempted by the 135L because, when it's right, I think the f/2 gives something the 70-200/4 just can't match, but my head is saying the 70-200/4 is probably still the better choice as a travel lens because of its versatility. It doesn't feel right having two 70-200s in my kit though. If I get a chance to try out a 135L for a while at any point, I'll definitely give it a go.