# which telephoto for travel?



## jd7 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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


----------



## rpt (Feb 21, 2015)

;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 (Feb 21, 2015)

WillThompson said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2015)

rpt said:


> ;D ;D ;D (for the 1200L advise)
> 
> I prefer zooms.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

jd7 said:


> 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.





jd7 said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2015)

jd7 said:


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



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


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Feb 21, 2015)

> 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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

COBRASoft said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2015)

jd7 said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 21, 2015)

TeT said:


> 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 (Feb 21, 2015)

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 (Feb 21, 2015)

RGF said:


> 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 :->


----------



## RGF (Feb 21, 2015)

For years my core travel kit was 24-105 and 70-300L. If I was shooting cropped, I would add 10-22 if I needed WA.

I would then layer on lens as I needed them.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 21, 2015)

I would stick with the 24-70F4 and 70-200F4. Find a nice shoulder bag and enjoy your travels.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 21, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > you can use it w/ or w/o the tripod collar.
> ...



Your not bitter at all are you......     j/k


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Feb 21, 2015)

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.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 22, 2015)

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 ...?


----------



## jd7 (Feb 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


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



I guess this explains why some pros stay with Canon despite the poor DR ...


(Nnnooo!! I'll be kicking myself if this thread degenerates into another argument about DR!!)


----------



## jd7 (Feb 22, 2015)

beforeEos Camaras said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 22, 2015)

The Bad Duck said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> 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.



+1. (We agree sometimes)


----------



## Runnerguy (Feb 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## RGF (Feb 22, 2015)

Runnerguy said:


> 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?


----------



## jd7 (Feb 22, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> 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.



Ain't it the truth!?!


----------



## Runnerguy (Feb 22, 2015)

RGF said:


> Runnerguy said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

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.


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 22, 2015)

Runnerguy said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## rs (Feb 22, 2015)

RGF said:


> Runnerguy said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


the 70D only supports AF with lens/TC combo's at f5.6 or larger through the viewfinder, so the 100-400 II and a 1.4x TC won't AF on the 70D - unless using live view.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 22, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF 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:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still advise you to switch this for a 70-300L
> ...







jd7 said:


> (Nnnooo!! I'll be kicking myself if this thread degenerates into another argument about DR!!)



No worries - if you're a capable photog and know your equipment, Canon's dr is plenty!


----------



## jabbott (Feb 22, 2015)

The Bad Duck said:


> 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... ;^)


----------



## gregorywood (Feb 22, 2015)

jd7 said:


> 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.


----------



## Alefoto (Feb 23, 2015)

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


----------



## jd7 (Feb 24, 2015)

Alefoto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 24, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Feb 24, 2015)

Runnerguy said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Runnerguy said:
> ...



Hi Runnerguy

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


----------



## jd7 (Feb 24, 2015)

jabbott said:


> The Bad Duck said:
> 
> 
> > No. Don´t switch.
> ...



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 (Feb 24, 2015)

RGF said:


> Runnerguy said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


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


----------



## jd7 (Feb 24, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> 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 (Feb 24, 2015)

Hesbehindyou said:


> > 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?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 24, 2015)

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 (Feb 24, 2015)

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 (Feb 24, 2015)

dickgrafixstop said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2015)

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 (Feb 25, 2015)

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 (Feb 26, 2015)

pwp said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > Less is better, lighter is best. I now travel with only a single body, a 35mm and a 75mm and rarely miss a shot.
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2015)

chas1113 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 26, 2015)

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 (Feb 27, 2015)

jd7 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > 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.​


----------



## pwp (Feb 28, 2015)

geekpower said:


> 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 (Mar 1, 2015)

bholliman said:


> 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]





pwp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------

