# Tele for backpacking



## aroo (Jun 3, 2013)

This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.

Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!


----------



## J.R. (Jun 3, 2013)

Any native focal length lens @ 300mm will be better for the usage you describe. 

However, weight does become a problem when hiking long distances so you could use the lightweight 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4 extender to get to 280mm (the combo will weight 930 grams though) - it will certainly be better than cropping photos taken from the 100L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2013)

Also consider the 70-300 L.


----------



## Astral (Jun 3, 2013)

why take the 50mil? 17-40 goes almost to 50. if you take the 70-200 you dont need the 100mm lens either unless youre really passionate about macro work and expect many macro subjects. youll save weight which is very important, imo. maybe on the weight saved by not taking the 50mil and 100 you can take a lightweight monopod for better quality than just hand-held shooting.


----------



## gn100 (Jun 3, 2013)

Maybe slightly on the heavy side, but the 70-300L is a good option - sharp wide open, weathersealed, compact and 4 stops of IS. No need to muck around by adding a 1.4 TC to a 70-200.

I was in your posiition a couple of years ago and after lots of looking around this was the option I selected, and was very happy with the choice.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jun 3, 2013)

I agree with the suggestion re a monopod and the tele. A light carbon fibre monopod won't add much weight. Neither will the 50 but will it survive the treck?


----------



## J.R. (Jun 3, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> I agree with the suggestion re a monopod and the tele. A light carbon fibre monopod won't add much weight. Neither will the 50 but will it survive the treck?



+1 on the monopod. Works wonderfully as a walking stick while trekking.


----------



## vbi (Jun 3, 2013)

I am sure this will get me flamed but consider the 7D with a EF-S 18-200. Sure the 18-200 has some limitations but it is capable of producing great images, has good IS, the 18-200 range on the 7D is extremely versatile, and lastly and possibly most important of all - it is light and there is no chance of getting dust on the sensor as you won't have to change lenses.

If you are set on the 6D (great FF camera) then consider the 70-300L for it's greater reach than the 70-200 F4.


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also consider the 70-300 L.


+1 I remember missing it last year when I was using 70-200 f/4L IS. My small backpack was full mostly with wide angle lenses so my 300mm f/4L had stayed back in my room.

However the reverse use of the focus and zoom rings in 70-300 puts me off


----------



## stefsan (Jun 3, 2013)

+1 for the EF 70-300L
Not only great optical quality and very usable IS (translates into good pictures) but also a rather compact and portable and weather sealed lens as well. It's one of my two lenses I put on my 7D for hiking and mountaineering (the other one is the EF-S 15-85).


----------



## Frodo (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.
> 
> Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!



The length of the tele will depend on the sort of animals you will see and the importance in getting photos of those animals. If the primary purpose is backpacking, then keep weight low. If the purpose is wildlife photography, then this will dictate what you take. It will then determine how long the lens needs to be. I have the 400mm 5.6 - a great light weight lens, but after several days hiking you will feel each ounce. And few wildlife photos happen by chance - they need to be planned inn terms of location and time of the day. Are you prepared to disrupt your hiking for targeted wildlife photography.

I'm trying to have a buck each way this summer when I will do some hiking in Norway and Sweden and then in BC, Canada. I will take a 5DII with 24-105. My "wildlife lens is my 200/2.8 prime, plus 1.4x teleconverter. Testing has shown the combination to produce excellent image quality (but I don't know how it compares to a 70-300L). I will take a 25mm extension tube, which also works well on the 200 to take me to 1:3. My 400/5.6 will stay home. This leaves me with a kit that I have no qualms hiking with.

Cheers


----------



## vlim (Jun 3, 2013)

> Also consider the 70-300 L.



+1

Definitely a great choice, razorsharp and light with good range


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 3, 2013)

If you already have the 70-200 f/4, then use it with the 1.4x. The weight with the extender will be comparable to the 70-300L, and you don't have to shell out 1000-1500.

If you no longer have the 70-200 f/4, then the 70-300L is a good choice.


----------



## rs (Jun 3, 2013)

As good as the 100L is, cropping to EFL 300mm is a 3x crop, using just 1/9th of the sensor. That leaves you with just 2.2MP to play with, and using a part of the sensor smaller than a Nikon 1 - which means the lens will be the equivalent of a 300/8.4 lens. 

Almost any 300mm lens will give you more options than that, especially something as good as the 70-300L or a 70-200/4 with a 1.4x TC. If you're hard pushed for space but feel like a bit of macro (but nothing too serious), what about leaving the 100L at home and packing some extension tubes in your backpack?


----------



## StepBack (Jun 3, 2013)

As an owner of the 300 f4 IS L and having recently seen some gorgeous shots with the 2.8 version I would rent the latter if u don't want to run out and spend dough for one trip. The f4 is a fine lens. Never used the 2.8 and the shots I saw may be off the charts because of the photographer which always carry the most weight subjectively speaking but for the time and money and memories go for the best. BTW, the 300 on a crop is not as long as u may imagine. For small birds it won't due unless you're camped in a blind which to me isn't worth it on a backpacking trip. So my only suggestion is to go long or not at all. While some will say they have very good results with a 2x tele I've never read at least from any knowledgeable source it is even close to the 1.4. Pop it on the 2.8 and you've got a decent distance. Luck.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 3, 2013)

+1 again for the 70-300L. And, by taking this lens, you can probably leave the macro at home since--unless you'll need the speed of the f/2.8--you can get amazing shots of flowers and leaves with the 70-300L. (I don't know whether this holds true for bugs or other tiny creatures since I generally do not take photos of them.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2013)

StepBack said:


> ...having recently seen some gorgeous shots with the 2.8 version I would rent the latter if u don't want to run out and spend dough for one trip.



Wow, that's excellent advice! I mean, the OP suggested a limit of 800 g (1.75 lbs) for a lens to carry backpacking - the 300/2.8 isn't much over that limit, right? :

-1


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 3, 2013)

dslrdummy said:


> I agree with the suggestion re a monopod and the tele. A light carbon fibre monopod won't add much weight. Neither will the 50 but will it survive the treck?



My hiking pole has a screw off top to become a monopod. I do not recommend using a monopod as a hiking pole as they are not built to take the stress, but you can use a hiking pole as a monopod.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 3, 2013)

My normal kit for multi-day backpacking is a 60D, an 18-200, a spare battery, and a spare compact flash, plus a dry bag to but the camera into during inclement weather. The camera normally sits in a padded case (LowePro ????, don't have it with me to check model number) and if the weather turns particularly wet, off it goes into the drybag.... For a dayhike, the kit becomes a 17-55 and a 70-200F4.... and if specifically after birds I add in a 400F5.6.

I don't like superzooms, but when size and weight really becomes an issue I am willing to trade off some IQ for the ability to carry a good camera body. I find that 18mm on a crop is not wide enough in the mountains, but you can take multiple shots and stitch them together for those really wide views.... I find 200mm on a crop is not really long enough for birds and animals.... more mm is always good, but it gets heavy.

If I were shooting full frame on a hiking trip, the 17-40L would be the first lens into my kit. I think the second would be a 100-400. Most of your shots are going to be either wide or long and these two lenses will cover most of it. For the shots in the middle I'd either crop from 40mm or stitch at 100mm.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 3, 2013)

Frodo said:


> My "wildlife lens is my 200/2.8 prime, plus 1.4x teleconverter. Testing has shown the combination to produce excellent image quality (but I don't know how it compares to a 70-300L). I will take a 25mm extension tube, which also works well on the 200 to take me to 1:3. My 400/5.6 will stay home. This leaves me with a kit that I have no qualms hiking with.
> 
> Cheers


Was just going to suggest this...I moved from the 70-200 f/4L IS to the 200mm f/2.8 for weight, size, and speed reasons. I do a lot of backpacking, where weight matters, and kayaking, where size in my pelican case matters. The 200mm saved me a little weight, but nearly 2". Big difference. Plus, theoretically, I can get a 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 out of it with TC's. I've actually had decent luck with a 2x, AF is still fast, but, its not ideal.

I'd say your choices are between the 70-300L and this 200mm and TC's. Probably end up the same in weight by the end, but the 200mm might end up more versatile (faster on the wide end, 400mm on the long with TCs)


----------



## aroo (Jun 3, 2013)

Thanks for all the insightful replies. It's just as I feared: some great suggestions that'll set me back a good chunk of dough! Now I'm seriously considering that 70-300L and the various TC options.

Responding to some of the questions that have popped up: it seems worth having a true macro along, the working distance of a zoomed tele falls short for little creatures and textures (which I really get into). I also feel like there's f/1.8 to gain and very little to lose in bringing the 50mm.

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?


----------



## Deva (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> Thanks for all the insightful replies. It's just as I feared: some great suggestions that'll set me back a good chunk of dough! Now I'm seriously considering that 70-300L and the various TC options.
> 
> Responding to some of the questions that have popped up: it seems worth having a true macro along, the working distance of a zoomed tele falls short for little creatures and textures (which I really get into). I also feel like there's f/1.8 to gain and very little to lose in bringing the 50mm.
> 
> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?



Just to pick up your point about "TC options" - the 70-300L won't take a Canon teleconverter, except at the 300 end - Kenko is the widely recommended way to go.

I upgraded from the non-L 70-300 IS to the L, and it made a big difference - sharper pictures, better IS, but undeniably heavier (lighter than the 70-200mm L IS II though!). I'm very pleased with it, and will always have it with me when I'm roaming the countryside. I tend to find myself continually swapping between it and my 17-40mm for most "outdoors" shots, with the occasional 8-15mm thrown in for those really wide-angles.


----------



## Shawn L (Jun 3, 2013)

Another thought would be the 28-300 L. I've rented that for a couple of trips and been pretty satisfied:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-28-300mm-f3.5-5.6l-is

Shawn L.


----------



## Leejo (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?


I am about to upgrade as Deva did, from the 70-300 IS USM non-L to the 70-300L.
I've had no problems but do notice the difference. (The L version wasn't available when I bought the original)
It's basically a Kit lens quality lens. Maybe fine for an older camera 
Although the non-L is half the weight, it isn't that much smaller - and only a third of the price...
However even on a crop camera (7D) it isn't sharp above 200mm.
In comparison it is slower to focus, worse IS, not weather sealed and and a little slower in f stops in the middle range. 
The DO is slightly better quality but nowhere near as good as the L Version.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 3, 2013)

I do this frequently and just to be clear I am an L nut. IQ and image consistency is top priority otherwise why waste my time? I use a 5DIII w/grip attached to a 300mm 2.8L and a 1.4XIII extender. I also pack a 70-200 2.8L attached to a 60D (for backup and 2nd crop body) and either a 100mm 2.8L if I plan to shoot any macro or a 24-70 2.8L for landscapes. All of this packs into a minimal ThinkTank Streetwalker Pro. On the outside I attach a water bottle and a carbon fiber monopod.

I also have the ThinkTank Urban Disguise Attachment kit which has straps that attach to the back back and your camera or camera strap. Allows me to carry the 300mm all day without any neck strain.

The pack is tight when it's all in there but I mostly always have at least one camera out ready to go attached to the backpack harness. If the weather turns bad I just put it all in the pack and cover it with the included rain fly.



aroo said:


> This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.
> 
> Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?



Never used the non-L 70-300 IS, but reportedly it's at it's worst from 200-300mm, so a 70-200/4 and a 1.4x or some cropping is likely a better bet. 

I owned the 70-300 DO for a while, and I really wanted to like it. The size was ideal - identical to my 24-105L (although heavy for it's size). IQ was the problem - needed work in post to increase contrast and sharpness, and the poor bokeh in some situations really couldn't be fixed. Horrible zoom creep, too (creep is the wrong word, implies slow movement...I once tracked a bird flying overhead with the lens at 300mm, and when I got to vertical the barrel retracted so hard the camera's eyecup almost gave me a black eye). If you buy a 70-300 DO, buy it used - you can find them for $700-800 (I did) and sell it for the same amount (which I also did). But I'd definitely take the 70-300 L (my trial with the DO was prior to the release of the L version).


----------



## phixional ninja (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?



I borrowed a 70-300IS a couple of years ago, and really didn't care for it. It's possible that I tried a bad copy of it, and I also stayed out at the long end where I've since learned it is particularly bad, but I could never imagine wanting to own it. I recently upgraded from a 70-200 f4L to the 70-300L though, and I will add my vote for the 70-300L. The color, contrast and sharpness are all fantastic, and the build quality is what you would expect (excellent).


----------



## jhanken (Jun 3, 2013)

Why not rent the 200MM F2.8L, a non-white lens that weighs in at less than 800g? Excellent sharpness, color rendering and portability. It's so good you can freely crop with little sacrifice. I think that with the 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro should about cover most situations.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm#Specifications

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?


 
I've had two 70-300mm IS (Non L) lenses, and they were fine. For the price it was a good lens. Obviously, it was a huge step up when I bought my 70-200mm f/4L IS.

I'd vote for the 70-300mmL as well, if you absolutely need 300mm. One drawback to the 70-300mmL is that it doesn't support Canon extenders, but its small and relatively light.

Another possibility would be to rent a lens, Lens rentals will give some credit towards a new one, or at least they used to. That's in the event that you decide to get one after using it.


----------



## jhanken (Jun 3, 2013)

> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?



Please don't get the non-L 70-300 IS. I have it, use it often, and every time I look at the images at 1:1, I am more and more disappointed with them. Looking to upgrade my telephoto zoom ASAP.

Don't know about the DO.


----------



## stefsan (Jun 3, 2013)

I had two versions of the non-L 70-300 (I + III) and I never got happy with them. The pics were not too bad but not too good either (lack of contrast and sharpness). But where the non-L version really do not deliver is build quality: the barrel is made of plastic and not weather/dust sealed at all. There is a considerable amount of lens creep to deal with too. The L-version on the other hand is extremely well built and has a zoom lock. I never regretted shelling out the money for this lens .


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 3, 2013)

Looking for lightweight but fast and cheapish, have you considered either a 135mm f2 L or 200mm f2.8 L, paired with a 1.4x extender for more reach - the 135mm in particular doesn't look too conspicuous, I've found that I get better images cropping down than on my 70-300 non L zoom - doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom, but since I got mine, I can't actually recall using my 70-300


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 3, 2013)

aroo said:


> For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?



See above - mine comes along for the ride these days. Looking to sell mine to a willing taker - output is fine in the 70-180mm range, but gets increasingly poor afterwards, focus searches badly compared to my L lenses, the IS is pretty good though. As others have said, 200mm f2.8 L or as I've done, the 135mm f2 L

I am considering something new to cover the 70+ zoom ranges, but coming to terms at the moment with a dual need for a unavailable 24-135mm f4 IS wish, the fact that I've spend about 3 months income in the last 6 months on Canon gear and the likelihood that I may prefer either a 300mm F4 IS, or the next incarnation of the 100-400mm or perhaps even the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and a weekly visit to the chiropractor !


----------



## DJD (Jun 3, 2013)

Here are a couple from my non-L 70-300.







Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 800
Exposure: 1/500 sec
Aperture: 7.1
Focal Length: 300mm





Model: Canon EOS 400D (DIGITAL REBEL XTi)
ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/50 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 300mm


----------



## bycostello (Jun 4, 2013)

mirrorless camera, crop sensor... like me fuji....


----------



## RGF (Jun 4, 2013)

gn100 said:


> Maybe slightly on the heavy side, but the 70-300L is a good option - sharp wide open, weathersealed, compact and 4 stops of IS. No need to muck around by adding a 1.4 TC to a 70-200.
> 
> I was in your posiition a couple of years ago and after lots of looking around this was the option I selected, and was very happy with the choice.



+1. Strong endorse the 70-300L


----------

