# Lens recommendations for upcoming road trip and beyond?



## CowGummy (Aug 18, 2013)

Hi all,

Turns out it's been so long since I last logged in, my account's been deleted...

I know there's been a lot of threads about lens recommendations and I've spent the last 2 days going through the forums, but would really appreciate some feedback on my particular upcoming lens purchases.
I currently own a 5DMkII, 24-105L and 50 f/1.8. My wife and I are off to the US & Canada in about 4 weeks for a big road trip and I'm curious to hear what lens suggestions some of you might have? 
My budget is £1500 - £2000. I really want to upgrade that 50 f1.8 to the 1.4 - I just hate that plastic feel of the 1.8... and other than that I'm currently considering the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, the 135 f2 L, and 70-300 L IS f4-5.6.

My thoughts on the above:
70-200 2.8 L IS II --- I have been lusting after this lens for many years now and I can finally afford it. I would deffo have use for it after the trip as I shoot a lot of portrait and studio work, along with some weddings and events. Trailing through the forums some seem to think this is too heavy for travel? Although we're going to be driving a lot to specific spots so I don't think we'd be walking more than 2 hours at a time. Is the added weight really that bad? (I'm 33 - average build and weight)
135 f2 --- I love the photos this lens produces, and the wide aperture, plus lighter weight could come in handy on longer hikes and event work. I also like the fact that it's not white which would make it less conspicuous for candid street work while traveling.
70-300 L IS f4-5.6 --- I hear it makes for a great travel telephoto zoom thanks to the additional reach in FL and the comparably light weight, and overall pretty good IQ. Then again... I'm really put off by the reversed focusing and zoom rings and the limited use this lens would probably find after our trip. Also not a big fan of extending barrels on zoom lenses. It's my main gripe with the 24-105.

I'll also be bringing 2 tripods, 2 speedlites, radio triggers for the trip, and although I'm vaguely considering adding more focal length at the wide end for this trip, I sold my 17-40 L about 2 years ago, as I just wasn't using it anymore after upgrading to FF from a 400D. So not sure if it's really worth me exploring that end. Doesn't seem to suit my style anymore, I find 24mm plenty wide on FF.

So... any ideas, suggestions or am I even going way over board here and should simply take the 24-105L on the 5DMkII and upgrade to the 50 f/1.4 and be done with it?

Thanks a lot guys, 
Steve


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 18, 2013)

I reconnected your old posts. There was a one time purge of old accounts, we removed 300,000 spam accounts that were signed up by robots before we were able to stop them. Unfortunately, we also caught up a few good ones. I have been able to reconnect them so far.

Ed


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 18, 2013)

CR Backup Admin said:


> I reconnected your old posts. There was a one time purge of old accounts, we removed 300,000 spam accounts that were signed up by robots before we were able to stop them. Unfortunately, we also caught up a few good ones. I have been able to reconnect them so far.
> 
> Ed



That's awesome! Thanks for that Admin!


----------



## rs (Aug 18, 2013)

If you're anywhere near one of the few remaining camera stores in the UK, go in and try out a 70-200 II. If the weight and handling suit you, its manageable for the trip, and you have a use for it afterwards, just get it. It's a simply amazing lens.

Unlike the other lenses you've mentioned, there's also £200 cashback on it right now: http://www.canon.co.uk/autumncashback/


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 18, 2013)

CowGummy said:


> My thoughts on the above:
> 70-200 2.8 L IS II --- I have been lusting after this lens for many years now and I can finally afford it. I would deffo have use for it after the trip as I shoot a lot of portrait and studio work, along with some weddings and events. Trailing through the forums some seem to think this is too heavy for travel? Although we're going to be driving a lot to specific spots so I don't think we'd be walking more than 2 hours at a time. Is the added weight really that bad? (I'm 33 - average build and weight)...
> 
> ... sold my 17-40 L about 2 years ago, as I just wasn't using it anymore after upgrading to FF from a 400D. So not sure if it's really worth me exploring that end. Doesn't seem to suit my style anymore, I find 24mm plenty wide on FF.



You already answered your own question, IMHO  Go get the 70-200, Steve! You won't regret it. Besides, you know you really want this lens. Range-wise, note that it works fabulously with a 1.4 teleconverter and that gives you a 98-280 f/4 IS 

As for the weight, I handle this thing many hours at a time, recently I shot motorports with it (and a 1.4TC II). And yes I felt it after a long day of shooting but that's okay. (I'm 37 - average build and weight) Note that I shoot motorsports with the 7D. The 70-200 balances well on a gripped body.

To carry it around is not too bad. Put it in a good backpack when you're using another lens.

And yes, 24 mm is generally wide enough for everything. I do own the 17-40 and wouldn't want to miss it on my holidays because it's great to get some awesome WA shots, but... when I have the 24-105 on my camera I manage just fine.

For travel I usually pack a 70-300 Tamron USD, but that's because I need room for other lenses and don't shoot much tele on our holidays. My travel kit: 5D2 gripless, 17-40 f/4, 35mm f/2 or 50 mm f/1.8 (mkI), 24-105 F/4, 70-300 Tammy. And a 77 mm circ. pola. filter


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Aug 18, 2013)

I have previously owned the 70-200 zoom (both f/2.8 and f/4 version), but didn't think it gave the extra reach compared to the 24-105, and the 2.8-version was also to heavy to carry. I am now using the 70-300/4-5.6L and think this is the ultimate travel telezoom. it is made like a rock, compact and "light". And not to forget, very good optically.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 18, 2013)

Because you generate income from it, I vote for the 70-200 II. I'm not sure how much you'd use it for your trip though. As long as you're using something besides the neckstrap (i.e. holster or strap) for support, the weight should be fine. For those that always want the best IQ, the 70-200 II is the choice. The 70-300L has a narrower max aperture and doesn't track moving targets as well as the 70-200 II, but it IQ that is close and is much more compact. The more you travel, the more attractive the 70-300L becomes.


----------



## georgecpappas (Aug 18, 2013)

I can heartily recommend the 70-300L. It is the perfect travel zoom for longer focal lengths. While some have quibbles with its Image quality; my experience does not support this. As with all longer focal lengths, you have to use a tripod, live view/MLU, and carefully focus if you want image quality. I would definitely get the tripod mount - it helps keep everything balanced. I have used this as my go to tele zoom for travel for over 3 years. Last week, I used this lens almost exclusively during a brief day of shooting in Iceland and it was flawless.

Size, weight, reach are all perfect for the kind of trip you are taking. It does sound like you lust after the 70-200; if this is true, just get it and use a TC or something else for longer coverage.

It depends on how you balance the needs of the trip vs. when you get home..

Either way, you are looking at two great lenses..

I hope you have a great trip.


----------



## Gareth (Aug 18, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Because you generate income from it, I vote for the 70-200 II.



Ditto. 70-200 II is my favorite lens. It is a tad big and heavy, but I hike with it all the time (along with the 2x teleconverter). Just be sure to have a good, supportive strap if you're going to carry it on your shoulder for an extended time.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 18, 2013)

All three of the lenses you listed are excellent! I own 2 of the 3 and hope to add the missing 70-300L in the next 6-9 months.

The 135L is the ultimate portrait lens in my book. I love the focal length and image sharpness and bokeh are awesome. I find lots of other uses besides portraits for the 135. I use it for shooting my son's and neices junior high sports: wrestling, cross country, golf and volleyball. Its small and light enough to make it easily to carry along anywhere.

The 70-200 2.8 II is an all-around excellent lens, maybe the best zoom available under 200mm. I use mine lots, but not for travel or hiking - too heavy!

The 70-300L is an excellent travel lens paired with a 24-70 or UWA zoom. Its light and portable, but doesn't have the low-light/portrait capabilities of the other two lenses.

Given your full description of use, I think adding the 70-200 2.8 II makes the most sense for the long term if not for your immediate travel needs.


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 20, 2013)

Hi all and thanks for the feedback - much appreciated!

I'm still sitting on the fence regarding the 135L and the 70-200L IS II (pretty sure now that the 70-300 L is not going to meet my long term requirements)... I know that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the killer lens in that range, and if I had one it would do _most_ of of what the 135L is capable of. I'm just put off by:
a) the weight - it is a genuine concern, although I think in the long run manageable in comparison to points b) & c)....
b) the monstrous size! It's so not a subtle lens, and part of what I enjoy shooting for my own projects / casual photography are candid street shots... I think the 135L might do this better, as it's more subtle, and the added reach from 135mm to 200mm is taken care of a step forward with my good ol' 'foot zoom'... Same for weddings and smaller events I guess?
c) It's white!!! I know some love it, but honestly, I consider all of canon's great 'big whites' to be pretty ugly looking pieces of equipment, and this is something that again just attracts far to much attention for my liking when out and about. The flipside is that when shooting in the studio (which is probably where 70% of my photography commissions are shot - mainly portraits) this would look absolutely common place.

... and d) that price tag. It really is more expensive than most 2nd hand cars I've owned... I do earn with my photography, not a fulltime wage, but it does boost my monthly salary by about 50%. Still, it's scary amount to spend before going on holiday!

I like the 135 a lot, it has most of the reach and much easier to handle. But less flexible of course, and I wish it had IS, mainly for aid with composing shots. In reality I would use this lens mainly indoors with shutter speeds of 1/160 or faster to freeze subject movement, so the wider aperture of f/2 could prove helpful rather than the IS on the big white.

Again, thanks for the suggestions and please feel free to keep adding to this - I'll be making a decision towards the end of the week before pulling the trigger.

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 20, 2013)

In the age when cells phones account for the majority of all pictures, anything much bigger is going to make you stick out. You might be able to get away with an EOS-M or a NEX system with a few lenses in your pockets, but anything SLR-like is going to stand out. You would stand out more with the 70-200, but when your attempt for discretion is blown, it's blown, and whether or not it's blown by a little or a lot doesn't really matter.

Those that shoot sports and candids of kids moving around will value the 70-200 more. I have better results with the 70-200's servo AF than the 135. The 135's AF isn't slow, but it feels like the 70-200 is faster and tracks better. Those that shoot portraits or can control the camera/subject distance will value the 135 more. You can also get extenders (1.4x and/or 2x), but the 70-200 will be slightly better natively near 200mm and can get you to 400mm at f/5.6.

It doesn't seem like you'll need to zoom at that much and it looks like you have your heart set on the 135L and it fits your style, so go with the 135L. Consider getting extenders to give you more reach. You can't go wrong with either. But be forewarned, you might find youself with both someday. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2013)

I have both the 70-200 II and the 135L (and also the 70-300L, which you've now eliminated). I use the 70-200 II much more than the 135L - the flexibility of the zoom and the IS are big benefits. I grab the 135L for portraits when I'll have control over the setting.


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 22, 2013)

Thanks Neuro and Random Orbits for your replies/opinions – much appreciated!

Not surprised to hear more recommendations for the 70-200 2.8 IS II…
I've had the following 6 items in my amazon basket for the last 24 hours, and am giving myself another 24 hours before I commit:
Canon 50 f/1.4
58mm Hoya UV filter for the above
Official Canon lens hood for the above
Canon 135 L f/2
72mm Hoya UV filter for the above
Lowepro Event messenger 250
… I like the look of the above, but I'm still deliberating that 70-200 f/2.8 IS II (and popping it into and back out of my basket). Like I said, I'm giving myself until tomorrow evening to decide.

On a (slightly) separate note, this is the provisional route we've got planned for our upcoming road trip, and I was curious to hear if any of you had particular recommendations of places to go along the way:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=New+York,+NY,+USA&daddr=Boston,+MA,+USA+to:Bangor,+ME,+United+States+to:Halifax,+NS,+Canada+to:Toronto,+ON,+Canada+to:Niagara+Falls,+ON,+Canada+to:New+York,+NY,+USA&hl=en&ll=44.323848,-70.620117&spn=10.985452,26.191406&sll=44.264135,-71.560629&sspn=10.997155,26.191406&geocode=FXFAbQIdK8KW-yk7CD_TpU_CiTFi_nfhBo8LyA%3BFZ9WhgIdw7bD-ykbMT0NLWXjiTGg6GIBJL98eA%3BFZ6cqwIdqojm-ym9KREQRkuuTDF3dq-nsBgJTQ%3BFZ5JqQId6Oo1_CnB-tsHFCFaSzHcLYtDpuNrZg%3BFWoYmgIdcLVE-ymlO8bXkMvUiTF3xLQqUFU1Mg%3BFZZ-kQIdcEJJ-ym5TYLsXkTTiTGIor1WYcXSRg%3BFXFAbQIdK8KW-yk7CD_TpU_CiTFi_nfhBo8LyA&oq=New&mra=ls&t=m&z=6


We're thinking of possibly doing Detroit and Philadelphia as well – I love the idea of getting some really gritty shots of run-down areas of Detroit! I know to look after myself, and we will always be traveling as a pair. 

Thanks again to all & I'll let you know how I get on with my purchase & trip.

Steve


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 22, 2013)

70-200... awesome lens!  Will give you versatility... don't worry about the weight considering you will be on a road-trip. Don't forget to get adequate travel insurance for your gear though! 

Have a great trip, will look forward to see your shots on your return (if you post them here)!


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 23, 2013)

Even tho I understand that different people have diffferent sizes and resistance, this whole "70-200 2.8 IS is soooooo heavy" topic is kinda tiring.

Some perspective (numbers from TDP):
Sure the 135L is close to half the weight of the 70-200....but that's saving a measly 740g.
70-300 will save you a whooping 440g
In the same range, f4 non IS will save you 785g but this isn't the same lense anymore. f2.8 non IS will save you 180g.

Honestly except during very long trek, 740g won't impact anything. A bad backpack would annoy you more than that extra weight!

The weight is more felt during shooting sessions if you don't monopod and even then, it's not imparing. I'm large but non athletic (and i mean it!) but I can shoot it for 4+ hours session and half an hour continuous.

Take it as a work out!


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 23, 2013)

MKy 2 cents, I weigh in with most everybody else. You lust for the lens, you want the lens, get it.

The weight I agree is over played (56 y/o fairly OK shape, not a problem). The lens is big and somewhat heavy, but I manage it no problem. I like to take bags with wheels that convert to a pack (http://www.thinktankphoto.com/categories/rolling-camera-bags.aspx). This way, it takes a load off and I have used it for big airports and even on some trails.

So where are you going? Need some pointers of photo ops?


----------



## djurma11 (Aug 23, 2013)

I would agree with some of the comments made about the 70-200 II. While it may be "heavy" compared to other lenses, it's pretty manageable to carry around. I did a couple of half-day hikes throughout Yellowstone and the Tetons with my 70-200 II plus TC 1.4 on my 7D and I was fine. A little tired, sure. But nothing to complain about. 
HOWEVER, make sure you have a *Black Rapid* strap. With the stock canon neck strap, you will definitely not be comfortable. The BR strap keeps the weight of the camera on your shoulder vs your neck.


----------



## shashinkaman (Aug 23, 2013)

djurma11 said:


> The BR strap keeps the weight of the camera on your shoulder vs your neck.



Who in his right mind hangs a camera with a 70-200mm around their neck in the first place!? Really!


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 23, 2013)

Right – decision was made last night and order has been placed. 

I ended up going with the 135 f2, rather than the 70-200 is II – even after I just got another portrait commission yesterday that would have paid for 50% of the big white. I understand a lot of people really love that 70-200 is II, and no doubt I will at some point (soonish no doubt…) purchase that lens, but realistically for my own shooting style and the paying commissions I get (like I said before, at least 75% of my paying work is shot in the studio, with a few weddings and events thrown in), I honestly think the 135L serves me better. I don't shoot sports, I don't shoot fast action – I do however on occasion need to shoot people stealthily (I shoot some publishing events and book people can be so shy! Even a 24-105 L makes a lot of them run…) and in low light indoor conditions. And I really like the fact that the 135L give me that extra stop, which is more useful to me than the IS. 

Anyways, I'm very happy, can't wait for it to arrive now! It's been said before, and I can easily see myself investing in the 70-200 is II in the next 12 months, but for the purpose of this trip as well as for the fact that I love the pictures the 135L produces – I simply had to buy this lens first!

Also, I'm trying to take a fresh approach to my travel photography, and rather than using slow zoom lenses that mean I end up taking the same mundane and boring shots time and time again, I've set myself the mission of shooting the majority of our trip with either the 50 f/1.4 or the new 135 f/2 – I think it's cool little challenge and should produce some interesting photos, hopefully forcing me to think a little more about composition and subject placement and making me slow down a little more. I will still take the 24-104 L, which along with it's excellent IS, I know can always bail me out… but the idea is to use primes. IQ is top of the list of requirements.

So, final gear list for the road trip will be:
5DMkII
24-105mm f/4 L IS
50mm f/1.4
135mm f/2 L
Tripod x 2 (one full size, one compact travel size)
Vivitar 285 flash (strobist)
430exII flash (strobist + the odd spot of ETTL)
Radio triggers + receivers
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (for CF card dump & basic RAW editing and processing while on the road)
Lowepro Event Messenger 250 to carry all of the above.

@scottkinfw: Yes please - would love photo op's and recommendations! Here's the route we currently have planned (not set in stone by any means – we've got the first 2 nights booked in NYC, after that we pick up the car and just start driving.) :

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?saddr=New+York,+NY,+USA&daddr=Boston,+MA,+USA+to:Bangor,+ME,+United+States+to:Halifax,+NS,+Canada+to:Toronto,+ON,+Canada+to:Niagara+Falls,+ON,+Canada+to:New+York,+NY,+USA&hl=en&ll=44.323848,-70.620117&spn=10.985452,26.191406&sll=44.264135,-71.560629&sspn=10.997155,26.191406&geocode=FXFAbQIdK8KW-yk7CD_TpU_CiTFi_nfhBo8LyA%3BFZ9WhgIdw7bD-ykbMT0NLWXjiTGg6GIBJL98eA%3BFZ6cqwIdqojm-ym9KREQRkuuTDF3dq-nsBgJTQ%3BFZ5JqQId6Oo1_CnB-tsHFCFaSzHcLYtDpuNrZg%3BFWoYmgIdcLVE-ymlO8bXkMvUiTF3xLQqUFU1Mg%3BFZZ-kQIdcEJJ-ym5TYLsXkTTiTGIor1WYcXSRg%3BFXFAbQIdK8KW-yk7CD_TpU_CiTFi_nfhBo8LyA&oq=New&mra=ls&t=m&z=6

PS: To all of those who've recently commented on the weight of the 70-200 really not being that big a deal on the bigger picture: I do agree - while I was trying to decide, I added up all my equipment weight, and indeed the 750g extra would not make as significant a difference as some make it out to be. It did not end up effecting my purchase decision.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 23, 2013)

Very cool decision to bring only primes. The thing that amazes me though is that you're bringing all those flashes and tripods, something I would cut down on in favor of bringing lenses instead. Besides,those primes do help a lot with available light photography.


----------



## mwh1964 (Aug 23, 2013)

For travel I would most certainly consider the 70-300L to complement you 24-105. It is a very capable lens. However if you need full speed the 70-200 will never ever disappoint you and you can complement it with a TC even if these combinations make it a little clumsy for travel. For speed the 135 is even better though no IS for non moving subjects nor any focal length flexibility.


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 23, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Very cool decision to bring only primes. The thing that amazes me though is that you're bringing all those flashes and tripods, something I would cut down on in favor of bringing lenses instead. Besides,those primes do help a lot with available light photography.



Yeah... it's a valid point! Then again, once you've caught the strobist bug - 2 speedlites and a second tripod to be able to get both of them mounted off-camera is just about the lightest way to travel. Otherwise, it's a case of bringing lightstands, bigger strobe heads and potentially battery packs... The way I see it: I would be packing one flash and tripod guaranteed. No way I'd travel without - ever. This way I pack one additonal (smaller travel sized) tripod and the ol' Vivater 285. Not massively more weight overall, but makes for very flexible lighting options.

and there me be a small possibility that I may end up treating myself to a little 'souvenir' while out there... maybe 85mm f1.8? Honestly, I think I'm about to be diagnosed with a bad case of 'gas'... ;D


----------



## sjschall (Aug 25, 2013)

> and there me be a small possibility that I may end up treating myself to a little 'souvenir' while out there... maybe 85mm f1.8?



You should hit up the B&H store while you're in NY, if you have the time. Definitely a cool spot to look around and try out gear.


----------



## CowGummy (Aug 26, 2013)

sjschall said:


> > and there me be a small possibility that I may end up treating myself to a little 'souvenir' while out there... maybe 85mm f1.8?
> 
> 
> 
> You should hit up the B&H store while you're in NY, if you have the time. Definitely a cool spot to look around and try out gear.



Thanks for the tip sjschall! Just had a look at their website and indeed this looks close to photo equipment Nirvana.


----------

