Update: Which 70-200mm?

[iGas]

I will be traveling overseas for 6 weeks at the end of the year with a FF Canon, and I'm torn between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS.

Which lens would you buy for such a trip?

 

[Railgun]

Personally I'd use the 2.8. I don't shoot Canon, but it looks as though IQ is essentially the same on them. I'd opt for that to account for possible low light scenarios.

 

[iGas]

Personally I'd use the 2.8. I don't shoot Canon, but it looks as though IQ is essentially the same on them. I'd opt for that to account for possible low light scenarios.

I do want fast aperture and creamy bokeh, but I'm some what wary about the weight. Does the weight of the 2.8 bother you as a walk around lens?

 

[Railgun]

Personally, no, but to each their own. Granted the 2.8 is twice the weight, I don't mind it all that much. If you have a good strap, it's not uncomfortable. It also depends on what other gear you may be carrying. Additionally, chances are, I'm not using that as a walkaround. But it depends on where you're going, where you're walking, etc.

If you're unfamiliar with that weight, find a place that rents them and walk around the store with it.

 

[corkyg]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8. It is a big lens. I do not take it on trips. It is heavy, but moreover, it is big. For travel I take my 70-300 f/4.5/5.6 DO IS. In the picture it is #3. The 70-200 f/2.8 is #4.

It also depends on travel mode. My default is by air, and size is more important than weight. If my travel is domestic by auto, I will then pack the big gun for low light work at jazz festivals.

 

[Anubis]

id take the 2.8, but i dont really care about the size/weight as i take my 100-300 F/4 just about everywhere and it weighs ~1.5kg

 

[iGas]

Thanks every one, and specially Corkyg for providing an array of lenses.

I'm not backpacking on this trip and will be traveling mostly with a rental car. I may even buy a motorcycle when I get to my destination and travel Top Gear style.

 

[GWestphal]

The f4 is significantly lighter and smaller in diameter. If you're doing mostly daylight shooting the f4 might be more convenient. It depends on your needs really as does pretty much every lens decision.

 

[Sid59]

The f4 is significantly lighter and smaller in diameter. If you're doing mostly daylight shooting the f4 might be more convenient. It depends on your needs really as does pretty much every lens decision.

Agreed. With a 70-200, how much reasonable, indoor shooting is there?

 

[corkyg]

Agreed. With a 70-200, how much reasonable, indoor shooting is there?

Depends on what you are doing. I use it frequently shooting musicians at jazz festivals and events in church. These are all requirements for unposed, quick reaction shots with no flash allowed.

Bottom line - my 70-200 f/2.8 is almost always used indoors.

 

[iGas]

Depends on what you are doing. I use it frequently shooting musicians at jazz festivals and events in church. These are all requirements for unposed, quick reaction shots with no flash allowed.

Bottom line - my 70-200 f/2.8 is almost always used indoors.

At what focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO?

 

[Sid59]

Depends on what you are doing. I use it frequently shooting musicians at jazz festivals and events in church. These are all requirements for unposed, quick reaction shots with no flash allowed.

Bottom line - my 70-200 f/2.8 is almost always used indoors.

i was hinting to more of the context of the OP.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I am very happy with my f/4 IS. I really cannot see travelling with a lens that is practically double the size and weight. (Unless I were getting paid for taking photos...) Considering things like how many lenses I can fit in my bag(s), how much weight it is to carry around, how often I really need that focal length range... blah.

Depending on what you're considering shooting and what your other gear is, in your shoes I might ditch carrying a 70-200 at all, and simply carry a crop body along with a moderately-priced telephoto prime such as the 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2, or 200/2.8. Really I think that I would probably trade in my 70-200 f/4L IS if they made a 200/2.8 with IS. I tend to stay on the long end when I decide to pull out the 70-200. Plus I often use the 1.4X extender. (Wish it could mount my 100/2.8.... I believe the 135L is the widest lens that it will work on.)

 

[corkyg]

At what focal length, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO?

Good questions. Generally, I shoot with a 5D II, and in low light areas, I use ISO 3200. I try to keep shutter speed at 1/100th. Focal length veries to fill the frame - usually a head and instrument shot.

I'll try and find you a sample. OK - here's one from in church - a shot of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church giving concluding blessing to the congregation just before the recessional. I was off to the side unseen by the people.

 

[dmw16]

That's a hard question without knowing where you are going or at least what types of things you'll be shooting.

A 70-200 lens is fine, but probably wouldn't be the first lens I'd grab when looking for a walkaround lens on vacation unless I knew I'd be shooting specific things that require those focal lengths.

With that said, I'd probably go for the f/2.8. There really is no replacement for fast glass. Add to the fact that nice bokeh that you can get from the f/2.8. In theory I'd love to travel light, but I'd kick myself if I missed a shot because I didn't want to lug around an extra pound of glass.

 

[iGas]

I ended up with a 100mm 2.8L macro IS, and 5D mkII (still contemplating getting the 5D mkIII instead).

I will be taking my old trusty 50mm f/1.8 mkI, and 28mm f/1.8 on the trip as well as the 100mm macro IS.

I may get the 200mm 2.8L in the near future, too bad Canon do not have an IS version (perhaps I should look at the Sigma 180mm OS macro). And, an ultra wide angle.

 

[corkyg]

.. too bad Canon do not have an IS version (perhaps I should look at the Sigma 180mm OS macro). And, an ultra wide angle.

The Canon 70-200/f2.8L does indeed have IS - in fact it has 2 settings. It has a master on/off and 2 modes.

I think you made a good choice considering your projected travel and usage.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The Canon 70-200/f2.8L does indeed have IS - in fact it has 2 settings. It has a master on/off and 2 modes.

He was talking about the 200mm, not the 70-200

 

[corkyg]

Sorry - I thought he was referring to his initial question and was just using a short title.

 

[iGas]

Sorry - I thought he was referring to his initial question and was just using a short title.

No worries.

Yes, I was talking about the EF 200mm 2.8L USM prime lens.

In the past I have traveled with just a 50mm and it was fine, however at times I like to have wider lens and the reach of a 70-100mm focal length.

If money and weight is not a problem I would love to have a 70-200mm IS mkII, and the macro 100mm 2.8L.