narlus wrote in post #18051213
I'm sure people here have plenty of photography ventures out into Iceland... do i need to bring my 70-200? I was thinking of traveling a bit light and just taking my 16-35 and 24-70, along w/ a 50 prime. any and all advice is appreciated, even if it's just a reminder to floss daily.
I am packing as we speak for a trip to Iceland later this week as well.
Camera gear wise I do pack heavy. Although after my last trip to Venice and Florence a few months ago I will be lighting the load of the bag somewhat.
Along with a pair of Gripped 5D Mark III's, this trip I am taking my "Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS"
The 16-35 f/4 L IS, the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
After returning from Italy with my two gripped bodies with the first two lenses above along with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, and sore shoulder and back as well, I decided I am bringing my smaller, lighter, equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS. If /4 was good enough for the 16-70 range, why not continue through to 200.......
Why beat myself up when I have a lighter solution?
I know for the images I see out there, a 70-200 is always needed.
If the smaller f/4 L IS was not in my Arsenal to choose from, then yes I would bring my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
I would be kicking myself if I did not........the entire time.
Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer