Suggestions for Wyoming and Hawaii Trips

Well then if your a one body type a guy then your a 5D4 guy. This is my exact situation. I need a body that can do everything well.

I will be getting the 100-400 and it will be in my Wyoming bag if I can manage the weight. It will be going to Hawaii. Thanks for the 70-300L suggestion.

Talley,,,,,,I've followed a lot of your posts/threads. I'm not surprised by your response. LOL

Talley wrote in post #18441828
70-300 doesn't work with the 1.4x though..

The canon 1.4, or any 1.4?

BTMFL82 wrote in post #18441842
Talley,,,,,,I've followed a lot of your posts/threads. I'm not surprised by your response. LOL

Then you know I'm a stubborn weakling who continues to strive for gear whoring and chocolate covered orange peels... and I haven't figured out how to get the camera to take amazing photos on it's own so what I end up with is the most highly detailed crisp sharp images that mimic the look of a kids point and shoot.



Yup thats me.

The canon. it hits. I've tried. Buddy has the 70-300.

Talley wrote in post #18441862
The canon. it hits. I've tried. Buddy has the 70-300.

so get he can get a third party one, and it would work fine

BTMFL82 wrote in post #18441172
I have two significant trips coming up. I am spending 10 days in the mountains in and around Jackson Hole, WY in late September/early October. Then spending 2 weeks in Hawaii (Oahu and Kauai) in May. I currently have a 7D and my two primary lenses are the EF-S 15-85 and EF 70-200 F4 IS. I have funds earmarked for some upgrades.

Body: Ready for an upgrade. Like others, I waited a long time for the 6D II. Now I’m reading reviews and initial thoughts of early adapters before I jump on it. I could go 5D IV but it might be overkill and could take funds away from lens options. If I were to go crop again, it would the 7D II or 80D.

Lenses:

16-35 F4 IS – Might be a perfect lens for these 2 trips. I am pretty sure there are going to be plenty of landscape opportunities. Only issue I see is the gap between it and my 70 – 200.

24-70 F2.8 II – Is it wide enough for these trips. I like the fact I can cover 24-200 with just two lenses.

100-400 II – I will eventually have this lens since I do enjoy wildlife and some birding (mostly hummingbirds). Even if I bought it before the Wyoming trip, I’m not sure I would take it …. Need to travel as light as possible.

If I don’t do anything before the Wyoming trip, I am sure I will be happy with my current setup, but will I be kicking myself for not pulling the trigger on some upgrades. For those that have made similar trips, what did you take and actually use? Are there other options I should be considering?

Thanks in advance!!

BT.
Interesting choices you have. However it usually comes down to which to buy first.
Years ago I did not upgrade to a 5D Mark II as I was shooting a 7D. Once I learned and utilized the AF system that the 7D offered, I could not go back to,the basic AF sysytem the 5D Mark II had. Once the the 5D Mark III was announced with the 7D AF and more, I was in. So if you take advantage of the 7D's AF sysytem, going to a Basic AF of the 6D may or may not be to your liking.
As far as lenses go, a good base to start with is an Ultra Wide Zoom, 16-35 f/4 L IS, a Standard Zoom, 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II or f/4 L IS and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II or f/4 L IS.
From then you can build on than that, like a 100-400 L IS Mark II or fish eye, Macro, Tilt/Shift etc.
By all means you do not have to stick with this, but it provides a very popular base with many, many pro's and enthusiasts alike.
I have "slimmed down" my travel kit over the last year. A trip to Rome led me down the path as I acquired the 16-35 f/4 L IS specifically for this trip two summers ago at this time. This lens paired with my 24-105 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Marl II on a pair of gripped 5D Mark III's.....heavy!
Since tripods are not allowed in the Basillica's, shooting Hand Held at 1/15" would not be possible with my 17-40 f/4 L. Walking the streets all day in the heat and not drinking enough water leads to the "Yips" as my hands can start shaking when not properly hydrated. When properly hydrated we start looking for the closest facility.........you get my drift.....
Images captured with the newly acquired 16-35 f/4 L IS were just stunning. IS really proved its worth. The 16-35 paired with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II basically pushed aside the 24-105 f/4 L IS as I was interested in upgrading as well for the difference in color, brightness etc as the newer 16-35 and 70-200 had.
A reason to upgrade my 24-105 was the excuse needs as were were turning to Italy, this time to Venice and Rome in February of 2016. As my "When In Rome" experience with IS in the 16-35 range, why not go with IS in the 24-70 range. Smaller, lighter, less expensive and IS. So for a return trip to Italy in February of 2016, my newly acquired 24-70 f/4 L IS paired with the 16-35 f/4 L IS and the big beefy 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark performed artistically. Physically, my body took its toll. If I could just lighten the load. Ahhhhhhh.......
With a trip to Iceland later that summer, I dug my heels in and decided to swap out my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II for my old trusty smaller, lighter, similar color and sharpness, equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS. If f/4 and IS was good enough for the 16-70 range, why not continue through to 200mm. So I did that trip to Iceland and did not miss f/2.8 one bit. Since then, my Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS, the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS, has been to Lisbon, Madrid and Barcelona a few months ago in June and just yesterday returned from Amsterdam with the same results. And no pain........
Now if I could only take two, say for the reason of weight, I would leave the 24-70 at home as I could capture Wide and telephoto. Since I love the Architectural details that cityscapes provide me, a 70-200 is critical.
So to make a long story short, my experience with 16-35 f/4 L IS paired with yours and my 70-200 f/4 L IS, would make a great two lens solution.

WOW Nick, thanks for putting this post together. Based on everyone's comments and my need to keep weight down, I am leaning towards the 16-35 F4 and my 70-200 F4 IS for the upcoming Wyoming trip and your post will make the decision easier.

Talley wrote in post #18441828
70-300 doesn't work with the 1.4x though..

My 70-300L does work with the Kenko 1.4TC's. My 70D, rated for autofocus only to f/5.6, struggles a bit but does autofocus. My 80D, rated to f/8, has no problems.

Talley wrote in post #18441805
I would HIGHLY recommend the X-T20.
[...]
You just cannot beat this sytem for travel.

I think the A7R2 with a few small primes is a better option (price apart).
IBIS makes a big difference for indoor and low-light.
My "Sony bag" is the same size, and I usually carry all these full-frame lenses:
- 21/2.8
- 35/1.2
- 75/2
- 180/3.4
The Canon bag is mostly dormant in the closet

CheshireCat wrote in post #18442198
I think the A7R2 with a few small primes is a better option (price apart).
IBIS makes a big difference for indoor and low-light.
My "Sony bag" is the same size, and I usually carry all these full-frame lenses:
- 21/2.8
- 35/1.2
- 75/2
- 180/3.4
The Canon bag is mostly dormant in the closet

Word on the street is X-T2s will have IBIS and then Fuji already has a 200/2 on the road map. It's system and its price point is becoming more attractive. And overall lighter.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18442198
I think the A7R2 with a few small primes is a better option (price apart).
IBIS makes a big difference for indoor and low-light.
My "Sony bag" is the same size, and I usually carry all these full-frame lenses:
- 21/2.8
- 35/1.2
- 75/2
- 180/3.4
The Canon bag is mostly dormant in the closet

loxia
voigtlander
leica?
voigtlander?

seems like a very expensive kit.

I carry a much more homely kit for travel

Charlie wrote in post #18442226
I carry a much more homely kit for travel

RX100 probably lol

Talley wrote in post #18442230
RX100 probably lol

I still carry full frame, just not super premium primes

lowly 35mm f2.8 (120g), 85mm f1.8 (360g)

for anything longer FL, depends if I plan a lot of time on the beach, if yes, then 24-240 (800g), if no then 200 f5 old olympus prime (400g).

my ultrawide is the ultra amazing 12-24 (560g), it takes 77mm filters for that type of landscape shooting. Basically, I bring 1500-1900g in lenses, with 12-200 in coverage. That gets me comfortably with 99% of all landscape opportunities and plenty goodforme family snapshots. If I'm going to somewhere like SE asia, I may even forgo anything longer than 85mm, which brings my lens weight down to 1100g. Should I bring a 50 instead of 35 + 85, I may be down to 800g, but I've come to really appreciate the ultra tiny 35, many instances I can go with that and not need a camera bag, simply clip to my belt...