Travel Lense

Hi everyone! Im new to the forum and needed some advice. I have purchased a Canon 5D Mark III and will be traveling to South America in November. Im looking between two lenses right now the 70-200mm f2.8 L or the 28-300mm L and cannot decide which to purchase for my travels. I love the sharpness of the 70-200 everyone talks about but the versatility of the 28-300 is very appealing. Let me mention that I will also be traveling with the 16-35 L as well. Any advice and experiences with these lenses would be great. Thanks!

What about the 100-400?

If you're talking travel, I wouldn't choose either of those lenses IMO. Why? Because they are heavy, and thats no fun on a long day of walking with a camera around your neck, or even in your bag. If you want the 300mm range with a lighter body while still retaining the optical and build quality of the L lenses, you should look at the EF 70-300L - its light (not crazy light, but significantly lighter than the two lenses you mentioned), and compact so its surprisingly comfortable to hold. That, or one of the 70-200 f/4's (IS or non-IS) as those are also significantly lighter than the 2.8 and the 28-300L - which according to the-digital-picture, falls into the heavyweight class.

That, and the 70-300L or 70-200 f/4 are cost quite a bit less than the two you mentioned. Both have IQ/sharpness on par with the 70-200 2.8's easily (I've owned both the 2.8 II, and sold it for the 70-300L) - so you get to save money too The only downside to the 70-300L or even the 70-200 f/4 is that if you know you will be shooting indoors, or in weak light, they will struggle. That said, the 2.8 could struggle also, but is better suited to lower-light shots. If you are bringing the 16-35, then you are pretty well covered for indoor low-light shots already.

The 70-200L f/4 lenses are very light compared to the f/2.8 versions, but I did a 4 day trip to Colorado and just brought the 17-40L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and had no problem. I'd say that since you are bringing the 16-35L then you shouldn't bother with the 28-300L. For me, I don't miss much between the 40mm to 70mm in my two lenses and for vacation/travel it's even less of a bother for me. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS with a 2x TC would be a great travel option. Africa will be full of wild life and a longer lens option would be better. Might want to consider the 100-400L or 70-300L along with a 2x mk3 teleconverter.

i'm with Christina on this, they're heavy. A local shop let me borrow a 5d3/70-200 f4 a few weeks ago, I found it a very comfortable combination. I had the 70-200 2.8II, great lens but that thing was no fun to carry (I sold mine).

Welcome to POTN.

My travel setup for Europe / major Cities are 5D3 + 85L II & 5D2 + 24L II; Africa and S. America is 5D3 + 28-300L.

Reasons: Europe or major cities I go there all time, and low light cities shoots need fast prime; Most destinations in Africa or S. America will be likely once only.

Two more weeks before my 1st ever Safari with 5D3 + 28-300L, and I'll post some shoot into the 28-300L thread

Call me silly, but im not too concerned about the weight.

jarehead0311 wrote in post #14899803
Call me silly, but im not too concerned about the weight.

add in the heat, and the weight can be a burden. Have you traveled to a hot place with a lot of gear? It can definitely take a toll on you. On top of that, you'de definitely draw a lot of attention on foreign ground.

jarehead0311 wrote in post #14899803
Call me silly, but im not too concerned about the weight.

OK, you're silly.

Seriously, after walking around all day the difference between the f4 and f2.8 versions of the 70-200 is quite noticeable. There's also a huge difference in price (if you're looking at the f2.8 MkII - and if you're thinking of the MkI then the f4 IS has better image quality).

S. America - you will want to shoot nature, exotic birds, monkeys on the trees. 200mm is nearly not enough for that, 300mm is the min you should be using. Plus funny insects and absolutely beautiful flowers - and you will want a macro. Please keep it in mind when making the lens selection.

the 70-300 is worth a look especially for travel but I would vote a 17-40/16-35 + 40 STM or other small prime + 70-XXX and maybe a tele converter as an ideal travel setup. If its a once in a lifetime type thing I would put no restrictions on gear.

jarehead0311 wrote in post #14899803
Call me silly, but im not too concerned about the weight.

I can walk around all day with the 70-200L, and it doesn't phaze me. But add in the heat and whatever other gear you have (water, tripod, food....) and the weight difference is pretty big. I recently bought a carbon tripod just because it is 1.7lbs lighter than my aluminum. That's the difference between a whole 32oz bottle of water!! When I hike now, I usually just take one of my 24mm and the 40mm. I don't need long and I'd rather save the weight. On a vacation though, I'd would agree with you on wanting to take something longer. I know first hand how big weight concern can be and have the beginnings of heat stroke set in is not fun. Travel as light as possible, and make sure that you have your food and water covered first, then add the weight of your gear.

Overall, if it were me, I'd probably go with the 17-40L, 24L f/1.4, 40mm pancake, 70-200L f/2.8 IS, and my 2x. I would consider getting a longer lens, like one of the Sigma xx-500mm lenses also. If I did get one, I would almost probably leave the 70-200L at home.

Charlie wrote in post #14899832
add in the heat, and the weight can be a burden. Have you traveled to a hot place with a lot of gear? It can definitely take a toll on you. On top of that, you'de definitely draw a lot of attention on foreign ground.

Considering his screen name is, essentially, Jarhead (aka a Marine), and 0311 would place him in the infantry, I think there's a chance that he might actually be perfectly fine carrying "heavy" gear. I've found that my (non-USMC) military experience left me with a rather different concept of 'heavy' as compared to the perspectives I hear & read about online.

But then again, maybe it's just a screen name.

Either way, OP, welcome to POTN.

I walked through France and Italy with 5DII/17-40 combo most of the time. I also had a 50 1.4 siggy for night time shots. Since you have 16-35, I think you're covered. Add a fast, wide prime, and you're all set. I see no need for a 70-200 or a 300mm lens in those citations. If you're going on an african safari, that would be another story.

Someone pointed out that Adorama has the 70-300L for $1250.