Isle Royale -- which telephoto to bring?

This summer we will be staying three nights at the lodge on Isle Royale National Park (among other stops). While I've lived in Michigan my entire life, I have yet to visit its only national park.

I plan on bringing my 5D3, 7D2, 24-105L, 16-35 f/4 IS and one telephoto lens -- either the 100-400L II or 70-200 f/4 IS. I also have a 1.4x TC to give me a little added reach with the 70-200 f/4, if necessary. Whichever telephoto I bring will be attached to the 7D2.

Being unfamiliar with the island, I am not sure if I will need the reach of the 100-400L. We expect to see moose, but the 70-200 should be fine for that. With only two wolves remaining on the island, our chances of spotting one will be pretty remote. For anyone familiar with the park, are there other wildlife opportunities (birds, smaller mammals, etc.) where the additional reach of the 100-400L would justify carrying the extra weight? We will be hiking quite a bit, so I'd rather travel lighter if I can get by with 280mm on a crop body.

How comfortable are you with hiking in general? How much does the weight affect you? Which routes/trails are you interested in, and how rough are they?

I personally find my 7D, without grip, and the 70-200 f/4 make for a reasonably nice hiking rig if I have a good bag to carry them in, and keep the weight off the shoulders. That said, I would prefer to plan shorter hikes while lugging longer lenses (and possibly even a pair of cameras) for the purpose of getting more use out of my longer glass. Good long glass doesn't do you any good if you keep leaving it behind 'because it's too heavy'. If I find it too heavy to carry to a location I want to go, then I look to finding better ways to carry it there rather than looking to leave it behind.

Heya,

So, while the Moose is the largest animal you'll see, the majority of the animals you will see will be small. Little birds, etc. Maybe some small mammals like squirrels. The majority of your trip will easily be covered by the 5D3 + 16-35 or 24-105 since the majority of your trip will be nature, vistas, the water, etc.

The difference between the 100-400 II & 70-200 F4L IS in weight is about 2lbs.

I'd rather take the 100-400 II for the majority of what you will see.

100mm is great for Moose too after all. If you really need wider, use the 24-105. But 24-400mm covered with 2 lenses seems better than worrying about having 16mm.

Very best,

Another note: Moose are "not nice" animals, and also very large and rather strong as such... Personally if I'm framing something as large and powerful as a moose up and find myself needing something less than 400mm to keep them all in frame, then I'm far too close to them if I don't have a stout fence between me and the subject.

Yeah, I would NOT be comfortable getting within 100mm distance of a moose. Ornery beasts and very dangerous.

I am quite aware of the ornery temperament of moose, having been hiking in places such as Yellowstone, Glacier and the Tetons many times. I would be comfortable with 280mm (70-200 f/4 + 1.4x TC) for moose, as I can always capture that large mammal with more "environmental" shots, plus crop some in post processing. But, yes, we do give moose a wide berth due to their ornery nature.

I did some searches for photos of Isle Royale, and did find several examples of loons, beaver, and fox that would be subjects of interest for me. So I think that pretty much means I will be bringing the 100-400L II along instead of the 70-200.

Our hikes will probably be no more than 6 miles per hike. The terrain is not mountainous, but there are some hills to climb from the shore into the interior of the island. My 7D2 + 100-400L should be tolerable for those hikes using its Black Rapid strap. I've carried an original 7D + original 100-400L to the top of Mount Washburn in Yellowstone (6 mile round trip with about a 2,000 ft. elevation change), so I am capable. It's just nice to be able to carry the lighter 70-200 f/4 sometimes -- this just will not be one of those times.

Thanks for the feedback so far. I was hoping to find someone here who's visited the park for some feedback regarding how prevalent smaller subjects such as loons, beaver, etc. are on the island.

Isle Royale is beautiful. I can't offer much help for hiking near the Lodge, since during my visit fourteen years ago we kayaked the southeast section of the island. We did see loons in Rock Harbor and bald eagles in Chiippewa Harbor. Foxes visited the camp at night. The only moose we saw were small specks on the far side of Siskiwit Lake.

As a follow up, we are back from Isle Royale. I did end up taking the 7D2 + 100-400L MKII. However, we ended up seeing very little wildlife -- a couple of foxes and some ducks were the extent of subjects available. Very few people were seeing any moose despite an increased population due to the wolves being almost completely gone. In hindsight, I would have been fine with the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x TC. Of course, had I left the 100-400L at home we probably would have seen lots of moose and other wildlife.

It was still a wonderful trip. I mostly used my 5D3 + 24-105L, and occasionally used the 16-35L f/4 IS.