15% off canon refurbs cameras & lenses

I am on their mailing list. I just didn't notice the warning and by the time I did, it was too late.

Keltab wrote in post #18301335
I ordered the 24-70 II... Should pair well with my 70-200 II for sports and travel.
I'm really looking forward to adding it to my kit!

You'll love it. Between it an the 70-200 II, you've got some of the best glass available. Those are my two go-to lenses, more than any other.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18301355
You'll love it. Between it an the 70-200 II, you've got some of the best glass available. Those are my two go-to lenses, more than any other.

Yes, my go-to event photography lenses

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18301355
You'll love it. Between it an the 70-200 II, you've got some of the best glass available. Those are my two go-to lenses, more than any other.

Glad to hear it! I have a 5DIV and a 7DII that I will pair them with - should give me a great range for a lot of my work. And I always love trying new toys!

Ming-Tzu wrote in post #18301298
When I travel, I never take a standard FL lens with me. Usually, it's the 16-35 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 II when I need the reach. For my needs, which is landscape, nature, etc., I haven't missed the 36-69mm focal range much. The standard focal range seems boring to me, but that's just my two cents.

My vacations usually involve tons of hiking and landscape type shots, so your mileage may vary. I am going to Italy and Scandinavia later this year, so may think about bringing a more general purpose focal length lens. I'll have to see.

To answer your question, it depends on what you do on vacation.

Mostly landscape? 16-35 is fine. The 35mm serves as a decent walk around focal length. If you're worried about needing something longer, maybe bring a 50 or 85 prime, or the 24-70 IS, which I don't own but heard good things about.

If you're just walking around town most of time, you may need to just bring the 24-105, or the aforementioned 24-70 IS.

Thanks for sharing your packing thoughts. It does make a lot of sense to go long and go wide, but skip the middle. I try to leave the 70-200 at home if I can because that thing is a brick. Recently I've just been traveling with the 7D2 and 24-105. I lose a little bit on the wide end, but it gets me out to 160mm equivalent, which covers a good portion of the 70-200 on a FF body.

Going wide with the 16-35 though, I'll probably start using my 5D2 while traveling instead (a little bummed to be giving up the GPS in the 7D2, which I enable while traveling to new places). Maybe I'll throw the 85mm in the bag and call it good—that lens would be easier to travel with than the 24-105.

Or look into the 70-200 f/4. I don't own it but also heard good things about it, plus lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 version.

Ming-Tzu wrote in post #18302216
Or look into the 70-200 f/4. I don't own it but also heard good things about it, plus lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 version.

I have both. The F4 is light and sharp. It is my light lens I take along when hiking.

I only have the f/2.8 and was gonna bring it with me to a hiking trip in Utah next month. How much lighter and smaller is the f4 compared to the f2.8 II? And how does it compare IQ-wise? I dislike having lenses in the same focal range but wondering what the drop off is

IQ is almost as good. In fact, it was top dog in the 70-200 arena until the F2.8 II came along. It is very light.

instead of the 24-105... i'd just grab a 18-135STM to pair with your crop for just travel...

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18302227
IQ is almost as good. In fact, it was top dog in the 70-200 arena until the F2.8 II came along. It is very light.

you mean the f4 IS version right...

DreDaze wrote in post #18302258
you mean the f4 IS version right...

Yes, the F4 IS version. I'm not familiar with the non-IS version of either lens, but the F4 IS is pretty darn close to its big brother.

I had the 70-200 f4 (non-IS) before upgrading to the 2.8 II. The f4 is a much lighter lens, and the sharpness is very close to the 2.8 II. The bokeh on the f4 is surprisingly good too, but not quite the same as the creamy backgrounds of the f2.8 models. It is definitely easier to travel with, but I couldn't justify keeping it along with the 70-200 f2.8.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/d8QW​zQ