travelling to Alberta in January - what gear?

I am travelling to Canada in January and spending 2 weeks in the Calgary area - Banff, Jasper etc
My aim is landscape as well as any wildlife but I also have to keep in mind my wife will want some touristy shots as we walk around town(s)
Torn whether to travel light with only 2 lenses or to pack more. (Carry on wont let me take all)

I have
17-40L
24-105L
70-200 f4
100-400 II

What would you take if you could only take 2? Is it worth taking the 100-400 considering its twice the mass of the 70-200?

And those that travel lots, how do you manage to travel with lots of gear?

Judging only by me and what focal lengths I seem to be at most of the time, I'd go with the 24-105 and 70-200. That would cover most of the range you are going to be using for landscapes. I do very limited wildlife, but are many critters going to be out and about in January? If you expect to see something, I suppose the 100-400 would be the choice, but for only or mainly landscapes, the 70-200 will cover most of what you are going to want to shoot.

24-105 & 100-400 covers 24~400mm. I'd do that. Covers your in-town stuff for your wife. Covers all kinds of landscape opportunity. Covers wildlife.

A decent backpack or a little pelican case would do the trick.

Very best,

I use a Pelican 1450 for my carry on. I'd use something bigger, but my trips are mostly fishing trips so a small waterproof case is imperative to me. The 1450 holds a 7d2 body with 70-200 2.8 ii attached, 35mm 1.4L, 24-70 2.8 ii, extra batteries, chargers, and a polarizer. That's with the pluck foam. I think I could probably fit another prime in there vertically if I had the dividers.

As for what to bring, I'd second the 24-105 and 100-400. That gives you a ton of options based on what happens when you get there.

Wow, bring mittens.

Re travelling, I routinely fly with a 100-400mmII, 100mmL, 7D2, SL1, laptop, and travel docs all in my laptop bag as carry-on. Plus I have the roll-aboard for everything else. No checked luggage. This is for trips to overseas destinations. That might be too light for many, but it works for me. Maybe your wife could carry on more items if need be.

My impression is that the 100-400 II is in a whole new ballgame compared to the 70-200 F4. Personally, I think i would leave the 70-200 F4 at home, walk around with the 24-105, and when you are doing serious shooting, have the 17-40 and 100-400 II at the ready.

For what it is worth: enjoying time with wife, IMHO, is incompatible with serious shooting. Your mileage may vary

patrick j wrote in post #18502669
I do very limited wildlife, but are many critters going to be out and about in January?

Spruce Grouse, Hares, Northern Hawk Owls, Pine Martens, Chickarees, Elk, Bighorns, Dusky Grouse, Ptarmigan, etc. Lots of winter residents that will be "out and about" ...... but you do have to go looking for them.

patrick j wrote in post #18502669
If you expect to see something, I suppose the 100-400 would be the choice . . .

Yes, the 100-400mm would be the best choice for the winter residents, with the possible exception of the Elk and Bighorns, which can sometimes be effectively photographed with the 70-200mm focal lengths.

.

conraderb wrote in post #18511903
For what it is worth: enjoying time with wife, IMHO, is incompatible with serious shooting. Your mileage may vary

Very true. Serious shooting means that if you find a good Elk, you stay with it for hours, waiting for it to present the very best opportunity with respect to backgrounds, light, etc. Same with any other animal or bird, no matter how big or how small it is. You find something you want to shoot, you then stick with it all day if you're able to.

Same with landscapes - you find a point of view that you really like, you stay there for hours, or keep returning to it over and over again, in order to get it when the light is just right.

I know from experience that wives may tolerate this serious photography, but they don't like it.


.