Which Travel Lens Combo? 16-35L WITH 70-200 2.8 OR 24-70 2.8 OR 24-105 IS???

Hi All - I usually travel with the 16-35/70-200 combo, but I'm going to get either the 24-70 or 24-105 this summer. I wanted to get input on which of these two lenses would compliment the 16-35. I tote the 70-200 so that I can have some reach if needed, but it is bulky as I carry my stuff in a backpack. It would be great to have something smaller and somewhat lighter. Thanks!

24-70 lots of weight, pretty bulky, faster aperture, least total FL range
24-105 less weight, somewhat compact, slower aperture
70-200 lots of weight, pretty bulky, faster aperture, greatest FL range but gap in coverage (35-70)

Evaluate and determine if speed or FL range is more important, in selecting 24-70 vs. 24-105. I think a gap in coverage of 35-70mm is pretty hard to compensate for with a FF format camera on a trip.

I've been wondering this same thing myself.

I have the 24-70. I love it's design over the 24-105 (hoods) but I really wish it had IS. I also NEED a UWA zoom. I have the 17-40 but will upgrade to the 16-35 as soon as I can afford to. But I go round and round. I've been toying with the idea of the 24-105 for it's range and IS but I wonder if f/4 is fast enough for shallow DOF when needed/wanted. It's size/weight is a huge advantage to me.

I've just sold my 70-200 for a 135L though. It works very well with the 1.4TC making it a 189 f/2.8 as well and it's much smaller/lighter than a 70-200... For a travel setup it's ideal. Better IQ, smaller, faster, lighter. It's better provided primes work for you and you don't need IS.

Food for thought.

but looking at your lineup you've gone with a 16-35mm over the smaller lighter 17-40mm there. That's a similar choice as what you're asking. Go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 so you keep the f/2.8 on all 3 lenses.

For traveling? Definitely the 24-105. Much lighter than the brick, and IS is handy.

24-105.
I travel now with 16-35 and 24-105. but then, I'm using a 400D.

For travel ONLY I'd rather have the 24-105 over the 24-70. But I believe the 24-70 gives better IQ than the 24-105. The only downside to the 240-70 is FL and weight.

For a traveling telezoom, pick up one of the 70-200 f/4 lenses...the IS if you can swing it (best optically of the 70-200 zooms).

For most needs, the 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 would make a great travel kit on a 1D or full frame body.

Jman13 wrote in post #4983749
For most needs, the 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 would make a great travel kit on a 1D or full frame body.

Agreed ... I've had that combo and does great. Easy to carry around and practical.

On the 5D, the 24-70, 70-200, and 1.4X telecon make a great combination. But you don't have a 5D in your lineup.

What I suggest is this - go out around your own town with the 24-85 and 70-200 and see if 24 mm is wide enough on your Mk III. If so, then the 24-70 (or 24-105 if you prefer) and 70-200 would be the right combination. If not, then you'll have to use the 16-35, 70-200, and possibly a 50/1.4 to fill out the middle (and give you a low-light lens).

Now, if you're taking the 10D instead of the 1D3, then 24 mm isn't going to cut it, and since it doesn't fit EF-S lenses, you would probably want to consider one of the APS-C f/2.8 zooms from Sigma or Tamron (17-50 or whatever) to carry along with your 70-200.

Now, I won't go into depth concerning choosing the 24-70 or 24-105. I prefer the 24-70 due to less corner light falloff wide open, less barrel distortion at the wide end, and smoother bokeh. However, the 24-105 is no slouch and it does present IS which is quite useful when lighting gets low. Both are good lenses IMHO.

Here's another thought, if bulk and weight concern you - presumably, the 10D is your lighter body. Take that, get a third-party 18-50 f/2.8 lens and Canon's 70-300 IS lens. The 70-300 is very light, not too bulky, and has good image quality. You could also tote a fast prime in the focal length of your choice if you wish to give you a fast-aperture lens.

With 16-35 and 70-200 covered at 2.8, I'd definitely recommend the 24-105L... although f/4 (one stop), you have a 3-stop IS so on static subjects it's the better bet, not to mention a whole lot more reach.

On top of that, I'd also recommend looking at some primes... 50/1.4 and 35L are both smaller lenses and very fast, or you can go my route with an 85/1.8 instead. That really gets you the light/fast combination.

Tom W wrote in post #4983927
On the 5D, the 24-70, 70-200, and 1.4X telecon make a great combination. But you don't have a 5D in your lineup.

What I suggest is this - go out around your own town with the 24-85 and 70-200 and see if 24 mm is wide enough on your Mk III. If so, then the 24-70 (or 24-105 if you prefer) and 70-200 would be the right combination. If not, then you'll have to use the 16-35, 70-200, and possibly a 50/1.4 to fill out the middle (and give you a low-light lens).

Now, if you're taking the 10D instead of the 1D3, then 24 mm isn't going to cut it, and since it doesn't fit EF-S lenses, you would probably want to consider one of the APS-C f/2.8 zooms from Sigma or Tamron (17-50 or whatever) to carry along with your 70-200.

Now, I won't go into depth concerning choosing the 24-70 or 24-105. I prefer the 24-70 due to less corner light falloff wide open, less barrel distortion at the wide end, and smoother bokeh. However, the 24-105 is no slouch and it does present IS which is quite useful when lighting gets low. Both are good lenses IMHO.

Thanks Tom - I'll try your suggesttion of walking around town with the 24-85. I'll try it out with the 10D and the 1D3. It kind of makes sense not to be redundant with lens choices, but I'm also trying to upgrade to better glass.