70-200 2.8 question

<p>My thoughts exactly Peter. I appreciate all the opinions, however, I do not plan on purchasing anything new ( at least right now ) . I am going with the 24-105, 70-200 2.8 and possibly the 50 1.4 along with a underwater p/s. I think this will do just fine as I don't see me needing my 40D or my other lens which is a 100 2.8 macro.</p>

<p>As to the 200 2.8 IMO I don't see the benefit of a prime in the tele range. To me a prime at around 35 or 50 makes sense because you can easily move a few steps to frame the shot but when I need a tele I feel a zoom is more important and useful. On a side note, when I do purchase a new lens I probably going with the 35 1.4.</p>

<p>I did Hawaii in Jan with a 5D2 and a 40D. I went with my 17-40 on the 5D2 and my 70-200 2.8 IS on the 40D. I also carried a 1.4x and a 2x, (and 2-3 other lenses), but I would leave the 2x and maybe some of the other lenses home next time -- but NOT the 70-200.</p>

<p>I recently got back from a family vacation in London and Paris, and dragged all of my gear with me, which inlcluded the 70-200 2.8. Besides using it in my sister's backyard to take portraits, I only used it a couple of others times. It is a great lens but a pain to carry around all day while trying to enjoy the sights. The 17-40 f4L and 24-105 f4L IS saw more use than anyother lens I took.</p>

<p>There's no way I would leave my 70-200 at home on that trip. Even if you use it for only one photo in ten, the 'wow' factor with the combined tele and superb bokeh on the 5D will be invaluable.</p>

<p>Time somebody called bull on you my friend. The total weight of all of the equipent you mentioned including the 70-200 is about 10 pounds! Unless you are seriously handicapped you should be able to handle it. Sheesh!</p>

<p>You are going to a dream location, to have the opportunity to photograph animals that exist nowhere else, in a pristine environment and you are worried about carrying an additional 3.2 pounds? 3.2 pounds that might make the difference between a great photo and a mediocre one? And you are considering buying a 70-300 to save what? A pound and a half. </p>

<p>So my Casper Milktoast friend here is the real deal. Suck it up. I carry more weight than that to a portrait session and I am old. . You are worried about 3.3 pounds and for that you would leave one of the finest and most versitle lenses Canon makes home? If you are truely so weak that this weight matters at all I suggest you take a point and shoot.</p>

<p>I do not mean to be unkind but really. With spare batteries and all you are talking about less than 15 pounds of Camera equipment. Check this out. </p>

<p>My D2Hs (heavier than any of your cameras) with its 80-200 F2.8 lens and SB50 flash as well as a D300 with 24-70 F-2.8 And its SB-800 flash with extra battery AND 50mm F1.4 all together weigh about 13 pounds. I am looking at them on my postal scale now. I think even you could handle that. I am pushing 60 and can and do carry that rig and more all day most every day. (I am a Nikon shooter and therefor stronger I will admit.) If you think this is strenous I suggest you follow me around a rodeo for a week.</p>

<p>So stop whining and take all your goodies. You will take better pictures and have more piece of mind. If it is too much for you leave one of them in the hotel and immediately upon your return sell the 70-200 and buy a gym membership.</p>

<p>All in good fun my man. I hope you have the trip of a lifetime. Don't listen to the other posters who are so bad at math.</p>

<p>Abrasive much?</p>

<p>It's not your place--nor mine, for that matter--to judge whether or not a given set of gear is going to be uncomfortably heavy for <strong>some other person you've never met </strong> to lug around on a trip. All that matters to the original poster is that <strong>he</strong> thinks it's too heavy. And if he wants to save on the weight, then that's his prerogative. Telling him that you're 60 and you can carry 15 pounds and that he needs to suck it up or get a gym membership because YOU can do it doesn't do jack s*** to help him out. How do you know such a person doesn't have a physical impediment? How do you know what his itinerary consists of, how much and how far he's going to travel? Who cares if you're tough as nails? Nobody asked you.</p>

<p>And even if the original poster is BS'ing as you allege, you're going to serve that same attitude to everyone? You know, photographers run into the weight/bulk limitation all the time. Knowing how to pick and choose the right gear for the right circumstances is a skill everyone should learn.</p>

<p>And I absolutely guarantee you that I am quite proficient in mathematics, almost certainly far better than you. I damn well better be, considering it's my livelihood.</p>

<p>Bring the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, you won't regret it. If concerned with carry-on weight and bulkiness, try a wheeled carry-on specifically made for cameras and lenses. Think Tank, Lowe Pro, Tamrac all offer such bags. This is an opportunity of a lifetime, do it right the first time. I know it's weighty but I made that decision and brought my 5D and 70-200 f/2.8 IS to Washington D.C. from Honolulu, Hawaii and it was definitely worth it.</p>

<p>No suprise you are a math guy. Not too big on a sense of humor, heh?</p>

<p>Don't give me the physically handicapped stuff. If this were the case he would not have amassed such a fine array of heavy equipment in the first place.</p>

<p>You may be the only one who doesn't get the joke Peter. Put your feigned rage away. As I said. The man is going on a trip of a lifetime. He has some of the finest equipment available anywhere. He cares enough about photography to spend close to 10 grand on equipment. Now for this very special trip to a very special place he is considering leaving home the lens that most professionals would consider manditory? The one, as several posters mentioned, that may well be the lens he uses most. He is to go into nature to photograph animals with a mid-range zoom only? Study depth of field much?</p>

<p>If he is not going to use the 70-200 because of weight he should buy a very good p/s with a 10X IS zoom. He can put it in his pocket and it will take very nice pictures. But if I had the equipement he has and was going to the Galapagos I would take all he mentioned. And I might take my 300 f2.8 too. I might get tired. But I would get some marvelous pictures.</p>

<p>If Tommy is infirm he should tell us. And that would argue for the P/S. (Canon Powershot SX110IS 9MP Digital Camera with 10x Optical Image Stabilized Zoom would be lovely at $204.00.) As a side note I notice that he is considering leaving his spare body home. A body that weighs less than 1.5 pounds and that could save his behind if his other camera fails. </p>

<p>Tommy. Take it all. If you don't want to carry all of it eveyday leave it in the safe in your hotel. I am not trying to offend you. I am just trying to point out that you risk much to accomplish little.</p>

<p>Peter, chill. Tommy did ASK for "any other thoughts," and Rick gave his, albeit pretty direct and blunt. However, Rick did put a disclaimer in at the end by stating his comments were "all in good fun." I read the posts several times, and came to the conclusion that it reminded me of my profession (Law Enforcement..38 years) and all the ribbing that we give each other on a regular basis. If you show weakness, your eaten alive! Remember, when it comes to direct, blunt ribbing, "no shot is too cheap, and a shot not taken is a sign of weakness." By the way Tommy, take all with you, you WHIMP! You can sort it out when you get there. LMAO.</p>

<p>Tommy, I remember the excitement when you bought this lens, pretty much I think why. Have a wonderfull trip and fill us in when you get back ... :)</p>

<p>I agree with Linn and if the weight to much decide on one camera or the other. I would just get a hip type bag for one to fit the 5D with 24-105 and one for the 40 70-200. Both with lens attached. You can carry both or give one to the wife when your both walking together.</p>

<p>My monthly photo treks have taught me something about being manly. Being a hulking 6' 4" @ 230 muscular pounds makes no difference with a full camera bag on a recent 20 mile hike around a city on a hot day. I had a 5D2, a 24 TS, a 35 f/1.4, a 50 f/1.2, an 85 f/1.2, and a 135 f/2. I had one flash, a couple of batteries, a tiny tripod, and a small umbrella.</p>

<p>I was reminded of my days in boot camp. I was literally in mental motivation survival mode. It wasn't fun at all. "Keep going.. Don't stop.. You can make it.. No transportation here, just keep going.. PAIN YEAH! WOOO! GIMME SOME!" Granted, it was a shoulder bag, and not a back pack. I don't like back packs, because I can't get to my gear easy enough.</p>

<p>I can hit a 10 hour wedding with more gear than this and be fairly fresh at the end of the day. But a long walk without being able to just throw my bags in the corner hit me hard.</p>

<p>So in the end, I would take the weight of your gear very seriously if you want to enjoy yourself. A good photographer can travel light and get great results if necessary. At least one of the greatest photographers of all time only had one lens. And it wasn't a zoom.</p>

<p>If you crop that 105mm down to 8MP on the 5DII, that's equivalent to a 300mm lens. 8MP is enough for a great 8x10. Will you be making 30x40 prints of birds sitting on rocks?</p>

<p>Whatever. I just find your "sense of humor" to be in extremely poor taste.</p>

<p>The question of how much weight is "too much" has to be interpreted in the context that the person may have a lot of additional non-photo related gear that must be carried throughout the trip.</p>

<p>Rick, you could have made the same message in a polite way by removing 80% of the words in your post, and this way avoided looking like a (censored).</p>

<p>Still, I would definitely take the 70-200 on such a trip.</p>

<p>Rick, ( I do know your joking, I don't know why so many took offense. I think sarcasm does not work well in a web forum ) anyway, just because I can does not mean I want to. There is always a point where lugging the gear takes away from the actual experience. </p>

<p>Chris Jb, Your right. I still say wow when I shoot with it and I would certainly kick my self if I left it at home so <b>Yes, I am taking it. </b><br>

Again, thanks for all the responses, I enjoyed hearing your opinions. </p>

 

<p>Tommy,<br>

I say leave the 70-200 home and pack ME in your suitcase! Please! Honestly, I can see leaving that<br>

beautiful lens home would cause regret once you got there. Lowepro Trekker is perfect. Have a great<br>

trip.<br>

Carol</p>

<p>I tried some velocity bags and they where good but I think a backpack with a separate area for other stuff would be better.</p>

<p>Any suggestions on a backpack/daypack for this set up ( 5D2, 24-105, 70-200, 50 1.4 )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Regarding the bag issue, are you the type that takes a shot then puts the camera back in the bag? Or are you the type that would keep the camera out for a long time before putting it back in the bag?<br>

Since you have the Urban Disguise, do you have the ThinkTank shoulder harness that lets you carry it like a backpack?<br>

<a href="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ttp_product_ShldrHrnss.php">http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ttp_product_ShldrHrnss.php</a><br>

This is relatively inexpensive and could help eleviate wearing the bag as a shoulder bag. Keep in mind that with this harness on, it would hook to both the top handles of the bag which means accessing the main zippered pocket would not be as easy. But you could always swictch back and forth between the shoulder strap and backpack harness. For travelling through airports and such, use the backpack shoulder harness, once you're on the island and taking pictures use it as a shoulder bag. </p>

<p>Ryus, I pretty much keep the camera out. I did consider the shoulder harness, but I think a dedicated backpack will work better. I may even just take a normal backpack with my digital holster for the camera out on hikes. I can always keep an area with another lens in a case inside the backpack. Anyone else do this?</p>

<p>Hey Tommy-<br>

We have similar gear and cases- I have a 5d, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 28mm 1.8 and love my Urban Disguise 35. BUT, for longer walks/hikes/etc., the shoulder strap gets old. While it is certainly a matter of personal preference, I've never liked carrying my gear in a backpack. Too darn hard to access gear, change lenses (without laying the bp down) etc. So my solution was to give ThinkTank even more of my money for a Speed Freak (fanny/belt type pack). Even tho they don't claim it in their advertisements, I can stuff the 70-200 with inverted hood, MOUNTED on my 5d, lens down, the 24-105 next to it, and the 1.4 extender (or the 50 1.8) on the other side. I can whip out the mounted big lens in seconds, change lenses quickly, and the pack is a pretty comfortable carry. The wide belt is great, and I sometimes use the shoulder strap simultaneously to "balance" the load. This setup would not work with a 1 series body, or with a battery grip equipped 5d, tho. <br>

Have a great trip- I'm Vulcan green with envy...<br>

Robert</p>

<p>Ilkka and Peter. You two take yourselves alltogether to seriously. I recommend you go to a humerous web site and try laughing a little. Once you master the technique you will enjoy it. If you don't you can always go back to calling names and being all ernest and stuff. You can even read Kafka just to set the mood.</p>

<p>Tommy (who gets it) is free to take whatever he wants. If his first priority is to be unburdoned then will not want all of the stuff. I made a two week trip to England not so long ago and just slipped a nice P/S into my pocket and got some great pictures. Having said that. I did give him the facts about what the differences in weight really were. Not one single other poster did that. Tommy is free to do with the info what he pleases. You guys can do with it as you please too. If you would like a suggestion........</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I travel, I have a LowePro Micro trek 200 that I keep the following gear</p>

<ul>

<li>5D MKII</li>

<li>16-35 L F2.8 USM</li>

<li>24-105 L F4 IS USM</li>

<li>70-200 L F2.8 IS USM</li>

<li>580EX </li>

<li>Gorilla Pod</li>

<li>Lens Cleaner</li>

<li>ND Filters</li>

<li>Air Blower</li>

</ul>

<p>YES the 70-200 is HEAVY, however it's a major asset when it comes to shooting wildlife</p>

<p>I love the 200, it's rugged, well padded, lots of pockets. Has a top handle that I use quite a bit, but for hikes, I use the shoulder straps.</p>

 

<p>Wow! Sounds like a great trip. Take the lens - you won't regret having a 70-200mm f/2.8 with you - even if you have to sweat a little bit. Good luck!</p>

<p>All that fits in that little bag? I have yet to find a backpack that I like. </p>

<p>It doesn't sound as if you are a long lens wildlife shooter so leave it home and enjoy the trip. Nothing wrong with that. Your on vacation... you don't need to be crawling around photographing animals. I'm not much of a urban photog so on a recent trip to Chicago I left ALL my gear at home and just enjoyed myself sans camera (believe it or not).<br>

That being said, I would recommend that maybe you take the lens and leave it in the hotel safe... just in case you change your mind. I'm not sure if this is a once in a lifetime thing for you, but if it is, you can save yourself the possibility of some long-term self-loathing for coming unprepared. </p>