are f/2.8 lens really too heavy to travel with?

<p>When I first got into photography I spent a year traveling around the world (20 countries, mainly third world) with my canon 40D, 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4, and 70-200 f/4 IS. At the time, the f/4 lenses were all that I could afford. Now that I have a couple of 6Ds and can afford some 2.8 L glass, I was curious what people thought about changing up my old travel kit with two Canon 6Ds and a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Lots of people say that the 2.8 glass is simply too heavy and that the f/4 glass is ideal. What do people think, is the extra couple of pounds too much to carry? I am a 35 year old man and in decent enough shape. My upcoming 2 week trip to Indonesia will likely be via public buses and an occasional plane. Likely will be doing quite a bit of hiking (no beach lounging) and possibly a homestay or two...<br>

I know there is a line of people that prefer to carry a few prime lenses instead of zoom lenses, while I can appreciate that line of thought and discussion, I am hoping to keep the thread to a discussion of f/4 vs f/2.8 glass for travel purposes based on the tradeoff of IQ and weight (assume cost is not a consideration). Thanks in advance for your input on this specific question. </p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Depends what you want to take and how. Have you felt restricted by the f4 L lens array? - which is exactly the same as I use and I spend zero time worrying about I should be spending or carrying more. But then that must be because the lenses I have fit my purpose quite well, and in particular, I use a tripod much of the time I'm not in an urban situation anyway. Your objectives and methods might be rather different.</p>

Its your back, neck, and shoulder, not mine, so I think you need to judge if a few additional pounds will be be too much. Do you find that you are in need of an extra f stop or that a 1 stop wider aperture would improve the look of your images? Will a f2.8 aperture on the standard zoom compensate for the loss of IS that you have with the f4 standard zoom? The increase in size and weight is more significant for the 70-200, so perhaps you should rent a 70-200 F2.8IS for a week and add it to your kit and then decide if you can tolerate its size and weight. From a pure IQ prospective, I don't think there would be much difference between the current generation of F4L options vs F2.8L options.

<p>With your experience I think you'd have a strong sense for the 'need' (vs. 'want') of 2.8 so I'd imagine 4 has served you well. I have 2.8 and 4 zooms and <em>much</em> prefer the latter for travel re: size/weight. If I noticed a pronounced IQ degradation, then I wouldn't have purchased the 4's in the first place. </p>

No they aren't too heavy or too bulky unless you are very, very frail.

<p>This question cannot be answered by anyone else. Personally, I have no problem with the 24-70 f2.8, but I do think the size of the 70-200mm f2.8 a bit much as it is just so aggressively and noticeably larger. Also as it is bigger it is harder to fit nicely in a bag. For general travel I much prefer the f4 version. I also don't find that outside of special uses (sports, concert photography) the loss of a stop very significant. You can get plenty of bokeh at 200mm and f4, for example. I do, however, prefer a faster 24-70mm than f4 as I like the greater background blurring capability for this range. Another, probably superior, choice is to stick with the f4s and just get a small 35/2 or 50/1.8 or f1.4 to use when the light really gets low, or you need lots of bokeh.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tossing a coin can't answer better or worse.<br>

I suggest you do your googleing & math and figure out what the change means exactly and what you might have to sacrifice luggage wise for the f2.8s<br>

I believe weight can be countered with determination... Go for the 24-70 1st and toss the 70-200 in later, if your current kit is still going strong.<br>

Personally I'd go with kit zooms on a pair of Fujis and an M for primes, since I can't afford 3 Ms and with 3 bodies I am already luggage wise pressed by Ryan Air.</p>

 

<p>For the price of that lens, you can get a current body with a sensor that's four generations newer, with much, much better high-ISO performance.</p>

<p>no they are not</p>

<p>Not if you are a photographer. They in most cases, let you leave the tripod at home. </p>

 

<p>There is no tradeoff in IQ really between these choices, although there is usually some quibbling over the 24-105 and 24-70. Certainly the 70-200mm Ls have, for all practical purposes, the same quality at the same apertures.</p>

<p>Given the choice I would probably stick with the f4 lenses and not go for the f2.8 line-up. They seem to do everything I need including de-focusing the background. But that is a personal choice which you will have to make based on your own photographic needs. As can be seen from the above answers both the F4 and F2.8 lines (and a mixture of the two) have happy users.</p>

<p>"Not if you are a photographer. They in most cases, let you leave the tripod at home."<br>

I can think of many reasons for and against the 2.8 glass, but leaving the tripod home is most assuredly not one of them. An extra stop or so of light is going to allow you leave home without a tripod? What do you do without your tripod when you want some depth of field in your shot? How does 2.8 help there? For that matter, how does f/4 help there? I am always puzzled by those who tout a fast lens as an alternative to a tripod.<br>

I can certainly understand the appeal in traveling without lugging a tripod and head, but these days, the way to do that is to have a modern DSLR that allows one to crank up the ISO. I am a Nikon shooter and my bodies allow me to shoot with<strong> no</strong> <strong>worries at all</strong> up 6400 and, if necessary I won't hesitate to go higher. Canon too has sensors that provide excellent quality at hi-iso. </p>

<p>In my experience, a fast lens is useful to provide the ability to <strong>restrict</strong> DOF or to allow for faster focus in AF or easier focus in MF, especially in low light. Those are pretty good reasons to take along the 2.8. If your back can handle it.</p>

 

<p>I too like to travel, and have been taking Nikon D7100, Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 & 80-400mm AFS. This stuff is really just too heavy and bulky. Weight is a fun killer! While I did end up using f2.8 on my mid range zoom, I 'm now looking closely at buying an Olympus OMD and two or three fast lenses for travel, plus lightweight CF tripod. The way I see it, the Olympus M43 lenses are superb and much smaller. And, f2.8 is f2.8. On my trip last month to British Columbia I ended up carrying my good old Leica IIIc with three small lenses much of the time.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>They aren't too heavy if you have a reason for them, but for me, anyhow, I wouldn't bother to upgrade, necessarily. I did exactly what you are talking about with the 16-35/f2.8 which I took in place of the 17-40. My reasoning was that the extra speed would be better for star/milky way photography, but it turns out that the 16-35 has horrible coma wide open. I ended up selling the lens, though I liked it, because the 17-40 is also excellent, and a heck of a lot lighter.<br>

Likewise, how often are you shooting at f4 on the 70-200 now? That's a decision I weighed too, only I have the super-light, & cheaper non-IS f4L. I determined that the only think (ignoring IS) that the 2.8 would get me was more flexibility with extenders, but that gives you a lens at 400/5.6 if you use the 2x extender. I decided to get the 400/5.6 prime instead, which is a GORGEOUS lens, especially for the weight. If I'm shooting wildlife it comes along, but if I'm sticking to wide-angle or medium tele, my bag is super light. I just did a strenuous 2 week trek with a 6D, 17-40 & 70-200 on my back, and I still had a little room left over for snacks. :-) <br>

Anyway, good luck deciding, it's a fun problem to have!<br>

<a href="http://www.annedirkse.com">Anne Dirkse</a></p>

<p>The only lens that I have used in the past 6 years is the 16-35 f/2.8 on an APS-C camera. I think that carrying multiple lenses isn't the best option for me. I do street photography, so a tripod is rarely an option for me. <br /> I recently purchased an Olympus PEN but I haven't used it much because I'm waiting to get a good deal on the 17mm f/1.8. I hear that it's a great micro 4/3 lens.</p>

Of course zooms are heavier than primes. Instead of lurking around with my relatively small EF 24-105/4 I almost

exclusively use a Voigtländer 40/2 Ultron for my 5Dmk2 these days. It is soooo tiny but quality is superb. Sometimes I miss the zoom but actually not very often.

<p>to the OP: I am going to find out. I plan to carry my (Nikkor) 14-24, 24-70 and said "70-200", all f/2.8 lenses, along with accessories galore.</p>