70-200 2.8 question

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by tdigi, May 12, 2009.

  1. I asked a similar question in the travel forum but got little response. I am leaving for a trip this weekend ( galapagos ) and I loaded my bag with my basic gear. 5D2, 40D, 24-105, 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8. I realize that the 70-200 2.8 really makes the bag feel heavy on such a long trip ( 3 flights, it will obviously be in my carry on )

    So my question is this. Should I just leave the 70-200 at home? I am not traveling to just shoot photos, I want to enjoy the trip. Or should I consider a lighter alternative on the long end. Maybe purchase a 70-300? I really don't use long lenses often so I hate to purchase a long slow lens I will probably hardly ever use. Any other thoughts would be appreciated.
  2. Photo.net is a gold mine of information, but you have to mine it. Go to the little search window in the upper right, and input "lenses galapagos" for your answer.
  3. Personally, if I was going to the Galapagos I'd bring the longest lens I could. If I didn't think I'd use it much after the trip, I'd consider renting one.
    More specifically, If I wanted to lighten my load, I'd consider taking just the 28-300 L lens and leaving the other lens at home. I've found this lens although heavy to be a great walk around, general purpose, lens. I agree with the review here:
    " The 28-300 L is the best Canon do-everything-with-one-lens lens available. "
  4. I might just get by with the 24-105. The 5D2 will allow for a lot of cropping. I'd rather do that than use the 40D for cropping purposes.
    Longer is better for wildlife, but the hike will kill you with all that gear.
    I traded in my 70-200 f/2.8 and got a 135 f/2. It's much smaller and lighter.
  5. pnp


    The age old question for me. Sometimes (1) I travel and I want a camera; (2) sometimes I backpack and want a smaller camera. (3) Sometimes I am traveling specifically to photograph. I handle each of these situations differently. For (1) I take my G10 with or without a small tripod or travel pod. For (2) an Olympus shock proof water proof p&S. For 3) two bodies, a bunch of lenses, tripod, yadiyadiya. Sometimes more, sometimes less as concerns lenses. What I think I am going to shoot and the nature of the trip etc. On this type of trip I usually find more is better as when I dont bring a particular lens I find I want it.
    Too many times when I am going on a trip you are describing where my main objective is not photography, I find that carrying lots of equipment becomes a burden for me with regards to the rest of the trip. With my g10 I still get the shot, albeit that getting the shot was not the primary purpose of my trip. Hope this helps.
  6. Ed, my thinking exactly, I plan to use the 5D2 with the 24-105 most of the time. The 40D will mostly serve as a back up camera that will probably see little use or I may put the 50mm on it for my wife to shoot with.
  7. I'd leave the 40D and the 50/1.4. I'd bring the 70-200/2.8 for sure. Do you have a comfortable backpack?
  8. Arie that's the other option I considered. As to bag, I was planning on just using my urban disguise 35. Should I consider a slingshot or some backpack instead? I am usually pretty comfortable with the UD.
  9. The Urban Disguise is a satchel-type bag with a shoulderstrap, right? That'll make the shoulders hurt for sure. How about a proper daypack with a waist belt shoulder harness. That'll make a world of difference.
  10. Yes its a shoulder bag, What would you suggest for a backpack?
  11. Well there are lots of choices. You could go for a photo backpack
    I often just use a 30L hiking daypack and I keep my lenses in soft cases. 30 liters is enough capacity for your camera gear, water bottle, sunscreen, windbreaker etc.
  12. Your backup should be a tiny P&S, like an Elph, not a 40D. 5DmkII + 40D is like you're getting ready to shoot a wedding, not going island hopping and hiking through the Galapagos.
    I vote for 5DmkII + 24-105/4L IS + 70-200/2.8L (don't know if you have the IS version or not). If you don't bring both zooms you're going to kick yourself. If you know your way around the 50/1.4 and like living dangerously, substitute that for the 24-105 and save more weight. In fact, I like that idea a lot. A tiny P&S will do a pretty good job of wide-angle if you really need it.
  13. Great advice! that is actually what I am going to do. I decided on taking the 5D2 24-105 and 70-200 (non is ) I will have an underwater P/S as a backup/water camera. I will probably take the 50 along since its so small. I am going to take a look at some backpacks to see if I like the feel better. I love the UD 35, it fits this gear perfectly but I never used it on a long hike so a backpack may be a better option.
  14. Tommy, since you mentioned you don't do much long work I was going to suggest the EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM since it's pretty inexpensive and halfway decent. You can probably pick up a used one for under US$200. Also, I have the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS with my 40D, 17-85, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/2 and P&S in a Domke F-3 backpack, which is very comfortable and inconspicuous. Have fun & take many-a-gig of storage.
  15. Just get a 200mm f2.8 - much lighter than a 70-200mm and will give you some telephoto pull if you need it (you probably will) with your 24-105. The 70-200 is a monster.
  16. My suggestion would be: if the 70-200 fits in your shoulder bag, bring it. Also bring a small backpack, not photo gear, just a regular packsack, which is a necessity anyways. The packsack's strap will help cushion your shoulder.
    Then, if your 70-200 is really starting to kill your shoulder, pull it out of the shoulder bag, roll it up in a towel/sweater, put it in the packsack, and give your shoulder.
    Or... just mount the lens and carry your camera with the neck strap, it will be a very useful lens for a lot of situations.
  17. I see Robin just gave the same answer I had in mind. If you could rent one, the 200mm 2.8 would be perfect with that 24-105. You could bring your 50mm as well.
  18. Been to the Galapagos...fantastic trip. You get close to most wildlife except for flying birds. You rarely walk for long distances at one time, but if weight is really an issue, I would take the 40D & the 50mm, and add some wide angle for the scenery...perhaps the 18-200 for both the reach and the wide. then pack the P&S for a backup. That is my basic travel package, but I also add the 10-22. When I took the Galapagos trip, I lugged the 70-200 2.8, and one of the other people took their 24-105. She did better than I. If you take that one, use it on the 40D. The 5D is a lot of weight, and if you just want travel photos, the 40D will do just fine.
  19. I used to have a 70-200 2.8 non IS and realized I had up to 168 with my 24-105 on my 40D. With that much overlap I couldn't see keeping the 70-200 so I purchased a 100-400 f4 IS instead, it's basically the same size and weight. The IS makes up for the slower lens. I agree with some of the other posts on taking the 5D and 40D, too many cameras for what you described you want to do. I would take the 5D, 24-105, and a 100-400. A G9 or G10 would be a great backup camera. Again, personal choice.
  20. Another vote for leaving the 70-200mm at home. I used to take it on trips, but I didn't use it that much so now it stays at home. I take (and love) my 200mm f/2.8L II -- small and light and noticably sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L.
  21. If you still have time, I would suggest picking up both the 70-200mm f4 IS and the 1.4x extender. The lens is excellent and significantly lighter than the 2.8 version. All you lose is one f-stop. Since the 5D2 is low noise even in the higher ISOs, that should not be an issue.
    Combined with the 24-105, you'll probably have the lenses for all your needs. I second the suggestions that the backup should be the G10, perhaps with a Lensmate-type attachment so you can use a polarizing filter.
  22. I travel a lot with couple of lenses and I recently purchased 5D II and then had a long distance travel to mountainous areas with 70-200/2.8L IS lens plus another wide angle lens. I believe 70-200/2.8 is a very useful lens, with 5D II, you really don't need another 40D body.
  23. I vote for 5DmkII with 24-105/4L IS and 40D with 70-200/2.8L IS.
    70-200/2.8L is a must have for all photographer that are in need of an all-around lens, the weight is nicely balanced with 40D. You will not regret.
  24. The original poster is not asking for equipment recommendations. He's asking which of his existing gear he should take on a trip. If I had to buy something new every time I went somewhere, I'd be broke.
  25. take all and use your 70-200 case on your waist belt(if you wear any). Or you can purchase a seperate case for belt to carry aroung, domke and lowerpro have some. I found my self in the same dilemma when I went to costa rica two years ago. I had 30d, 17-55 f2.8 is, ef 50mm f1.2l, 24mm f1.4l, 10-22, and 70-200, 580ex and tripod. I found my self asking the same questions here, about back pack which lenses. I took my tamrac super pro 17 shoulder bag and purchased tamrac explorer backpack and took all my gear. I ended up using it all. Of course, I left a couple of lenses in the hotels safe some days.
  26. 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.
    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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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!
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
  31. Abrasive much?
    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 some other person you've never met to lug around on a trip. All that matters to the original poster is that he 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.
    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.
    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.
  32. 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.
  33. No suprise you are a math guy. Not too big on a sense of humor, heh?
    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.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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 ... :)
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
  38. Whatever. I just find your "sense of humor" to be in extremely poor taste.
  39. 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.
    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).
    Still, I would definitely take the 70-200 on such a trip.
  40. 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.
    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 Yes, I am taking it.
    Again, thanks for all the responses, I enjoyed hearing your opinions.
  41. Tommy,
    I say leave the 70-200 home and pack ME in your suitcase! Please! Honestly, I can see leaving that
    beautiful lens home would cause regret once you got there. Lowepro Trekker is perfect. Have a great
  42. I tried some velocity bags and they where good but I think a backpack with a separate area for other stuff would be better.
    Any suggestions on a backpack/daypack for this set up ( 5D2, 24-105, 70-200, 50 1.4 )
  43. 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?
    Since you have the Urban Disguise, do you have the ThinkTank shoulder harness that lets you carry it like a backpack?
    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.
  44. 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?
  45. Hey Tommy-
    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.
    Have a great trip- I'm Vulcan green with envy...
  46. 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.
    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........
  47. When I travel, I have a LowePro Micro trek 200 that I keep the following gear
    • 5D MKII
    • 16-35 L F2.8 USM
    • 24-105 L F4 IS USM
    • 70-200 L F2.8 IS USM
    • 580EX
    • Gorilla Pod
    • Lens Cleaner
    • ND Filters
    • Air Blower
    YES the 70-200 is HEAVY, however it's a major asset when it comes to shooting wildlife
    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.
  48. 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!
  49. All that fits in that little bag? I have yet to find a backpack that I like.
  50. 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).
    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.
  51. After much looking around I find that backpacks that are also camera bags do neither very well. The good news is while looking around town I had my 5d2 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 packed in my UD 35 and it was really not bad at all. In fact the longer I carried it around the less I even noticed I was lugging it. So I decided to just pick up a normal backpack to go with the UD.
    On that note the UD 35 is probably the best bag I have tested out so far. Easy to get the camera in and out and it holds so much gear in such a small looking easy to carry bag. I tried the slingshots, fastpacks, and a bunch of others and the UD 35 blows them away. If anyone is considering a shoulder bag I highly recommend the Urban disguise 35.
  52. Well, if we weren't all passionate about our photography we wouldn't be here. And if we didn't feel the same way about our advice we wouldn't bother offering it either.
    I switched out my bag for Hawaii to a medium-sized shoulder bag that would still hold ALL my gear and a 10" laptop (netbook). I could take anywhere and not have to leave it unattended (even in the trunk). (My large Lowepro hiking backpack is somewhat heavy but mostly just large and has straps flopping around everywhere when I'm not wearing it. )
    Your chances of regretting NOT taking something are a lot more likely than wishing you hadn't. "Anything worth doing ...", "Go big or stay home..." My two cents are for sucking it up, (taking it all on a practice run or two) and go prepared to bring back the best pictures possible.
    And while we're dishing out advice (to someone going on that dream trip) -- "Get your butt up outta bed when the light is perfect, too. You can sleep when you get home.
    Have a great one!
  53. Hi Tommy,
    I think you wont be needing the 50mm. The 24-105 stays on the 5D2 and 40D sticks with the 70-200mm. I would lose the battery grips though. That way you will have 24mm to 320mm range...you will really need that!
    whats the point in getting the finest gear when you cant take it to the Galopagos ?
    If i had to make a choice, i would keep one camera at home (maybe the 5D2) and keep the 70-200 in the bag with 40D and 24-105mm.
  54. I'm totally with Ujwal. You have great gear that you researched long and hard before buying, spent a lot of money on and have realized it's everything you hoped it would be. You are going on a once in a lifetime trip to the Galapagos Islands - to shoot some unique images that you couldn't get anywhere else in the world - and now you are considering not even taking the aforementioned equipment?! Makes no sense at all - seriously. Take all your gear, take pictures, enjoy yourself and if your shoulder is a little sore in the evening, pop a couple of Advil...
    I'm jealous - have a wonderful trip.
  55. If I have to carry lots of gear, I just get a real backpack and haul it.
    Fast, convenient access is not an issue for me when I'm carrying lots of gear. Usually, one body with one lens is all I need quickly, and that is not hard to arrange. A real backpack can make 30 lbs easy to carry all day.
    Get a good backpack, wrap your stuff in the jackets and rain suits and stuff you will also need to carry, and take it all. Suck it up, to quote Rick (who I thought was quite funny) because if it was my trip, I would feel really bad if I had a once in a lifetime series of shots in front of me and the equipment I owned and needed was sitting in a drawer back home.
  56. Try using the Black Rapid strap for carrying you 70-200. I carried two bodies, one with the BR and the other on a shoulder strap throughout the Middle East. I took two bags of gear, a backpack and a shouler pack, and transfered daily gear to a belt system. The following picture was taken atop Masada in late June. It was hot and I poured a bottle of water over my head to cool off (I took my gear off first). You can see the BR setup and how it allows you to be hands-free. I use it everywhere.
  57. Here's the pic.
  58. I would most CERTAINLY bring my 70-200mm 2.8 with me, it would get a huge amount of use you can be sure of that..
  59. I just got back and all I can say is wow! amazing trip, and I am so glad I took along the 70-200. I think I used it about 75% of the time and I was able to get some really nice shots that I could have never gotten with a shorter lens. I found I could even use more reach and I was lucky enough to use some ones extender a few times.
    If anyone is considering Galapagos I highly recommend it. I am already thinking about the next time I go.
    Again thanks for all the great suggestions. I would have kicked myself if I left it behind. I actually wish I took the 40D as well since switching lenses was a bit annoying at times.
    Here are a few photos from the trip

Share This Page