Third lens for travel

I'm looking to buy a third (and almost certainly final) lens to add to

my 24/2.8 and 50/1.4, for travelling (backpacking and hiking) almost

anywhere (Scotland/Kenya/Europe/Uganda/London/etc... i.e.

cities/rainforests/deserts/mountains/etc.) I guess quite a few people

use a 3-lens combination for travel, and was wondering

 

- what people like/don't like about their longer lens?

- and which one you use?

 

(I used to have at 28-135IS and 75-300IS but they were stolen. The

75-300IS wasn't great anyway).

 

I don't have any specific interest in terms of subject matter - I'll

take landscapes, cityscapes, portraits, if there's a nice flower or

insect then that, buildings, anything really.

 

So, the lenses I've been considering are 100/2, 100/2.8 macro and

70-200/4L.

 

Also, if anyone can give me some input on how good the non-macro

lenses are at shooting flowers - or just random small things that

catch my eye when travelling - that'd be helpful. NB. macro isn't my

main interest at all - it would just be nice to have the option.

 

Thanks!

I use a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 105mm f2.8 macro for 90% of

my shooting, including travel. I think it's a wonderful

combination. It's rare that I want something longer (I

have a 200mm f4, but it doesn't see much use). 105mm

is a nice focal length for portraits and macro, but it's

still short enough, small enough, fast enough, and light

enough for easy handheld shooting under almost all

circumstances. And the macro capability is very nice,

both for "serious" macros and for those various occasions

when you just want to get a little bit closer than a normal lens

will allow.

I've used all three lenses that you are considering. They are all first-rate, optically.

<p>

The 100/2 is the lightest, smallest, and fastest of the three lenses. However, I find its macro-capability to be woeful. I would recommend an extension tube or close-up lens for the occasional macro shot.

<p>

If you intend to do a lot of macro shots, the 100/2.8 Macro is the most convenient (obviously). I found this lens to be the sharpest of the three at large apertures.

<p>

The 70-200/4L is the most convenient to use when the light levels are good. Its macro-capability is reasonable. Of the three lenses, this is the only one that can take Canon teleconverters, and this might be a consideration for you. It is also the most unwieldy of the three, and I recommend the use of the tripod collar (sold separately). It is also the only one that doesn't use the 58mm filters that your current lenses use.

<p>

For your specific interests, I think the 70-200/4L is the best compromise, as long as you can live with the (relatively) small aperture, and its (relatively) large size. If you can't, I'd recommend a 100/2 + extension tube/close-up lens.

The thing to remember with a hiking, backpacking, all around travel kit is weight, weight, weight!! The more you carry, the more you will regret it or start leaving things behind.You seem to be happy with a 24 + 50 combo (and I beleive a good combo...some might change the 50 for a 35 but the 50 is your "speed" lens) so I would add a medium fast tele in the 85-100-105 macro range. For 95% of your shots, you wont need anything longer and I believe a 70-200 is just to big an heavy for a TRAVEL kit where photography is not the primary reason of the trip (I have a 80-200 2.8AFS and use it for assignment work, but NOT when I travel).

"<i>...I believe a 70-200 is just to big an heavy for a TRAVEL kit...</i>"

<p>

I'd agree that a 70-200/2.8 would probably be too cumbersome for general photos when traveling. However, the 70-200/4 is about half the weight (~700g), and should be fine.

I travel with a 24/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/2.8. The 135 is still a compact lens but I appreciate the longer reach which is noticeably more than the 100.

You could consider the 90mm Tamron macro which has a very good reputation. That would let you pick out details and do close-ups of flowers.

Jonathan, I'd vote for the macro. You only lose one stop & gain the world of close ups. It's probably sharper at f2.8 than the 100mm f2.0 to boot. Great for portraits also. It's one of the three I choose if I'm travelling light. ( 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 100mm f4 macro.) Best, LM.