South America, 5D Mark II, but what lenses?

[kiemurat]

<p>The plan is to to backpacking to South America and while traveling shoot everything from landscapes to people. No hurry and no specific plans.<br>

I'm planning to renew all my camera gear and to buy the Canon 5D mark II and some lenses. I would appreciate your opinion on my possible lens choices and other photo gear as well.<br>

- Canon 5d Mark II<br>

- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM<br>

- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM<br>

- Tripod (nessecary?)<br>

- Other gear, essential while traveling?<br>

My reason for the L series is the quality and then the weather sealing. The F 70-200mm f/2.8 would be nice as well but the price and weight are putting me off a bit.<br>

What do you think about this setup?<br>

Thank you!</p>

[gregf]

<p>A tripod is always necessary; as for the lenses, you are good (perhaps the 17-40 for some wide angle coverage).<br>

You should also take several CF cards, a CPL, ND filter, extra batteries, and a remote release for the tripod.</p>

[zml]

<p>Consider the frequency of four-letter words uttred because all you have is the 24-70 lens vs. the frequency of swearing because you have to schlepp around the 70-200, tripod/head/mounting plates, remotes, etc. If your trip is photography only (or mostly) by all means take all this stuff with you but consider limiting your equipment for practical purposes (weight, security, etc.) In my experience the 24-70 (or 24-105) + a fast lens (50/1.4 or 35/1.4) + a small tabletop tripod is all I need on most non-assignment trips. YMMV of course.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I don't shoot much between 40 and 70mm so I'd personally prefer the 17-40/4 L, 50/1.4, and 70-200/4 L IS. If I had the extra budget I might get the 16-35/2.8 L over the 17-40. I would also be tempted to get the 70-200/2.8 L (non-IS) at the same price as the f4 IS version. Don't forget lots of memory or a laptop!</p>

<p> </p>

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>24-70 + 70-200 sounds fine to me. I would take a table top mini tripod. But if you want to enjoy your time, it is better to keep it simple. I once travelled with 3 camera bodies, 2 of them were 35mm + a Hasselblad, 12 lenses, hand held meter + a medium size tripod. Even though most of the trip was a car trip, it was very difficutl to concentrate on my photography. Years later I did a month long trip to Europe with only my Leica M6 and a small 35 1.4 lens. + a table top tripod. It was a daring decision not to take any longer or wider leses, but the sole idea of simplicity was an interesting challenge. I have never regreted that decision, I was the happiest shooting with the simplest equipment. Did I miss something? maybe. Did I learn something? yes, I was able to concentrate a lot more on my images. In the end it was an interesting experiment.<br>

As for South America.... hmm.... The 24-70 is big and even looks huge with the hood on. The 70-200 f4 even though is small and light weight for such a lens, it is a white lens that will attract attention a mile away. Safety issues are to be considered when travelling in South America. If you want to attract less attention, the 24-105 will be a better choice, even skipping the lens hood most of the time. And don't forget your power adapter plugs. Adding a fast lens like a 50 f1.8 or a 35 f2 will add not much weight or space, and will give you a fast lens when required. </p>

<p> </p>

[kiemurat]

<p>It's always a battle between comfort(=weight) and quality. It's just that I'm doing this trip to see different places without any hurry. I'm not (yet) a pro on photography so during the trip I'd like to improve my skills and for that different kind of lenses are probably required.</p>

<p>Security is always an issue but I plan to take an insurance on all the gear. This way I don't want to bring robbery or damages to this equation. I'm quite young, fit and stupid so weight doesn't bother me that much. It's the damn laptop I'd like to get rid off but if I'm on the road one or two years, I need to check the photos from time to time...</p>

<p>Secondary plan is to write some articles to magazines or newspapers but that is not the main reason for the trip. It would just allow me to travel a bit longer :)</p>

[kiemurat]

<p>Marco: The white color of 70-200 is a good point. They really should have regular version of it for people who don't want to be the center of attention.</p>

<p>And John, yes a wider lens 17-40 might be a good idea. I really have to consider these different possibilities. There is never a one right answer to these questions... That sucks and is the beauty of the whole thing at the same time.</p>

[james_glucksman1]

<p>South America is a big place; how are you getting around? Where are you going? I went to Peru a few years ago with a 20D, no tripod, a 70-200 f/4, the EF-S 10/22 and a 24-105 f/4. I found this to be an adequate set up, though in hindsight I would have liked to have had a tripod. If you are going to be doing any wildlife shooting, then the 70-200 on a FF body is not really that long; you might want an extender, too, in which case you would probably be better off with the f/2.8 70-200. And polarizers are a must, as is something to download your photos onto; the 5DMkII makes VERY big files.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I just don't understand. The 5DmkII comes as a kit with a bargain price on the 24-105 IS L lens. Why wouldn't this superb lens be the one you would build your assemblage around?</p>

<p>Otherwise, a couple of fast primes for interiors would cover where the zoom doesn't, such as the 35mm f/2 lens, and maybe an 85mm f/1.8. 24mm is not too bad on the wide end, so all you need to do is get an easy-to-carry lens in the telephoto zoom range. The L ones are mostly pretty heavy though. I'd sure want IS on the longer lenses too. I'd personally want a 16- or 17-mm zoom, but mass is adding up quickly here.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Why bother with the L lenses when you're shooting a 5D2? I'd strongly suggest a 1D3 if you're interested in the weather (humidity) sealing. A chain is as strong as its weakest link, and in your set-up, the weakest link is the 5D2.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>You have made two good choices for the lenses. I only have two lens suggestions:</p>

<ul>

<li>For landscapes the 17-40mm is a very good choice.</li>

<li>For wildlife a good telephoto such as the 100-400mm. But I don't believe that lens is weather sealed. </li>

</ul>

<p>Other none lens suggestions are:</p>

<ul>

<li>A set of extension tubes for close up work, or you could get a dedicated macro lens. </li>

<li>Maybe the 5D battery grip so you could use AA batteries. AA batteries are easier to get when you are traveling.</li>

<li>A polarizer with adaptor rings so your one filter can be used on one any lens you have with you.</li>

<li>ND filter (plus adaptor rings) for those times when you want to use a slow shutter speed in bright light.</li>

<li>A flash.</li>

<li>A tripod.</li>

</ul>

<p>It get down to how much you want to carry and your style of photography. I think the biggest gain for the money with minimal weight gain is the 17-40mm plus the two filters and extension tubes.<br>

I am much like John Crowe. I use the 17-40mm and 70-200F4 so much that often thats all I bring. Additionally I am probably going to buy a 50mm although I haven't yet decided between the 1.8, 1.4, or the sigma 1.4. I have the 100-400 for the occational bird, and the 24-105, which is getting very little use since I purchased the 17-40. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Christopher, I'll grant that you have a lot of photographic experience (what, with all your reference to Ansel Adams, how could you not be an expert?), but I'm truly mystified by your claim to not "bother with the L lenses when you're shooting a 5D2." </p>

<p>Believe it or not, there are some people on this forum who seek advice, not condescension from "experts" such as youself.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Mark P, I didn't mean to be condescending nor assert myself as an expert.<br /> <br /> I've spent a lot of time in SA (Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Venzuela, Honduras) while doing extended trekking/camping. What I've experienced is that the high humidity coupled with handling that puts stress upon lens mounts results in very good conditions for condensate which affect not only image quality, but electrical connections, shutter operation, etc. The lens is only part of this condensate condition. I have experience with the 5D which not only collected prodigious amounts of condensate, but is also a very "dirty" camera. <br /> <br /> The 5D series is much more suited to moderate photo outings with nights at the local tourist hotel than it is for backpacking/trekking in tropical rainforest conditions - no matter what lens you attach to it. You simply can't take a 5D2, attach a weather sealed lens and expect it to be a weather sealed body/lens combination.</p>

[kiemurat]

<p>Of course the 1D3 would be great choice but I'm unemployed packbacker who wants to use money for traveling as well. So for this trip that camera is out of my budget, or otherwise all my savings would go to camera equipment and I would end up shooting my own backyard.</p>

<p>I just have to hope the 5dII's weather sealing is worth something. To minimize the risk of humidity and dust etc. I hope the L series would give me at least some protection, even though the body might be the weakest link.</p>

[sbp]

<p>The kit you describe is very close to what I carry on all travel. I use 1D3, but lenses are the same, with the addition of the 24 f/1.4L. A small tripod can be handy, and the best I've found for travel is a tabletop model made by Leica, used with a Manfrotto 484 head. Extra batteries, CF and SD cards, lens cleaning stuff, and black electrical tape. IMHO, the 70-200 f/4L is an easy travel lens - it is 1/2 the weight and considerably smaller than the f/2.8 version, and produces stunning IQ. Want to camouflage the white barrel? Get a pair of black ladies stockings. Cut a 12" section out of one leg, and slip this over the lens. The material is sheer enough that you can see the switches and zoom ring, flexible enough not to restrict zooming or focusing, and from more than about three feet away, looks completely black. You might look like a goober, but this effectively masks the white barrel.</p>