Recommended Travel Tele-Zoom

[orly_andico]

<p>This is a segue from my other question regarding an ultra-wide travel lens (I ended up with the 16-35/4L IS).</p>

<p>Current plan is the 6D, 16-35, and 28/1.8 (which is really light and really fast, even though the FL is redundant).</p>

<p>I now want to have a somewhat longer lens for those times when I need a bit more reach. I realize that the 24-105/4L IS or 24-70/4L IS are actually "better" all-around travel lenses because they combine moderate wide angle with decent reach, however I <strong>love</strong> the 16mm focal length and 24mm is simply no substitute.</p>

<p>I do have a 70-200/2.8L non-IS but as some contributors have pointed out, it is one heavy piece of kit.</p>

<p>I want to keep costs moderate but I want to stay away from non-Canon lenses.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4L is moderately priced, of decent weight (about the same as the 24-105 and 16-35/4), I can probably get one used cheaply, but it's 100% redundant with my existing lens and doesn't have shallow-enough DOF.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is an option as well, I can live with the weight, there's a good deal of overlap with the 16-35, and from experience it doesn't knock out backgrounds that well at 105mm either.</p>

<p>The 24-70/2.8 and (old) 28-70/2.8 weigh a good bit more than the 16-35, 24-105, or 70-200/4, but a good bit less than the 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>Any other suggestions or options? for the record here's my "weight list"<br /> <br /> 70-200/2.8 1.4kg<br />70-200/4 0.7kg<br />16-35/4 0.62kg<br />28/1.8 0.31kg<br />10-22/3.5-4.5 0.39kg<br />28-70/2.8 0.88kg<br />24-105/4 0.67kg<br />tamron 28-75/2.8 0.51kg</p>

<p>There's also the Tokina 28-70/2.8 AT-X at 0.6 kg and Ken Rockwell seems to like it (whatever that is worth). It's also dirt cheap. I have the Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 (also warmly lauded by Ken Rockwell...) and.. well the raspy AF motor and lack of FTM really ruin the user experience. I have no idea about the optical quality (hardly ever used mine) but did I mention it was cheap?</p>

<p>For a portable travel tele-zoom, I can probably live with poor user experience, since I do have a good tele-zoom (that I don't want to carry around Germany).</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>This is your best bet for all around everything, size, sharpness, image stabilization, etc,</p>

<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQu2xAyk8-E</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Also consider the 24-105 STM lens, which weights 0.525kg.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>After seeing for myself the comparative corner performance of my 10-22 versus new 16-35L IS, I don't think I want to consider a consumer zoom like the 24-105 STM. I do value low weight, but not at the expense of performance.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Are you going to be shooting portraits, or traveling? For travel, I think that the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is superior to the f/2.8 version. The weight savings is huge. On a 6D, f/4 is plenty fast enough for night street scenes. and the IS allows hand holding down to really low speeds. The FL may be redundant, but once you use it, you'll leave the f/2.8 home except when you absolutely need it. It's bokeh ain't bad either:</p>

<p><a title="Loving Lavender by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3585/3781976809_1665e3b477_z.jpg" alt="Loving Lavender" width="537" height="640" /></a></p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Thanks David, I am indeed starting to come around to the conclusion that the 70-200/4L is a good choice. I'd probably go for a used, non-IS version, since bright light travel won't really require IS (and I want to keep my cash out to the $500 range, since I just splurged on the 16-35 IS).</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I too would agree that an f4 70-200 is a good choice, but the f4 w/o IS is definitely the weaker one for this purpose. Given the FL range, and the slow speed, it is a lens that benefits greatly from IS.</p>

<p>The additional weight of the IS lens pales in comparison to that of a tripod, and when travelling, you often have absolutely no control of the light, nor the opportunity to optimize your shooting. You are often (IME) forced to shoot at the limits of your equipment (or at least you want to, to capture imagery you never expected to have the opportunity to capture...), and having equipment that has built in IS is <em>far</em> more capable in those circumstances. I would hate to loose once in a lifetime shots due to camera shake that would have been possible with a different choice. Of course there is the additional cost... but at least for that, you get the IS plus superior IQ (especially at 200mm).</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Do check the reviews of the 24-105 STM before dismissing it as a 'consumer zoom'. From what I have read it is at least as good optically as the 24-105 L. It is a stop slower at the long end.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>My travel kit consists of the 17-40 f4 L (I would prefer the 16-35 f4 L but that has not happened yet), the 24-105 f4 L and the 70-300 L.<br>

Of these the 24-105 gets the most use.</p>

[orly_andico]

Hmm it does seem that the 24-105

STM is at least as good as the L,

which admittedly is one of the

lesser L's. I can get a used L

for the same price as a new STM

though.

[dcstep]

<p>I'm not sure where you get the idea that the 24-105mm STM is as good as the L. Look here, at 50mm and 105mm:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=961&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1</p>

<p>The STM isn't even close and it's got variable aperture. Both will be considerably better if you apply digital lens optimization in RAW conversion.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>David S, thanks for posting the link. It is true that the STM lens performs worse at the longer focal lengths. At 24mm and f/4 it seems the STM does better than the L. I was clearly too hasty in judging it 'at least as good' overall.</p>

[Marvin]

<p>For travel - New Tamron 16-300mm. Should cover 'bout everything.<br>

$650 and $100 rebate = $550</p>

[dcstep]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=6804364">Ed Avis</a>, said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>David S, thanks for posting the link. It is true that the STM lens performs worse at the longer focal lengths. At 24mm and f/4 it seems the STM does better than the L. I was clearly too hasty in judging it 'at least as good' overall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed and you're welcome. I use that site a lot.</p>

<p>Both will be even better after Digital Lens Optimization. Too bad no one tests with DLO enabled, because it can be pretty amazing to see. These wide to medium zoom, in particular, gain a lot.</p>

 

[orly_andico]

<p>That web site is pretty useful! didn't know one could pixel peep resolution charts with such interactivity nowadays..<br /> After some poking around, I discovered that the old 24-85mm USM is better at 85mm f/5.6 than the 24-105 STM. And at 70mm f/5.6 it's about the same as the 24-105 L (!) at least to my eye. Now that's a cheap alternative..</p>

<p>Also, as I mentioned in the original post, I already have the 16-35L IS, which is an amazing lens in my own initial testing. So no 16-xxx zooms for me.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I wish that I could easily draw a chart of my focal length usage of my 24-105mm, but I'm relatively sure that 24mm and 105mm are the most used. The stuff in the middle is all over the place, but I find myself racked all the way in or all the way out quite often.</p>

<p>You'll say, but I'll have a 70-200mm or a 70-300mm. Yeah, but the point of a walk-about is to not have to change lenses. I don't change from my 24-105mm because I need 120mm. I make that change when I need 150-200mm, or more with TCs. I'll just crop in post if I need a little tighter crop.</p>

<p>EVERY zoom has its strong and weak points. Digital lens optimization helps minimize that, but it's still worth getting the lens with the best IQ that you can afford, along with the zoom-range that fits your needs.</p>

<p> </p>

[orly_andico]

<p>For what it's worth, I ended up with a 135mm f/2 L. It's right smack in the middle of the 70-200 range.</p>

<p>I suspect it would be a bit long for general use on FF (I was looking for the 85/1.8 or 100/2 but somebody was selling the 135 for a decent price) and there's a huge gap from the long end of the 16-35 and 135. The 135 is also about the same size and weight as the 16-35.</p>

<p>But then again I always wanted this bokeh monster, so I guess I'm just doing self-justification..</p>

[mark_schafer1]

<p>Depending what you photograph, i love the 24-105L, very versatile, reasonable priced and available on the used market. I work with it quite a bit, as well as being my first choice if i'm bringing a Canon on a trip. I wouldn't worry about the weight, just what you think you'll photograph. If you feel adventurous, i suggest just bringing a wide and a shot tele, that makes you think a bit a more and choose the lens to work best with the subject, maybe even interact...much more fun and personal. I personally hate extreme wide angle, then again, i mostly photograph people.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>No doubt in my mind the 70-200 F4 IS is a good lightweight lens which works well with a 1.4 Extender. Its as perfect a lens as I could ask for with no shortcomings and IQ is so close to the F2.8 version as to make no real difference. You would probably want to sell your 70-200 F2.8 after using the F4. Bokeh is nice on full frame, 6D and much better than the 24-105 which never liked much. I sold it to get the Sigma version which is much the same IQ but better bokeh and is my most used lens for travel. If bokeh is not so important the Canon 24-105 is good for general purpose and landscapes. but like most do-it-all lenses wide angle distortion is noticeable for buildings .</p>