<p>At the risk of stating the obvious, the 60mm macro would be quite useful shooting flora on the way up and down. That said, I do not carry a dedicated macro when trying to minimize the weight of my pack. Instead, I use my old trusty Canon 500 diopter which conveniently is the same 77 thread size as the 70-200. The diopter on the 70-200 can do wonderful things for macro with very little weight and bulk; a fraction the size and weight of the 60. If you do not expect to shoot macro, what is the point of dragging along that lens? You have other choices that will cover you at 60mm. I understand how sharp and how fast the 60 is, but if you can't manage the weight, decide where to compromise. If I were not expecting to shoot flowers along the way, a macro lens would never make it into my packl.</p>
<p>I personally would never travel without the 70-200. Yes it is big and heavy, but for my purposes, I find that the 200mm reach is often very desirable in landscape shots - I use mine often to isolate specific features in a landscape. I recently picked up a 24-120 (the new one) to take the place of the 28-70 and 70-200 combo since as I get older, it becomes more and more difficult to hump the two 2.8 lenses. I do miss the extra 80mm on the long end, but everything is a compromise.<br>
One other suggestion. While I appreciate your desire to bring the tripod, you might want to consider a monopod instead. Will help with your support problem and makes a great walking stick at a substantial weight savings. Better yet, when climbing down into the canyon, another alternative would be to grab a table top set of legs and a small ballhead (both of which can be carried in your belt) and just prop it against any nearby convenient rock, ledge, tree or the ground. Saves a lot of weight.</p>
<p>Good luck with your quest. Be sure to have extra batts and cards. All the gear on your back becomes paperweights if your batts die or your cards fill.</p>