Recommend 70-200 lens
 

I am looking to buy a 70-200 lens for my Canon DLSR.
Needing recommendations....
Size and weight are a consideration as I will hike often and tour cities with it.
Budget <$1,800.

Do you want the best and need f/2.8? The Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS II is right on $1,799 at B&H with rebate.

Don't need f/2.8? The Canon f/4 version is the best quality choice, and a bit lighter. There's even a non-IS version for less $$$.

Looking to save money and give up a slight bit of Image Quality at the extremes? Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2.

Not the Sigma.

Hi,

I have a wide array of Canon lens, what I try and do is focus on what I will be looking to use for the trip/location. For general travel cities/nature/landscapes I would look at either my 16-35mm L F4 or 24-70mm L F2.8 paired with one or two primes mostly the 50mm 1.4 and 200mm L 2.8 mkii. If I think a bit more reach is needed then I put in the 1.4 mkiii ext. A fairly light and versatile kit. If you are into serious work then a light fibre tripod and some filters also.

Just for landscape telephoto / compressed scenes work, the 70-200mm L f4 non IS would be great value for your buck!. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._f_4l_usm.html

See this guys videos to get an example of nature, travel, landscape gear/work -
I see your profile shows based in SEA? I shall in Portland first week of July and SEA in Sept, if I can help further happy to help - drop me a pm.

Regards
T

Just for comparison, 80% or more of my landscape/nature/hiking photos are taken with my 12-40 mm f/2.8 PRO lens. For full frame equivalence, that would be approximately 24-80 mm. I also take a small, lightweight UWA and a light longer lens but really, they rarely come out of the bag. I also carry a set of extension tubes for ultra-close-ups.

Examine your photo style and match your lens mix to that style. If you take a lot of wides, pack your wider angle lenses. If you tend to shoot with a lot of reach, you might want to toss in your longest lens. Everybody is different. One size does NOT fit all.

The vast majority of folks carry way too much gear just because they have read about what other photographers use. You probably don't need all that extra weight. Those extra pounds would be better used on a good hiking-style tripod.

If it is for traveling and want to stay light going WA or UWA is far better. When I travel for work I have multiple 1Dx and a host of lenses including a 400/2.8L IS and a 70-200/2.8L IS. When I travel for fun I bring an a7r and a 28-70. Makes you be creative and gets awesome results. PLUS you aren't carrying around a bunch of stuff.

I quite rarely use my 70-200 when out shooting landscapes. I sometimes use it to flatten layers of mountains in the distance, or get close-up on some repeating patterns or shapes. But 10-22, 24-105 probably combine for 90+% of landscape work.

I actually use my 100-400 for most sports - the extra reach being more important than the wide aperture.

From a report I ran a few years back, on about 11,000 images in my Lightroom catalog - 15% ultrawide (10-22, 12-24); 52% midrange (24-105), 17% 70-200 and 15% 100-400.

I would guess that the first two are landscape and general trtavel photos, and the last two are outdoor sports and indoor concerts (band, dance, etc) where 2.8 and IS come in handy.

This sort of lens or the 24-120 would be the most versatile for someone concerned about not packing heavy

If you haven't already sprung for one of the options, you might be interested in this review on dpreview.com that compares Canon, Nikon and Tamron 70-210 f4 lenses. Granted, you don't care about the Nikon part, but the rest of it may be useful. They say the Canon lens has some advantages, they are fairly specific as to what those are, and that it will probably come down to how much money is burning a hole in your pocket.