Bring a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II or a 70-200f/4L IS to Paris?

dboreham wrote:

I was going to say "definitely no" but after checking my images from a recent Paris trip where I used my M5 with 55-200, I did find a few shots where I'd gone all the way to 200mm (323mm FF equiv). However, there's no way I'd want to lug my 100-400 around Paris.

Situations where I used longer focal length:

Pictures of gargoyles high up on churches. Long distance shots of Sacre Coeur taken from the top of the Eifel Tower. Shots of my kids sailing the boats on the pond at the Luxembourg Gardens.

Agreed.  But it depends too, if you will have time to yourself to explore with your camera. it would be well worth having the longest lens possible.

If you will be otherwise occupied with your family, maybe the extra gear will be more a hinderance than anything.

In my travels, a longer less came in handy and I captured shots not otherwise possible.  Now mind you, my gear was less sophisticated that I own now, a 20D with a 75-300 4-5.6 with a 1.6x extender  and Monfrotto tripod.

On the Adriatic coast in Italy, I was able to capture details on bells in bell towers which can be quite elaborate. faces and symbols that only a long lens can find. I also captured som amazing shots to a small raptor pair flying in and out of their nest located in an ancient stone wall with lizard and insect prey in their beaks to feed their young. In Tuscany, there were some very colorful birds along a stream that would not have been captured without the zoom.

In Budapest I captured wonderful architectural features on builds, like gargoyles, starry imbedded high up in buildings. Same in Paris.  Notre Dame cathedral alone can occupy a photographer with a long lens taking interesting shots both inside and out.

As a compromise, you might think about bringing the 70-200 4L with a 1.6x or 2x extender. A little less bulk but still a big reach.