100-400mm for Travel Photography

mikebinok wrote:

I love the 100-400 for wildlife, and just replaced my battered fifteen year old copy with the Mark II version, but I don’t think of it for regular travel, I think of it as a wildlife and nature lens. When I visited Vietnam and Cambodia five years ago, I didn’t take it, but I did use a digicam with 300mm or so of reach for photos of other vessels and details of the shore while on a Mekong River cruise. The 100-400 on a DSLR would be even better of course. But it would be a bulky and heavy burden to carry around in SE Asia, and even during the travel to get there.

It is differences of opinion that make photography interesting of course, but if I wanted more telephoto for travel than a standard zoom gives, I’d probably buy a 70-200/4 with IS.

Mike and I are alike.

I travel a lot and heavy.

2 Gripped 5D Mark III's along with a 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and a 70-200.......... I used to think about taking my 100-400 L IS Version 1 as well.....

My 70-200 of choice was the f/2.8 L IS Mark II, must have f/2.8 right?....so I thought. Until you come home beat up in the shoulder and back while foolishly lugging around in a shoulder bag. Since f/4 L IS was good enough for my 16-70 range, why not swap out the wonderful but big heavy, bulky f/2.8 L IS Mark II for its equally impressive, smaller, lighter f/4 L IS Little Brother. Having IS is crucial for me when traveling to old European cities where tripods are not allowed in the Basilica's. Just swapping out the 70-200's on my last three trips allowed me to return home pain free, and not really missing f/2.8.

With a possible trip to South Africa this summer for a safari, I would certainly bring my 100-400 L IS Version, if not upgrade to the Mark II.

if you feel 200 is too short, throwing a 1.4 EX III in the bag is always an option. Another option is the 70-300 L IS. I had the opportunity to use this lens on a bridge in Philadelphia mid span. The weight and bulk was more like my 70-200 f/4 L IS I was using than compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, with more reach. I was very impressed with it. So much so I may add one one day.

I find that if people think a lens is heavy first off, I tell them to look at smaller lighter options that they will carry and use.