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

I can't imagine having any use for a 100-400 on a family vacation.

Steve

I have been to Paris a few times.  My lens of choice is the 16-35 F4 IS. I walked a few hours a day. Bringing anything else would make my camera bag heavy. In my humble opinion,  the 100-400 is not useful in Paris. That lens is good in a zoo setting.

Enjoy your trip.

No.

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.

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Is it worth it to bring a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II instead of a 70-200f/4L IS for a 9 day family vacation to Paris, Versailles and Disneyland Paris?

Obviously the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II is larger and twice the weight of my 70-200f/4L IS. What will I gain having easy access to twice the focal length in Paris?

I use a 6D and will also bring my 24-70f/2.8L II and 16-35f/4L IS. My wife will use her small Sony RX100III and and our son his Panasonic LX7. We all enjoy taking a lot of photos.

I always bring 6D + 24-70f/2.8L II as my main lens everywhere I go, always ready to shoot never in a bag. i find 24-70f/2.8L I is perfect for most family/people shots and I almost always also bring my 16-35f/4L IS and 70-200f/4L IS in a small rucksack for when I need a wider or a longer lens.

On our latest trips to Istanbul, Rome and New York my most used lens was my 24-70f/2.8L II but the 16-35f/4L IS has been invaluable, especially useful indoors in museums and large churches.

On these trips my second most used lens was as always my beloved 70-200f/4L IS but I sometimes wished I had more reach than 200mm, especially in Istanbul and even more so from the cruise ship. Will I miss not having more reach than 200mm in Paris?

Has anyone here used a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS I or II in Paris?

I can't imagine a 100-400 would be worth lugging around on a travel vacation trip to Paris France.  On a wildlife tour to Africa - Costa Rica sure but to Paris and Disney ???

I like to travel light on travel vacations to cities and Disney

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I thought of one more reason against taking a 100-400. If you use the Paris Metro, a 100-400 would make it obvious that you are a tourist. This would attract the attention of thieves.

In Paris, it would be best to walk around with one camera body and lens, along with a small camera bag.

Pietro Marchesi wrote:

Is it worth it to bring a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II instead of a 70-200f/4L IS for a 9 day family vacation to Paris, Versailles and Disneyland Paris?

Obviously the 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS II is larger and twice the weight of my 70-200f/4L IS. What will I gain having easy access to twice the focal length in Paris?

I use a 6D and will also bring my 24-70f/2.8L II and 16-35f/4L IS. My wife will use her small Sony RX100III and and our son his Panasonic LX7. We all enjoy taking a lot of photos.

I always bring 6D + 24-70f/2.8L II as my main lens everywhere I go, always ready to shoot never in a bag. i find 24-70f/2.8L I is perfect for most family/people shots and I almost always also bring my 16-35f/4L IS and 70-200f/4L IS in a small rucksack for when I need a wider or a longer lens.

On our latest trips to Istanbul, Rome and New York my most used lens was my 24-70f/2.8L II but the 16-35f/4L IS has been invaluable, especially useful indoors in museums and large churches.

On these trips my second most used lens was as always my beloved 70-200f/4L IS but I sometimes wished I had more reach than 200mm, especially in Istanbul and even more so from the cruise ship. Will I miss not having more reach than 200mm in Paris?

Has anyone here used a 100-400f/4.5-5.6L IS I or II in Paris?

i traveled and worked  overseas for 5 years and had my 17-40 f4.0/70-200 f/40 IS on a aps-c camera! this setup worked beautifully for me! for city visit, your 24-70 f2.8 II would be used the most, in my experience!

since you are using a 6D FF camera you may spend most of your time in the city, i think your 24-70 will be enough but i'd take my 70-200 as well. but 100-400 L will be too much in weight and reach (more than enough), so i'd leave that behind. YMMD.

ali20 wrote:

I thought of one more reason against taking a 100-400. If you use the Paris Metro, a 100-400 would make it obvious that you are a tourist. This would attract the attention of thieves.

In Paris, it would be best to walk around with one camera body and lens, along with a small camera bag.

Lest folks reading this get the impression tourists are regularly preyed upon by thieves on the street and Metro in Paris: they are not.

dboreham wrote:

ali20 wrote:

I thought of one more reason against taking a 100-400. If you use the Paris Metro, a 100-400 would make it obvious that you are a tourist. This would attract the attention of thieves.

In Paris, it would be best to walk around with one camera body and lens, along with a small camera bag.

Lest folks reading this get the impression tourists are regularly preyed upon by thieves on the street and Metro in Paris: they are not.

Not much but one needs to be careful. I have been harassed twice in Paris because of my camera. Despite this, I have been there many times, and will go again, with my gear.

J A C S wrote:

dboreham wrote:

ali20 wrote:

I thought of one more reason against taking a 100-400. If you use the Paris Metro, a 100-400 would make it obvious that you are a tourist. This would attract the attention of thieves.

In Paris, it would be best to walk around with one camera body and lens, along with a small camera bag.

Lest folks reading this get the impression tourists are regularly preyed upon by thieves on the street and Metro in Paris: they are not.

Not much but one needs to be careful. I have been harassed twice in Paris because of my camera. Despite this, I have been there many times, and will go again, with my gear.

Paris is very safe. I have been there many times. My friend's wallet was stolen in the Paris Metro. Although his wallet was in his rear pocket. One needs to be careful. Having said this, I love to go back to Paris any time. It is a lovely city.

Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

dboreham wrote:

Lest folks reading this get the impression tourists are regularly preyed upon by thieves on the street and Metro in Paris: they are not.

Really? After having a bag of really nice gear stolen in broad daylight in Rome last September, we came home and did some research and Paris seems to be right alongside Rome and other major European cities in which tourists are particularly targeted for theft.

Tourists are targeted everywhere for theft because they often carry more valuables and are less clueful about securing them. However, I will say that I'd put Rome in a completely different category than Paris regarding the danger of street crime. Paris is about as dangerous as Denver IMHO.

dboreham wrote:

Paris is about as dangerous as Denver IMHO.

In a very different way. US tourists are often unprepared for the type of the crime abroad.