100-400mm for Travel Photography

ButterySAM777 wrote:

Thanks for your answer.

I'm actually living in Ho Chi Minh, for 3 months, work internship, so Im planning to travel from Vietnam to Myanmar or Cambodia in the next months.
I've visited Nam Cat Tien. Hiking to the Aligators lake it was like 2h one way walking. My arm was so tired carrying the 24-70mm 2.8, with the cam weighted 1.5kg (3.3pounds). I don't want to imagine such hikes, all day most than double with the 100-400mm for example.

More than nature, I am into people and compressed landscapes, I want to learn using a telephoto lens for more than sports and animals.

Btw, be careful with the leeches.

What a great opportunity !

I think a 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x would be a great combo for you on this trip. Very light and portable, plus great flexibility.

Rose

I use the 100-400 quite a bit when I am in the car driving between places. You can see some of the shots especially in my India  and Vietnam photos.

India

Vietnam

ButterySAM777 wrote:

Thanks for your answer.

I'm actually living in Ho Chi Minh, for 3 months, work internship, so Im planning to travel from Vietnam to Myanmar or Cambodia in the next months.
I've visited Nam Cat Tien. Hiking to the Aligators lake it was like 2h one way walking. My arm was so tired carrying the 24-70mm 2.8, with the cam weighted 1.5kg (3.3pounds). I don't want to imagine such hikes, all day most than double with the 100-400mm for example.

More than nature, I am into people and compressed landscapes, I want to learn using a telephoto lens for more than sports and animals.

Btw, be careful with the leeches.

What a vibrant city.  Great food and coffee.

Did you hand carry your camera during that hike?  I'm not too proud to say I would've used a backpack.

If you hike in mountains, you'd better carry light with you. In cities, temples, I think you can carry the 100-400 together with other lenses.

Blokfluitist wrote:

ButterySAM777 wrote:

Thanks for your answer.

I'm actually living in Ho Chi Minh, for 3 months, work internship, so Im planning to travel from Vietnam to Myanmar or Cambodia in the next months.
I've visited Nam Cat Tien. Hiking to the Aligators lake it was like 2h one way walking. My arm was so tired carrying the 24-70mm 2.8, with the cam weighted 1.5kg (3.3pounds). I don't want to imagine such hikes, all day most than double with the 100-400mm for example.

More than nature, I am into people and compressed landscapes, I want to learn using a telephoto lens for more than sports and animals.

Btw, be careful with the leeches.

What a great opportunity !

I think a 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x would be a great combo for you on this trip. Very light and portable, plus great flexibility.

Rose

@ButterySAM777: I agree that hand-carrying a reasonably large lens and camera for a long way does get wearying. At Cat Tien N.P. I'll be carrying my gear in my Lowepro backpack, other than the monopod. The all-up weight is about 7kg so that is easy to carry in the backpack. Thanks for the tip about the leeches, I've just watched a video on how to remove them. Lots of blood....!

I lived in Vietnam (HCMC) for 3 years in the mid-1990's, working for a NZ company. Since then my Vietnamese wife and I have returned every 2 - 3 years and travelled to many places there, Phu Quoc Island off the southern tip and Halong Bay in the far north being my favourite places but closely followed by many others. Like you, I am more interested in landscapes and people photography however colourful or unusual birds, animals, insects and plants/flowers also appeal.

@Blokfluitist: I have the 70-200 f4.0 IS lens and 1.4x TC as you may have seen from my gear list. They will definitely be coming along and I am sure will get a lot of use. I'm lucky to have a decent range of lenses so the problem now becomes whether I should leave any at home! Decisions, decisions....

Most of my photography is travel. I chose the 70-300L as it's got enough reach for most situations and it's reasonably small and light. The extra bulk and weight of the 100-400 isn't worth it for me, even though it's supposed to be an excellent lens (I presume you're talking about the II?)

Thanks for your answer! Very rewarding.

I take my photography backpack and gear when I go day-trip around my hometown.

Now I have to change this way of travelling, because I don't travel alone, and I have to take a bottle of water, some food, raincoat... among others.

My decision was (by now) take a mountaineering backpack, small size (weekend size), put all my daily stuff there, and have my 2-3 lenses in neoprene bags, to keep them safe.

Having my Lowepro filled of food or hiking things was not the best idea.

So I had always ready in my hand, the cam with the 24-70mm 2.8 during the hike.

@Blokfluitist: I was looking to the 70-200mm 2.8, as it losses light (narrower f) when using the x1.4. What's more all this combination was more expensive than having the 100-400mm second hand. And I'd feel lazy to be exchanging lenses and converters, I'd rather take only the 70-200mm.

I think I will give it a go, to the 100-400mm lens, now that I have it. I can always go Thai massage after trip, or sell the lens if it was really too heavy/too telephoto.

Thank you!

@Blokfluitist: I was looking to the 70-200mm 2.8, as it losses light (narrower f) when using the x1.4. What's more all this combination was more expensive than having the 100-400mm second hand. And I'd feel lazy to be exchanging lenses and converters, I'd rather take only the 70-200mm.

It was actually the 70-200 f/4 that I recommended... great lens, much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the f/2.8

Rose

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.