Going On A Camping Trip, What Lens To Rent?

[Rattler]

As the title says. We are headed to the Northshores of MN and MI's UP for a week in a bit. I received a nice discount on a lens rental. I recently picked up a Canon 70D to replace a T2i. For glass I have now: Canon 50MM 1.8, Tokina 11-16MM 2.8, Sigma 18-200MM 3.5 and a Rokinon 8MM Fisheye 3.5. I plan to do a ot of landscape and astro shots. I think I got the night sky stuff covered with the 8MM & 11-16MM.

What would you go for? I am leaning towards the 70-200 or 70-300 Canons. Maybe a different wide angle would be fun too.

Any input or suggestions?

 

[zelseman]

The only thing I can think of is a super zoom. You have everything else pretty well covered. A canon 100-400L might be a good choice for long landscapes and for wildlife.
Have a fun trip and post some pictures when you get back!

 

[workerdrone]

70-200 2.8, especially with an extender to with it, is a hero lens - makes every shot look great and very versatile FL's - you've got the wide covered already and a lot of the longer zooms just don't have the speed for really nice bokeh

 

[Rattler]

70-200 2.8, especially with an extender to with it, is a hero lens - makes every shot look great and very versatile FL's - you've got the wide covered already and a lot of the longer zooms just don't have the speed for really nice bokeh

I hate to use that lens! The reason? I rented it when I had to shoot a WWE event for the local arena. I had gotten my 70D a few days before and never used that lens. It worked excellent and I fell in love with it! I just want one bad now! My funding for it is going to start after this summer.

 

[Chunkymyster]

As the title says. We are headed to the Northshores of MN and MI's UP for a week in a bit. I received a nice discount on a lens rental. I recently picked up a Canon 70D to replace a T2i. For glass I have now: Canon 50MM 1.8, Tokina 11-16MM 2.8, Sigma 18-200MM 3.5 and a Rokinon 8MM Fisheye 3.5. I plan to do a ot of landscape and astro shots. I think I got the night sky stuff covered with the 8MM & 11-16MM.

What would you go for? I am leaning towards the 70-200 or 70-300 Canons. Maybe a different wide angle would be fun too.

Any input or suggestions?

What you have is perfect for landscape... I have a Nikon 70-200 2.8 and it's awesome but not for landscape more for people, but if your planing to shoot wildlife go with canons 400 f/4

 

[nwoods]

The range of your Sigma 18-200mm is pretty hard to beat, and if you like the IQ, stop now while you are ahead. Otherwise, I highly recommend the Canon 16-35mm L F2.8 MkII. It's a terrific lens, fast, wide, did I mention fast? Great depth of field and quite sharp. Extremely well built housing, and it's not too big or bulky:

 

[NatchezPhotography]

I'm a Nikon guy but doesn't Canon offer a 16-35L that would cover what you don't already have.

 

[Pathfinder]

Depends on what you want to photograph...

For a crop bodied camera like the 70D, for wide you really need an EOS 10-22, but you already have the Tokina 11-16 and the Rokinon 8.5mm fish

I agree the EOS 16-35 f2.8 L is a great lens, but is only really wide on a full frame body. I like it for star shots a lot on a FF frame body.

The EOS 70-200 f4 IS L is a very nice lens, and cheaper and lighter than the f2.8 version, and maybe even sharper. How many frames do YOU actually shoot at f2.8? I like the f2.8 version in the studio, but in the field, the lighter f4 version is very welcome in my backpack.

The EOS 70-300 IS L is a nice lens for wildlife, I have used it often for that purpose, but now, the 100-400 vII is probably a better choice today for wildlife. The 100- 400v II is very sharp if used correctly.

DO you have a good tripod and cable release??

I think the glass you have gives you pretty good coverage for a crop body camera. I like the 70D quite a bit, and have used mine a fair bit over the last year.

The OP does not have good long glass for wildlife - maybe a Tamron or Sigma 150-600?

Frequently I just carry a 70D and an 18-200 Canon zoom - its light and easy to walk about with.

 

[workerdrone]

I'd respectfully disagree that a 70-200 is not good for landscape. Some of my favorite landscape shots are within that range, and the OP has wide covered already.

 

[Rattler]

Depends on what you want to photograph...

For a crop bodied camera like the 70D, for wide you really need an EOS 10-22, but you already have the Tokina 11-16 and the Rokinon 8.5mm fish

I agree the EOS 16-35 f2.8 L is a great lens, but is only really wide on a full frame body. I like it for star shots a lot on a FF frame body.

The EOS 70-200 f4 IS L is a very nice lens, and cheaper and lighter than the f2.8 version, and maybe even sharper. How many frames do YOU actually shoot at f2.8? I like the f2.8 version in the studio, but in the field, the lighter f4 version is very welcome in my backpack.

The EOS 70-300 IS L is a nice lens for wildlife, I have used it often for that purpose, but now, the 100-400 vII is probably a better choice today for wildlife. The 100- 400v II is very sharp if used correctly.

DO you have a good tripod and cable release??

I think the glass you have gives you pretty good coverage for a crop body camera. I like the 70D quite a bit, and have used mine a fair bit over the last year.

The OP does not have good long glass for wildlife - maybe a Tamron or Sigma 150-600?

Frequently I just carry a 70D and an 18-200 Canon zoom - its light and easy to walk about with.

I would go with the 2.8 for the concert work I do every now and then.

I do have a tripod. I have a remote too but I have been using the wifi on the 70D and using the Canon app on my phone to release.

Oh yea. I had to have a tierod put on my Tacoma yesterday so the lens rental budget was easily ate up. : (

 

[comptiger5000]

If you fell in love with the 70-200 2.8, you'd like the f4 version even better unless you really need the faster lens. It's much lighter, fits beautifully in the hand, balances well, etc. It makes shooting such a non-event you don't even realize how many photos you've taken.

As far as additional lenses, the 100-400 is a nice lens, good for wildlife and such. If you need a longer reach, I have a Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3 that I like quite a bit. It's amazingly light for what it is (no big deal to hand-hold for an hour on a gripped 5D), decent optically (not as good as the 100-400), etc. AF is a little slow for action stuff and with no IS and a slow max aperture, it's a light hog. Eventually I'll upgrade to the newer 150-600 IS version (optically a little better, faster AF, IS, but still a slow lens and it's heavier).

 

[onetraveller]

Is the IQ on your 18-200 that good? I do a lot of landscape photography and you'll rarely use the superwides. They do make for great closeup lenses though. I would seriously look at either Canon's 24-105 f4 or a 24-70 f2.8. Most of your shots will be in this range anyway. Both of these lenses have excellent image quality.

Mike