Which Canon telephoto lens makes the most sense for occasional landscape travel use?

Question

I’m planning a trip and want to keep my kit light: likely one wide-angle lens, one telephoto, plus a small 50mm prime. Most of my images will probably be with a 17-40mm, and I already have a 28-135mm, but on a previous trip I missed a few shots because I wanted more reach. I shoot a Canon 40D and prefer EF lenses so they’ll still work if I upgrade bodies later.

I’m considering the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and possibly a lower-cost 70-300mm option. The telephoto would only be used occasionally for landscapes, and some shooting may be around dusk. If I’m trying to balance flexibility, weight, and cost for infrequent telephoto use, which type of lens is the better choice?

user1375 · Accepted Answer

Given your intended use as "occasional landscape photography" I'd suggest you get the zoom. I see the 200 f/2.8L as a lens to use when you know you you'll need at least 200mm, for example shooting sports or wildlife.

If you don't know much about what you will be doing the 70-200 is a much more flexible lens, with the ability to zoom out (200 to 50 is a big gap in your range), plus IS is great for photography around dusk. Rare for a zoom, it doesn't really lose anything in image quality compared to the prime.

It will cost you more than double, though. And it's a much heavier lens. If either of these are a concern the f/4 version is also very highly regarded.

Which Canon telephoto lens makes the most sense for occasional landscape travel use?

2 Answers

Your Answer

Related Questions