Which two lens combo for backpacking and nature??

[didger]

Short: 10-22 just because I personally find you can never have too much wide for some landscape shoots.  As for quality, it's come to my attention recently that ultrawide wide angle zoom lens reviews probably mean absolutely NOTHING (except averaging a very large number) due to the sample variation issue.  These variations can be truly huge; totally beyond belief, even with the most expensive L glass, so whatever you decide on, you're doing a risky crap shoot unless you test several samples carefully and pick the best one.

Long: 70-200, absolutely no question about it.  There's no disagreement that this lens is about as good as zoom ever gets, and in fact about in the league with decent primes and in this case there's been so many reviews and forum reports that there's obviously not so much of a sample variation issue.  For what you get the price is really good too  AND you get that sexy trendy white finish and the big hood that makes you look very studly indeed walking down the street with it.  You can walk a long way too, since this lens is remarkably light, considering.  I also once saw someone drop one onto concrete from about chest high and it got dinged, but still worked fine.  This is the one.

There, see, I don't always bash Canon; only where they deserve it.

[boku]

You did say nature, not specifically landscape, so that is a bit vague.

I shoot very intimate (tight crop) landscape and nature (where I live there are no sweeping vistas that are easily accessible).

I use a 10D. My main kit, probably used in equal proportions is:

17-40 f/4 L
100 f/2.8 macro (actually use this much more than I contemplated)
70-200 f/4 L with 1.4 TC

For my circumstances I seldom wish for wider but occasionally wish for longer. As such, I just picked up a 300 f/4L (light, but I wouldn't want to lug it around backpacking).

I have a 20D on order. I can't imagine wanting the ultrawide zoom that was just released, but then, like I said, I don't have clean sweeping vistas.

Remember, with the 17-40, you at least get something in the normal focal lenght range. Why would you want to exclude this by only having ultra-wide and tele coverage? 28-35 mm is your bread and butter.

Too bad the 70-200 didn't have true macro capability. I would recommend it and the 17-40 for the 20D. But, as it stands, the 3 lenses sound like a more rounded "nature" kit (at least for me). I don't backpack, so take this with a grain of salt.

[philthygeezer]

Since you didn't tell us much about your proposed usage and shooting style (backpacking or not? wildlife or only scenic? extreme wide angle very important or not? etc.), we're giving you choices based on our shooting habits and preferences.  Is that really what you wanted?

Yep.   I want to see how others would use this gear and how it suits their style.

I own all of the above lenses except the 10-22 and 17-40.  For me at this this point, I am leaning to the TS24mm and 135mm f2L with the 500D and 1.4x extenders that fit both.  Add a 72mm Cokin adapter and some Singh-Ray grad NDs and there is not much one couldn't take on.  The 24mm would be a 37mm walk around lens that could get down and dirty with view camera - like movements and the 135 could do everything from tight landscapes, wildlife to almost 1:1 macro.

The only thing is that with this combo there isn't much from normal to 216mm effective.  37mm is not very wide, but the tilt and shift capabilities lead to unique perspectives on things.  I've found that 17 and 20mm could be too wide and makes the background turn into thin lines on the horizon.  24mm is perfect for me but I lost that focal length with the crop on the 10D.  I have been wrestling with comfort in wide stuff ever since.

Wildlife isn't a huge priority for me.  There are many that do nothing but wildlife shots much better than me, and they are all starting to look cliched as well.  So I also think that the 17-40mm f4L and 100mm macro would be a great, compact combination.    I find the place where a zoom is most useful is at the wide end of the spectrum, where small changes in focal length make for huge changes in perspective.  Walking around doesn't seem to solve this easily either.

The 70-200mm f4L leaves me with mixed feelings.  It's tall and bulky for the compact bag I have.  The weird 67mm filter means I have to buy another circ-pol.  An f/4 aperture with a polarizer on it seems dog slow.  This goes for the 17-40 too, but doesn't matter as much on a wide angle.

I am leaning towards simplicity and design in my photos.  I don't care to shoot postcards and would rather shoot something that looks slightly abstract than something that's been done a milllion times.

[philthygeezer]

Given that you are shooting an EOS 20D with a 1.6x crop, choose your ideal nature combo from the following lenses:

Short:
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L with 72mm 500D closeup, 1.4x extender, 72mm filter
EF17-40mm f/4L, 77mm filter
EF24mm f/2.8, 58mm filter
EF10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 77mm filter

Long

EF100mm f/2.8 macro, 58mm filter
EF135mm f2L with 72mm 500D closeup, 1.4x extender, 72mm filter
EF70-200mm f4L, 67mm filter, 1.4x extender

Please only choose from this set, no other lens suggestions pelase.  Also please explain why you chose what you did.

Thanks!

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well, for your stated purposes I'll have to second Didger's picks, with the 17-40/4L as a close second place for the wide end. It can be mushy in the corners on a 1Ds, but the center area that a 1.6X sensor would use is very good indeed.

[didger]

Since you didn't tell us much about your proposed usage and shooting style (backpacking or not? wildlife or only scenic? extreme wide angle very important or not? etc.), we're giving you choices based on our shooting habits and preferences.  Is that really what you wanted?

[Willowroot]

Why don't you just add a 50mm?