Travel Lenses: is bigger always better?

I will be traveling to Ecuador (Napo river area and Galapagos) this August and am wondering whether I should bring all my lenses - just weight and bulk questions - esp since the book on birds of Ecuador weighs almost as much as the 100-400!.

I have a both 70-200 (f/4) and a 100-400 (f/5.6) Canon lenses I've been watching some of the Travels to the Edge series and he seems to rely on a 70-200 lens.

In the end I will likely take both with me, but what considerations should I make when I decide which lens take out on any given situation? I will not try to switch back and forth on any given outing.

I did see the short lens advice the other day (forget who posted) - which is a good consideration and gives my wife something to carry too!

All thoughts welcome.

You can go to pbase search
http://search.pbase.com/search
and do a search for Galapagos and it brings up 300+ galleries. Many of them will show what the focal length was used and depending on the photo you may be able to determine what will work for you. I did a quick look around and found many were using shorter focal lengths.

Bill

For the Napo area I guess you will need more reach. I've never been to that part of the Amazon, but I have been to many others and I always feel I could use some more reach, even with a 600mm.

I guess in Galapagos animals are more used to humans and will allow a closer approach.

Even for the Galapagos, I would want a bigger range of options. Many of my favorite images there have been made with a 500mm lens. Yes, there will be birds at your feet, but the best positioned subjects may be well off the trail, and you aren't allowed to leave the trail. If you are using less than a full-frame sensor, then the 100-400 may give you enough length. I'd also want something much shorter than 70mm--something like a 17-40 or 24-70, etc. Unfortunately, the 70-200 offers little that the 100-400 doesn't. If you wanted to carry just two lenses, then the 24-70 and 100-400 would be good choices, though I would carry both on every landing and not hesitate to switch lenses as needed. There's no way to predict ahead of time what focal lengths you will need on any particular landing--you are likely to need them all.

If i was you, i will take the 100-400. What is the gap between 70 and 100? Almost nothing! you do have a lot more reach what most times is very handy with animals!

If I had to choose one lens of those two I would go with the 100-400. However, another alternative is to get a 1.4x and/or 2.0x extender. That would give you the reach and have a lot less weight with little loss of quality. I have both extenders and use them a lot with my 300mm. Unfortunately mine don't mate with my other lenses. But the 2.0x with the 300 f/2.8 gives me a 600mm f/5.6 that is a lot lighter than the 600mm and still has autofocus. Just a thought, know they aren't cheap, but their a lot cheaper than buying another lens or not getting the image due to the limited reach.

Unless you plan to go back next year, think twice about all your equipment. You won't regret it.

Give up the bird book!! at least for the Galapagos portion. You have to be accompanied by a naturalist and all the boats have a good collection of wildlfe books. I got great images using a 300 f4 and 70-200 for telephoto but a good wideangle is also essential. If space permits a 500 is nice. I personally perfer two prime lenses instead of the 100-400. The other alternative is a 400 f5.6 which is light and sharp. Also, remember, for lenses you might want, rental is also an option.

Beware in the Guyaquil airport - camera theft is fairly common.

I just got off the boat in the Galapagos this am--things are still bobbing up and down--but I was vert glad to have a 500. I used Artie's 800 a few times too.