As I do from time to time, I was testing out a new camera bag this weekend and I grabbed my favourite trifecta of Canon lenses: Canon 11-24mm f/4 L, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. There are many different lens trifectas or “trinities” out there, but this particular one is brilliant if you want a set of lenses that will cover a huge variety of photographic subjects.
It’s hard to beat the versatility of a zoom lens, and in recent years Canon has been producing incredible optics in their zooms. These three are probably the cream of the crop right now, with the possible addition of another lens that I own and love, the Canon 200-400 f/4 L IS.
The standard range of these lenses is 11-400mm on a full frame camera with just a 30mm gap between 70mm and 100mm. If I add in a 1.4x extender that makes it 11-560mm, comprehensively covering everything from landscape to sports and wildlife. I’ve shown you guys the incredible performance of the 100-400 L IS II with the 1.4x extender before. That combination is no joke!
Added versatility with a 1.4x extender
The 11-24mm lens is my go-to landscape photography lens these days, but it also works well for close-up, wide adventure sports photography. The 24-70mm lens is a great all-purpose travel lens, and it also allows me to use filters for some landscape work, which is difficult with the bulbous 11-24mm. The f/2.8 aperture of the 24-70 is also good enough for astrophotography, and 70mm at f/2.8 is a nice portrait combination, or general low-light lens. The 100-400mm range is extremely versatile for wildlife photography at the longer end, and I’m a sucker for compressed mountainscapes around the 100mm end of the zoom.
Canon 11-24mm f/4 L
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II
Give me these three lenses and I can pretty much tackle anything! I have a lot more lenses than these three, but where this trifecta really shines is when you’re just “heading out for a day of photography” and you don’t have a more specific plan. I can’t carry everything, but this trifecta will cover me for almost everything. Large lenses like my 400mm or my 200-400mm are better lenses in some respects, but the weight and size of them dictates how you carry them and potentially where you can get to. With my zoom trifecta I can carry a camera and these three lenses in a small backpack or a shoulder bag all day and I’m not going to worry about it. No it’s not a light setup by any means, but I don’t find it prohibitive and I feel prepared!
What would be your perfect lens trifecta? Let me know in the comments!
If I can please ask a basic question, how do you prevent ugly face distortion when using the 11-24? Thanks.
I wouldn’t use a lens that wide for photographing someone’s face unless they are quite a long way from the lens, or unless I’m using at the 24mm end of the zoom range. If I was photographing people then personally I tend to use 35mm or 70mm on the 24-70, depending on whether I want to include or exclude the background.
I substitute the 24-105 f/4 L II for the 24-70 (I own both). It has image stabilization; super handy for run and gun video. Other than that, agree with all, including the 1.4X TC. Especially good since I carry two bodies, one a full frame, the other a 1.6X crop sensor, giving nearly 900 mm of reach.
Nice! Thanks for sharing your setup Mark.
My perfect trifecta is neither perfect nor a trifecta. When traveling I take my 6D along with my EF-16-35 F4 L and EF 70-300 L (both recommended by Dan Carr at some point). I can fit this set-up in a small sling bag and while, yes, it does leave a big gap between 35 and 70mm, I find I’m either shooting landscapes or wildlife/action (depending on the trip). I always travel with my longest lens attached to the camera, because I find landscapes much more likely to wait for me to change lenses than wildlife.
Yeah those are two great lenses that I have also used a lot! If I was to slim my kit down to two lenses I could do a heck of a lot with the 16-35 and the 100-400.
Fabulous pictures. I am looking to get my first L lens. Having visited British Columbia, I Can’t appreciate the beauty. Now I want to capture it
Thank you!!
I like this trinity! One of the hardest things to choose, I think. Since I’m not a pro, I have to combine my photography with the long hikes I do with my girlfriend and our dog, or travel together, so I have to have a general purpose kit much of the time, and weight is a big concern. 24-70/2.8 L II is a must (although I’m looking forward to the rumoured IS version). I chose the 16-35/4 L IS as I don’t usually need 2.8 that wide and I love IS and use filters. I’m trying to choose my long lens at the moment, torn between the 100-400 L IS and the 70-200/4 L IS with 1.4x or 2x. Never had a lens longer than 400mm equiv. so don’t know how much I’d really use that extra reach for the sake of a lot more precious size/weight…
The 100-400 is a stunner, but it’s not that light unfortunately. I would say the 70-200 is fine if you just do landscapes, but if occasional wildlife is on your radar then the 100-400 is worth it. A spanner in your plan might be the fact that after about 10 years, Canon are more than likely going to launch a new version of the 70-200 f/4 L IS later this year…
Dan, Thanks to your recommendation I got the 100-400 f/4 MKII several years ago and absolutely love it ! Recently I added the 1.4X TC III and the combo is great. Now I am thinking about the 16-35 f/4 to cover the wide angle range.
You’re building a solid kit there, Joe! I love the 16-35 f/4 when I want to keep my kit nice and light 🙂
Nice camera! The pixel is high, the lens is so great…I would definitely buy this one…
Question for you – I am vacationing in MT/Wyoming, we’re doing Yellowstone and staying on a friends 420 acre ranch in MT, so lots of landscapes and wildlife. I have the 11-24, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8 but I’m contemplating renting the 100-400 also to have on hand….think I’ll miss it if I don’t have it?? I think on one hand if we do come across some bear, moose, elk etc is like to capture great shots. But am curious what you would do??
Oh no question, rent the lens! You won’t get good shots of wildlife with a 70-200. Absolutely no question. If you’re going to Yellowstone, you’ll want to have the 100-400.
Hi Dan,
I am using a Canon EF24-105 1:4 IS USM on a 5D, Mark IV and am finding the picture quality not too great. The trouble is, after following your blog for almost a year, I have purchased a Canon EF 100-400 II USM. The quality between the two lenses is day and night. I am thinking about acquiring another lens, either the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8L II USM or the version II of the EF24-105. Would you be able to help?
Roger
Hi Roger. I can help there because I have both of those lenses that you are considering. If you upgrade to the Mark II version of the 24-105mm you will not see much difference from the first version. I owned the original as well, and there’s really not much difference, sadly. I still like the versatility of the 24-105 range, but rarely do I reach for that lens. I pretty much only use it for aerial photography, where I find the image stabilization to be beneficial. On the other hand, the 24-70 f/2.8 II is very noticeably sharper than the 24-105 lenses. It’s more expensive of course, but it’s a wonderful lens.
Hi Dan,
My wife and I just got back from a trip to France. 24-105mm was the lens I used most of the time, I have to say that the quality is really average, totally agreeing with you. 24-70mm f2.8 II will be on my Christmas shopping list this year.
I just want to let you know that I have been reading almost all your blogs for over a year. Really wonderful and extremely helpful tips. Thank you,
Roger
Thanks for the kind words Roger! Hope you had a nice trip. You will like the upgrade to the f/2.8 II, you definitely get what you pay for there.
I have been following you for quite a while and I love your comments. The perfect Trifecta is a hard question to be answered, I never got it anyway.
Over the years I put up a good collection of lens and every time I have to decide what to take, I spend hours trying to figure out. I like to take two cameras so I don`t have to change lens and miss a shot. Usually I am more like a street photographer and Landscape when there is one.
My main camera is a 5D MARK III and as secondary camera EOS 77D
My Perfect 3 lens kit? Please help.
I used to take my 24-105 L f4 but I recently sold it and bought the 24-70 2.8. Do I like it? IQ no comments. But I miss the extra range to 105. And it is a heavy lens.
For super wide, I still have the 16-35 f 2.8 L II which I hate. The corners are awful bad and soft. No definitions. So I bought the Sigma 14-24 2.8 which is much better but it is very heavy and huge. I am thinking about buying the 16-35 f 4.0 because IQ is much better than the 2.8. What do you think?
For long range? Please help me. I used to have the 70-200 f4 IS and I bought the 70-200 f 2.8 IS II, Do I like it? NOOOO. It is damn too heavy to carry on.
Than I have the 100-400 4.5 5.6 Mark I, This is a great lens. Great IQ, even with my EOS 77 D. Even with TC 1.4X or 2X.
Now after reading your review on the 70-300, I am thinking… Is it worth buying it to take on my trips instead of the 70-200 f 2.8 IS? Or should I stick with the 100-400 instead.
On my last trip to Peru I took the 55-250 with my 77D and I loved the results. For the weight and price, it is a great lens.
Well it sounds like the 16-35 f 4.0 would be good for you because it’s sharp and light, and you mention weight several times. I have the 16-35 f 4.0 and I love it for days when an 11-24 is too heavy. As for your long lens, I feel like you answered your own question really. You don’t like the 70-200 but you like the 100-400. Sounds like you should sell the 70-200! To be honest, the MKII version of the 100-400 is even better, quite a bit better in fact. If I were you I’d think about selling your 70-200 and your old 100-400 and replacing it with the newer 100-400. Then pairing that with the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70. That’s a nice trifecta that I use myself a lot. I don’t have the 70-300 anymore, I much preferred the 100-400 MKII even though it’s bigger.