MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: leaf on August 21, 2009, 08:17
-
here is the question. I am considering going on a week long hiking trip where we will be packing all the food and necessities we will need for the trip in our packs. So weight is a big consideration. That said, as a photographer, photography is very important so lenses and a camera become valuable in what is 'needed'
So given that information, if you could bring along any lenses you wanted on such a trip - which one / ones would you choose?
My initial thoughts would be the 24-70 f/2.8 as it is fairly multi purpose with a bit of wide angle and a bit of a nice portrait end at 70mm. It is heavy but I am willing to carry L class in exchange for the quality. On the other hand, perhaps a prime like the 85 f/1.8 or 85 f/1.4 would be good and just zoom with my feet.
Nothing beats a landscape and cloudscape taken with a 16mm though :(
and what about something if we spot any animals... a 70-200 f/2.8 would be nice too.
I think two lenses might be the max, unless one was really light, like the 50 f/1.8.
Any other suggestions?
-
Might be a good time to test the SD880. ;D
-
Travel lens wanted: 16-800mm f1.4. supersharp, superlight and dimensions like a 50mm... ???
Or a sherpa that carries everything including beer, and are social :D
-
It's a conundrum, I feel your pain ;D
As I look back through the pictures I have taken on backpacking trips I've found that wide angle landscape shots outnumber telephoto shots about 15 to 1. I also do the majority (well pretty much all) of my shooting in the morning and evening in lighting that is less than perfect for tele lenses that aren't supper fast.
I think you would regret toting the 70-200 along since it's so heavy but would greatly appreciate having the 16mm, but I guess it mostly depends on what you like to shoot outdoors.
A tripod is the other heavy thing to have to lug around. :)
-
well i think i will forget about a tripod. .. that is too heavy. I have gotten ok results in the past by using a rock or something if i really need the camera to be still. Otherwise I just bump the ISO up to 800. With 16mm you can shoot pretty slow and still get a sharp image.
I would agree that the 16-35mm would be most more often than the 70-200. I just dread seeing something i 'have' to zoom in on, and can't. ... but I suppose if those things come along - like a bear for example, I should be getting out of area anyhow ;)
-
One thing about spotting animals is that by the time you stop and change into that long lens the animal may very likely be gone and then you will find that a 200 is not even long enough. Unless you are hiking with other Canon users of course and can share lenses and the burden of carrying them? I know how heavy my 70-200 is - for a afternoon I'd take it, but a whole week plus your gear and food... Of course if you run into Sasquatch while you are out there you will never forgive my advice. ;D
-
28-80 f2.8 16-35 f2.8 300 f2.8 and a 90TSE. Haha, well depends what shape your in. I use to hike with tons of gear, Medium format, 617 pans etc. Week and longer trips. Now I have a G7.
-
I recently returned from shooting in the Sierras. I had a 14mm fisheye, the 28-70 2.8 and my 28-300 Canon L glass lens with me. The weight was hard BUT there were shots I would have missed had I not brought those exact lenses. I guess ask yourself how mad you would be if you missed a certain opportunity because you wanted to lighten your pack :) Have fun!!
-
if i brought a long lens it would probably be the 100-400 L
I could bring that one and the 18-35 ... that would be doable, but I do have a feeling the 100-400 would be sitting in the pack most of the time.
a tilt shift lens would be cool though ;) nice idea zeus.
-
if i brought a long lens it would probably be the 100-400 L
I normally travel with the 24-70L and the 100-400IS. Whenever I analyse the results of the trip however the 24-70 will be responsible for 95%+ of the resulting stock. I'm usually travelling via motorhome though so weight is not an issue. If I was on a week's walk I'd probably just take my 135 f2 and hope to be able to crop telephoto shots later if necessary. You could also take one of your extenders.
-
When I did the Inca Trail, I was faced with this dilemma. We had porters to carry our 'luggage", but we had to carry our own stuff for the day and I am not built to carry a lot of weight, especially at high altitude's thin air. So my choice then (using a film camera) was a 28-70mm. Not much wildlife to shoot, but a tele would have been nice in some occasions, however this lens was enough for my purposes. I don't regret sacrificing a couple of missed opportunities for a lighter weight.
-
first, re sherpas - on my Nepal & peru treks i carried mre lenese, tripod, etc, but you still have the question of what to carry during the day, since the porters are usually not available
i like to g w one lens since it prevents dust, etc in harsh environments - i have an 18-200 for my dslr.
however, i've been amazed at the results from my new sony hx1 with 20x zoom, and may start carrying that instead. it's also an incredible camera for low light [it takes 6 images, then averages them t get the sharpest image]
i normally walk with a monopod; i'll add a tripod if somene else is carrying weight, for evening & early morning camp & sunset scenes; for a week long backpack, i sometimes toss in a tabletop tripod, or just use a stuffsack filled w clothes
the best advice i'd have is to carry the camera ready to shoot -- if it's back in your main pack, all too often you'll be too tired get it out and miss great shots. i did this even when mountain climbing
s
-
When I did the Inca Trail, I was faced with this dilemma. We had porters to carry our 'luggage", but we had to carry our own stuff for the day and I am not built to carry a lot of weight, especially at high altitude's thin air. So my choice then (using a film camera) was a 28-70mm. Not much wildlife to shoot, but a tele would have been nice in some occasions, however this lens was enough for my purposes. I don't regret sacrificing a couple of missed opportunities for a lighter weight.
we were over 14,000 for most of our peru trek, with almost daily passes of 16k, so i certainly understand your approach, but i still took my 18-200 zoom and my mnopod took the place of a walking stick. it was tough going, but the camera also gave an excuse for stopping
since the digital switch, i take a lot of verticals to form into panoramas that are more 4:3 in format but with a lot more detail
http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/peru (http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/peru) shows some of the results and samples of the 'vertical' panoramas
-
TONS of great advice going on here!!
Kinda boils down to 1. where you're backpacking, how long, and what you'll be seeing... and as some alluded to... altitude. You can carry a heck of a lot more at 6k than you can at 10 and up.. LOL
I am really comfortable with my 35-128.... it gives me plenty of range on the trail in the woods/brush, can pick up decent close ups, nice capture through the 'prime' shots and a minimum of long glass. I've too found that caring really long glass (300 & up) usually didn't give me results that I was happy with... for one, the 'animal ran away syndrome' and... more than not, I dont carry a tripod when backpacking/bushwhacking and there may not be a helping tree or rock around, hence the shot was never clear as I wanted.
Never had a sherpa, so... on long days/overnight or thru hiking, weight is always an issue. Sorry to say, but food and a good sleeping bag/pad far outweigh photography issues... (at 60 I'm getting too old to sleep on cold rocky ground ha ha ha - paid my dues..)
If youre going to have superb wide open landscapes on the trip... any good wide angle is a must.
And of course as we all sometimes forget..... dont forget backup power and memory. Even after all these years.... just a couple weeks ago, I did a day hike out to a location... busted my hump getting there..... wipped out the cam to take my first shot............. NO FLASH CARD. At least I got to sit there, eat a nice lunch and enjoy the views..... just couldn't bring any views home.. LOL
One other point on the 'where' you'll be... Doing snow, or especially desert... I really do shy away from changing out glass any more. I try to make the 28-135 work for me.
Where you headed to anyway, Leaf? 8)=tom
-
I have been dreaming of going on this camping trip for a long time - next summer I may finally make it happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Trail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Trail)
It has become a bit harder to 'fit it in' since moving to Norway.
-
I just got back from a week at a camp and had the fortune to be fishing near the shore when a Bald Eagle flew over and perched on a nearby branch of a dead tree.
i have a 55- 200 sigma and was crying like a little baby because i didn't have anything more powerful - to really capture it in any quality better then a snap. Physically moving closer wasn't an option as I have yet to learn how to walk on water.
I also spent hours investigating the world through the macro lens - tiny insy bitsy bugs crawling on moss and slugs on shrooms - and rare plants - gotta love the microcosm I have a small tripod about 8 inches it turned out to be invaluable for this - Im going to pick up one a bit bigger maybe a foot or so in length - small enough to get down in the leaves but not so tiny it has issues peeking over a fallen branch in front of the subject lol
I got caught in a deluge downpour - a real soaker but wanted to continue taking pictures and wished i had brought some sort of plastic cover i could flop over me and the camera to protect from rain but still continue shooting. someone suggested getting one or two of those clear plastic emergency rain coats that fit in your pocket.
just some ideas that are still fresh in my head from my trip
best of luck on the trip
-
I remember the results of your test but what about the 24 - 70 or a prime and a convertor?
-
My favorite travel/hiking lens is the 24-105mm, compared to the 24-70 its light weight and doesn't extend out as far with the lens hood on. It also has the longer reach... its a f/4, but I don't need 2.8 if I'm outside.
I'm going to Yellowstone in a couple of weeks and will bring the 100-400mm, but that's only because I know I'll see wildlife, otherwise a 70-200mm is fine and It probably won't be used much anyway.
Also, I don't leave home without the Gorilla Pods for SLR's, wrap that thing around stuff and balance it on the ground. Have used that on every trip.
-
if i brought a long lens it would probably be the 100-400 L
I normally travel with the 24-70L and the 100-400IS. Whenever I analyse the results of the trip however the 24-70 will be responsible for 95%+ of the resulting stock. I'm usually travelling via motorhome though so weight is not an issue. If I was on a week's walk I'd probably just take my 135 f2 and hope to be able to crop telephoto shots later if necessary. You could also take one of your extenders.
I agree. Generally if I'm walking and want to not carry too much I have the 24-105 on the camera and 100-400 on a shoulder bag. I've made the mistake of only taking a 400 or the 70-200 and found I needed the longer rage and variability. I don't want to carry three lenses. In effect I have 24 to 400. A 1.4 extender would be nice, doesn't take up much space or weigh too much, but I just don't like the way the pictures turn out. No tripod.
My little camera bag holds a polarizing filter that fits either lens, remote release and a flash diffuser for the on camera flash. Extra cards, charger and batteries, and the center section just holds the camera with the 24-105.
I'll add this. Monopod. ;D
Alternate answer: Olympus SP-570 UZ or some other pocket superzoom model. Canon G11 comes to mind, even if it's not a "super" zoom. High quality, light, compact, fast, everything you need and 10MP 1.7 CCD. Nice camera. I suppose someone should have asked, what do you want to do with the photos when you get back? 10mp is enough for Micro.
-
This is exactly why I have Olympus. E-410 weights nothing, however with pro grade lenses its abit too small to provide proper handling. Despite that Im using it. Two lenses Zuiko 14-54/2,8-3,5 + 50-200/2,8-3,5 provide me with excellent maximum aperture, superb optical quality and cover 28-400 eq. FF. Zuiko 14-54 is able to focus 18cm from sensor (thats just few cm from front lens). This setup together weights not even 2kg including filters (CPL, IR, ND4). If I need I can swap heavy 50-200 for extra small and light 40-150/3,5-4,0 (results from my personal extensive testing show that this * cheap lens delivers nearly same results as 50-200, but you must sacrifice maximum aperture and 100mm eq. on the long end).
14-54 + 50-200 are both one of the most weather/dust resitant lenses ever and their weight/price/optics ratio is something unseen with any other manufacturer. Together with sealed E-3 body they do provide killer outdoor setup with acceptable weight and excellent results up to iso800 (over 800 Olympus suffers from higher noise because of smaller sensor).
I do not have UW lens, I would like one, but unfortunately have no budget and if I need, I still can stitch photos together in PC.
If I desperately need to save the weight, then I would go E-410 (or newer 420 or 620) + 14-45/3,5-5,6 + 40-150/3,5-4,0 (not even a one kilogram!) or add ZD 9-18 + ZD 70-300 totaling in less then 2kg and covering unbeliavable 18-600mm eq. with still pretty acceptable optics.
-
I have been dreaming of going on this camping trip for a long time - next summer I may finally make it happen.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Trail[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Trail[/url])
It has become a bit harder to 'fit it in' since moving to Norway.
Sweet!!! I'd love to do that one myself!! We're hoping to do Glacier then into the great white north.. Banff and Jasper next may/june...
Canada has some awesome NP"s.. 8)=tom
-
http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn (http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn)
has some shots from banff and glacier, among other NPs -- when you're ready to go, i'd be happy to suggest some places t visit
steve
-
[url]http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn[/url] ([url]http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn[/url])
has some shots from banff and glacier, among other NPs -- when you're ready to go, i'd be happy to suggest some places t visit
steve
Some nice stuff, Steve!!! Wife, daughter and I were talking about this trip just this morning!!
Hey, that moose.... he didnt look too much like he was walking.... rather looked kind of ticked... LOL
Aint nothing worse than a moose that's ticked off during runting season. Had too many run-ins with them up in Maine and NH... ha ha ha ha....
You bet, I will take you up on the tip offer!! thanks 8)=tom
-
Perfect timing! Yesterday I found an article that might help you, Leaf. Although the information is regarding Burning Man, which is a huge week-long counterculture community art festival in the middle of the Nevada desert with very extreme conditions, it should provide some useful information for your trip. I'm leaving Saturday for 10 days of alkaline dust, wind and heat...can't freakin' wait!!!!!
http://www.burningman.com/press/photo_guide.html (http://www.burningman.com/press/photo_guide.html)
-
Personnally, I would take a 10-20 (or something around 17-50 if you don't have a 10-20) and the 85mm f/1.8 and I would not bring the battery pack. A small tripod or a Gorilla Pod.
It all comes down to probability. How many chances you have to see a rare bird or animal that you want to photograph (you would need a 400m at least) vs how many chances you would encounter great scenics to photograph. While going to play in the great outdoor, the wider is the better for me (I'm not a big fan of bird/animal photography anyway). The 85mm is fast and lightweight so bring it to take some portraits on the way :)
-
[url]http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn[/url] ([url]http://www.redbubble.com/people/cascoly/art/everything/tags/autumn[/url])
has some shots from banff and glacier, among other NPs -- when you're ready to go, i'd be happy to suggest some places t visit
steve
Hey, that moose.... he didnt look too much like he was walking.... rather looked kind of ticked... LOL
Aint nothing worse than a moose that's ticked off during runting season. Had too many run-ins with them up in Maine and NH... ha ha ha ha....
the moose was probably confused - i was standing about 10-15 ft away in our condo doorway! we'd just returned moose-less from a morning game drive into the tetons NP. luckliy i had slipped a blank CF card into my camera while i was DLing from the used one - 'cause we looked up and there was this moose walking across our backyard. but he just wandered off like an extra from Northern Exposure
s
-
It's been a few years, but I have done several 2 week hikes.
first up buddy up, 2 people share tent, food, water filter, stove.... So if you have a group of 6 that's 3 pairs.
Pack light, invest in that light weight stuff, you know plastic forks, light weight stove....
Get in shape, load up your backpack and start walking, then do a few weekend trips.
My buddy and I had done many weekend hikes before our first real trip, but others in the group had only done a couple of day hikes before setting off on a 2 week adventure, Nedless to say blisters, broken ankle, lack of stamina where all problems....
Ok for the camera and lens, thinking of it this way, most likey your not going to do this again, so you are going to want to capture your memories.
But are you hiking thru the woods to sell photo's or are you doing it for a higher cause?
if you are just trying to save memories then I would go with the canon 5is or what ever version they have out at this time it's got a good zoom range and does wide ok, it takes regular aa batteries.
if your trying to make some money of your journey, then I would say 17-40l would be my choice, and a carbon tripod.
Looking at the wiki link it looks like wide is better.
have fun if you do decide to make the trip.
Bob
-
I just got back from a 7 night backpacking trip along the rugged north coast Trail around the northern tip of Vancouver Island. I shoot with a Sony A700 and I took with me three lenses; the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (excellent lowlight wide-angle for forest and landspace shots), the Sigma 10-20mm (shoulda left that one at home but I still got some cool shots with it) and for the splurge I took the Sony 70-300 G lens, not so much for wildlife but for tele landscape shots. I also had the Slik 340 AMT tripod along. My approach with camera gear and backpacking is that I like to make sure I have good gear and not go with mediocre equipment. I also have the Sony 18-200mm which could have been a nice one lens solution, but I prefer quality over less weight.
A hiking partner of mine though just takes his Nikon D300 and 18-200VR, however he was shooting at ISO800 and 1000 while I was shooting ISO 400 in the same light with the 17-50 2.8.
-
It would depend to me on how much walking each day.
If its a couple of hours then set up camp and look around,
then I take 24-105L IS and 100-400L IS
If it is 8 hours of walking each day then I'd ditch the 100-400L IS and take 16mm or something extra wide.
It would also depend if on how much wildlife there was to shoot.