Good lens for hiking
- Thread starter edurieux
- Start date
If you are content with a single focal length, and one of those focal lengths is equivalent to 28mm, 45mm or 75mm on full frame, try one of the Sigma DP Merrills, which are heavily discounted now (at least in some locations), and which can be found on the used market. The serious downsides are that 1. it creates a second workflow, because you can't use Adobe or most other RAW converters 2. the batteries have a life of 50 shots, no chimping. I have about 6 batteries. The quality of files from the Merrills, especially the 45mm and 75mm Merrills, is shockingly good. It leaves all other APS-C format cameras in the dust. It leaves most of my lenses and 6D combination in the dust. IIRC, the weight is 230 grams. Add a grip, the original design is not ergonomic at all.
Upvote
0
40km a day while backpacking is quite a lot, even for AT or/and PCT thru hikers.edurieux said:
In any case, considering your budget I would go for a higher end P&S, like the sony RX100mk2, the Canon G1X, Lumix LX7...you get the point, and still would have money left for extra batteries, memory cards, and depending on camera, a solar charger too
Upvote
0
What about leaving the 6D at home, and getting an M + 22mm, or perhaps the 11-22? You'll save a lot of weight that way.
Upvote
0
I'm debating this very subject for my own hiking. I have a Canon Tough P&S D20 that hangs from a super magnet on my pack strap that is durable, simple, light and easy while hiking on the trail. But once I arrive at my destination, I would prefer to use a SLR with a wider lens, etc.
There are soooo many angles to this challenge. I've considered small systems. Better P&S cams like G series, S series, etc. Ugh. Expensive, fragile and a whole other system to build and maintain. However, if I were to buy another system, I think it would be a Pentax K-3 with a WR lens. I've almost bought that several times already and chickened out. It's weather and shock resistant and a very good camera to boot.
I got a Canon SL1 on a super sale before Christmas for $349. I'm thinking it might end being a throw away body if it can't hold up to the hiking. (Shocks, temps, dirt, moisture, etc.) I hate to see that and I don't want to miss out on pictures if the thing dies on day 2 or 3! That's my biggest fear, not that I lose the $349.
If you do a search, you'll find a thread I started back in November or December on this very subject. I'm still debating. And, I'm still considering spending a small mint on a new ultralight zPacks sleeping bag and tent to save 5+ pounds so I can absorb the extra camera weight without penalty.
Check out http://zpacks.com for some ultralight gear and you might find a way to make it all work if you can afford the prices. Also look at http://gossamergear.com for a super lightweight pack. I probably won't go for a UL pack but I am seriously considering the zpacks bag and tent.
There are soooo many angles to this challenge. I've considered small systems. Better P&S cams like G series, S series, etc. Ugh. Expensive, fragile and a whole other system to build and maintain. However, if I were to buy another system, I think it would be a Pentax K-3 with a WR lens. I've almost bought that several times already and chickened out. It's weather and shock resistant and a very good camera to boot.
I got a Canon SL1 on a super sale before Christmas for $349. I'm thinking it might end being a throw away body if it can't hold up to the hiking. (Shocks, temps, dirt, moisture, etc.) I hate to see that and I don't want to miss out on pictures if the thing dies on day 2 or 3! That's my biggest fear, not that I lose the $349.
If you do a search, you'll find a thread I started back in November or December on this very subject. I'm still debating. And, I'm still considering spending a small mint on a new ultralight zPacks sleeping bag and tent to save 5+ pounds so I can absorb the extra camera weight without penalty.
Check out http://zpacks.com for some ultralight gear and you might find a way to make it all work if you can afford the prices. Also look at http://gossamergear.com for a super lightweight pack. I probably won't go for a UL pack but I am seriously considering the zpacks bag and tent.
Upvote
0
tapanit said:
Wow. 8+ pounds? Plus the space required in the pack. What kind of hiking are you doing? In my case, I will be totally off the grid for 10 days covering ~90 miles in the mountains. There could be daily rain. I'm in a group of around 14 scouts and adults. Only stops I will make are for daily program camps, and food pickups every 3 or 4 days. No power, etc. So whatever I take, I have to carry for the duration. The only weight variations are from food/water consumption and whatever weight I might take on for someone else having trouble.
So while I have learned that adding a little weight isn't a big deal if I'm in shape and trained for the trip, throwing caution to the wind and taking what you take would likely make the trip miserable for me.
Upvote
0
edurieux said:
I hiked the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex this fall with the 6D and 24-105. You already have what you need, IMHO.
The weight savings of a 40 2.8 over a 24-105 do not make up for the lack of versatility in wilderness conditions. These are the kinds of trips we buy camera gear *for*.
Upvote
0
Are you equating "landscape" with "wide angle"? This is something I don't think we should do. But from your post it sounds like you're looking for a wide angle to take on your hikes.
If you're not willing to take a single 24-105 lens and your 6D, then I question whether a full-frame DSLR is going to work for you on a hike. That's not a lot of gear for a full-frame DSLR. So are you just going to take one prime lens?
I suggest a Sony RX100 or one of the mirrorless, or a Fuji 100 or something.
If you're not stuck on really wide angle, the 40 STM is really great in every way for a tiny lens.
If you do want to take your 6D and just one wide-angle lens, then I'd suggest the Voigtlander 20mm. You already have 24mm covered with your zoom so don't waste your money. The Voigt gives you something significantly different. It's super well made, it's super small for a 20mm, manual focussing is no problem at this focal length, you just have to commit to it. Great colour and contrast. Perfect sharp in the centre, very good at the edges and good in the corners unless all you do is zoom in and look at corners (every bit as good as the 16-35 and pretty much every other Canon/Minolta/Nikon 20mm out there, based on what I've read). Small 58mm filters too. $550 at BH.
Couple examples:
If you're not willing to take a single 24-105 lens and your 6D, then I question whether a full-frame DSLR is going to work for you on a hike. That's not a lot of gear for a full-frame DSLR. So are you just going to take one prime lens?
I suggest a Sony RX100 or one of the mirrorless, or a Fuji 100 or something.
If you're not stuck on really wide angle, the 40 STM is really great in every way for a tiny lens.
If you do want to take your 6D and just one wide-angle lens, then I'd suggest the Voigtlander 20mm. You already have 24mm covered with your zoom so don't waste your money. The Voigt gives you something significantly different. It's super well made, it's super small for a 20mm, manual focussing is no problem at this focal length, you just have to commit to it. Great colour and contrast. Perfect sharp in the centre, very good at the edges and good in the corners unless all you do is zoom in and look at corners (every bit as good as the 16-35 and pretty much every other Canon/Minolta/Nikon 20mm out there, based on what I've read). Small 58mm filters too. $550 at BH.
Couple examples:
Upvote
0
I'd go with a Ricoh GR if I were hiking. Superlight, truly pocketable and great image quality for the price and size.
Upvote
0
Walking in the wilderness (Lapland), away from the civilization - last fall I was there alone and didn't see anybody at all for six days.RustyTheGeek said:
I remember one hike when it rained every day and last three days almost nonstop... it was still fun, though not exactly photogenic.
Being able to refill food en route helps - I carry everything for the entire trip. In autumn there're usually berries and mushrooms, though.
One nice thing about Finnish Lapland is that there's no need to carry water, there's plenty of drinkable water around. Otherwise I have to carry everything I need, too.
Throwing caution to the wind is not a good idea in the wilderness. I've been hiking for years and know what I need and how much I can carry (about 30kg is my comfort limit), but if you're new to the game, don't overpack.
Upvote
0
My walk around/hiking kit 5D3, 24-105mm, 8-15mm, 300mm f4 IS, 35mm extension tube, 77mm cir Pol, 320 EX flash, Lowpro 200 sling, carbon fiber monopod, gorilla pod focus. Now I am not hiking overnight, to me that is camping.
I like having this wide range of focal lengths, and all of this is pretty light. I like the 320EX over my 480II because it has the video light, and is just smaller.
I like having this wide range of focal lengths, and all of this is pretty light. I like the 320EX over my 480II because it has the video light, and is just smaller.
Upvote
0
Hey, thanks for the clarifications tapanit! You are fortunate that you have the luxury of easy consistent water access. That makes a big difference with how far you can go and weight reduction overall. Please don't get the wrong idea, I wasn't trying to criticize, only illustrate why weight is an important factor for me.
I try to minimize the extra effort and energy it takes to manage all the extra bits of gear. Since we put a lot of our stuff up in bear bags at every camp, there is a lot of packing and unpacking every day. The more items you have, the more you have to unpack/repack, make room for, organize, account for, keep clean, etc. It gets tiresome after a few days. IMHO, when hiking, the simpler the better. So that's why I am trying to really think the whole "better camera" thing through. Because the group loves my pictures regardless, even if they're just from the little rugged D20. I'm the only one who really appreciates/enjoys the IQ difference and superior handling of the SLR.
And yes, the rain makes for rather flat pictures but at least there are no harsh shadows and lens flare, right?
I try to minimize the extra effort and energy it takes to manage all the extra bits of gear. Since we put a lot of our stuff up in bear bags at every camp, there is a lot of packing and unpacking every day. The more items you have, the more you have to unpack/repack, make room for, organize, account for, keep clean, etc. It gets tiresome after a few days. IMHO, when hiking, the simpler the better. So that's why I am trying to really think the whole "better camera" thing through. Because the group loves my pictures regardless, even if they're just from the little rugged D20. I'm the only one who really appreciates/enjoys the IQ difference and superior handling of the SLR.
And yes, the rain makes for rather flat pictures but at least there are no harsh shadows and lens flare, right?
Upvote
0
If you are not needing a long lens for wildlife then I would take your 24-105 and consider a 15mm fisheye. Its small and lightweight, very sharp. Good for night sky shooting and with software can be de-fished all or partly if you want. You can crop a lot out and still have a good wide angle shot. You can pick one up for $500-$600 I think
Upvote
0
+1 for just the 24 - 105 on your 6D. I've done a lot of backpacking with that combination. So versatile. If find I hardly ever want to change lenses when it means taking off the pack off. I just carry the camera in my hand, and switch sides every once in a while.
Upvote
0
BLFPhoto
Canon EOS user since '91...
Regardless of any other lens I might take, the little 40 pancake will always be in my bag. Usually it is carried as the glorified lens cap on the body. It's just too easy and too good...and too small not to take it. My lightweight trail running kit is that 40 and the 135L for tele. I can run all day with that small kit.
Upvote
0
Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.
Small length for an FF zoom
Useful FL for hiking -- wide enough for landscapes but has some reach to crop / compress down-the-barrel trail views
Light -- I believe the second lightest L zoom behind the 17-40
Weather-sealed
Considerably sharper than the 24-70 2.8 Mk I and 24-105
IS is nice (but usually not much help in daytime hiking)
The 0.7x Macro mode -- despite the very short working distance -- is a nice functionality for wildflowers on a hike
That'd be my vote. I've taken it on a few hikes to good effect.
- A
Small length for an FF zoom
Useful FL for hiking -- wide enough for landscapes but has some reach to crop / compress down-the-barrel trail views
Light -- I believe the second lightest L zoom behind the 17-40
Weather-sealed
Considerably sharper than the 24-70 2.8 Mk I and 24-105
IS is nice (but usually not much help in daytime hiking)
The 0.7x Macro mode -- despite the very short working distance -- is a nice functionality for wildflowers on a hike
That'd be my vote. I've taken it on a few hikes to good effect.
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
