Good lens for hiking

[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.

Yes. I have done some hiking in places where I had to carry all water I needed, and it does indeed make a big difference.

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.

Right. For whatever reason, Finnish bears are very shy of people, so there's no need to worry about them. I've only once come across a bear in Lapland, and by the time I saw it, it was already running away fast.

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.

Right. My problem is that besides scenery I also want to photograph wildlife, including birds. The 70-300L is a compromise for that: small enough to carry easily, long enough to be useful - although longer would of course be better. (I have carried the 100-400L on occasion, and the moment I find myself considering dragging my new Tamron 150-600 on a hike... probably won't, though). Otherwise, I might take just the Ricoh GR (then I'd probably get the wide-angle accessory for it though).

 

[willis]

Maybe not 16-35 but how about 17-40?

 

[Frodo]

Resurrecting this thread, because I have a three-week hike through the Alps planned.
Some interesting comments about the 24-105. Yes, it is heavy, but it weighs less than my 35/2 and 85/1.8 combined. Bulk is a bigger issue for me (I have nice bag for the 6D plus 35 or 85, that doesn't look like a camera bag). Also comments about sharpness. Yesterday I took comparison shots with all my lenses and the 24-105 is as sharp at all comparable apertures (including wide open) to all my lenses, except the 85mm, where the zoom needs to be stopped down at least one stop to be comparable. I have not found my 24-105 to be wanting in terms of sharpness.
So the question is weighing up the bulk of the zoom with the small size of the 35/85 combo and the nice wide-open images of fast primes, compared to not having to change lenses and having 24mm. I do stitch, but could only do that when home, and I find that stitching doesn't always work with flowing water, which is a common subject of mine.
Sometimes 85mm is too short to compress scenery and isolate details, so am also contemplating a 35/200 combo.
I have a 250D closeup lens that works well with the 85 if stopped down a bit and am considering the 270EX flash. Plus a small table top tripod.
At the moment its looking like 35/85/250D or 24-105.
Part of the fun of trips is the planning beforehand!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Well, I assume you already read through the thread so you know my story. (SL1 Rebel with a Tamron super zoom.) The Tamron was a great compromise lens but obviously not the IQ of the 24-105. The 24-105 is a great lens and since you already like it, just take that.

Hiking is definitely where the K.I.S.S. principle pays off in spades. Don't take more than you need. You can fix a lot in post with photoshop and lightroom. The only two things you can't fix in post is REALLY bad lighting and poor focus. So if you must take must take a flash, (for fill mostly) make it a small one. (Because you also have to take batteries, etc too.) I recently switched from my old reliable Sunpak RD2000 to the Meike/Eachshot MK-320 and couldn't be happier!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UHNT8XA/ref=sr_ph?ie=UTF8&qid=1437253320&sr=1&keywords=meike

You have a serious backpack already so use it. Don't take a ton of heavy camera bags, etc. Use heavy duty freezer ziplocks and pack your clothes around stuff for protection.

Rig up a way to carry your camera while hiking using the shoulder straps or a cotton carrier. Otherwise, you'll miss a lot of shots or kill yourself stopping, pack-off/pack-on to unload or change lenses, etc. Trust me, unless you aren't really hiking, you probably won't want to keep doing this just for camera stuff.

Keep it simple and light and you'll still get great pictures but you won't regret a lot of extra gear that is just wasted weight.

 

[Haydn1971]

Canon 35 f/2 IS.

Small and lightweight enough (imho the most important feature for a long hike), versatile focal length, solid performance, IS for low light.

Just what I've bought last week and for slapping on my 6D whilst out walking (English for Hiking) ;-)

 

[jd7]

Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.

+1 ... Although maybe the choice isn't necessarily easy

 

[ahsanford]

Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.

+1 ... Although maybe the choice isn't necessarily easy

My rationale:

• With hiking, you can't always back up. Wider is better. I wouldn't choose a lens that doesn't go as wide at 24mm. So a 70-something lens would only be the call if wildlife was the principal focus of the photography.
• Unless you are only shooting narrow apertures or have the time to work a tripod, LiveView, etc., having AF would be pretty useful.
• Weathersealing is a must unless you plan to bag your rig when not in use.
• Lighter lenses are preferred. Under 1.5 pounds, I'd say. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that's what I'll go with.

On FF, there isn't a terrific list of lenses that satisfy even those basic criteria. You have the various f/4L zooms to choose from (16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105), the 24 f/1.4L II, and Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art (and weathersealing is a minor question mark with that one).

Of all of those, I'd still choose that 24-70 f/4L IS. I could be talked into the 16-35 f/4L IS if I knew I'd be tightly boxed in a ravine or other circumstance in which I couldn't get very much in frame.

- A

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.

+1 ... Although maybe the choice isn't necessarily easy

My rationale:

• With hiking, you can't always back up. Wider is better. I wouldn't choose a lens that doesn't go as wide at 24mm. So a 70-something lens would only be the call if wildlife was the principal focus of the photography.
• Unless you are only shooting narrow apertures or have the time to work a tripod, LiveView, etc., having AF would be pretty useful.
• Weathersealing is a must unless you plan to bag your rig when not in use.
• Lighter lenses are preferred. Under 1.5 pounds, I'd say. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that's what I'll go with.

On FF, there isn't a terrific list of lenses that satisfy even those basic criteria. You have the various f/4L zooms to choose from (16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105), the 24 f/1.4L II, and Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art (and weathersealing is a minor question mark with that one).

Of all of those, I'd still choose that 24-70 f/4L IS. I could be talked into the 16-35 f/4L IS if I knew I'd be tightly boxed in a ravine or other circumstance in which I couldn't get very much in frame.

- A

I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.

If the trip involves many days of hiking in a group, photography is usually NOT the primary activity. And after a few days on the trail, only having a camera and one extra lens to deal with is less effort mentally. If you take 3-4 lenses, you will literally get a headache trying to decide how to use them. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Enjoy yourself! It's not just about the photography.

Unless you are getting paid big bucks to bring back professionally commissioned money shots, don't pack photo gear like you are getting paid for perfect money shots. Just take it easy and enjoy the trip.

 

[jd7]

Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.

+1 ... Although maybe the choice isn't necessarily easy

My rationale:

• With hiking, you can't always back up. Wider is better. I wouldn't choose a lens that doesn't go as wide at 24mm. So a 70-something lens would only be the call if wildlife was the principal focus of the photography.
• Unless you are only shooting narrow apertures or have the time to work a tripod, LiveView, etc., having AF would be pretty useful.
• Weathersealing is a must unless you plan to bag your rig when not in use.
• Lighter lenses are preferred. Under 1.5 pounds, I'd say. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that's what I'll go with.

On FF, there isn't a terrific list of lenses that satisfy even those basic criteria. You have the various f/4L zooms to choose from (16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105), the 24 f/1.4L II, and Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art (and weathersealing is a minor question mark with that one).

Of all of those, I'd still choose that 24-70 f/4L IS. I could be talked into the 16-35 f/4L IS if I knew I'd be tightly boxed in a ravine or other circumstance in which I couldn't get very much in frame.

- A

FWIW, as someone who does a bit of hiking with camera (I'm sure not as much as others here though), I pretty much agree with everything said above. The 24-70 4L IS is my default choice too - for the reasons above and the reasons in ahansford's earlier post in this thread. I would add the 70-200 f/4L IS (or the non-IS) to the list of zoom candidates, but agree if you're taking only one lens, it's not often going to be the right choice. If primes are in the mix, then I'd add the 35 2 IS (my choice of this bunch), 28 2.8 IS, 24 2.8 IS and 40 2.8 to my list of candidates too. If a two lens kit is an option (depending on how much you are willing and able to carry, whether the conditions will make changing lenses in the field undesirable, what you expect to be photographing, etc), I'd probably choose from one of those (almost certainly the 35 2 IS in my case) plus an 85 1.8, 100 2.0 or 135L.

That's all for FF though. If I was shooting crop, I would almost certainly choose a lens made for crop as a hiking lens. The EF-S 15-85, EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, and EF-S 18-135 immediately spring to mind (and there is EF-S 24 2.8 these days too).

I also agree with Rusty that if you're hiking and photography isn't the primary object of the trip, keeping it simple is definitely the way to go! For this sort of hiking in rough(ish) conditions, I wouldn't consider more than two lenses, and if I've got to carry all my gear (not just camera gear - food, tent, etc) and cover a bit of ground quickly I would limit to one - it would all depend on the conditions, exactly how much I was carrying, etc.

EDIT: Just read ahansford's post again, and I realise he probably excluded a number of the lenses I listed because they aren't weather sealed. And I can understand that too! Still, in some situations I might be willing to take a non-weather sealed lens on a hike, if I wasn't expecting too much dirt/dust/rain/etc and I knew I'd be able to get the lens into a good dry bag/pack if I needed to.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.

If the trip involves many days of hiking in a group, photography is usually NOT the primary activity. And after a few days on the trail, only having a camera and one extra lens to deal with is less effort mentally. If you take 3-4 lenses, you will literally get a headache trying to decide how to use them. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Enjoy yourself! It's not just about the photography.

Unless you are getting paid big bucks to bring back professionally commissioned money shots, don't pack photo gear like you are getting paid for perfect money shots. Just take it easy and enjoy the trip.

Oh, good gravy, if *crop* is on the table, your ability to keep the weight down improves dramatically, but your ability to cover (24mm FF equiv) and still have some reach is greatly limited.

In that case, I'd still keep the 16-35 f/4L IS on the table, which would clock in at 25.6 - 56mm on crop, and it's a well-built sealed lens. Another option might be the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, which is a nice 24 - 136 equivalent range, but you'd lose your weather sealing.

I still think Canon should offer a nice, light 16-50 f/4L IS. It would be a nice scenery/hiking lens for FF users, but it would be a killer standard zoom on crop.

- A

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.

If the trip involves many days of hiking in a group, photography is usually NOT the primary activity. And after a few days on the trail, only having a camera and one extra lens to deal with is less effort mentally. If you take 3-4 lenses, you will literally get a headache trying to decide how to use them. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Enjoy yourself! It's not just about the photography.

Unless you are getting paid big bucks to bring back professionally commissioned money shots, don't pack photo gear like you are getting paid for perfect money shots. Just take it easy and enjoy the trip.

Oh, good gravy, if *crop* is on the table, your ability to keep the weight down improves dramatically, but your ability to cover (24mm FF equiv) and still have some reach is greatly limited.

In that case, I'd still keep the 16-35 f/4L IS on the table, which would clock in at 25.6 - 56mm on crop, and it's a well-built sealed lens. Another option might be the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, which is a nice 24 - 136 equivalent range, but you'd lose your weather sealing.

I still think Canon should offer a nice, light 16-50 f/4L IS. It would be a nice scenery/hiking lens for FF users, but it would be a killer standard zoom on crop.

- A

I didn't know crop was on the table either. I thought Frodo was taking a 6D. So the 24-105 would be actual 24-105 FL. I agree that on a crop body the 24 isn't very wide. I mentioned the SL1 because that is what I used. I used the Tamron 18-270 super zoom most of the time and then had the EF-S 10-22 packed in the top of the backpack for wider off-pack use while stopped in camps. Sure, the 18-270 IQ isn't up to a Canon L lens but it was still acceptable. (Remember - compromises!) If I ever go on that 10 day trek again, I'll probably suck it up and take a small flash. The on camera flash was a bit of a pain due to the size of the lenses, etc causing shadows at the bottom of the frame on wider shots due to the lens itself (10-22) or the hood (18-270).

Also, I didn't worry that much about weather sealing on the lenses, camera, etc. I was careful and I either put it away or I kept it dry when carrying it. Worst case scenario, I might have to have something repaired but so far so good!

 

[arthurbikemad]

24-105 is a great focal range. And on the scale of L glass well priced.

 

[Frodo]

28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens.
I took an FD 28/3.5 and an FD 100/2.8 on a four week hike through Nepal in 1982, shot on Kodachrome 64 and the combo suited me well (couldn't have dreamed about the high ISO images now possible!).
I tried a friend's 28/1.8 in the weekend including test targets, woodpile shots and real world shots. Reminded me how much I loved the focal length. Great for photos where the eye is drawn to the centre. But edge and corner resolution are sadly well behind the 35/2 and 24-105/4 (at 28mm).
I could very happily hike with a nice 28 and an 85 or 100, but the 28/1.8 doesn't deliver the edge sharpness needed for the images that need printing. The 35/2 is a great lens (except for coma wide open), but a little tight. Not sure I want to give up the f2 aperture for the 28/2.8IS, though.

 

[ahsanford]

28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens.
I took an FD 28/3.5 and an FD 100/2.8 on a four week hike through Nepal in 1982, shot on Kodachrome 64 and the combo suited me well (couldn't have dreamed about the high ISO images now possible!).
I tried a friend's 28/1.8 in the weekend including test targets, woodpile shots and real world shots. Reminded me how much I loved the focal length. Great for photos where the eye is drawn to the centre. But edge and corner resolution are sadly well behind the 35/2 and 24-105/4 (at 28mm).
I could very happily hike with a nice 28 and an 85 or 100, but the 28/1.8 doesn't deliver the edge sharpness needed for the images that need printing. The 35/2 is a great lens (except for coma wide open), but a little tight. Not sure I want to give up the f2 aperture for the 28/2.8IS, though.

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and love it. I too wish it was f/2, but 28mm is quite possibly my favorite single FL.

I don't know if I'd hike with it though. Sharp, small, light, IS, internal focusing -- it has it all, but a single prime would be a tough call for hiking for me.

- A

 

[RustyTheGeek]

28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens.
I took an FD 28/3.5 and an FD 100/2.8 on a four week hike through Nepal in 1982, shot on Kodachrome 64 and the combo suited me well (couldn't have dreamed about the high ISO images now possible!).
I tried a friend's 28/1.8 in the weekend including test targets, woodpile shots and real world shots. Reminded me how much I loved the focal length. Great for photos where the eye is drawn to the centre. But edge and corner resolution are sadly well behind the 35/2 and 24-105/4 (at 28mm).
I could very happily hike with a nice 28 and an 85 or 100, but the 28/1.8 doesn't deliver the edge sharpness needed for the images that need printing. The 35/2 is a great lens (except for coma wide open), but a little tight. Not sure I want to give up the f2 aperture for the 28/2.8IS, though.

I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and love it. I too wish it was f/2, but 28mm is quite possibly my favorite single FL.

I don't know if I'd hike with it though. Sharp, small, light, IS, internal focusing -- it has it all, but a single prime would be a tough call for hiking for me.

- A

Ditto. I really like 28 & 35 too. I use the good ole 28/1.8 USM for campfire pics. It rocks. But no primes for me while long haul hiking. Just not enough versatility unless I have a serious specific need I already know about.

 

[m8547]

How about the 24-105 IS STM? It's almost as good as the 24-105 L, but it's about 20% lighter at 525g instead of 670g.

Otherwise you could get an APS-C body and kit lens, or even an EOS-M.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

How about the 24-105 IS STM? It's almost as good as the 24-105 L, but it's about 20% lighter at 525g instead of 670g.

Otherwise you could get an APS-C body and kit lens, or even an EOS-M.

I get the impression from the OP's replies that he has a strong desire for pretty high IQ so most compromises that affect IQ are likely not an option.

I hope we hear what he decides, how the trip goes and get to see some images.

 

[milkrocks]

I'd take my 24-105 as my only lens for a hiking trip. If i couldn't carry the weight of it, I'd chose between the 40 pancake and 50 1.8 STM. If campfire pictures were likely, the 50 would win.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd take my 24-105 as my only lens for a hiking trip. If i couldn't carry the weight of it, I'd chose between the 40 pancake and 50 1.8 STM. If campfire pictures were likely, the 50 would win.

If later night shots are in play, I'd consider a 90EX, believe it or not. So small. Sure, the GN is pathetic, but it's a nice add if you shoot with a rig that lacks a pop-up. It's a great emergency option on my 5D3 provided it doesn't have to climb over a large f/2.8 zoom or large f/1.4 prime.

- A

 

[CanadianInvestor]

Trudged 55 Km through Grand Canyon last week when the temperatures were hovering around the 40C mark. 5DMkII, spare battery, 24-105 f4 L IS and Black Rapid Sport strap was the sum total of my kit coming in at under 2 Kg., I am guessing. If I were to do it again, I'd take along a tripod and a torch (flashlight). My interest was the plants and insects that call that region home. The strap made the trip so much more enjoyable.

Enjoy your hike.