Landscape lens for backpacking

[ma5ter5]

I am lucky to say that I have a permit to hike the John Muir Trail this August and cannot wait to bring my camera along with me. I currently have a 40D, 24-70 mk I, and 15 fisheye. I would like to get wider shots than the 24-70 on my crop, and am kind of forced to make a decision: get a FF body or a wider lens. I'm not 100% sold on any FF body as being the one for me (new or used), so I'm leaning towards new glass. Weight and price are not of concern to me as this is going to be one epic trip. The obvious choice seems to be the 16-35 for superior IQ over the 17-40, despite weight and cost. But are there primes I should consider as well? I certainly wouldn't hesitate considering one, especially if the IQ and weight are superior by comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

 

[Jim Saunders]

Why not rent a 5D something and a 16-35? No sense buying if it's a one-of job.

Jim

 

[ma5ter5]

It's a 221 mile, 3 week hiking trip. I'd prefer to invest that money into a purchase rather than a rental.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am lucky to say that I have a permit to hike the John Muir Trail this August and cannot wait to bring my camera along with me. I currently have a 40D, 24-70 mk I, and 15 fisheye. I would like to get wider shots than the 24-70 on my crop, and am kind of forced to make a decision: get a FF body or a wider lens. I'm not 100% sold on any FF body as being the one for me (new or used), so I'm leaning towards new glass. Weight and price are not of concern to me as this is going to be one epic trip. The obvious choice seems to be the 16-35 for superior IQ over the 17-40, despite weight and cost. But are there primes I should consider as well? I certainly wouldn't hesitate considering one, especially if the IQ and weight are superior by comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

The 16-35 is definitely a better choice for at least two reasons:
1. Since you are backpacking and don't have a tripod, the lens with better sharpness (esp. at corners) at wider apertures will make a big difference.
2. More light will also make a difference due to the lack of light sensitivity inherent to a crop sensor.
I haven't felt there is a huge weight disadvantage over the 17-40, and I am not a particularly powerful person.
It is certainly a good investment IMO, and a very versatile lens both on APS-C and FF.

 

[sanj]

This is a once in a life time sort of thing with lots of photo options.
If I were you I would go with 6D. 15mm and the 24-70. A portable tripod. How do you intend to recharge battery?

 

[Jim Saunders]

What about a 15-85? It isn't screaming fast but it reviews well.

Jim

 

[ahab1372]

+1 on the EF-S 15-85mm. From all I have read, a 16-35 on a crop camera will not give you better image quality.

 

[sanj]

Please do think this out well and make your decision. The best landscape photos are make when the light is real low. In low light a FF camera is much better than a crop. Pick your camera for the toughest need, not for the bulk of the need.

All you need to do is sell your 40D, pick up a 6D.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Please do think this out well and make your decision. The best landscape photos are make when the light is real low. In low light a FF camera is much better than a crop. Pick your camera for the toughest need, not for the bulk of the need.

This is great advice.

 

[Random Orbits]

Canon 10-22 and consider getting/bringing a small tripod.

 

[Don Haines]

I am lucky to say that I have a permit to hike the John Muir Trail this August and cannot wait to bring my camera along with me. I currently have a 40D, 24-70 mk I, and 15 fisheye. I would like to get wider shots than the 24-70 on my crop, and am kind of forced to make a decision: get a FF body or a wider lens. I'm not 100% sold on any FF body as being the one for me (new or used), so I'm leaning towards new glass. Weight and price are not of concern to me as this is going to be one epic trip. The obvious choice seems to be the 16-35 for superior IQ over the 17-40, despite weight and cost. But are there primes I should consider as well? I certainly wouldn't hesitate considering one, especially if the IQ and weight are superior by comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

Get a hiking pole that has a screw-off top so it can be used as a monopod....

If you do stay with a crop camera, the 17-55 is a better lens for landscape than the 15-85. It is faster and it is sharper on the wide end....

If you go FF, the 6D will outperform any crop camera for landscape and the 24-70F4 lens is sharper than the 24-105 lens that always seems to be included in the kits...... it is almost as sharp as th F2.8 version and a lot lighter. You can also throw in the 70-200F4 and a 1.4X teleconverter for more distant objects....

 

[NancyP]

My solution for the existing 40D: 15-85mm or 17-55mm. If 17-55mm, then take along one of the cheap Samyang ultra-wides. My 15-85mm spends a LOT of time at 15mm. 70-200 f/4 IS, extension ring set, 1.4x TCII, tripod/ball head/L bracket as below, Polarizer and needed step rings.

For a 6D: That's harder. I would probably go for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (great!), EF 24-70 f/4 IS (I don't have this yet), EF 70-200 f/4 IS (great!), 1.4x TC II, largest polarizer plus any needed step rings. Tripod: Feisol 3442 no center column plus Arca-Swiss p0 ball head plus L bracket.

For either camera, three LP-E6 batteries, fully charged, at minimum, if there are no "charging stops" available. That's 3,000 photos worth of batteries. Two batteries and a charger if charging stops are planned.

For ultralight short trip: Sigma DP2M (30mm f/2.8 fixed lens APS-C), nodal slide for panoramas, L bracket/grip, above tripod, ~10 batteries (~60-80 shots per battery, they are very lightweight and small), polarizer - four pounds for everything. Fewer batteries needed if you carry a solar charger.

Add a few oz for the Lee filter holder and one ND grad, one ND reverse grad, and one Big Stopper.

 

[Don Haines]

My solution for the existing 40D: 15-85mm or 17-55mm. If 17-55mm, then take along one of the cheap Samyang ultra-wides. My 15-85mm spends a LOT of time at 15mm. 70-200 f/4 IS, extension ring set, 1.4x TCII, tripod/ball head/L bracket as below, Polarizer and needed step rings.

For a 6D: That's harder. I would probably go for the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 (great!), EF 24-70 f/4 IS (I don't have this yet), EF 70-200 f/4 IS (great!), 1.4x TC II, largest polarizer plus any needed step rings. Tripod: Feisol 3442 no center column plus Arca-Swiss p0 ball head plus L bracket.

For either camera, three LP-E6 batteries, fully charged, at minimum, if there are no "charging stops" available. That's 3,000 photos worth of batteries. Two batteries and a charger if charging stops are planned.

For ultralight short trip: Sigma DP2M (30mm f/2.8 fixed lens APS-C), nodal slide for panoramas, L bracket/grip, above tripod, ~10 batteries (~60-80 shots per battery, they are very lightweight and small), polarizer - four pounds for everything. Fewer batteries needed if you carry a solar charger.

Add a few oz for the Lee filter holder and one ND grad, one ND reverse grad, and one Big Stopper.

With Nancy 1000% on the polarizing filter... mine lives on the end of my 17-55 and I carry a step-up ring so I can use it on my 70-200....

With Nancy 1000% on the batteries.... and throw in a few memory cards. Don't shoot the entire trip on the one card because if anything happens to it, you are toast! When hiking I shoot a few days on a card and then swap it out for a fresh card.

For carying the extra lens.... have you considered the Beta Shells?

I carry my camera in a drybag in the top pouch of the pack. I also carry a waterproof P/S with me.... it always seems to rain when I go for a hike.....

 

[bholliman]

My recommendations would be the EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 10-22 and maybe a fast prime like the 35mm f2 IS for low light or shallow DOF shots. When I had a 550D and 7D, I had both lenses and used the 15-85 for the vast majority of my landscape and other outdoor or flash photography. Its a terrific lens. I borrowed a friends 17-55 2.8 quite a bit and loved it, very sharp and f/2.8 came in handy for lower light photography. To me its focal range was just too limited compared with the 15-85 however. For most landscape photography the wider aperture of the 17-55 will not come into play.

The 10-22 is a really good UWA and I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities when it will be useful. My oldest son (age 15) and I do a lot of 3-4 day hikes (nothing like your 221 mile adventure however) and I took the 15-85 and 10-22 on most of them and really felt I had everything covered. A few times I wished I had more reach for wildlife, but otherwise these lenses covered 99% of what I wanted to shoot.

I agree with NancyP and Don on the extra batteries and SD cards! A small, really light weight tripod would also come in handy.

If you do stay with a crop camera, the 17-55 is a better lens for landscape than the 15-85. It is faster and it is sharper on the wide end....

Sharpness looks pretty close to me in the TDP crops at f/4 and f/8. However, the 17-55 does control distortion better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

 

[Don Haines]

My recommendations would be the EF-S 15-85 and EF-S 10-22 and maybe a fast prime like the 35mm f2 IS for low light or shallow DOF shots. When I had a 550D and 7D, I had both lenses and used the 15-85 for the vast majority of my landscape and other outdoor or flash photography. Its a terrific lens. I borrowed a friends 17-55 2.8 quite a bit and loved it, very sharp and f/2.8 came in handy for lower light photography. To me its focal range was just too limited compared with the 15-85 however. For most landscape photography the wider aperture of the 17-55 will not come into play.

The 10-22 is a really good UWA and I'm sure you will have plenty of opportunities when it will be useful. My oldest son (age 15) and I do a lot of 3-4 day hikes (nothing like your 221 mile adventure however) and I took the 15-85 and 10-22 on most of them and really felt I had everything covered. A few times I wished I had more reach for wildlife, but otherwise these lenses covered 99% of what I wanted to shoot.

I agree with NancyP and Don on the extra batteries and SD cards! A small, really light weight tripod would also come in handy.

If you do stay with a crop camera, the 17-55 is a better lens for landscape than the 15-85. It is faster and it is sharper on the wide end....

Sharpness looks pretty close to me in the TDP crops at f/4 and f/8. However, the 17-55 does control distortion better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

When I did my comparison of the 17-55 and the 15-85, I observed that the sharpness was a bit better on the wide end of the 17-55 and was a bit better on the long end of the 15-85. The differences were noticeable if you looked closely, and in the long run, I would call it a tie... one a bit better wide, one a bit better long... It was the faster lens that won out in the final decision as I would be using it at sunrises and sunsets, and also in some poorly lit areas...

Ultimately, you can't go wrong with either lens.....