Which lens/es to take on Iceland 12-day tour?

[RobbieHat]

Once again, thanks for all the answers.

One additional thought. I was just in Iceland last year in early June. You get lots of light and you also get lots of birds. If you enjoy bird watching or photography I would make an additional suggestion. Swap the 100 Macro and or the 50 mm prime for a 2X extender with your 70-200. This would give you 400mm on the long end and could make for a great wildlife set up in case you get the urge. Throw in a pair of binoculars as well.

Certainly, Iceland is amazing for landscape, but I was also wishing I had something on the telephoto side for some of the shots and for the birds for sure. No loss of weight if you swap the options. Only caveat is if the 2X will work on those bodies. I think it does, but you might want to check.

 

[Frodo]

I have been on two landscape photo trips to Iceland, both trips a week long. On the first trip I brought a Zeiss 18/3.5, Canon 24-70L and Canon 70-300L. Om the second I had sold my Zeiss lens (to buy the 16-35/4L, but I did not receive it in time for the trip) – I was missing a wider lens then 24mm on the second trip.

The attached graph is what length I was using (on my keepers) for my two trips. I was only using full frame cameras.

My setup would be the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 and two cameras. I did not use any filters, I am shooting two exposures and blending the picture in Photoshop instead.

The weather on Iceland is changing very quickly. so be prepared for rain.

This chart shows that the photographer tended to use his zooms at the extreme ends, i.e. 24, 70 and 200mm. I found that this was the case too when I travelled with zooms. I now travel light and find 35mm and 85mm to be less limiting than I expected. 35mm images can be stitched to go wider.

I focus on the trip as a whole. If this is to be a photo trip, takes lots of stuff. However, if photography is to be just a part of the trip, having less gear can make the travel easier and freer. Having fewer lenses can force creativity.

If I would travel light, I'd take my 6D, 35/2 IS and 200/2.8, with 1.4x (I agree with the comment about the birds) and a small 270EX flash. And maybe the 85/1.8. I'd throw a point and shoot (my G11) into the backpack. This will all weigh under half what many have suggested, and packs into a small bag that is less conspicuous and less of a burden to take everywhere.

But if this is a photography targeted trip, take the gear. I do question the need to take the 24-70 if you are also taking the 16-35 and 70-200.

 

[matt4p]

I'm going to Iceland too this year. I'm pretty certain that I will be taking my Tamron 15-30 and my Canon 70-200. I've got a 24-70 lens but I cant see me using it as much as the other two. I also don't want to be carrying a third lens because I intend to do some pretty strenuous hiking.

 

[retroreflection]

Everyone has skipped your father's gear; get an adapter for your Canon lenses, and maybe a 12mm (Ziess or Rokinon).

 

[C4RBON]

I'm headed to Iceland in September. I'm planning on bringing my 70-300L and my 16-35 f4L. Right now I have a 70D, but I'm planning on getting a full-frame before the trip. I'll keep the 70-300 on the 70D and the 16-35 on the full-frame. I also have an EOS M that I will carry as a walkaround camera.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Re: Which lens/es to take on Iceland Golden Circle tour?

Perhaps 7D+16-35 and 6D+70-200 mounted all the time?

+1, this would be my choice. In case you need longer FL you can swap lenses and get up to 320mm equivalent on your 7D+70-200mm lens and UWA on your 6D+16-35mm lens.

 

[johnnyblues]

i go on a trip like this once a year. i have found that my 16-35 and 70-200 are the lenses that i use over 95% of the time for landscapes. i wouldn't hesitate to just bring those 2 lenses. there are many times when i want to focus in on a small area of a waterfall or a scene and i need the 70-200 to do that. if i had a 3rd lens to consider then i would probably go with my 24-105. i love the range of that lens. i have brought my 100 mm lens on trips, but generally find that i don't use it very much. if space was a factor, then i know that i would leave it at home.

+1, specially on the 70-200. I don't think you would need a backup body. I'd rather bring extra batteries. Not too hot on the 24-105 due to (lower) IQ.

Most importantly, enjoy the trip. 8)

 

[Pitspics]

On my Iceland-Trip in 2013 i used a 7D (changed to FF last year).

Most of the time I used the 10-22 (now 16-35)
2nd: 24-105 4 IS
3rd: 70-200 4 IS

The most scenes (waterfalls and so on) are sooo big, you need the UW-lense (16-35).
TIPP: don´t forget your ND-filters ;-)

You can look at my "iceland-gallery" on
http://www.ich-fotografiere.at/trips/island/

BUT LENSES DON'T REALLY MATTER... ENJOY YOUR TRIP - IT WILL BE FANTASTIC 8)

CU

 

[Khalai]

On my Iceland-Trip in 2013 i used a 7D (changed to FF last year).

Most of the time I used the 10-22 (now 16-35)
2nd: 24-105 4 IS
3rd: 70-200 4 IS

The most scenes (waterfalls and so on) are sooo big, you need the UW-lense (16-35).
TIPP: don´t forget your ND-filters ;-)

You can look at my "iceland-gallery" on
http://www.ich-fotografiere.at/trips/island/

BUT LENSES DON'T REALLY MATTER... ENJOY YOUR TRIP - IT WILL BE FANTASTIC 8)

CU

Filters are of no issue Little stopper, 0.6 hard grad, 0.75 soft grad, 0.6 ND, three colour grads (fun!), 105mm polarizer) and 77mm old B+W Kaesemann polarizer I already had before purchasing LEE system.

I'm on the verge of selling LEE polarizer and getting its newer landscape polarizer with thin rim to prevent vignetting from 17mm onwards (I've seen testshots, 16mm is still a slight problem).

Very nice pictures btw Where was 44/57 taken? Looks like icelanding Plitvice lakes

 

[Pitspics]

Very nice pictures btw Where was 44/57 taken? Looks like icelanding Plitvice lakes
[/quote]


thx, this photo was taken at Hraunfossar

 

[Khalai]

thx, this photo was taken at Hraunfossar

Quite close to Geitá which was already on my list - added also this. There's a plethora of beautiful places, can't possibly cover them all, but at least I can try

 

[Pitspics]

thx, this photo was taken at Hraunfossar

Quite close to Geitá which was already on my list - added also this. There's a plethora of beautiful places, can't possibly cover them all, but at least I can try

it doesn´t really matter where you go... you can stop every 5 minutes to take some nice photos, so you would need to stay 3 years in iceland

enjoy the nature... amazing!

 

[mangobutter]

Take the 6D/7D, 16-35, 70-200. If you need 35-70mm, put the 16-35 on your 7D. =) Roughly a 25-60mm equiv.

 

[GuyF]

I'm on the verge of selling LEE polarizer and getting its newer landscape polarizer with thin rim to prevent vignetting from 17mm onwards (I've seen testshots, 16mm is still a slight problem).

I recently got the 16-35mm f4 and just bought some Lee filters (0.6 hard grad, 0.9 soft grad and landscape polariser). I don't see any vignetting with the polariser at 16mm.

Not quite the same as a trip to Iceland but I'm heading north to Mallaig this Saturday over the Glenfinnan viaduct. Should be a good test of the 16-35mm and filters!

NOTE: image sourced from the web.

 

[nc0b]

We will likely go to Iceland next year, and then on to the UK. In a few days it is off to Alaska for the first time. I will take my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, 24-105mm, 70-200mm f/4 IS and 400mm f/5.6 for the 6D and 60D. I have not had good luck with BIF with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 2X TC III teleconverter. For more static shots the TC was just fine, but AF would usually get lost in a blue sky with BIF and never recover focus. I will take my 1.4X TC III on both trips since it is so small, as it works well with either 70-200mm zoom.

On the subject of binoculars, I own the Canon 10x42 L IS WP imaged stabilized binocular. When I tested the 10X and 15X non-L IS versions, out of focus edges of images had a yellow fringe that was VERY annoying. I am so happy with the only "L" version Canon IS binocular. The image quality is absolutely stunning. Do take along several sets of AA batteries. My wife, who isn't "techie" at all in respect to cameras, has often said the money I spent on these binoculars was absolutely worth it. I don't care what you are looking at, birds, landscapes or wildlife, these "L" class IS binocular will blow you away. Don't even consider the non-L versions.

 

[fegari]

Thanks everybody for all your answers. So far, I'm inclined to this:

6D primary, 7D backup
16-35L primary lens
70-200L complementary lens
100L just-in-case lens
50/1.4 throw-it-in-my-pocket-fun-lens

Manfrotto 190XProB tripod with 496RC2 ball head (old, beaten, but trusty)

Half a ton of LEE gear (little stopper, 0.6 hard grad, 0.75 soft grad, 0.6 ND, three colour grads (fun!), 105mm polarizer) and 77mm old B+W Kaesemann polarizer I already had before purchasing LEE system.

I should be set, right?

I was there in 2013 summer. Your kit is a no brainer. from your choices I would not hesitate:

Take the obvious ones you'll be fine
16-35
24-70
70-200

Don't bother with the 100L you will not use it (no subjects for that, no insects, no plants, no flowers..), 50 1.4 unnecesary in my opinion, you will not have any night nr low light scenarios, its sunny 24/7

The 70-200 is the one you'll use the least unless you go to Latrabjarg or Vestmannaeyaer island when you'll see tens of thousands of puffins, arctic terns etc, there the 70-200 will save the day.

Tripod a must logically and the filters too.

Really, don't bother with the 100L or 50 1.4