Which lens for hiking?

[bedford]

Next week I will be leaving for a two week vacation on Mauritius. We are also planning to do some (short) hikes.

I will take my 60D together with the Sigma 17-50/2.8, the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6.
(For snorkeling I'll take my Olympus XZ-2 and a DigaPac underwater housing.)

The 17-50 is set, but I was wondering what would be a better choice to carry in the backpack when hiking: the tele or the wide-angle zoom?

Tele --> general wildlife, deer, birds, ...
wide-angle + tripod --> landscape, waterfalls, ...

What do you think?

Oliver

 

[Deleted member 20471]

It is all a matter of interests, for me, I would probably prefer landscape photography (but I have never been to Mauritius) so it would be the wind-angel and a tripod.

 

[gregorywood]

Having done a lot of hiking with camera gear, I want to keep it as simple as possible, yet still ensure I have the best range and quality. For me (an it's just my opinion), I'll carry my 6D, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I find that 24 is plenty wide enough and there are times when I want more reach. I'll often carry the 1.4x teleconverter also as that gets me a 280mm on the long end if needed and no appreciable weight gain on the kit. I carry all that in my Lowepro AW200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=768091&is=REG&Q=&A=details) and have room for a water bladder, food, jacket and other things.

I have the 16-35 f/4 IS and I've carried it as well. I find that I miss the 70-200 when I don't have it more than I miss the 16-35 when I do NOT have it.

Hope that helps.
Greg

 

[Don Haines]

Myself, I bring the camera and 2 lenses.... the 17-55 and a 70-200F4.

I don't worry about anything wider because I can take multiple images and stitch them together. I usually have the 70-200 on the camera when moving around. I find that I use the longer lens for animals/birds and the wide lens for landscapes. Since animals are more likely to quickly disappear than landscapes, it makes sense to me to have the camera ready for them. If a beautiful vista suddenly appears, I have time to stop and swap lenses.... not so when that eagle flies past....

Also, my hiking pole doubles as a monopod....

Hope this helps,
Don

 

[gregorywood]

Myself, I bring the camera and 2 lenses.... the 17-55 and a 70-200F4.

I don't worry about anything wider because I can take multiple images and stitch them together. I usually have the 70-200 on the camera when moving around. I find that I use the longer lens for animals/birds and the wide lens for landscapes. Since animals are more likely to quickly disappear than landscapes, it makes sense to me to have the camera ready for them. If a beautiful vista suddenly appears, I have time to stop and swap lenses.... not so when that eagle flies past....

Also, my hiking pole doubles as a monopod....

Hope this helps,
Don

I like that logic, and never really thought about it. I typically have the 24-105 mounted and swap to the longer one when needed. I'm hiking Colorado Bend State Park next weekend, so I'll give that a try.

Thanks!
Greg

 

[ahsanford]

5D3 + 24-70 f/4L IS is absolutely money for hiking. Weather-sealed, relatively light (compared to f/2.8 glass), and a killer 0.7x macro mode lets me leave the 100L macro at home. Love it.

On a crop rig, perhaps the 16-35 f/4L IS would be a good single lens call. Same reasons as above, but you lose the macro opportunity. (And a FF equivalent of 25.6-56mm might be too short for you.)

If you are tight for space or want something more discreet, consider the EF-S pancake (24mm, right?) or possibly just bring one of the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses. In both cases, you would lose weather sealing, however.

If you need a second lens to go with that 17-50, it depends on what makes you happy to shoot. If it's a varmint/bird/child, go with the telephoto, perhaps the 70-200 f/4L IS (light and super sharp). If you prefer landscapes, it's a no-brainer: go with the very good 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens. If it's a macro, pack that (but also consider the aforementioned 24-70's macro opportunity).

- A

 

[DRR]

For hiking, I wouldn't take the 17-50 personally. I'd take the 10-18 for landscapes and the tele for everything else.

Alternatively, pack light and only take the 17-50. Just my opinion.

 

[ahsanford]

For hiking, I wouldn't take the 17-50 personally. I'd take the 10-18 for landscapes and the tele for everything else.

Alternatively, pack light and only take the 17-50. Just my opinion.

Fair. If you crudely rethink a zoom as just two primes at each end, 16-35 and 70-200 becomes 16, 35, 70, 200.

Thought of in that light, it's a nice spread.

- A

 

[nc0b]

For trips to Easter Island, Machu Picchu, Alaska and stateside parks, I would say 75% of my shots were with a 6D and 24-105mm. I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS on a 60D, which could have been in a pack depending on how hilly the hiking trail. The macro capability of the 24-105 is quite good, so the need for lens changing while walking was minimal. For shooting raptors, I find nothing I have works except the 400mm f/5.6. I used it in Alaska and stateside, since it was easily accessible in the vehicle. I have better results with the 400mm for BIF on the 6D than the 60D from a focus standpoint. I would rather take two bodies and two lenses than one body and three or more lenses. Whether both systems are around my neck or in the back seat of the car, they are ready in an instant with no lens fumbling. If you don't plan to add a FF body, then I can see the need for the 17-50mm. I have to be doing a lot of planning to use my 18mm Zeiss for landscapes.

 

[AlanF]

Just ordered a Powershot G3 X for hiking and travel when the 100-400 + 7DII will be too heavy or bulky. Don't despise these little Canons.

 

[[email protected]]

Here's an odd suggestion. I find that I leave my 100-400II on the camera as the main lens for hikes for two very different reasons.

1) As someone stated above, the opportunistic wildlife shots can be exploited...

2) But also because it makes for a decent macro in a pinch. You wouldn't think it, but the minimum focal distance is crazy short (some inches away from the front of the lens - don't let the MFD stats fool you, as they measure from the sensor plane).

So I take some versatile short range lens as my back up, for times when I want to capture a vista, or members of our party, like tumbling toddlers.

Favorite combo: the 100-400II and then the sigma 18-35 art.

The only beef with the 100-400II is that it isn't terribly fast. That matters when you're in the woods under canopy. When it's a cloudy day, I'll take the 70-200.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Next week I will be leaving for a two week vacation on Mauritius. We are also planning to do some (short) hikes.

I will take my 60D together with the Sigma 17-50/2.8, the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6.
(For snorkeling I'll take my Olympus XZ-2 and a DigaPac underwater housing.)

The 17-50 is set, but I was wondering what would be a better choice to carry in the backpack when hiking: the tele or the wide-angle zoom?

Tele --> general wildlife, deer, birds, ...
wide-angle + tripod --> landscape, waterfalls, ...

What do you think?

Oliver

I guess your 17-50mm is ok for landscape, just add a telephoto and you are done.

 

[arthurbikemad]

If Im on a hike I take my 24-105, 100-400mk2 and my X1.4

 

[filipmakowski]

If you're intending to take only the one lens, I suggest the 17-50 wide angle. You're going to find more scenery shots than wildlife if you're hiking.

We took the one lens to Bali, the 16-35 F4, and it was more than enough for hiking the volcano, catching the local culture, etc. Having stabilization, it was also the perfect video lens:

Bali: Bikes, Bikinis, Boots, Boards and Bars... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ZUPj4kAeE

Granted we also had the GoPro for surfing and diving the reefs, but that's also a wide angle

 

[kaswindell]

I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[

 

[AlanF]

I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[

For a hike, the 24-105 plus the 100-400 II is, in my opinion, streets ahead of the 24-105 + 70-200. There is simply so much more wild life you can capture with the 2-fold extra focal length (as well as the almost macro mode of the 100-400), and as lensrentals has just shown in its most recent blogs it holds it own with the 70-200mm in sharpness although the latter has a wider aperture.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests

 

[coloradopa]

For trips to Easter Island, Machu Picchu, Alaska and stateside parks, I would say 75% of my shots were with a 6D and 24-105mm. I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS on a 60D, which could have been in a pack depending on how hilly the hiking trail. The macro capability of the 24-105 is quite good, so the need for lens changing while walking was minimal. For shooting raptors, I find nothing I have works except the 400mm f/5.6. I used it in Alaska and stateside, since it was easily accessible in the vehicle. I have better results with the 400mm for BIF on the 6D than the 60D from a focus standpoint. I would rather take two bodies and two lenses than one body and three or more lenses. Whether both systems are around my neck or in the back seat of the car, they are ready in an instant with no lens fumbling. If you don't plan to add a FF body, then I can see the need for the 17-50mm. I have to be doing a lot of planning to use my 18mm Zeiss for landscapes.

Interesting.This is the exact combo I am trying out on a trip to Myanmar. I just picked up the 70-200L IS F4. On my 60D thats roughly 100-300 equivalent. I rented a 70-300 L for my last trip to Japan but it stayed in my back most of the time. I am going to look at the Lowe AW 250. Hopefully I can fit both cameras in the camera part with lens attached with some room at the top for snivel gear.

 

[Cheekysascha]

I'd bring the tele lens too, I recently went to the Bavarian Alps and brought a 24-70 and a 70-200 and having that 70-200 to zoom on small detail stuff or kayakers on a lake etc.. was absolutey amazing as I could get so many more shots then I would have been able to get with just the 24-70

 

[FTb-n]

I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[

For a hike, the 24-105 plus the 100-400 II is, in my opinion, streets ahead of the 24-105 + 70-200. There is simply so much more wild life you can capture with the 2-fold extra focal length (as well as the almost macro mode of the 100-400), and as lensrentals has just shown in its most recent blogs it holds it own with the 70-200mm in sharpness although the latter has a wider aperture.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests

+1
There are two logical lens combinations for a FF body:

• 24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II
• 24-105 f4 IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS II

Of these four, the IQ advantage of the 24-70 may make it the best landscape lens and I particularly like the shallow DOF of the 70-200 for any situation -- indoor and out. But, for hiking, pending the length of the hike, I gravitate more toward the 24-105 and the 100-400. I find that the IS of the 24-105 makes it more versatile for scenery that includes moving water. It enables hand-held controlled motion blur with longer shutter speeds. Plus, I'm often shooting smaller apertures with scenery and the IS means I can leave the tripod home.

Of all these, I'm quickly adapting to the 100-400 as a primary outdoor lens. When hiking, I'm most interested in wildlife and want this lens at the ready. I also find that it offers great focal range for getting shots of my wife and kids when they get ahead of me on the trail.

While I generally prefer carrying two bodies, my "travel-lite" option would be a single body with the 100-400 and a 40 f2.8.

 

[Don Haines]

Just ordered a Powershot G3 X for hiking and travel when the 100-400 + 7DII will be too heavy or bulky. Don't despise these little Canons.

Yeah, I think I'd go with this as the choice when you want to "pack light." Amazing lens, great IQ.

When I am canoeing the main kit is in a bulky/heavy pelican case (most definitely NOT practical for hiking) but I keep an Olympus Tough p/s camera in my pfd pocket. Good for quick shots and the rain.... point being, when it rains there is different set of pictures to be taken and you don't want to miss them because your DSLR can't get wet. a waterproof P/S adds considerable versatility to your kit.