Which lens for hiking?

[FTb-n]

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.

Hiking for my family is usually for site-seeing while traveling and generally not the most adventurous hikes. Photography is often an objective of the hike (at least for me), which is why I bring the good stuff.

But, when fishing in small boats, I bring a G16. This is an impressive little camera and sometimes it's fun to see what one can do with it. Although, it is most often used for photos of a child holding a fish. The G3x would fine choice for traveling lite.

 

[bedford]

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....

Interesting thoughts.

Stitching will be a bit of a problem, because I plan to use ND filters (normal and gradient) together with my wide-angle lens to capture some of the waterfalls. This will significantly increase the time I need to take pictures, and I usually only get granted a limited amount of time ;-)

Regards,
Oliver

 

[bedford]

After reading the comments (thanks to everyone who responded) I think I'll go for the extremes and take the tele
as primary lens for the wildlife together with wide-angle as backup in the backpack.

Of course, I'll stick to my 17-50 with the macro filter (the image quality is sufficient for me) when visiting the botanical garden in Pamplemousse and as general walk-around lens.

I still can adapt my strategy after knowing the island a bit better.

Regards,
Oliver

PS: CR seems to be a bit slow at the moment...

 

[ahsanford]

After reading the comments (thanks to everyone who responded) I think I'll go for the extremes and take the tele
as primary lens for the wildlife together with wide-angle as backup in the backpack.

Of course, I'll stick to my 17-50 with the macro filter (the image quality is sufficient for me) when visiting the botanical garden in Pamplemousse and as general walk-around lens.

I still can adapt my strategy after knowing the island a bit better.

Regards,
Oliver

PS: CR seems to be a bit slow at the moment...

CR has been molasses slow since the 35L II announcement. No idea why -- it couldn't have generated that much traffic.

- A

 

[Ruined]

To answer the topic but not the OP, I would go with one of these options:

Quality:
6D + 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
7DII + 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Low weight:
6D + 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
7DII + 55-250mm IS STM

 

[Ruined]

To answer the topic but not the OP, I would go with one of these options:

Quality:
6D + 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
7DII + 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Low weight:
6D + 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
7DII + 55-250mm IS STM

And if you really want to go low-weight and not sacrifice quality, G3X (24-600 on 20MP.)

Given that the Canon G3X has been shown to have equivalent IQ to Sony A7II with Tamron 150-600, if you didn't already have a bag of DSLR equipment, why would you go out and buy newer, heavy, camera gear that has less focal range?

Sure, you could go fixed lens, but you'd take a large quality hit on the wide camera and a large autofocus hit on the tele camera compared to above options, even low weight ones. Really depends how light you want and how much sacrifice you'd make, heck if you want the lightest passable quality you can buy a 41MP Lumia 1020 phone.

 

[ahsanford]

The wildcard for me is that there are so many different kinds of hiking photography:

1) Backcountry hikers = it's all about keeping size and weight down. That says 1 body and 1-2 (small and light) lenses, possibly a tripod for astro if that's your jam. Pack a 40 pancake (or possibly a 35 f/2 IS) and an 85 f/1.8 or 100L.

2) Day hiking with non-photography friends/family = it's all about running and gunning and not slowing the convoy down. Pack a zoom. This is where the 24-something zooms are gold if you prefer landscapes and the 70-something or 100-400 zooms are great for wildlife. Pick one and stick with it. Keep it simple, stick and move.

3) Day hiking with other photographers = bring the kitchen sink. You're with other people that are down with a 20-30 minute setup of tripod, ND grads, etc. or will wait at the great vista for the best light.

I'm always stuck with #2, so it's almost always the 24-70 f/4L IS on my 5D3. No time to change lenses, absolutely no time for tripods.

- A

 

[jd7]

The wildcard for me is that there are so many different kinds of hiking photography:

1) Backcountry hikers = it's all about keeping size and weight down. That says 1 body and 1-2 (small and light) lenses, possibly a tripod for astro if that's your jam. Pack a 40 pancake (or possibly a 35 f/2 IS) and an 85 f/1.8 or 100L.

2) Day hiking with non-photography friends/family = it's all about running and gunning and not slowing the convoy down. Pack a zoom. This is where the 24-something zooms are gold if you prefer landscapes and the 70-something or 100-400 zooms are great for wildlife. Pick one and stick with it. Keep it simple, stick and move.

3) Day hiking with other photographers = bring the kitchen sink. You're with other people that are down with a 20-30 minute setup of tripod, ND grads, etc. or will wait at the great vista for the best light.

I'm always stuck with #2, so it's almost always the 24-70 f/4L IS on my 5D3. No time to change lenses, absolutely no time for tripods.

- A

Agreed that hiking means different things to different people!!

As someone who is usually in group #2 but from time to time in group #1, I generally agree with what you say, although I have found a 6D + 24-70/4L IS on a Black Rapid Sport strap can work pretty well for a group #1 trip as well as a group #2 trip. (Of course, there may be particular trips where 24-70 really isn't the focal length range you want.)

I am sure not everyone will agree, but I think the 24-70/4L IS is one of Canon's best landscape lenses, certainly in the hiking context. If you think about it:
24-70 is a pretty useful range for landscapes (yes, wider can make for spectacular shots but you need to have the right scene for it, plus of course stitching a panorama can be an option if you don't have a lens as wide as you'd like with you);
24-70/2.8L II is bigger and heavier, query if it is any better optically at the sort of aperture you would commonly use for landscapes, no IS, and it doesn't have the 4L IS's macro mode for things you spot while on the trail;
24-105/4L IS has the advantage of longer reach (which could be a real advantage sometimes), but at the expense of the macro mode, some IQ (eg not as sharp, more distortion) and a little bit of size and weight.

 

[martti]

On a crop body, I would probably have the 24mm pancake and on my FF the 40mm pancake.
On the FF shot there are enough pixels to crop if you want and instead of carrying a wide angle I can do panorama.
I went to Mauritius with a 24-70 and a 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. Next time I'll carry something lighter and more discreet, probably an Olympus Tough 4.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

Depends on what is more important for you. I'd personally prefer the telezoom over the UWA-Zoom on the first hiking trip, after this experience you can always change your gear. 17 mm WA covers already a lot of landscape (even on a crop sensor), and with the telezoom you won't miss tropical birds - Mauritius should be great for birding, like many tropical islands. Tele is also very nice for landscape details. I personally find such images often more interesting than typical mainstream WA/UWA shots, but that's a matter of taste. The Tammy 70-300 is less than 800 g, so that's not really heavy, if you are healthy.

Have a nice trip!

 

[mb66energy]

I really like telephoto and my experiences with the following combos are good:
5D + 100mm Macro & EOS M + EF-M 22mm or
5D + 70-200 f/4 & EOS M + EF-S 10-22mm via adaptor
Dream combos:
5D + 100-400 ii & EOS M + EF-M 11-22 or
5D + hypothetical 40-200 f/4.0 + EOS M + EF-M 11-22
EOS M is a very comfortable body for seldom used lenses because it fits with lens in a lens compartment of a photo backpack. And you have the option to use the tele on APS-C.
Another idea would be to use the EOS 100D (SL1) instead of the EOS M to stay into "one" system.

In your case:
For hiking perhaps your 60D with 70-300 zoom plus the Olympus compact might be a good "team" ...