Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Camera lens suggestions

We've had a few discussions recently about camera holders and so knowing that there a some photographers on here who like to take their gear on hikes, I thought I'd ask for suggestions on lenses. (While P&S can be a good option, I've decided to take my DSLR, so lets avoid that conversation)

At first I was thinking of just taking the 24-105 as a single lens solution. Taking one lens sounds good to me and it covers a wide range. But, I don't know that 24 mm would be wide enough for my tastes since I'll primary be shooting landscapes. So, then I thought about only taking the 17-55. A great wide angle lens. But then I wasn't sure if I would miss some of the range of the 24-105. After that I thought about a two lens solution. The 17-55 paired with either the 70-200 or the 55-250. The weight of each lens is listed below:

Canon 70-200 f/4 IS - 1.7 lbs
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - 1.4 lbs
Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - 1.5 lbs
Canon 55-250 IS - .87 lbs (14 oz.)

I think I am going to go with the 17-55 and the 55-250. I figure I'll use the 17-55 90% of the time and I can take the 55-250 for some compression shots since it doesn't weigh a ton.

What lenses do you guys take when you're hiking? Any thoughts/suggestions?

10-22mm. No question!

It's considered as good as L glass for a crop sensor. It's probably a lot lighter than the 17-55. As someone else mentioned, you don't need to go longer than the 105, unless you're trying for wildlife, especially with the 1.6 multiplier that I assume you have.

Back in the film years, I used to bring a 24mm, a 50mm and a 135mm, which you'd cover with that 17-55 and the 70-200mm. OF the images taken back then, I'd say 60% were 50mm, 35% 24mm and 5% were 135mm. YMMV.

These days I use a Nikon D40 with 17-55mm VR and/or a Canon HV20 HD camcorder with a few accessories, most importantly a tripod. If I should go back to just shooting stills, I'd probably bring a higher end body, a 12-24mm, the 17-55mm, and maybe a fast long lens. Definitely bring a tripod - people underestimate how much it adds to image quality, even if the camera tells you all is ok, especially in low light when you don't want to kick up the ISO noise.

To save weight on the tripod, check out this thread:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/...thread_id=14867

I built one with poles from an old Sierra Designs tent, not carbon fiber, and it's strong enough and weighs less than 6 oz. This little thing is amazing and beats any hiking pole or gorillapod contraption out there, at a lower cost and weight. It handles a D40 with old heavy metal 300mm f4.5 ED lens without slowly tilting.

If you use hiking poles, it seems like you could add a third leg (from the tent poles or a fellow hiker's pole), plus the a 2.6 oz UltraPod from REI.

I bring a Canon 40D and 24-105 F/4L IS on all my trips and that is it. I have thought about a wider lens, such as a 16-35L on a 5D, but you lose the Image Stabilization (which comes in very handy when shooting in the low light dusk and dawn situations). I find the longer end of the 24-105L being more useful than the wider end of the 16-35L. Ideally, you would carry multiple lenses, but weight becomes a problem.

Here are my hiking galleries, all taken with the 24-105L

http://calicokat.smugmug.com/Hiking

I will be shooting a 40D. I have the tokina 11-16 2.8 which I could bring, but I thought the 17-55 would be more useful since it has IS and 2.8. I just don't know. On my most recent hike up Santiago Peak in Orange County, I only used the 24-105. It worked great and there were only a few shots I didn't get because it wasn't wide enough and I couldn't scoot back. I like both those tripod ideas. Weight will be a factor since its a 5 day trip. I'll have to take different combinations out on practice hikes and see what I like best.

Very nice galleries. I especially enjoyed the one of Mount San Jacinto.

Oh how this drives me crazy! Since I'm usually out with skis, carrying the extra weight of a second lens is like the straw that breaks the camel's back -- I just can't bear it.

On a crop DSLR sensor, which is probably what you've got, I've found I always want something wider than 24mm. So, something around 17-18mm on the wide end is pretty much mandatory.

Unless you go with freaky fun-house mega zooms, and their significant distortion, that means with a good lens you're probably going to top out around 35 to 55mm on the long end.

If you can get into the mindset of giving up telephoto shots, you can live with this. On the other hand, if you want route scouting photos, as I usually do, this will drive you batty.

An expensive option is to go with a FF sensor, which makes more modest zooms like 28-200's better on the wide end without quite so much distortion or lack of sharpness.

You can also carry a POS as a second camera to pick up the missing range - long or shot. This works, it's light, and you'll find yourself getting shots you'd otherwise miss.

Should also mention: mountains are usually windy and always dusty. This is a very problematic environment for changing lenses on a DSLR.

Jeff, I normally carry a 12~24mm and 24~120mm with my Nikon D200. I'd definitely recommend you take the 17~55. The longer 55~250 zoom will come in handy now and then but I'd bet you use the wide end of the 17~55 frequently. Going all the way back to 2001 and my Nikon 990 that I had then, I carried a 24mm-equivalent wide-angle add-on and used it a lot. That would be the equivalent to the 17mm end of your wider zoom on a DX format camera. Take a look at my 2001 trip report. The wide scenics, like the shot of the east face of Whitney from the switchbacks, definitely used the wide add-on.

Of course, these days I usually have my 10.5mm full-frame fisheye also but that's for shooting VR pans like this one of Humphreys Peak in Arizona, not scenics. Different purpose, different tool.

Speaking of tripods, if you use an external-frame pack with a top extension bar, you can buy a c-clamp-style tabletop gizmo and clamp it to the top bar of the pack. Take your hiking pole and a Velcro strap to make the third leg. I used to do this many years ago but actually made a custom clamp for the top bar that used a small ball head that I bought, so I just left it on the top bar all the time. Added maybe 2-3 ounces to my rig and used stuff I had with me anyway. That setup would hold my Mamiya RB67 2-1/4x2-3/4 SLR with a little care.

What is the lowest number for wide angle before experiencing curvature in your images?

I'd like to have as wide as possible to get everything in the frame I can but I don't want to be so wide the sides of my image bend...

depends on your camera. For full frame bodies it is a 14mm from Canon, and it sets you back about $2500, plus it weighs more than your whole camera with normal lens. Being extremely wide, though, you will have some perspective distortion, just not the fisheye "bulge". There's a dirt cheap 16mm fisheye you can get from Zenitar on ebay, under $200, and then you just use some software to correct the perspective after you get the images on the computer. Poor man's super-wide, and it gets darn good reviews, just as long as you can shoot it at f11 or f16 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zenit/zenitar-16mm.htm )

The Canon 17-40L f/4 would be a great choice for a 5D - I think I remember you stating that's what you have in a different thread. It's plenty wide and has very little if any distortion at 17mm and its a very affordable lens.

Well for now I will be sticking with the 24-70 lens but in time I will expand on what I take.

Thanks for the info.

More than the camera, I believe it depends on the design of the lens. For instance, on a DX (1.5x multiplier) D200, the 12~24 is a "straight" lens but the 10.5mm is a full-frame (180 degrees corner-to-corner) fisheye. On a 35mm full-frame camera (film or digital), the full-frame fisheye is 16mm and you seldom saw "straight" lenses wider than 20mm.

BTW...some folks with full-frame cameras take the 10.5mm fisheye and surgically remove the fixed lens hood. That gives them a circular image the diameter of which is the long dimension of a full-frame sensor but is still clipped along the short dimension of the full-frame sensor.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, you can take a fisheye image and run it through de-fishing software to keep the field of view but undo the curvature as you move out from the center of the frame.

when I said it depends on the camera, I was thinking of what the wides flat field lens is. For a DX sensor camera it is very different from what a full frame camera uses. A 14mm on a full frame is only a 21mm on a DX sensor body.

The distortion clearly is a matter of lense design, however, if you're shooting digital, you can cheat and get away with pretty cruddy glass these days, all it takes is a little post processing wtih something like PTLens (http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/)

I went with the Sigma 17-70 for my high country lens.

Got really GREAT reviews and has a macro.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/41...ml#ReviewHeader