Recommend lenses for a 5-day hiking trip at Canyonland NP

<p>I'm planning a five day hiking trip in Canyonland National park, UT this April. I'm planning on taking my D700 camera and a tripod.<br>

Any advices on lense or lenses I should take? I currently own 20 mm f2.8, 35 mm f2.0, 50 mm f1.8 and 24-70 f2.8. It seems like the 24-70 f2.8 would be logical but weight and space could (or could not) be an issue. Any recommendation?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>My vote is for the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. You might find <a href="http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html">this interesting</a> if you are familiar with the late Galen Rowell's work.</p>

<p>You're hiking for 5 days straight?...not going back to the hotel each night?...my vote is for the primes. Save the 24-70 for shots from a vehicle, it's finest use.</p>

<p>That lens is a beautiful, sharp, flare-resistant <em>brick</em>. Your own shooting style would dictate if you really need to pay the carrying-weight price for the longer end of its range given the sort of stuff you like to shoot.</p>

<p>Keith, we're going 5 days straight. That's why I am thinking about the weight issue.<br>

Robert, thank you very much for the link.<br>

Matt, I love th 24-70 mm. To be honest, right now I'm leaning toward that lense. I might just need to go to the gym soon. Camera system, food, water, sleeping bag,..</p>

 

<p>I'd pick up one lens, the 28-105afd. Keeping with the hiking theme, its the Swiss Army knife of lenses. Stopped down its very sharp and covers a good range. You can pick one up used for about $175.00.<br>

Anthony</p>

<p>taking one lens and one body simplifies things and minimizes dust bunnies. optically, you dont lose anything with the 24-70, but weight will be an issue. you dont mention what you are hauling your gear in. instead of purchasing a new (used) lens, maybe consider a chest harness/holster combo to stabilize the camera/lens in front of your body. think tank makes a good system: http://www.amazon.com/Think-Tank-Digital-Holsters-Directly/dp/B0016XIQ06/ref=pd_cp_p_2 and http://www.amazon.com/Think-Tank-Digital-Holster-Shoulder/dp/B0016LNJY6/ref=pd_bxgy_p_text_b .</p>

<p>there's no reason you can't hike with a brick--well, two bricks actually, when you consider the added weight of the camera--as long as the load is stabilized and balanced.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you think you will run into wildlife and want pictures wouldn't something long be in order? Maybe a 70/75-300 something with stabilization?</p>

<p>The 24-70 if you can carry it :-)<br>

The good thing is no matter what you finally decide you will come back with great experience of a lifetime.<br>

Sunrise, sunset are great times time to shoot.<br>

Don't forget the night sky and take your time to watch the bats.<br>

It can be cold at night.<br>

Good luck and all the best.</p>

 

<p><em>"Camera system, food, water, sleeping bag,.. "</em><br /> Is it a dedicated photographic trip? If not, I`d not carry with the 24-70. D700 + 24-70 + smallest QR plate , sling and carabiner is almost 2145 grams on my scale. I`d forget it. If I were taking my gear from your bag I`d use the 50/1.8; D700 + 50/1.8 + smallest QR plate, sling and carabiner is 1315 grams. Still too much weight to my taste.</p>

<p>If it is a "photographic purpose trip", just take your best gear (24-70 + tripod, etc). You`ll adapt the trip to your own enjoyment and strenght.</p>

<p>Some thoughts:<br /> Weight becames more noticeable every day, what seems acceptable the first day could be insufferable three days later.<br /> If the weight is important (more than 1000 grams, I`d say), don`t carry your camera over your chest. Continuous camera bumps while walking are really awkward. Use a sling carrying style with the camera at your bottom (homemade or BlackRapid).<br /> For my mountain trips I used to take a FM2n + 45P + strap, less than 785 grams. Of course I was limited to a "standard" angle of view...</p>

<p>The three primes' total weight: 25.7 oz.<br>

The 24-70 weighs: 32 oz.<br>

Not changing lenses? Priceless.</p>

<p>I have backpacked several times in Canyonlands NP. I'd go with the prime lenses and the tripod for wide depth of field shots at small apertures, and low light at dawn or dusk. Weight will be a consideration when you carry all your water plus gear for those miles.</p>

<p>"Weight becames more noticeable every day, what seems acceptable the first day could be insufferable three days later."</p>

<p>What a bunch of wimps we've become. Deciding which lenses to bring on a 5 day hike through breathtaking country based upon a few grams of mass one way or another rather than lens performance. Can we really be that out of shape as a generation? Good grief.</p>

<p>Carrying more weight than needed is a waste of enjoyment. 30 years ago I used to hike with 40 pounds or more. I could and can do it but why. I would rather enjoy the hike much more by having less weight to carry. I plan to do a bit of hiking in late March at Big Bend NP. I will be carrying 12 pounds of water and 6 pounds of camera gear with the Gitzo GT-921 in my total of 33 pounds of total gear including TP trash bag wallet and underwear. I am considering replacing my Tamron 28-75mm at 17 oz for one prime, a 35mm f2 Nikkor at 11 oz. In my experience after you get used to the weight its not that bad and after 85 miles in four days you are walking on clouds after the pack is off your back. I would carry the focal lengths you need while hiking either primes or the zoom.</p>

<p>My own choice would be Nikon D80 or D90 plus kit lenses 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR. With the weight and space savings I'd carry more water.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I frequently go out with just myD-3 and 20 2.8 AIS. Awesome combo. You can do landscapes, environmental portraits,whatever. Second choice would be the 35. Third choice would be the 20 + 35.</p>

<p>+ 1 on the 28-105. I'd bring the 20mm along with it though, and probably use them on a nice lightweight F80. Film still produces great images and this would be a very lightweight hiking set.</p>

<p>If buying a new camera and lens (and film) is out of the question just take what you have it is excellent gear. If you pack the 20 and the 24-70 you should be able to leave your 35 and your 50 at home. Besides, you are not going until April...there is still plenty of time to hit the gym :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two primes should do: A 35, 28, or 24mm, and a 85mm. I used to carry a 35/2 and a 85/1.8 for longer trips (very light with good coverage). If you like wider 24 or 28 can be substituted for 35. </p>

<p>I'd take ONE lens, especially if your trip mates are not photographers.</p>

<p>That part of the world is extremely dusty and gritty - minimize lens changes, and protect your gear from dust when it's not in use (i.e., don't hike with your camera bare around your neck).</p>

<p>Good luck! Sounds like a wonderful trip. I'm jealous.</p>

<p>p.s. off topic and self-promotional, but I find checklists very helpful for planning all the gear for this sort of thing, and I think mine is quite good: http://reidster.net/trips/equipment/</p>

<p>I have done a few trips in the mountain with my camera in a bag attached to my chest. I used to carry a FM2 + a 50mm f/1.8 and, in the last one, a D40x with a tamron 17-50 f/2.8.This last combo I felt it was a bit too heavy for me (One day trip, 8 hours walking in constant ascention, 2000m/6500ft height difference from botton to top)</p>

<p>If the trip is on the exausting side you won't have time to use your tripod at all. Ussually, when you make stops you only have a few minutes to do anyhing which is not resting. You sit down for 5 minuts, drink water, eat something and then back again. Consider that your tripod is going to be only for night shots or lunch time shots (In the mornings things are pretty hurry). So you should consider if the trip plannig is going to allow you to use it that much.</p>

<p>About the weight, day after day the weight matter a lot. If is a one day trip you can afford to exaust yourself, but after 5 days I tell you that you are willing that your partners start drinking from your bottle to release weight (Just a illustrative joke, of course, but you get the point :P )</p>

<p>If you are going on a hard backpacking trip I would take the D700 + 50/1.8 and no tripod at all.</p>

<p>I would think you would need to factor in who you're hiking with as well, and how much hiking you plan to do per day. Is a lot of your trip going to be waking up early to take amazing sunrise pictures, pack up and walk like a camel all day, and take more amazing photos in the evening. If so I'd just bring the primes. But do you plan on taking pictures during the day of your friends and scenery, with a more leisurely hiking schedule? Then I would go for the zoom. Unless you have some sort of system of front pockets on your hiking pack where you won't have to stop and take off your bag to access your camera and/or switch lenses, I would take the zoom.</p>

<p>If you do take the 24-70 though consider how you're going to carry it. Hanging it around your neck won't work past day one. You'll need some sort of harnassing system to keep it secured to your body or bag with it bouncing around.</p>

<p>What are your plans Re: batteries?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Be careful that a bag full of single focal lenses doesn't end up weighing more than a single quality zoom. I also don't like the idea of changing lenses in dry dusty places, and a zoom such as 28-105mm would be faster to use. That would mean less waiting around for the others in the group. As an experienced backpacker I would personally still just take a Nikon D80/D90 and 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR. Image quality is still very good and it cuts weight and space in the pack. I leave my own D300 and pro lenses home for this sort of trip.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>You can always rent a carrying device... :)</p><div></div>