lenses for South America trip

<p>I'll be going to Equador, Galapagos Islands, Peru and Chile for 2 months. I'm trying to keep the weight down since I need to pack for both warm and cold weather, which means I'll have to be careful with the lenses I'll be taking. I own the following Nikon lenses which I use for different occasions, generally it's much easier to take any 4-5 of them when traveling by car or staying in big cities since I can leave any 2-3 in the car/hotel, but this time is different since I'll have to travel with my entire backpack sometimes in places like the Inca Trail or Patagonia. Primes: 16mm fisheye, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.4. Zooms: 17-35mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8 af-d, 80-400mm af-s vr, 70-210 f4 e series (manual focus). I own a D700 body.</p>

<p>Option 1: 17-35mm, 80-400mm, 16mm fisheye, 24mm (for going light instead of 17-35mm), 50mm</p>

<p>Option 2: 17-35mm, 70-210mm e series, 16mm fisheye, 24mm, 50mm</p>

<p>Option 3: 16mm fisheye, 24mm, 50mm, 70-210mm e series</p>

<p>Option 4: drop Nikon, get a Fuji XT1 + 18-135mm + 23mm f1.4</p>

<p>Option 1 is the only one that will allow me to shoot wildlife in Galapagos successfully, I can say goodbye to wildlife in motion with my manual focus 70-210mm. Option 3 is the most basic before giving up on this Nikon DSLR setup for this trip and moving to a lighter/smaller Fuji system. Note that option 1 weighs 4kg without other accessories such as batteries, filters, cards, but those shouldn't take more than a few hundred extra grams.</p>

<p>Thoughts? Other mix of lenses from the ones I own? Other suggestions for such trip in South America?</p>

<p>Mihut, if I may use a car analogy, there is not one single car that can do all of the following: race to 100 miles per hour (or 150 KM/hour), carry 20 passengers comfortably, tow a boat, and transport a big sofa.</p>

<p>For the Galapagos, which I have been to twice, I would definitely bring the 80-400. Is it possible to store it somewhere and pick it up at the end of the trip?</p>

<p>If you have to do a lot of hiking in South America, I would probably leave the f2.8 zoom at home and bring the 24mm and 50mm. A fisheye lens is nice to have occasionally, but I would also leave that behind due to weight.</p>

<p>These are the kinds of trips I've been doing for the past ~10 years--was in British Columbia last month. Some thoughts. After hauling everything along on extended trips from a Nikon system with four or five lenses to also bringing a 4x5 camera, experience has taught me that carrying a lot of heavy bulky camera gear is a real fun killer! In the end, it just isn't worth it. You don't have anything very light or versatile in your line up, except possibly the 80-400mm VR. Picking just from what you have, it would be 24mm, 50mm, 80-400mm VR (last lens mostly for wildlife.) You must reduce weight and just as important--bulk.</p>

<p>I was looking very closely at the Fuji Xt1, and if I were only going to own one camera it would probably be that. It has excellent lens options and is an outstanding camera that is very compact. It may well be the perfect travel system. I did look it over closely and if I were going that route I'd pick the XT1 with lenses Fuji 10-24mm f4 & 55-200mm, and possibly add the Fuji 35mm f1.4 to plug the middle and give a low light option. Fuji has been making lenses a long time and they are excellent. I have two of them for my 4x5. </p>

<p>I too have been looking over what I take on trips and definitely want to cut down weight & bulk. I'm settling in on one of the Olympus OMD cameras (M43) with small lenses like Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 and Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Olympus has come out with a 300mm f4 that should be outstanding for wildlife, but I don't know the price yet. I see photo gear as a system, and this is just part of the system. I also plan to add a small carbon fiber tripod that weighs around 2 pounds and is less than 18 inches folded, along with a nice but very small ballhead such as the smallest from RRS. Finally, I will definitely want a small flash that can be used off-camera such as the Metz 42. All of this should easily fit into a small camera bag. It's a small but highly capable system. I honestly don't think anyone looking at my photos would be able to tell the difference between images made with this gear vs. the heavier Nikon stuff I have now. Lighter gear does make a difference when it comes to enjoying yourself while traveling.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

I am puzzled at all your options... Why did you choose to bundle all those lenses together? What's your criteria? Just wondering...

 

From experience, the less you take with, the better (unless, of course, you're traveling with a sherpa to carry all your gear). If I were you, I'd pack the AF-S 28-70 and that'd do it. In my last trip I just packed my D700 and my 24-120 f4 zoom and forgot all about it. I'd recommend that you invest more in looking and seeing things than on taking photographs, and since you already have a nice camera, just grab one lens with and be done.

 

Now, if you just want a pretext for more gear, go the Fuji way. But go light anyway. The lighter the better (and wiser).

<p>If I'd be in your shoes I'd take 17-35 and 80-400 - nothing else to keep it at minimum. If this is too much I'd stick 17-35 to D700 adding 85/1.4 in the bag, forgetting about wildlife. This because for me a trip like this is important from a "landscape / documentary / people" perspective. Wildlife is nice to me but I'd not compromise the landscape / documentary / people perspective for it. But your mileage may vary - you know better what is the most important for you.</p>

<p>Having said that last year I've been in a two weeks trip across Europe with two cameras (D600 + D5200) and two lenses, both Sigma primes (35/1.4 and 150/2.8). Believe me or not I found my kit extremely versatile :) Of course, not wildlife in the plan. </p>

 

<p>Three years ago (May 2011), I went to the Galapagos for a two-week cruise plus a few days in mainland Ecuador, and I posted my camera and lens statistics to this thread: http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00aGpD</p>

<p>I captured about 11K images, approximately half of them with the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. I can't imagine going to the Galapagos without a long lens, 300mm or above. But that is just me and I was not backpacking in South America with all that gear after the trip. I was staying on a boat and carried part of the gear on shorter, 2, 3 hour hikes, usually twice a day. I picked different lenses tailored for each landing site. It was my second trip there, so I was already somewhat familiar with the destinations.</p>

<p>Again, there is no one type of automobile that can do everything. The OP may have to make a lot of compromises.</p>

<p>I would take the 17-35mm f2.8, 28-70mm f2.8, 80-200mm f2.8 af-d and leave everything else at home.<br /><br />That's basically the same kit I carry every day (12-24, 24-70, 70-200) and I find it covers 90 percent of what I shoot. I rarely need anything else. If you want to do some wildlife throw in a teleconvertor. </p>

<p>On the Inca Trail, I'd prefer to carry something like a 24-120mm VR, a 50mm for low light, and a pocket-sized camera for backup.</p>

<p>That's a long way to go, heavily loaded, at high altitude.</p>

<p>I did part of your trip years ago, and it's still one of my fondest memories. Have fun.</p>

<p>Mihut:</p>

<p>I agree with Shun. I traveled in Peru for a month. including Machu Pichu and found the combination of a 24 and 50mm. to be adequate for most things. An additional long zoom like the 70-200 would be of help. A mistake I have made in my travels is to cary too much.</p>

<p>-Have a great trip.</p>

<p>I went to the Galapagos this spring, and after a lifetime of toting around hefty film gear, I went and got a D3200 with the kit 18-55 lens, and the 55-300 DX zoom as a second lens. My wife (with a bunch of older AF lenses still at home) got a D7100 with a somewhat nicer base lens (18-140) and the same 55-300 zoom. Along with that, a point and shoot immersible camera, for bad weather and snorkeling. I may not have gotten shots to populate an international calendar, but I got a lot that I liked, without either breaking the bank or my back. Being able to carry it all in one shoulder bag, and change lenses in the air, was helpful in being able to enjoy the trip while it was happening, and not just the pictures. It was also a bit more comfortable walking around unfamiliar places in the world knowing that if my camera broke, fell in the ocean or got grabbed by bandits, it would be hugely annoying but not tragic.</p>

<p>There were a few times I'd have liked a bit more tele reach, or a wider angle, but for the most part, the range of 18-300 was adequate for the DX format, though I spent a good deal of time at or near 300. For super wide angles, the little point and shoot does rather nice panoramas. </p>

<p>About the only thing I would have liked different would have been a bit more autofocus capability than the little D3200 delivers. I have no complaints about the basic images, and most of the animals are very placid and easily approached, but it was a bit hard to bag birds in flight. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Note that the mid zoom he has is the older 80-200mm f2.8. I had one and it didn't do all that well with even a 1.4x. Since he already has the new 80-400mm AFS, and wildlife is the principal thing to photo on Galapagos, it's a no-brainer to take that. His camera is FX, and a 300mm likely won't cut it for wildlife. Since the 80-400mm AFS is a fairly large and heavy lens, I'm very hesitant to suggest he take ANY of the heavy f2.8 zooms. Especially on a high altitude hike. Thus, I agree with Shun to only take 24 & 50mm. I would still take a carbon fiber tripod and a small flash too. This will all add to up something medium heavy on a hike, so no more heavy lenses. A 24-120 f4 VR plus the 80-400 AFS would be a perfect combo, but he doesn't have the 24-120mm f4.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I spent several weeks in Peru a few years ago, including hiking about 10 days on the inca Trail. I found that my 24-120 was all I needed.</p>

<p>Mihut,<br>

if it was me, I would go the Fuji route. I had to make a similar decision a while ago and opted to leave my Nikon at home and take a smaller Olympus m4/3 camera with a few nice lenses. But I checked your profile: you're a young, strong guy, so take the 80-400 and the 17-35. I did the same when I was your age and the memories of terribly heavy backpacks are not etched forever into my brain, but some cool shots from those trips still grace the rooms in my home.<br>

Christoph</p>

<p>WRT to the Galapagos: we were told that flash photography is prohibited on the uninhabited islands and underwater as well. It may be that different tours have different levels of monitoring, but I believe this is park policy. It may not change the decision on what to carry, but you should be prepared to shoot in available light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>WRT to the Galapagos: we were told that flash photography is prohibited on the uninhabited islands and underwater as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Our tour leader in my 2011 trip was Tui De Roy, a well known nature photographer originally from Belgium and grew up in the Galapagos since like age 2. De Roy now lives in New Zealand and speaks fluent English, in addition to her native French and Spanish in the Galapagos.</p>

<p>We discussed the flash issue. She said there is no explicit rule against using flash on animals, but some naturalists are against that. Using flash on landscape is certainly not an issue. Nevertheless, I didn't use flash on animals when I was there.</p>

<p>Over 20 years ago, Galen Rowell used a new Nikon F4 and SB-24 flash. He took some flash images of sea lions in the Galapagos with the flash and put them in an article in the Outdoor Photographer magazine. Rowell even mentioned that matrix TTL flash worked very well with the dark sea lions.</p>

<p>I was told the law regarding flash in the Galapagos has changed recently and it is actually forbidden. You'd better check if you're going.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the suggestions. It is true that a 24-120mm f4 would be nice, but I already have all these lenses, I'd feel guilty investing in more ;).</p>

<p>Do you recommend taking a solar charger? Are there any strong enough to charge a D700 battery? Or just take 3-4 charged batteries on the Inca Trail and forget about the solar charger?</p>

<p>I always take about four batteries. They don't weigh much, are quick to pop in, and you never know when you can use a recharger. Even with a solar charger you don't know if you'll get enough sun. If you run out of battery power you are screwed. As for your lenses, if it were me I'd sell a bunch off and replace with just one or two. I.e., consolidate.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For a substantial trip, you can always buy another lens just for it. If that is not needed in the long run, you can always sell that afterwards. If you are backpacking for weeks, I see no longer to suffer for a long time just to use what you already have. In particular, f2.8 zooms make no sense to me. They are great for indoors, not good for hiking.</p>

<p>BTW, concerning using flash in the Galapagos, when I went there for the first time in 1995, our naturalist guide wouldn't let us use flash on animals.</p>

<p>In the Galapagos, you are required to travel with a registered naturalist. You are not allowed to hike on your own outside of the cities. Therefore, regardless of what the actual law is, you need to follow the direction of your guide or they'll ask you to leave. Being a guide there is a very well paid job and there is plenty of competition. The guides will enforce the rules strictly as they cannot afford to lose their license.</p>

<p>You can see how I packed for Peru as well as South Africa on my blog. <br>

http://www.e2photo.net/blog/travel-to-peru-and-machu.html<br>

http://www.e2photo.net/blog/safari-in-south-africa.html<br>

And you can see the results of my efforts (not really a travel photographer) at <br>

http://e2photography.zenfolio.com/f107722855.<br>

At least for the Peru pictures you can get picture information (camera, focal length and etc). I have never used flash, but there were times it would have been fun.<br>

A lot depends on what you want to photograph and what you intend to do with the pictures in the end.</p>

<p>Just back from a 7700 mi driving trip. If you are going to have fun, not a dedicated photo trip, then pack light (for FX full frame):</p>

<p>70-200 f/4VR G (<em>outstanding</em> light lens, I sold my 2.8) + TC 1.X. Maybe the 80-400 could substitute here.<br />something like an 16-35VR G, or the new 20/1.8G<br /> 50/1.8G or 35/1.8G</p>

<p>I took too much stuff.</p>

<p>I would take the 24 and 50mm primes, and the 80-400 zoom. If you are really into fisheye photography, take that as well. I would never consider a trip like this without a second body as backup. I would consider a DX body which, when combined with the 80-400, would be great for wildlife.</p>

<p>Ask yourself if this trip is primarily for photography, eg, you, by yourself, or with a group of other photographers who won't mind stopping for enough time to look for, and set up high quality shots, or is it with your spouse or other people whose primary interest is not photography.</p>

<p>If it's the latter, and you know that your shots will turn out like those of every other tourist that came to that spot because you simply can't devote the necessary time to them, then treat yourself to a small, new, high-end point and shoot, maybe even with a retractable fixed lens, relax, and just join in with the socializing, bird-watching, nature walks, etc. Take a major part of your kit only when your photography will not be hindering the activities of others (including talking to your spouse / friends, LOL).</p>

<p>Just my -$0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p><<In the Galapagos, you are required to travel with a registered naturalist. You are not allowed to hike on your own outside of the cities.>></p>

<p>Definitely NOT my kind of trip, LOL. I don't do well with babysitters.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>