Quality Compact Lenses for the Backpacker

<p>Every summer I look forward to backpacking trips in the Yosemite high country. Last summer I mostly used a Nikon D300, a compact yet sturdy metal Gitzo tripod, a 17-55 2.8, and a 105 micro. One frustration I have with nikon is that their quality lenses are mostly large heavy 2.8 designs made for photojournalists or photographers that need speed. Yes I understand this is the market - most nature photographers don't make the money that a well established wedding photographer would make. I suggest that stimulus money goes to Nikon to develop great compact lenses with the landscape photographer in mind ( remember the 70-180 macro?). If I find the right DX wide angle lens (maybe the 10-24 nikon???), I might try using my 70-210 AFD 4-5.6 and my 24-50 AFD - Yes Bjorn gives this lens a crummy review but I find stopped down it is plenty sharp. Keep in mind all of my images are shot between f8 and f16. I'm curious what other backpackers have found that works for them. </p>

<p>One lens I have in my backpack that I think is pretty compact is the Sigma EX 24-60 2.8. The image quality is quite good as well. In fact I would say it is a very sharp zoom lens. For a 2.8 it is very small, nothing like the 24-70 2.8 I used to have that was a bohemath.<br>

BTW I used to live close to Yosemite and love going there. My favorite hike was to the top of half dome. The view from on top never gets old.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a compact yet sturdy metal Gitzo tripod,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want to reduce your load, start with a carbon fiber tripod.</p>

<p>That is a good point by Shun, the carbon fiber helps too. Also another lens you may want to consider would be the 18-200. I know it doesn't have the sharpness of your current lenses but stop down it is pretty good. This would reduce your gear to one lens.</p>

<p>There are other lens options too. You certainly don't need f2.8 for hiking, and the 17-55mm/f2.8 is optimized for 10 to 20 feet anyway. Bjorn Rorslett's experience is the same as mine: it is not as sharp at infinity.</p>

<p>There are plenty of other lens options from the 18-70, 18-105, 16-85, to the 18-200 all AF-S DX. The 70-300 AF-S VR is also a pretty good tele, good enough for John Shaw and Thom Hogan.</p>

<p>I've used a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 16-85 where size and weight are major factors. The D60 is quite a bit lighter and smaller than the D300 and the same holds true for the 16-85 vs. a 17-55 (BTW, I own the 17-55 and a D300 so I've done this comparison myself). The D60 produces images similar to the D200. The new Nikon D5000 would probably produce an image similar to your D300 and be closer to the D60 in size and weight. FWIW, the 16-85 is well rated. For a one-camera, one-lens solution I think this might be a good combo.<br>

If macro work is important and minimal weight/size is an issue then Kenko extension tubes would allow most lenses (the 16-85???) to do macro work.<br>

If you want a DX wide-angle zoom then I recommend the Sigma 10-20 (haven't tried the Nikon 10-24 yet but I did sell my Nikon 12-24 when I bought the Sigma).<br>

If you need telephoto then consider the Nikon 70-300 (but not the inexpensive G version). The recently discontinued ED but non-G and non VR version is a good value and well rated. The current VR version is also well rated but slightly heavier than the non-VR version.</p>

 

<p>When I go to national parks I take my D200, 12-24, 18-70, 70-300 VR, and a few filters. Most shots are at f8 to f11 and I find these lenses sharp enough for me. I've printed many 20x30 posters and I'm happy with the results.</p>

<p>The large tripod stays in the car and is only used from overlooks. When I'm going on a longer hike I take the D40X instead and leave the 70-300 in the car. Sometimes I take a very cheap very light all plastic tripod on a hike. It can support the D40X and lens, as long as there is no wind and I use the self timer it works great. </p>

<p>Some people will tell you to always take a tripod. For me the extra distance I can cover without it more than makes up for the slightly sharper images that I would get with it.</p>

<p>I've used a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 16-85 where size and weight are major factors. The D60 is quite a bit lighter and smaller than the D300 and the same holds true for the 16-85 vs. a 17-55 (BTW, I own the 17-55 and a D300 so I've done this comparison myself). The D60 produces images similar to the D200. The new Nikon D5000 would probably produce an image similar to your D300 and be closer to the D60 in size and weight. FWIW, the 16-85 is well rated. For a one-camera, one-lens solution I think this might be a good combo.<br>

If macro work is important and minimal weight/size is an issue then Kenko extension tubes would allow most lenses (the 16-85???) to do macro work.<br>

If you want a DX wide-angle zoom then I recommend the Sigma 10-20 (haven't tried the Nikon 10-24 yet but I did sell my Nikon 12-24 when I bought the Sigma).<br>

If you need telephoto then consider the Nikon 70-300 (but not the inexpensive G version). The recently discontinued ED but non-G and non VR version is a good value and well rated. The current VR version is also well rated but slightly heavier than the non-VR version.</p>

 

<p>One more suggestion; replace your metal Gitzo with a carbon fiber Gitzo.</p>

<p>I think the 17-55 DX is an inevitable choice for the DX user if you need a zoom, I don't think there is anything significantly smaller which works as nicely. for the tele end you can get a 180/2.8 which is a great lens, to complement your 105 macro. This is a reasonably complete 3-lens kit.</p>

<p>If you want to further reduce weight, I would suggest replacing the 17-55 in your bag (don't sell it!) with the 50/1.8, the 35/1.8 DX, and the 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer. These should all produce excellent image quality on DX and some are appliable on FX as well should you consider that in the future. The 20mm is manual focus but this should not be a big concern for landscape - if you use a tripod you can use the distance scale and DOF marks which in manual focus lenses like the Voigtländer are more accurate than in Nikon ED lenses. These three lenses weigh noticeably less than the 17-55 zoom, but the difference isn't all that great. You might not even need all three.</p>

<p>Personally I would just keep the 17-55 which I always liked very much when I was using DX and add a 180 for long shots. The 16-85 gets good reviews and is certainly lighter but it won't replace the 105 macro for close-ups. You could check this newer zoom out.</p>

<p>The op writes "Keep in mind all of my images are shot between f8 and f16." I would conjecture that any lens will look great in any print under 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 shot like that on a good solid tripod or at a quick enough shutter speed. </p>

<p>If it were me, I'd take the 16-85 along with the micro... and that's probably it (except a longer tele... maybe...)</p>

<p>The first lens that sprang to my mind as I read the subject line is the 45mm P. So light, lovely colour and no visible distortion make it to my eyes, a wonderful asset to the photographer travelling light. I use it whenever I can and there is no weight penalty.</p>

<p>It is great to use in areas with high brightness as it does not flare willingly. Here is a shot I took on a very bright day.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to reduce your load, start with a carbon fiber tripod.</p>

<p>When I'm not backpacking, I use a Gitzo 1325 that is steady as a rock. However, I find that one needs to be careful using compact carbon tripods - too light is not always a good thing. Your lens is only as sharp as your tripod.<br>

I am certainly not selling my 17-55 - I find it sharp as nails. But I find all my lenses are sharp stopped down. In fact for a while I used my 105 micro as my one telephoto but found it was no better than my 70-210 4-5.6 at f 11. I'd really like to see Nikon make a 70-200 fixed f4 compact lens with tripod collar - the 70-210 is a bit shaky at 210.<br>

BTW. Shun I grew up in Palo Alto very close to Keeble and Shucutt (sp?) When I visit family, I usually visit the store and druel on their counters. Now I live in tiny shack in the mountains.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

 

<p>I second Ian`s suggestion, I didn`t dare to mention it because is a MF prime. I have been using it for mountaneering with film cameras with great satisfaction since I discovered it. The hood is minimal and it`s chipped. The aperture of f2.8 is faster than any consumer zoom, size and weight on a D300 is almost negligible. Sharpness is good wide open and very high at middle apertures. Cannot think on anything better for backpacking (well, attached to a FM2n is even better... !).</p>

<p>For distant subjects I used to use (I`m currently out of backpaking business) a 105/2.5AiS which I liked for that task; there are very good MF lenses but just two of them are heavier than any consumer zoom.</p>

 

</p>

<p>Oooops, I didn`t get it. You`re on DX, a 45mm lens could not be so useful.</p>

<p>I have used a D200 with a small metal Gitzo with a 18-70mm for hiking. It seems that a D40 with a kit lens and small Gitzo like a 1530 is a much lighter setup. I now have a heavier D700 with some primes and a 1530 carbon Gitzo. I also have a 28-105 Nikkor and the 75-150 series E which are light. I would be interested in the 16-85mm if I where using DX for light travel single lens.</p>

<p>Hugh, there are a lot of tricks you can play with a small and light carbon fiber tripod. For example, there is a reverse hook at the end of the center column on many of them. Some people hang a small pack on the center column to increase weight. I have seen one guy who ties a small rope off that hook and he steps on the other end of the rope to put downward pressure on the tripod to increase stability.</p>

<p>In other words, there are alternatives to increase stability other than just having more weight on the tripod itself, which you need to carry around.</p>

<p>"I think the 17-55 DX is an inevitable choice for the DX user if you need a zoom, I don't think there is anything significantly smaller which works as nicely"</p>

<p>what about the tamron 17-50?</p>

<p>I was surprised by the rigidity of the little 1530 tripod. Not as good as my 1327 but much nicer to carry around if I am using small primes.</p>

<p>One can always use a prime lens for significant size,weight, and cost savings. People took pics for decades without zoom lenses. Learn to stand in the right place.<br>

If I did not alread own multiple 35 mm lenses, I would get the new 35 1.8. Low distortion, fast, small, not large, cheap. No 35 mm Nikkors are bad in my experience. My favorite is a 35 2.0 original Nikkor Ai`ed to work on later cameras. 35 2.8 can be had for $50. You can buy a 50 2.0 for $75.<br>

12/24 zoom or a 24mm lens.</p>

<p>Then a 55/200 VR zoom or 60 2.8. The 55/200 is quite nice optically, mechanically only fair. But small, cheap, and does good photos, not like the 70/200 2.8 but there are sacrafices for small and cheap.</p>

<p>Yes I have and use a 35mm f2 AIS. Small and light. I might take just four primes to the Grand Canyon this year, 20mm to 105mm.</p>

<p>The 16-85mm VR is a hard-to-beat one lens solution for DX. Weighs in at around 400g.<br>

If weight is at a premium, good MF choices are the afore-mentioned 45mm f2,8 P , the old 20mm F4,0 AI lens and the 100mm f2,8 E lens. These lenses all weigh around 200g or less while in the very good to outstanding range optically. The 85mm f2,0 lens is another pretty lightweight option, my sample is pretty mediocre though. The 70-150mm f3,5 E zoom is an excellent, more flexible but heavier choice.<br>

Another nice lightweight which is great optically is the 28-50mm f3,5 AIS zoom.<br>

A truly lightweight ultrawide for DX is more difficult. The old 14mm f3,5 Sigma is not too heavy and has acceptable though by no means outstanding optical quality. If you stumble across one you might give it a try. There are some new options from Zeiss that I am not familiar with (contrary to the lenses mentioned above).<br>

My 5 cents</p>

<p>I agree that one can do plenty with a few primes. Before I used a digital camera, I used a Bronica 6x6 camera with three primes. I still use the Bronica, infact my D300 is in for repairs after the sensor failed me. However, when using my D300, I really like the flexibility of using zooms just as when using my view camera, I find I make good compositions when viewing on ground glass upside down.</p>

<p>I agree with Eric. I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and have used it in Custer State park to take landscape shots and I was very pleased with the results. It is one of the best buys I have made for an all around short zoom. It also works as a backup macro. I can auto focus with in 6" of the subject. This would be great for those wild flowers and small critters you will see on your hike. Match this with the 70-300VR and you have all you need.</p><div></div>

<p>Before I read the entire thread the first lens that came to my mind is the same one Ian suggested. The 45 mm P all the way. It is light, it has astonishingly good image quality. Post processing software is so wonderful nowadays that I don't even worry about wide angle zooms. </p>