Just one telephoto in your rucksack. You chose.

[alex_thomson1]

I shoot 35mm film on a Nikon F75 when hiking.

 

For landscapes I am happy with my 3 primes:

24mm, 35mm and 50mm.

 

These are light lenses and I automatically put them in my rucksack

when hiking.

 

But I'm not so happy with my 70-300mm lens. Although light, it's

very slow.

 

So, I'm after a quicker telephoto - but nothing as heavy as the 70-

200 VR.

 

I reckon I have enough room in my pack for just one more prime lens.

 

So, if you had only one lens above 50mm in focal length in your

hiking rucksack, and it has to weight less than 1kg, what would you

choose?

 

Would it be the 85mm - or is this too close to the 50mm?

Would it be the 105mm micro - opens up a whole new world (and

doubles for landscapes and protrait shots)?

Would it be the 135mm - a safe bet landscape telephoto?

Would it be the 180mm - for a bit of reach?

 

Or would you just stick with the 70-300mm, for flexibility?

 

Obviously the 100-400mm/200-400mm zooms, and 300mm+ prime lenses

have to stay at home for this trip.

 

You choose!

[mike_broderick]

For _ME_, I would unquestioningly grab the 180mm macro and run. But I'm a macro freak.

 

Soemtimes when I am going to walk a ways to shoot landscapes, and macro isn't a high priority, I take my 16-35 zoom (not light, but I like it), a 50mm macro, and the 135/2.8. The 135 isn't built heavy duty, but it is extremely sharp and very light.

 

An innovative choice would be the 90mm tilt shift, if you like that sort of thing. As you know, this is something you have to figure out based on your subjects and styles of shooting.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I would pick either a 180mm f/2.8D or a 300mm f/4D AF-Nikkor.

[awahlster]

Sorry I don't do Nikon but the question is really about focal lenght not so much brand specific examples.

 

SO If it had to come in under you weight limit I would chose my 200mm f2.8IF nFD (this is a Canon FD mount lens) weighs in at 735 grams. I could then almost add a 2X-B or Vivitar 2X macro converter to double the focal lenght and add to my macro abilities.

 

 

BUT I almost never go a field with anything shorter then my 400mm f4.5 nFD or if the wife is along then she acrries that and I opt. for my 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. a tad over your weight limit though.

[greg s]

If packing a tripod, then I'd bring the 70-300. Without the tripod I'd leave it at home. -Greg-

[joseph_smith3]

You could get the 80-200mm AF f2.8. It weighs 45.9 oz. Or get the 300mm AF-S f 4.0D. It weighs 49.6 oz. Or the older model, the 300mm AF f4.0 that weighs 46.9 oz. Joe Smith

[will_legge]

If I were traveling without a tripod, I would go with the 105mm or 135mm. If I had a tripod, I would concider the 180mm. But what focal length do you usually use with the 70-300? Do you stick to the long or short end. I would go out with your usual subjects and use the zoom to see which would be the most versatile focal length for the work you do.

[mike_broderick]

Apologies, in my response above I overlooked that the poster shoots Nikon! Didn't realize it till I checked back.

[ranong]

i have a 135 /2.8 that fits in my pack very well. it is fast, small ,and light weight. but the focal length is a bit short some times. but again it is small. i have an awesome 180/2.8 but that kind of makes my pack bigger and heavier. i hate to say but the 180 sits at home more than it should, just because of its size and weight.

 

eddie

[sknowles]

That's a tough question for two reasons. First, I look at total weight than the weight of individual equipment. Second, the 85mm lens is the first in the backpack, followed by the 35mm Shift-CA lens and another wide-angle lens. After that it depends on the goals for the day, and it may be the 80mm Tilt-Shift lens, 100mm f4 macro lens and equipment, a 135mm f2 with 2X TC for landscapes, or the 300mm f2.8 lens with it's stuff (TC's, filters, etc.) if I going to specific viewpoints.

 

--Scott--

[stephen_schoof1]

I usually have at least a small tripod and the 70-300 is one of my favorite lenses; I usually use it between 70 and 150mm. If even it is too large/heavy, I go with the 100mm f2.8 series E (7.6 oz and tiny).

[rob_murray]

I dont see any mention of you carrying a tripod so I assume

you dont like the zoom weight/speed to handhold.

I would invest in a tripod. It will improve ALL your lenses.

[jim_thompson1]

Alex,

 

I have found the 75-150 series E lens to be very sharp, and light weight. It can be "chipped" so it will be compatible with modern cameras. I also keep a TC14A in the bag, which turns it into roughly a 100-210 lens. There is a problem with all of these, that the zoom will "creep" if you point it down, but knowing that it happens can easily be overecome with a rubber band or some tape if you have to shoot in that configuration. Also a real plus, I have seen many of them for sale at less than $150.00.

[jim bridges]

I use an old Nikkor AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 as a lightweight hiking telephoto lens. I don't care about the slow speed because I use a CF tripod 100% of the time. If I think I'll need speed I'll use an AF 80-200/2.8, but the old 75-300 has been a favorite for over ten years and get as much use as any of my prime lenses.

[yy]

Alex,

 

Get the 105mm Macro -- it's the best of both worlds: Macro, and light :)

[Brian]

This isn't going to help much, but since you asked... I carry a Reflex Rokkor 250mm f5.6 (mirror lens) as my lightweight carry-anywhere telephoto. Weighs about the same as a standard lens (and is about the same size). Mirrors have a bad rep but this one breaks the rules. I don't know if Nikon offers an equivalent.

[marcus_erne]

My choice of your options would be a 135mm lens. It is the most versatile one and could double as a macro with a TC and HQ close-up diopterlens.

My next choice would probably something like a 200mm plus 1.4x & 2x TC's...

[sandcruiser]

if memory serves, the 105micro doesn't work well with TC's... having said that, I love my 105micro. Super sharp, great feel in the hand. On-lens M/A focus control. And works great for outdoor macro. If you *can* find a 1.4 or 2.0 TC to go with it, that would give you a tremendous range of focal lengths- from 24 through 210. But the micro would be slow at 210...

 

good luck!