Is a macro lens needed in the galapagos

[david_herman3]

Thanks to everyone who responded to the 2 other questions. Another question is

whether or not to bring my 100mm Macro Lens. I am wondering if that is

necessary. And again if anyone has suggestions on anything with galapagos

photography let me know. Help me out.

[anish]

Do you like shooting close-ups? Do you like taking medium telephoto shots? then yes!

not to sound rude, but who is anyone else to tell you what lenses you should use? A location does not determine the equipment to be used, nor do other photographers. your own photographic style does. my only advice is - let the place inspire you and exercise your own vision...

 

Anish

[brucecyr]

I second Mr. Desai's comments.

 

The only places where I might not want a macro are on board the space shuttle or at one of the poles -- maybe in the afterlife, especially if I get boxed up :-) And I'd still take one if transport to those spots were not by means of instantaneous teleporting.

 

Of course, that's just me.

[lauren_macintosh]

David H; Please be advised that there is a major search files on this forum just type in the word [galapagos] and click go that should give you plenty of info to look upo and educate yourself:

[carl smith]

It's hard to say, what do you like to shoot? As Anish said, if you like shooting moderate tele and closeups, then definitely bring it. I wouldn't go anywhere unique like that without at least a 100mm lens and I'd definitely want to have my macro lens with me as well.

[Two23]

Another vote with Anish. If you love taking macros and that's your thing, you have doubts you'll be able to find macro subjects there? If you only take one macro shot every month or two, then yeah, I'd say leave it at home because you don't use it enough to justify packing it along.

 

I love my ultrawide lens. No matter where I go--wilderness or major city, you can bet I'll take it along. I use the ultrawide a LOT in my daily shooting here where I live and have no doubt I'll use it where ever I go.

 

 

Kent in SD

[jlemire]

my favorite lens is my 105mm Macro, so most of my Galapagos shots were taken with it. You can get SO close to everything there that the macro lens can be a great tool. (no matter how much I read about how close you could get to the critters, I was still didn't expect to get as close I did - I had to be careful not to step on anything!)

 

Take the macro lens - you'll want to use it.

[vivek iyer]

Anish's post is a gem. I will take my ultrawides, wides, macros and a tele-zoom.

 

All the animals there are appear tame and are not worried about the tourists.

[ShunCheung]

I have been to the Galapagos only once. While you can certainly shoot macro at perhaps any location, at least I didn't find all that many macro opportunities there.

 

At least for me, the main applications for macros in nature photography are insects and very small animals as well as flowers. For example, at rain forest locations, you'll have a lot of insects or small reptiles to work with. The Galapagos does not have a lot of those subjects.

[alex_lofquist]

Unless you are fond of the limited flora, the lava lizard was the only interesting macro subject that I remember seeing.

[briany]

Perhaps extension tubes or a diopter would be more useful if you're more interested in being prepared rather than focusing on macro.

[george_gilbert]

Just got back from a two week tour of the Galapagos, so let me add some comments Your questions on the need for a Macro, or a tripod/monopod are reliant on your photography style. I found very little need for a tripod. If I had had a monopod, I would have used it as a hiking stick. A tripod would have been useful only if I had taken a long telephoto for capturing sea birds in flight. Two much equipment can be a handicap. On my tour we were constantly climbing into rubber dingys and making "wet landings" in water or on sandy beaches. A full camera bag would have been a handicap rather than a benefit. I took a wide angle, a 28-70 zoom, and a 70-200 zoom (with a 1.4X externder), and could pretty much cover everything.

 

If I had any extra space, a reflecter would have come in handy as the sun is directly overhead this time of year, and the contrast is something we'ere not used too in the northern hemisphere. The shadows are harsh, and often, you cannot leave the marked trail to get good light on a booby nesting just a foot ot two away. A reflecter would also help lighting the marine iguanuas on the black lava. I saw nothing that prohibited the use of a flash, and at times a fill-flash might have helped.

 

If your tour provide for snorkeling, take a handful of disposable waterproof cameras. The snorkeling will give great shots of spectacular fish life among the rocks and unbelievable contact with the playful sea lions.

 

Take twice the amount of high-SPF sun screen that you'd`think you need, and a hat that gives sun protection for your ears and neck as well as your face. Count on snorkeling with a hat and a tee shirt.

Several people on our boat burned the first day, and that was the end of their snorkeling.

[ShunCheung]

In the Galapagos, the naturalist guides are suppose to enforce that nobody uses flash photography on the wildlife. I can see that it is very annoying to be the subject of flash photography all day long, day after day.

 

However, you should be able to use flash on the plants and landscape, and of course, people.

 

During my 11 days at the Galapagos, I only use my macro lens a few times. I have a shot of a red, Sally Lightfoot Crab from close distance. Otherwise, it is mainly a location for short to medium tele for wildlife and some wide for landscape.

[charles_reid]

When do you ever NOT need a macro lens? And an ultra zoom. And and and and :P

 

Im a truck driver and i carry almost ALL of my camera gear with me on trips. When i leave something behind i always always always wish i hadnt.