What lenses are in your camera bag?

[thephotophile]

<p>Mostly I just carry either my Olympus Trip 35, or the Olympus 35DC.<br>

My digital walkaround kit is generally a D90, 18-105 kit lens and the 35 f1.8 for low light and portraits.<br>

Anything more serious and the bag can get a whole lot heavier!</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Craig - a comment on bag part of your question. When I go out my wife is usually with me and we have evolved a pretty good system. We have two backpacks, and she wears the one with the spare lens and my small camera (usually my 80-200 2.8 zoom and a Canon G11)) while I hand carry my D200 with whatever lens I anticipate using (often a 16-85 VR). In my backpack is the food, water, maybe another lens or two that I might possibly use, and anything else that's heavy. This way, if I need my gear, I get it out of her pack, and when we need water, etc she gets it out of mine. So we don't have to take them off. Works pretty good, as long as you enjoy having your wife along (which I do). We also ride bicycles, and when we do that I carry the G11 in a fanny pack.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yeah, Craig - all that talk about lenses and bodies is a little academic without talking about how it's all being carried. In the list I mentioned above, out shooting horses yesterday, it all went nicely (along with a speedlight, and some other goodies) in a Think Tank Speed Racer. Works nicely as a shoulder bag or a waist rig. But of course I set it down, if I can, as I'm actually shooting. Have to watch that, though, since you never know when a thirty year old Tennessee Walking Horse is going to give it a careful inspection for carrots.</p><div></div>

[dean_schreuder]

<p>I have...<br>

Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S,<br>

Canon 70-200 F2.8 EF (non-IS version),<br>

Canon 50 F1.4 EF,<br>

Canon 85 F1.8 EF,<br>

Canon 100 F2 EF.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Which bag? I have three always ready to go, minus film (in frig). One is my original 35mm film with two Minolta bodies (XD's or X-700's) and variety (3-5 of the 32 lenses acquired over the decades) of fixed focal length lenses for different work. Another is my newer SLR/DSLR (Canon EOS 5D and film 1N) with 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. And the last is my 4x5 with 2-3 of 6 lenses from 90mm to 300mm.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>National park visit:<br>

Canon 40D<br>

10-22 (son's lens but we swap 10-22 and 17-40)<br>

17-40 L<br>

50 macro<br>

70-200 2.8 L<br>

Polarizing filter<br>

graduating ND filter<br>

extra battery<br>

extra card(s)<br>

tripod, about a 25 year old Gitzo<br>

binoculars (always)*<br>

notepad with several pens<br>

list of sunrise/set, moonrise/set times along with azimuth<br>

If a week in park, add laptop, portable hard drive, and associated crap for backups<br>

<br />Recently aquired a 100 2.8 L macro which goes everywhere with me. 50 macro has not been used since. Macro lighting is in the future when I can afford it.<br /><br /><br />Hiking in the mountains close to home in PA, either A,B, or C:</p>

<ul>

<li>A: no photo equipment (photograqphy takes a back seat to simply enjoying the outdoors)</li>

<li>B: 17-40, 100 2.8 macro + above accessories except backup</li>

<li>C: same as B, but add 10-22, and 70-200</li>

</ul>

<p><br />I recall, probably back in the 80s when Galen Rowell said he could have used just two lenses to cover 90% of his photography...a 24 and 85 lens. </p>

<p>* 8X40 Leicas for serious birding. When carrying a lot of equipment 8X30s would be my prefernce, but can not afford another pair.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Hi Tempest, I know a few pro landscape photographers personally and I would say that there is considerable variability in what they have. In the Canon line I would say that the 16-35 version 2 is very popular and the 70-200 f4 is popular as well. When I go hiking I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 f4...that's it. If I need wide-angle, I take multiple images and stitch. I think that the 16-35 and 70-200 would also be a very good package to take on a hike. If I go on a day-hike with my main camera bag I take the 17 tse, 24 tse, 24-70, and the 70-200 f4. I own other lenses but don't use them much for landscape photography.<br>

There is one issue that I think is very important about equipment in landscape photography though. That is...less is more. I think it is very important to travel light and wear very good clothing. If you are tired and/or uncomfortable, you'll quit before getting the shot. That's why I try to travel as light as possible. Cheers, JJ</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>there was a time when i'd put everything i owned into a hefty lowepro bag and sling it over my shoulder and go. now i usually take something much smaller, and lately it's one of those slingshot bags in the medium size. this forces me to skinny down to a few primes and one longer lens. there's no real penalty to the primes weight-wise, so i'll grab the 20/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 or 105/2.5. then it's either the 70-300 VR, 300/4 VR or 80-200/2.8. i've mostly given up carrying 2 bodies and lug around a tripod instead... this has the predictable effect of slowing things down -- which is good, since i don't get tired out as fast. that's usually good for a 4-hour jaunt, which if it doesn't net good photographs at least keeps me active.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Jeremy makes an excellent point that less is more and I proved his point. I took my son to a rattlesnake hotspot this summer on a warm and somewhat humid day. Just a mile from returning to the car we found a rattler at a spot I did not expect to see one. I was beat from carrying that old Gitzo tripod for miles; so did not even try to photograph that one.</p>

[israel]

<p>Tempest</p>

<p>In the past my heaviest setup was a Nikon D200 + Tamron 17-50/2.8. I traded it in eventually as I always ended up leaving it behind because of the weight and ltd. focal length, taking my G9 instead.<br /> <br /><br />>> What's in your camera bag,<br /><br />As I'm travelling right now, it's pretty minimal:<br /><br /> * Nikon D40<br /> * Nikkor 18-55 VR<br /> * Nikkor 35/1.8 Dx<br /> <br /><br />>> and what would you choose if you were building from scratch?</p>

<p>While I have the weight sorted, I am pretty restricted in terms of high-ISO performance and my focal length options, so next time around I may look at:</p>

<p>* Nikon D5000<br /> * Nikkor 18-105 VR<br /> * Nikkor 50/1.4 Dx<br /> * Nikkor 35/1.8 Dx</p>

<p>But I have to buy that stuff 1st - ha ha</p>

[shiang_wang1]

<p>On foot<br>

Nikon F100 with Velvia 50<br>

20mm f/2.8 AFD<br>

28mm f/2 AIS<br>

60mm f/2.8 AFD macro<br>

Polarizers and GND filters<br>

Gitzo tripod and Z1 ball</p>

<p>With car,<br>

I add<br>

80-200mm f/2.8 AFD and TC-201<br>

SB-28</p>

<p>If I am buidling from scratch, I would probably replace 60mm macro with 105mm macro and add a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8.</p>

[justthings]

<p>typically for walking around:<br>

18-70 on D80<br>

50 f/1.8<br />tokina 50-135 f/2.8 in my bag<br>

if i think i'll have the luxury of doing any macro:<br>

Vivitar Series 1 105mm macro<br>

all carried in a tamrac velocity 6 pack<br>

tripod on its own strap slung over a shoulder.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I am just a casual shooter. I carry the following at all times.<br>

Sigma 70-200<br>

Sigma 10-20<br>

Nikon 17-55<br>

Nikon 50mm<br>

Sigma 18-50 as a backup.<br>

D300 and D200<br>

2 SB600 and SB900</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>10-22mm; 28-135mm; 100mm macro; 100-400mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty enough coverage from 10mm to 400mm including a macro which is also very good for portrait. Good choice! I may have many more, like 3 other 50mm macro lenses for examples, but they are not needed</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Most of the time I use a DSLR, and have a bunch of lenses. But when I have the time for a hike and am in a contemplative mood I take my Wista 4x5 field camera with one lens, a tripod, exposure meter, film holders loaded with Kodak Tmax-400 B&W film, and a couple of filters (my favorite being a graduated yellow filter) in a backpack. I stick with one lens (90mm, 150mm, or 210mm) when I am hiking in order to simplify camera set-up and reduce weight. I then search out compositions that are conducive to the field-of-view of that lens. I think that this is also a good approach for digital photography; go out with one fixed focal length lens and visualize compatible compositions. It will strengthen your vision.</p>

[chelsea]

<p><em>I believe that you actually use all those lenses, but surely you don't use them all in the same session? Would a little forethought help, perhaps?</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Oh heck no. What's the fun in planning? ;-) To be honest, if I'm going someplace familiar and know what to expect I'll leave a lens or two at home. The way I meander around there's no way of knowing what I'll need, so the 4 lenses I carry aren't onerous. (I'm 5'10", not exactly "petite".) As for the bag, I usually have some cheapie yard sale shoulder bag, I tear them up pretty quick. The one I'm using now a friend gave to me, he got a new one for his birthday, and he was tired of seeing the ratty shape mine was in. LOL!</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>It depends... I always carry a pair of 1.6x cameras... <br>

For dedicated landscape trips I carry the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina, 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/4L IS with dedicated CPL filters and of course, plenty of CF cards and extra batteries... I will also carry a Giottos MT-8180 tripod and A/C ball head...<br>

For wildlife trips, I will carry a 400mm f/5.6L and/or a 300mm f/4L IS and or a 70-200mm f/4L IS along with the above accessories and a 550EX flash...<br>

As my general photography and travel kit, I carry a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens with either a Slik pro 330D tripod modified into a 2-pound 4-ounce travel rig or a Calumet monopod. I will usually carry both a 270EX and a 550EX flash with Joe demb Diffuser reflectors and the accessories above,</p>

<p> </p>

[datoon]

<p>I have a variety of lenses but when I head out walking or climbing in the hills, I will always have my Canon 17-40L, 100-400L and a 50 f/1.8. These two lenses account for the vast majority of my images.<br>

I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 but do not often use it as well as a a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro which is good but only occasional use.<br>

I carry all camera gear packed into their own drysacks, ND grads and other filters, back up battery etc and along with a tripod, they all go into my climbing back pack. I use a cotton carrier chest harness so my camera is always ready and to hand, even when the 100-400 is attached. While the 5d mkii has improved weather proofing I still carry a freezer bag and elastic band to protect it in heavier rain. Even if I am wild camping for several days in Scotland this is what I take. Weight carried, anywhere from as little as 9kg to a max of normally 25kg depending on what we are up to.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I shoot handhold, mostly bird, stand around a long time or walk long distance so it depends on how I feel on the shooting days. If I feel great, I take a long my 500 f/4 and if not I take the 400 f/5.6. I pack one lens in my bag and when I'm in the field the empty bag stays in the car. Carrying too much stuff weighs you down in the field, and leaving them in the car always poses a thread of someone may steal them. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, I'll play... :-)</p>

<p>It depends on what I'm shooting and how I'm shooting. Sometimes I work from a car and can take the whole mess, but other times I'm backpacking high in the Sierra Nevada and I have to minimize equipment. So here are a few sample scenarios:</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Full on landscape work - vehicle based</strong>: I carry two bodies, a 5D and a 5D2. I carry a very large tripod, a range of ND and CP filters. I'll even have an electronic flash in the bag. As to lenses, the current full list will include 17-40, 24-105, 70-200, 100-400 zooms and 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm primes. This is a lot of stuff, and I may not use all of it - but I'll bring it along in case I do.</li>

<li><strong>Minimalist backpacking kit</strong>: I frequently photograph in the Sierra back-country on pack trips that may last a week or longer and include travel across some very high terrain. On a few occasions I have worked successfully with only: one body, a 24-105 lens, a polarizing filter, extra batteries, tripod (smaller and lighter than the regular one)</li>

<li><strong>Typical backpacking kit</strong>: As above but with either two or three lenses. To the 24-105 I add the 17-40 and/or the 70-200.</li>

<li><strong>Wildlife and vehicle based</strong>: I'll dispense with the 70-200 and rely entirely on the 100-400. I might not carry all the primes and I might not bring the 17-40.</li>

</ul>

<p>Back to the "austere list" notion. I believe - strongly - that you can make photographs with the gear you have in most cases. Although I frequently work with large quantities of gear, you might be surprised to find that I rarely if ever really feel limited when I carry, for example, only a 24-105 in the back-country. There is plenty to photograph, and I typically adapt to "seeing with the lens" that I have.</p>

<p>In the end it is much less about which gear you have (though this is not entirely insignificant) and a lot less about how much gear you have - and a lot more about what you do with the gear you have.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have to say, I am astonished at the stuff a lot of you take. Such redundancy!</p>

<p>I take 24/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 70-200/4, 1.4X telecon. Leica table-top tripod.</p>

<p>If I am in the car I will add a real tripod.</p>

<p>If I go totally prime I take the same as above but replace the 70-200mm with the 135/2. I rarely do this as the 70-200m is more useful.</p>

<p>If I am travelling very light I just take a 24-70.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>For landscape and wildlife I carry in my bag a Sigma 10-MM, a Tamron 18-MM and a Sigma 150-MM for a Canon 7D. I have found that to cover about everything I need The Tamron and Sigma 150-500 and stabilized. Sometimes I carry a monopod. I usually don't make enlargements over a 8 X 10 and these lens have been excellent for what I do. I realize prime lens are better but it gets down to what I am able to carry. When I was 40 years younger I had a completly different attitude and would haul everything I could.<br>

Jim Ducey</p>