Lens selection for a month in Costa Rica

[photodiscoveries]

<p>I have looked at the previous posts, but am looking for a more specific answer. I will be spending 4 weeks in Costa Rica next month, staying a week in each of 4 diverse locations. Hope to photograph wildlife as well as landscapes. I would love to take all of my kit, but that is not practical, so I am looking for some advice. <br>

I have a Canon 5d MarkIII and a 7D. My lenses are all Canon. 16-35, 24-105, 70-200 f 2.8 IS, 70-300 L IS, 400 DO f4, and a 500 f4. Also have both 1.4 and 2.0 extenders and a set of extension tubes, and the ability to borrow a 100-400. <br>

I want to take both bodies, think the 16-35 is a must, as is the 24-105. Then, either the 70-200 OR the 70-300. Should I take the 500 which requires a separate case and limits other carry-on, or the 400 DO which I might fit into my one bag, but probably eliminates both the 70-200 and the 70-300.<br>

Any suggestions would be appreciated. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>If you'll be taking both bodies, the 16-35, the 24-105, then simply adding the 70-200/2.8, plus a 1.4x TC and a 2.0xTC seems like the best bet. That'll give you complete functional coverage from 16mm -> 640mm FOV, which, while perhaps w/o the top of the line IQ available from the primes, is gonna give you pretty complete coverage, all without requiring a chase car to carry your gear ;)</p>

[rcsenn]

<p>I like Marcus's suggestion.<br>

I went a couple of years ago and took a 50D with a Tokina 12-24 f4, ef 35 f2, 70-200 F4 IS, and a 1.4 x. My most used lens was probably the 12-24, with the 70-200 a close second. I kept my stuff light and hiked a lot with all of it. The 35 f2 was used in low light and at night with some success with a flashlight. I was there on vacation and didn't want to burden my girlfriend with me and ALL of my stuff. I didn't want to carry my EF 100 f2.8 and the 70-200 too but the macro would have been nice.<br>

What did I really miss from home? A true macro lens. I've done 2 things to remedy that. So I picked up an ef 50mm f2.5 Compact macro and a S95 camera, that does macro pretty good, to stuff in a pocket. <br>

I've revamped my lenses from my experience to something close to what Marcus suggests and think that would serve you well. I did find that by going to some of the gardens and wildlife preserves and other places hiring a guide that the chances at getting good wildlife shots goes up dramatically.<br>

RIch</p><div></div>

[photodiscoveries]

<p>Thanks Rich and Marcus...appreciate your input a lot. A question...were there many times when the reach of the 200 was not enough? That is my big concern...the 400 DO is a beautiful lens, and while not light, far smaller and lighter than the 500. I use it often for photographing wildlife hand held in a kayak. I hate the quality of the 200 and the 2.0 extender, and really never totally satisfied even with the 1.4. But, if most shots on 7D a crop body have enough reach, I would be elated. Easy to leave something at home...and I am to old to carry a big pack...<br>

Deloyd</p>

 

[nathansanborn]

I would go 7d, 16-35 (wide to normal), and 70-300 to cover telephoto needs. But that is based on what I like to shoot. If

you prefer the ability to go ultra wide, augment with the 5d. Seems to me the 2 lenses and crop body would be both light

and capable.

 

I'm a Nikon shooter myself, but years ago I went with a D50, 18-55 and 70-300 and don't remember missing any shots

until I dropped and broke the 18-55. But, then again, I also didn't shoot wildlife.

 

The big question... What do you think you'll need?

[photodiscoveries]

Never having been there, I have no idea of the distances for wildlife. While I think have the landscape under control with

the markIII and either the 16-35 or the 24-105, I do not know if I will have a chance for good bird shots with the 7D and

the 70-200 f2 IS. I have choices...the 70-300 L but that is almost instantly to 5.6, the 400 DO , the 500, or the 100-400. I

guess I can eliminate the 500, as I will not be able to lug it for a day of hiking...I'm 72, and a little slower. The 400 is

lighter than the 500, and probably doable.

 

Still looking for input. Thanks for your help.

[eric_washburn]

<p>DeLoyd, I was there in the spring of 2012 for about ten days with a great group under the guidance of Naturescapes. Hummingbirds were the main interest, and 70-200 or 70-300 were the most used lenses for them (I had the former, but the group leader preferred the latter, which offers more framing versatility), though we had the advantage of setups at distances of 20 feet or so. When not at the setups, we often were shooting perched birds, usually at greater distances and without the multiflash advantages used at 20 feet. For the longer shots, my 7D, with a 600mm, a sturdy tripod and Wimberley head, was great, but that's an awful lot of equipment to tote around. After that trip I acquired a 5DIII and found its focusing superb for in-flight shots; sounds like the 400 would be your best bet there--I have one and have used it successfully in such situations, though for in-flight shots of larger birds (as I was working with in Florida), I think that a 300/2.8 has a quality advantage. All this is of little use, of course, if birds aren't your main interest, but they're a big part of why many nature photographers go to Costa Rica. Unless you have a big tripod, preferably with a gimbal head, I'd leave the 500 behind, even though it's a great lens.</p>

[rcsenn]

<p>DeLoyd,<br>

There were times when the 200 was not enough, but I was able to crop enough to satisfy me. The shot above was at a resort (169mm fl), and that bird was very tolerant of humans, I'm sure some feed him although the resort claims he is wild. In other areas I could hear the wildlife and get a glimpse, but not sure that more reach would have gotten the picture due to the dark, dense foliage. I'm sure that I could have put a longer lens to use, but personally did not want to lug another lens around. I don't remember mounting the 1.4x. I was often in rainforrest areas and just didn't want to loose a stop, or open the camera to risk ingesting moisture.<br>

Beautiful country with very friendly people.<br>

The picture I hope to attach was in a national park about 2/3 of the way from San Jose to Liberia. It was taken at 200mm and there was no getting closer. It works though as there are 4 toucans in the tree.<br>

Rich </p><div></div>

[zml]

<p>DeLoyd:<br>

You can limit the number of lenses you carry by limiting your subject matter. It might be hard to believe but while millions of people visit CR every year with cameras, and many are real photographers, most of the resulting pictures are me-too, meh type, "all subject matters all the time." IMO pick a subject matter, take the required equipment plus a walk-around/snapshot setup (FF body and 24-105 will do nicely) and you are set.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well said Michael. I agree completely. There are always millions of potential photographs. In my opinion, the sensible photographer makes no attempt to take them all.</p>

[photodiscoveries]

And I agree as well. The 24-105, 16-35 and 70 -200 seems to fit the bill. If there is a need for longer lenses for the

wildlife, I will have to come back and devote some time exclusively to them.

Thanks every one for your input and thoughts...

DeLoyd