Backpacker looking to get equipped...

[adam_salinger]

Hello all...

I just was made aware of this amazing website as a resource....My

question is this... I am a lightweight long distance backpacker

looking for a camera setup that will capture the beauty of the places

that I see on my hikes. I think I have narrowed my camera choice

down to the Elan 7 because I like the features that it offers....

although I would like the body to weigh a little less.

My confusion is in the lens type. I really want to be able to just

carry one lens on my trips that will enable me to capture a variety

of close-ups, landscape, wildlife, and weather. I have read many

threads about lenses and I am really down to about 6 lenses.

 

1. EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (13.1 oz.)

 

2. EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM (7.4 oz)

 

3. EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (18.9 oz.)

 

4. EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM (17.6 oz.)

 

5. Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (14.8 oz)

 

6. Tamron 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (12.5 oz)

 

I am interested in the advantages and disadvantages of things like

the IS feature, the f-stop range, type of glass, and how all of that

plays into the type of pictures I will be taking as well as the fact

that I need a tough and light combination.

Thanks!

[d_y]

I've used the 28-135mm IS lens and was very impressed. But, I carry a lightweight tripod when I backpack so the IS feature is not necessary in my case. If I were to travel sans tripod, then I'd much prefer the IS lens. Sounds like your desire to travel ultralight and move long distances would negate the tripod.

 

I really like the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. It is decent for what it is. Lot's of people have claimed to make saleable pictures from this lens (I don't dispute this). So, this should would be a good choice for a single lens at a minimum of weight. Do get the hood if you get this lens.

 

If you want to do close-ups, pseudo macro, and don't want to carry another lens, you're pretty much restricted to close-up lenses. Canon's close-up lenses are nice but will run you $100+ new on the 28-135mm IS.

 

For the type of pictures that I like to take, I don't really need a lens in the 200mm range. That probably won't get you too close to wildlife anyway and might not be worthwhile. YMMV.

 

You might want to bring along a polarizer too.

 

Don't know anything about those Tamron lenses.

[joey]

Hi Adam,<br>

If you haven't already, check out <a href="http://www.photo-mark.com/articles/backpacking/"><u>this article</u></a>. It's got a lot of helpful information.<br><br>

As you probably know, every ounce counts when you're backpacking for long distances. I'd be tempted to go with the light 28-105, although the 28-135 looks nice as well (at nearly three times the weight). When I photograph while backpacking, it's usually with a Maxxum 7 and a 24-105, or simply a Yashicamat TLR.<br><br>

 

If you haven't already bought into the Canon autofocus system, you might consider going manual focus. The mechanical bodies will generally be much more reliable, especially in harsh weather, and you don't really need the autofocus for this type of photography. It's your call though.<br><br>

 

Good luck!

[andy10]

I love my 28-135IS and it mates nice with a Elan 7E.. its a wonderful alround lens.. yes it costs a little higher but the IS is worth it.. Since you are backpacking, you might carry a tripod, so you may not be using the IS features more often.. But if you can afford it grab this lens.

 

THe 28-105 f/3.5-4.5II is an equally good lens in terms of build and quality.. and being lighter compared to 28-135IS, you might consider it.. Dont go for the lens on 2nd position of ur list.. you would be disappointed with it, as would be the case with non-canon lenses..

[h._p.]

I can recomend the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM as a good all round lens. If you're looking for decent but not outstanding quality I'd say this is the best compromise.

[basscheffers]

Do NOT get the 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM, it is light for a reason! The 28-105/3.5-4.5 is a great lens, but can be a bit slow, especialy since you do not want to take pictures at less than f5.6 to get decent sharpness. So is the 28-135IS, but the IS helps you ot there. If you only get one lens, I would recommend that one. Also incredibly light is the 50/1.8, it is so small you will always find space for it in your backpack and it is cheap. You will want this lens for great quality wide open in low light.

[jt]

I'd definitely go for either the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 or the 28-135 IS lens. I've owned both of them, and they're both excellent. The IS lens is heavier but the image stabilizer means that sunsets and evening and early morning shots are *much* easier to take (i.e. possible to take at all). But of course the lens weighs more.

 

Another option I'm sure you've considered, but don't mention, is the Canon 24-85 lens. I find the 24mm view invaluable for photos when hiking.

 

The Elan 7 body is nice - it's the one I have now - but I used to have a Rebel 2000 (stolen in Kenya) which is quite a bit lighter (~8oz lighter I think) and smaller. It doesn't have all the features of the Elan 7 but you may find you won't need them... that's got to be a personal decision. I use the extra features on my Elan 7 but for hiking I could happily get by without them. The 28-135IS feels front-heavy on the Rebel 2000 but it is comfortable and stable to hold (left hand cradling the lens barrel).

[cisko]

Well, now you're going to find out why you've been shaving all those ounces -- so you can carry more camera gear!

 

I pack the Elan IIe and the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. I've been very happy with that combination. But if I had to do it again, I'd get the 24-85mm as recommended above. I don't think the extra 20mm at the long end gets you much; it's not long enough for wildlife which is really what you'd want. But you'll really enjoy the 24mm wideangle for landscapes.

 

It would be nice to have something longer for wildlife. But I don't think any of your options will help you. The 300mm zooms are pretty slow, and the wildlife tends to be around at dusk and dawn, and to keep moving -- so all you're likely to get is a blur. You would probably get lucky some of the time but not enough to make the lens worth it. What you really want is something like a 300mm f/4, but that's about 2.5 lbs (and $1000+).

 

I think IS is great in general but I wouldn't be happy enough with it to leave my tripod at home; it wouldn't have worked for the 1 sec sunset shot that's hanging in my living room now.

 

The other alternative is to forget the SLR entirely and get a point and shoot, for instance the Olympus Stylus Epic. Sure it's a lot less capable, but you can take some great photos with it... and it's only about 5 oz. (Plus, you don't need such a hefty tripod with such a small camera.)

[oliver_s.]

Adam, of the lenses you listed, the only ones that are optically decent are the <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/28-105">EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM</a> and the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS. (The <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/24-85">EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM</a> is another alternative that's worth consideration.) All the others will either deliver images that cannot be enlarged beyond 4"x6" without showing blurred edges and low contrast, or their poor mechanical construction renders them precarious hiking accessories, or both is true.<p>You might consider a fixed focal length for the Canon, to cover the tele end, and the mentioned <a href="http://www.photo.net/olympus/mjuII.html">Olympus Stylus Epic</a> for the wide angle, although its 35mm can be tight. What about a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh5.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___242369___RIGR1VDS___GREY___CatID=376___SID=F4EFE226380">Ricoh GR1V</a> for the latter? Its f:2.8/28mm has an excellent reputation, and the camera allows aperture priority AE, i.e. you have a little more control over exposure than with the Stylus Epic. Add an <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/85-1.8">EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</a> (and the Elan 7 body, of course) to cover the tele range and enjoy.<p>Admittedly such a combination will leave you lost if a subject requires precisely 50mm focal length, but the Ricoh's lens (and all Canon tele lenses) are so good that you can crop a print by approx. 50 per cent (linear) without excessive quality losses. Also, it's a few ounces above the weight of the Elan 7 + EF 28-135mm. But consider the huge advantage: it gives you a backup, should one camera fail (or fall--it can happen). And both lenses I mentioned are <i>considerably</i> better than the zooms. Enlarging to 8"x12" from their negatives is a snap.

[benb]

If you need to go light I think the appropriate lens is the 50mm f/1.8.

 

It is 4.6 ounces and will absolutely kill every one of the lenses in your list, and won't need a tripod very often. I just went hiking Sunday with full kit including tripod and a 300 f/4L IS and carrying all that stuff sucked and I took the highest # of pictures with the 50mm lens. I don't think I will be caught dead carrying anything but a super-light tripod hiking again, as the tripod was the single heaviest object in my pack. I can't see myself taking much of that gear on a multi-day trip either.

 

I have a 20mm and and 85mm lens, after the 50mm one I'm not sure which once I would want next. I think two of my primes will still weigh less than the heaviest lens in your list. I can't see needing anything in the 80-135mm focal length range for hiking. Either admit you don't care about wildlife, or grit your teeth and admit you are going to add a lot of weight to get yourself the ability to get wildlife shots.

[doug_nelson1]

I've been backpacking the Appalachian Trail a piece at a time. I don't know where you're headed, but it gets awfully damp and chilly for days at a time in the East. Can we trust these consumer cameras and lenses to be sealed against moisture? It's dead weight if it shorts out.

 

Also, experienced backpackers are VERY weight conscious. You could carry food for another day or more water for what an EOS and a zoom weigh. Some featherweight backpacker cult classics are the Ricoh GR-1 series, with an excellent 28-mm lens, the Olympus XA4, with a 28 and close-up feature, the Olympus XA, with a fairly decent 35-mm lens, and the newer Olympus Stylus, with a better 35-mm lens. If you MUST carry an SLR, get an all manual model. You only need a battery for the light meter. Choose a 40-mm pancake or a 35-mm lens. Small SLR's include the Olympus OM's, Pentax MX, and Nikon FM-10.

[kevin conville]

I like Oliver's ideas of using good point and shoots instead. I'll go one further though.

You could carry 3 P&S. Two Epics: one with slow film, one with fast for different situations. Epics focus down to about 1' with a 35mm lens and are weather sealed. In addition a Ricoh GR21 will get you a 21mm lens of fine quality. The Epics are a whopping US$79. each and have an F2.8 lens of quite good quality. The Ricoh's pricey and you might want to consider a Contax TVS III if you have to have a zoom.

The huge advantage to P&Ss is, of course, they are handy when you want to use them. SLRs aren't too good for such activity. Also, a used Pentax MX or Olympus OM1 manual SLRs with a couple of primes and an extension tube or two would give you a relatively compact and versatile setup with good quality.

I'd forget the wildlife shots as this would require longer lenses than you've described with either IS and fast film or a tripod.

[jt]

P&S cameras are okay but remember you probably won't then have the choice of what depth-of-field or shutter speed to use, or to be able to dial-in exposure compensation. (And, are 3 P&S cameras really any easier to pack than one SLR with a zoom lens?)

 

It all depends how lightweight you need to go. I'd go for the SLR unless I absolutely had to cut back to the bare minimum. It just gives you so much more control and flexibility.

[josh1]

<p>This is the great dilema. To be a Photographer who happens to backpack or to be a backpacker who happens to take some photographs -- that is the question.</p>

 

<p>If you are a true ultralight backpacker you are not going to be carying an SLR -- it simply doesn't fit into the ultralight philosophy. I would say that you could carry a stylis epic or Ricoh GR and still consider yourself and ultralighter.</p>

 

<p>If you want to do some serious photography while backpacking, give up your ultralight aspirations. Train harder in the offseason and cary the equipment needed to do the job. I myself subscribe to this philosophy. I love backpacking but I sacrafice my back and feet to try to get the best pictures that I can. My standard backpacking kit includes an elan 7 or eos 5, 24/2.8, 28-70/2.8, occasionally 70-200/4, and almost always a full size tripod and ballhead along with several other accessories. This is definitely not a lightweight set-up. I sometimes have over 15 pounds of camera gear.</p>

 

<p>In my opinion, the extra weight is worth the hassle. Sure you will struggle sometimes to keep up when hiking with your friends who are carying their little digicams and disposable cameras. Occasionally you will get made fun of for carrying all that extra weight. But when you get back home, your friends will be tossing their pictures in the trash can and begging for reprints of yours.</p>

 

<p>So decide now what route you want to go. That little Ricoh GR would be a sweet ultralight hiking/climbing camera but the Elan 7 will give you more options. As far as a lens goes -- I love the 28-70 but its heavy and expensive. I used to own the 28-135 and loved it sometimes and hated it other times. I had trouble getting consistant results from it and eventually sold it. It is a very capable lens though. Here's a backpacking shot from it -- if pbase is working for a change;</p>

 

<p><a href=http://www.pbase.com/image/7815231>www.pbase.com/image/7815231</a></p>

 

<p>I personally would choose a good tripod and the 28-105 over the 28-135. I've never used the 28-105 but I its as good as the 28-135 in most respects and lighter, smaller, and uses smaller filters.</p>

 

<p>Otherwise, go the ultralight route. Leave your tent and crazy creek chair behind, sleep under a tarp, and take your Ricoh GR. Take some nice pictures and enjoy the extra miles you can hike each day with the smaller load in ur pack. Most of all -- enjoy the experience. I have some other backpacking photos in my photo.net folder by the way. Best of luck to you.</p>

[d_y]

Nicely put, Josh.

 

I am someone who likes to travel light too. But, I have found that this goal must be compromised if I want flexibility in taking pictures. Carrying an SLR allows me to have flexibility, but the gear *will* be heavy... At the very least, heavier than an point and shoot. No doubt, there a lots of nice shots taken with an Epic posted here. The Epic is "tough and light" with good glass. But, an Epic is ill-suited for wildlife, close-ups, and control over depth-of-field. I don't think you can get by without making some kind of trade-off...

[phyrpowr]

Best way to go ultralight is: no camera, just remember what it looked like. No tent or food either, suck it up and go!!

Now with that bit of sarcasm out of the way, I too am a backpacker who got back into serious photography about six years ago, and can wholeheartedly recommend the elan and the 28-135 IS. I'm assuming form the nature and tenor of your post that you are not (yet) looking for planned masterpiece shots, but excellent quality photos as you find them, same here, and this combo can do it all day. The newer 28-200/300s are supposed to be rather good, and I had a Sigma 28-200 that delivered good shots, but the 28-135 is optically superior, and , again, the IS will give you shots you would have had to toss due to handshake

While I usually carry a lightweight tripod, so many shots just "come up" with no time to get to it,and you can rig a rest on your pack .

You can rig carrying straps that attach to the "d" rings on your shoulder straps, and that will take a lot of the pain out of carrying it in ready position, i.e., off your achin' neck

[adam_salinger]

Thank you to everyone who answered my thread so quickly....you got me into a camera store and surprise... I have more questions... You have convinced me that my first three choices in the six posted in the original message are the best of what I listed...but now I have more to add.... The three I posted and got positive responses on included:

 

1. EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM (13.1 oz.)

 

2. EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM (7.4 oz)

 

3. EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (18.9 oz.)

 

The additional include:

 

4. Cannon 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5USM (13.4 oz.)

 

5. Sigma 24-105mm F/2.8-4 Aspherical (14.3 oz.)

 

6. Sigma 28-105mm F/3.8-5.6 UC-III Asperical IF (9.2 oz.)

 

7. Sigma 28-135mm F/3.8-5.6 Asperical IF Macro (14.5 oz.)

 

8. Tamron 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 (18.7 oz.)

 

9. Tamron 28-105mm F/4-5.6 (10.8 oz.)

 

Are the smaller Taron lenses any better than the 28-200mm lens? Does it still have a hard time enlarging above 4x6? I like the range of the 24-135mm...it seems like it could capture a whole lot more than some of the others if the quality is up to par. And the Sigma...how does it compare?? Prices look lower...there must be a reason??

 

I'm getting close!!

:)

[jt]

<p><i>2. EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM (7.4 oz)</i>

<p>I don't think anyone posted positive comments on this lens, other than it being light (... for a reason - i.e. lack of glass/quality)

<p>Out of all the 28-105 models, the Canon f/3.5-4.5 definitely gets the best reviews. I don't know about the Sigma/Tamron 24-1xx lenses, but the Canon 24-85 is comparable to the 28-105 and 28-135 in quality. It'll be a hard choice choosing between the 24mm wide end or image stabilization with the 28-135 - both features are useful!

<p>As you're hiking, <b>build</b> quality <i>is</i> more of a concern than it would be for studio or other less-active photographers, so it's worth looking into that aspect of lens design too.

[kodus]

I think the extra 4mm from 28 to 24 is more useful than the extra 105 to 135. I am not sure what I would pick given the choice of an extra 4mm or an extra 95mm (from 105 to 200). I would stay away from the 28-300mm, as f6.3 without a tripod is practically useless.