Equipment Which lens to buy? Backpacking

I would say Sigma 18-200 OS... there is nothing worse then backpacking and having too much camera gear. I spent almost a month in Nuremberg, Venice and Rome and was ready to throw half my gear in the ditch, I have the Nikon 18-200VR and Sigma 10-20, those are the only two lenses I ever take now on trips where size is an issue.

 

Well I went to go and have a play with all the lenses under consideration yesterday..

Tried to Tamron 18-250mm, Canon 24-105L, Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS.

Ruled the 70-200 out on weight alone. Oddly enough I found the Tamron easier to use over the 70-200 simply as I wasn't trying to hold all that weight still.

*In comparison to the Tamron* I won't deny the 24-105L is a beautiful lens, but again a lot of weight, quite large, expensive and not a large range (which is an important consideration here) means I went and purchased the Tamron! Looking at the test shots I took, I am really going to miss the IS though!

P.s. Welcome back Henry! Love my Sigma (10-20) too, practically was glued to the lens in Hong Kong and Australlia. Such a nice lens. Build quality is about a million times nicer than the tamron though (exterior that is) simply as the tamron is so much plastic. Redeeming factor is of course that plastic is very light!

Thank you for the help all!

P.p.s. Just bought a nice Kenko Pro1 Digital UV filter from Digital Rev (US) for 11.81! Bargain! Also have a Hoya Pro1 Digital UV filter to compare it too. Hope it is the real deal, should be as it is DigiRev!

 

24-105...large...heavy...not a large range!? I've got to say...wtf mate? This is one of canons most versatile lenses in its arsenal, specifically performance per FL. You'd be hard pressed to get a better lens. Anyhow...I'll be looking forward to your test shots.

 

24-105 about half the length of the 70-200 and a bit shorter?

I really can't see the problem with using a 24-105 as a walkaround lens. I own the 70-200 F/4 (Non IS, that is) and I don't find it too heavy to carry around, really. It may be a bit heavy of you are trying to hold it with one hand while shooting, though (Who does that anyway?).

 

I've got two words for you...Lens Technique. If you learn how to hold 'heavy' lenses, you will find they are much more easily stabilized than those which are lighter. The harder you try to keep the lens steady, the more difficult you make it on yourself. Let the weight rest in your hand and learn to use the neck strap as an elbow sling. Techniques such as those make the usage of heavy glass negligible, at least while in use.

 

If you read my comment I am comparing it to the tamron And in comparison to the tamron it is heavy, larger and has a smaller range

You must bear in mind I am backpacking, it's not just aiming the bazooka I also have to consider carrying it everywhere.

 

I had read your comment, and IMO even in comparison to the Tamron I wouldn't go ahead and make a statement claiming the Canon is a heavy lens...call the Tamron uber light if you will but the 24-105 is by no means heavy. As for range, yes the Canon has less, but you will get much better images using the Canon than you ever will using the Tamron. You also must bear in mind that while you may be backpacking, this is no reason to skimp on BQ, which the Canon has the Tamron clearly beat in. And finally, f/4 constant vs 3.5-6.3...you said you needed a versatile lens for low light, the Tamron may be versatile, but not so much in low light.

 

Yup, sadly life is a compromise . Half the price was a strong competing factor


On a related note though, why is it that higher priced lenses have metal bodies? I mean, how much of the weight is contributed by the body and how much the optics in say the 70-200? Ideally a lens will never be dropped and if the optics aren't that heavy then surely the metal body is just a feel good factor? Or does it actually have some significance in the quality of the final product?

(Lots of question marks above as I am genuinely asking, I have no idea on the answer!)

Oh and can you explain your sling technique please?

 

A high quality plastic lens doesn't feel much different than a metal body one, really. I guess the metal body makes it more stable.
Very cheap lenses have plastic mounts which could break more easily. A lens cold get knocked around a bit of it's used "in the field" by a professional photographer. I guess in these situations build quality is important.

This is my theories, though, so don't quote me on this..

oh, and L-series lenses also have weather proofing.

 

unrealhippie, the metal body is an important part not just of a lens surviving getting dropped, but of its life and wear/tear in general. A plastic lens body cannot be machined to the same tolerances, it wears easier, and it can distort more with a simple knock or bump (which DO happen). It's not just about a lens surviving a metre-height fall, it's about things not getting distorted or shifted over the life of the lens with smaller, less dramatic wear. And that doesn't even include the actual weather-sealing benefits...

As for Vers,

I have to ask...how much backpacking do you do? I can COMPLETELY understand your argument for optics, but I think that a true backpacking spirit involves doing more with less. You don't want to underload, but one of the most versatile lenses recommended by Luminous Landscape isn't the 70-200L or 24-105L - it's the 70-300IS. It's a workhorse lens that doesn't add tremendous weight to a pack but does have great optical quality for its features.

Different strokes for different folks and I'm FAR too amateur to be questioning YOUR technique, but your suggestions are great for someone who's going on a mile trek for pictures, not packing for a week and a trip where every pound matters as it's square on your back.

Personally, I'd be all about a two-lens setup with one being as light of a tele as is going to get me the shots I need, not several top-optic lenses that I'd be worried about getting jostled as I tossed my pack, etc.

It's all about horses for courses, I suppose...

 

50mm f/1.4 is almost all I ever use when I'm just walking around.
The 50mm f/1.8 has terrible build quality, in my opinion. The f/1.4 is infinitely better (and faster, I might add), for not all that much more. Your feet can be your zoom.

 

I do a fair amount of hiking...which is much more intense than 'backpacking' and I do it with a full kit, I'm talking 5D, 24-105, 100-400, Sigma 150 macro, tripod (depending) and a daypack...sometimes I'll take my 40D as well for 4+ miles up and down mountains/hills, through fields, swamps and streams--depending on where I am. It is a lot of weight, much more than the average person would even think of bringing along, but I man up and do it. If you take a look at the first page you will see that I had recommended the 70-300 IS along with a standard zoom (17-50). This is the kit I recommend always to those who want the best for their money and this case is no exception. It is the best kit for the money unless the OP demands a one lens solution. I can't say he [OP] made the wrong decision, but I will say that there are better choices.

As for the discussion based on the 24-105...I was flabbergasted. Honestly, for someone (and no offense, OP) to pick up the lens and call it heavy is borderline crazy. Yes, it is heavier than the Tamron but it is by no means a heavy lens--specifically when looking at its range, build and aperture not to mention the addition of an IS mechanism.

 

It is very simple. Take the neck strap and wrap it around your right arm once, then with the slack pull it down and around your elbow. Now when you hold the camera it should pull taught when locking your wrist. If it doesn't, then tighten or loosen up the strap using the adjustable sliders. Also, when standing keep one foot in front of the other and your face pressed directly against the back of the camera, learn to breathe 'steady' and relax your hands and arms. When your ready to fire, gently press the shutter. When shooting with shorter, lighter glass, bring your arms in tight to your sides.

 

I guess you give up the luxury of clean clothes then? Space for a toothbrush there? 'What worked' made an interesting read.

P.s. Stop flaming me please. I'm carrying 1 backpack, and need to be sufficient for an entire month. Camera is important to me but not life ending.

 

I hike, I don't backpack therefor I do not need extra clothing or a toothbrush, OTOH I carry a lot of equipment which probably weighs just as much as the amount of clothing and supplies you would bring with you. The point I was attempting to get across was that the added weight and footprint of an additional lens can and does work for backpacking, I know plenty of people who have done so comfortably. As for flaming you, this was not my intention at all and I apologize if you took it as so.

 

I'd have to agree with unrealhippie, hiking and backpacking are two very different things and I kind of read the same as he did on your response (hence my own phrasing). It does come across as a bit aggressive.

If you've not had to trek for days on end with what's in your pack, I'm afraid that the argument is very moot. I can completely understand the idea of hiking for a day and "manning up". But there's a big difference between that and finding out that the end of your day involves a tent (4-8lbs), a sleeping bag plus roll (another 4lbs), clothes (Xlbs), etc. It's like the difference between running a marathon and a sprint - it's a totally different build-out and needs to be recognized as such.

Days on end is a KEY factor. Clothes take up space for lenses and bodies, etc. I just don't think it's a fair comparison, and as much as I can appreciate hiking with a LOT of weight for a day, it can end up really, really problematic when you carry too much stuff for several.

Just my opinion, though!

 

I think a majority of you are missing the point here. The crucial part is that this is a trip, in India with one backpack. You will be in trains, buses, busy streets and sleeping who knows where. You can all argue to death about optics, f stops, long term durability, but most of these are moot points, what is needed is a Swiss Army knife of lenses. The less gear you have the better, the less times you change lenses even better! and the less you have to be stolen or broken that is the the ultimate goal. If you have porters, travel by taxi and always have the luxury of secure storage, then take half the camera store.

I have traveled to China, Tibet, Italy, Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Panama, etc etc etc... and here is what I carry when I take my bigger stuff:

Nikon D80
SB-400 flash (nice and small)
Nikon 18-200VR with circular polarized filter (a must!)
Sigma 10-20 if I have extra room

This is all the gear I have or have access to at any point and only take the above:

SB-400 flash
SB-600 flash
Nikon 60mm Micro (f2.8)
Tamron 17-50 (f2.8)
Nikon 18-200VR (f3.5-5.6)
Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6)
Sigma 50-500 (f4-6.3)
Nikon 50mm (f1.8)
Plus a friend who works at on the bigger camera stores in the city

The goal in India and most places you travel is DO NOT STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB! It's all about incognito! And for people who have not lived out of a backpack for a month, EVERY ounce begins to weigh a pound in no time. As well, it's not purely about the weight of the gear, it's the bulkiness of it, the size of the gear. You may not think that a 50mm f/1.4 if big, but when you need to get in and out of a bag to get your toothpaste, or trying to stuff your bag into a small overhead compartment, it all makes a huge difference. My recomendation is still to take a look at a Sigma 18-200OS (as the OS/VR is one of the most amazing things to have on a zoom lens)

My 2 Canadian cents. And Da Dego, when we go to Yellowstone, I'm going to buy a cattle prod and make you hump all your gear to the top of a mountain and then we shall see how your tune changes

 

This discussion makes me glad to be a little older and have a little more money. Backpacking always sucked. At least now I can afford to stay in nice hotels with clean sheets. I still pack light, but laundry service and showering are a blessings I can not live without now.

 

Brett, it seems as though I may have missed some details and or we have two different ideas of backpacking. I was under the assumption that he would be staying indoors or at alternate lodging along his trek. I was unaware that packing a tent and sleeping bag was involved. Perhaps there are many levels of backpacking...two extremes if you will. When I go to Germany/Belgium I'll be backpacking...but from hostel to hostel, house to house--this is what I think of when I think of backpacking. The way you describe seems to be, more or less, camping. I'm not sure how much ground will be covered in x-amount of days, but I would think that staying in one place for a day or two isn't out of question. Hiking and backpacking, to me, are two entirely different things...when I hike I hike, when I see something interesting I'll stop for a few minutes to capture it, but I don't sit down to rest for hours at a time. All my gear [40lbs] is on my back/around my neck 90% of the time...when I think of backpacking I think of walking a few miles at a time, hitch a ride in a cab, on a cart or on a train...drop your bag/s at a secure [semi-secure] location then explore. Come back at night, catch a meal and some sleep, then do it again in the AM. Yes, its day after day and I am aware of that...but surely there is ample time to rest and the extra weight/footprint of an additional lens [lets say a Tamron 17-50 and a Canon 70-300 (1060g/2.3lbs)] will not make or break your trip. As far as being inconspicuous...neither the Tamron nor the 70-300 stand out, so if you play your cards right in public places you should go without sticking out...then again if your Caucasian in a non-tourist/rural place your pretty much going to stick out anyway. If I'm off the mark at all, then I'm clearly in the dark about backpacking and I will gladly bow out of the conversation. I will say this though, for me taking a trip to India would most likely be a once in a lifetime chance therefor I would make room in order to bring at least two lenses, because while one very versatile lens is lighter and smaller...it is one lens, thats all you have and to risk the chance of it going down wouldn't be an option, at least not for me. Then again, its only one opinion.

 

Hehe...yeah, I see what you're saying, Vers. Do keep in mind, though - India and hostels and the like aren't exactly secure and you cannot leave your gear there. Hotels? Sure, but that's not usually in a backpacker's repitoire.

When I think of backpacking, in any form, I think of it being a days long trek with what's in your pack and that's all, which amounts to a much different load-out.

That being said, there's one thing EVERY ONE of us agrees on - Two lenses at the minimum, probably three at the max. One "swiss army" lens will leave you short and pissed off if photography is a going concern on your trip (and we'd assume it is, or else you'd ditch the dSLR altogether and go for a good P&S)