Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 5, 2008 at 10:56 AM
My climbing buddies and I are fortunate enough to have landed a permit to spend a week below the Rim in the Grand Canyon in mid-April. I am an avid, experienced backpacker/mountain climber/ski-backpacker/ etc., etc. My backpacking gear for the trip is covered very well. That said, the GC trip will be my first time there and I am looking for some advice.
I have built my 3 lens inventory around a minimalist (but very flexible) setup with my backpacking in mind:
Canon 5D
24-105mm L
100-400mm L
180 L Macro
2X teleconverter
This kit fits pretty well into my pack and gives me pretty broad capability.
This will be an extended, fully self-supported trip. We will be carrying everything we need (food, shelter, et al)for the week with us except water. Given the mileage and massive elevation changes anticipated, weight is a major concern. Naturally, I'm giving the 100-400mm (6 lbs!) a loooong hard look. I'm doing the same for the 180mm and the teleconverter. I figure the 24-105mm will be used most of the time and keeping the lens seated will avoid potential dust issues.
So, is it worth lugging the extra lenses for a week in those conditions? Are macro or telephoto shots likely to become available? For the record, I have no doubt that Murphy's Law applies and if I do not bring these lenses, I will miss them badly.
Jim, my 100-400 stays home when I'm backpacking. I do usually take my (much lighter/smaller) 70-200/4.
Then again, I'm not looking for wildlife so rarely need anything longer. If I can afford a little extra weight I also take the 17-40.
For macro you can use the 24-105 with an extension tube rather than lug an extra lens.
Reflecting my own shooting style, I'd trade a good extra wide zoom for your 100-400 whether or not you subbed the 70-200 as Guy suggests. I get lots of uses from long lens in isolating bits of landscape, but for backpacking..... ugh.
Blending what I know of the Canon system with my shooting style, I'd probably do just fine with the 17-40 and the 24-105 and an extension tube. And nothing else.
I hiked from the north rim to the bottom and back in one day 15 years ago and I returned to the canyon again with my wife last fall. We were not able to get a backpacking permit during our visit.
I think you could find some good macro, or more accurately close focus opportunities. There are a number of interesting details in the plants, plus little lizards running around. Can you buy or rent a lighter 100mm macro? All four lens makers have a good one.
The scale of the grand canyon seems to work really well with normal focal lengths, at least up on the rim. 40-50mm seemed to capture the scale well. Within the canyon, I would guess there are times when an ultrawide might be useful if it fits your style. Unless you were specifically looking to shoot photos of wildlife within the canyon, I would only carry the the 24-105 and a macro or close focus lens. In fact, I might consider the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for this trip because of its close focus capability, good all around functionality and light weight and surprisingly good image quality for its price ($250).
Hiking in the Canyon can be pretty tough. It gets really hot at the bottom and can make for some miserable conditions. Water can be scarce at times, when I hiked it many years ago, my water became so warm at the bottom that it would make you nauseous to drink it. On top of that challenge, you've got to cover some major vertical distances. Its just one of those places where I wouldn't want to carry more than necessary.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Steve,
I was referring to the weight at the END of the day, not the beginning!
Thanks for the clarification, tho. Makes the lens seem a bit less onerous! (it certainly feels like 6!)
It sounds like the commentary is going where I surmised it might: favoring a general purpose lens with consideration given towards the macro end.
Gotta love this group!
Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Guy,
What extension tube do you use with your 24-105mm?
Hi Jim, just in case you did not get my e-mail ,,I own a 5D and a 24-105L that lives in it.Great combo.I suggest taking along a G9 just in case, since the 5D is not that rugged.Good luck on your trip . jjsifo
My wife and I spent 3 days at GC in October. While we didn't back pack we did do some mild hiking below the rim - not to the bottom. However, we shot with the 24- 105 and 17 - 40 the entire time. There were about 10 shots of the full moon rising over the rim we used the 100-400 (3.1 lbs version). While I was glad we had it we were not doing the extensive hiking you will be doing. So, mu advice is 24- 105 and 17 - 40.
However, I would highly suggest a light weight tripod as many shots will be long exposure.
Have a great time.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on March 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Jaime - I have a G9 and it will be coming along as backup and for more casual shots. I will also be packing a Canon TX1 for video work. I want to document as much of the trip as possible. The 5D will be used strictly for the 'serious' photo work.
Ed - I forgot to mention the tripod. I have a Gitzo 1297 with a Manfrotto head which is reasonably lightweight. I anticipate the tripod being absolutely necessary.
I see the recommendations for the 17-40 are coming up often. I may have to go shopping...
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 6, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Leave the 180 and 100-400mm at home, along with the 2x thing. Buy a polarizer and a 70-300mm IS lens and take those. Much lighter, more compact. Use the weight savings to carry more water. Last time I was at the Grand Canyon, my 80-400mm VR was my most used lens. I used it to zoom in on distant formations. I didn't spend three weeks hiking with it though. A 70-300mm IS will have most of the capability and a fraction of the weight.
Given how much else you will be carrying for a week long trip, I would stick with just the 24-105mm. Maybe add the 17-40mm, IF your total pack weight turns out to be reasonable.
In my younger years, I hiked in with a full pack once. You will swear the trip back up is definitely 4x longer.
Discussion
11 repliesI have built my 3 lens inventory around a minimalist (but very flexible) setup with my backpacking in mind:
Canon 5D
24-105mm L
100-400mm L
180 L Macro
2X teleconverter
This kit fits pretty well into my pack and gives me pretty broad capability.
This will be an extended, fully self-supported trip. We will be carrying everything we need (food, shelter, et al)for the week with us except water. Given the mileage and massive elevation changes anticipated, weight is a major concern. Naturally, I'm giving the 100-400mm (6 lbs!) a loooong hard look. I'm doing the same for the 180mm and the teleconverter. I figure the 24-105mm will be used most of the time and keeping the lens seated will avoid potential dust issues.
So, is it worth lugging the extra lenses for a week in those conditions? Are macro or telephoto shots likely to become available? For the record, I have no doubt that Murphy's Law applies and if I do not bring these lenses, I will miss them badly.
Thoughts?
Then again, I'm not looking for wildlife so rarely need anything longer. If I can afford a little extra weight I also take the 17-40.
For macro you can use the 24-105 with an extension tube rather than lug an extra lens.
Guy
Blending what I know of the Canon system with my shooting style, I'd probably do just fine with the 17-40 and the 24-105 and an extension tube. And nothing else.
I think you could find some good macro, or more accurately close focus opportunities. There are a number of interesting details in the plants, plus little lizards running around. Can you buy or rent a lighter 100mm macro? All four lens makers have a good one.
The scale of the grand canyon seems to work really well with normal focal lengths, at least up on the rim. 40-50mm seemed to capture the scale well. Within the canyon, I would guess there are times when an ultrawide might be useful if it fits your style. Unless you were specifically looking to shoot photos of wildlife within the canyon, I would only carry the the 24-105 and a macro or close focus lens. In fact, I might consider the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for this trip because of its close focus capability, good all around functionality and light weight and surprisingly good image quality for its price ($250).
Hiking in the Canyon can be pretty tough. It gets really hot at the bottom and can make for some miserable conditions. Water can be scarce at times, when I hiked it many years ago, my water became so warm at the bottom that it would make you nauseous to drink it. On top of that challenge, you've got to cover some major vertical distances. Its just one of those places where I wouldn't want to carry more than necessary.
I was referring to the weight at the END of the day, not the beginning!
Thanks for the clarification, tho. Makes the lens seem a bit less onerous! (it certainly feels like 6!)
It sounds like the commentary is going where I surmised it might: favoring a general purpose lens with consideration given towards the macro end.
Gotta love this group!
What extension tube do you use with your 24-105mm?
However, I would highly suggest a light weight tripod as many shots will be long exposure.
Have a great time.
Ed - I forgot to mention the tripod. I have a Gitzo 1297 with a Manfrotto head which is reasonably lightweight. I anticipate the tripod being absolutely necessary.
I see the recommendations for the 17-40 are coming up often. I may have to go shopping...
Kent in SD
In my younger years, I hiked in with a full pack once. You will swear the trip back up is definitely 4x longer.