I'll be in King's Canyon NP next month. During that time I'll be doing 2 backpacking trips: 6 day/5 night and a 5 day/4 night. Specifically, I plan on hiking along parts of the John Muir trail into Evolution Basin on the longer trip. I am trying to decide on which lenses to bring.
I really want to take my 70-200 F/2.8, which means I'll have to bite the bullet and carry my much bigger and heavier tripod. I also own the 16-35 L 2.8 and the older, 28-70 L F/2.8 Because of the weight and bulk, I can only bring one more. I am leaning towards the 28-70 because it is a 77mm lens, which means I wouldn't have to double up on polarizers, etc. (I think the 28-70 is a heavier lens though)
I never thought I'd consider excluding the wide angle lens on part of this trip, but I like the versatility of the others lenses much more. I am looking here for any suggestions/recommendations/advice from folks experienced with backpacking in the High Sierra. Lakes, peaks, water, and meadows will be the primary subject matter I hope... Is this the right move or am I crazy for considering to exclude the 16 - 35 ....
Thanks for your time.
Michael
This image is from last year's Northern Yosemite High Loop Backpacking Trip taken in the John Muir Gorge...(6 day/ 60 + miles/ 10,000 ft +/- elevation change)
Of course, it depends on what kind of photos you usually take. When I backpack, most of my shots are wide so my first choice would be the 16-35.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on August 12, 2010 at 7:59 PM
If I had to choose, I would also take the wide lens. If I thought I was going to encounter animals, I'd probably bring my 80-400 and a 50mm to cover the rest. But in the Sierra, I have only ever seen small mammals, as big as maybe coyotes. So I would probably leave the long lens at home. From my bag, I'd bring the 12-24 and 17-35 and maybe my 24-120. (17-35 is overlap, but in the Nikon world it is one of the sharpest wide angle zooms)
Not sure why you bringing your 70-200 requires a heavy tripod? What do you plan to shoot with it, long exposures?
Looks like you have you style of shooting determined and want that longer, heavier lens. I wouldn't. I just returned from a few days b'pcking, and am sad that I took too much gear. If I go again, I'm taking one lens, either the 16-35II or my Zeiss 21mm. I find I simply adjust to the lens I have and think around it. Go light, you'll be carrying a lot of food. Never consider a heavier tripod. Always go for the lighter one.
On longer backpacking trips, I carry the 24-105mm just as Harley has suggested.
I find that 24mm is wide enough in most cases with the full frame sensor of the 5D.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a beast to carry backpacking....although I have carried it a few times
Posted by Kurt Budde on August 13, 2010 at 1:00 AM
You don't necessarily need a heavier tripod. Just set up, lock the mirror, wait 20~ seconds and hit the remote shutter ;)
Posted by Steve Sieren on August 13, 2010 at 2:19 AM
I use the 17-40 & 24-105 always up there. I have the beast you're talking about and only take it on short treks w/ not much elevation gain. I seriously wouldn't mind bringing the ligher version.
Thanks everyone. I own a Gitzo GT0541 Tripod, which I believe is the lightest carbon fiber tripod on the market. Unfortunately, it doesn't do the greatest job of keep the camera from moving, especially in wind or moving water. I was using a RRS BH-25 on it last summer and with the 24-105; I literally couldn't bracket 3 shots without the camera moving. The shutter on my 24-105 was so clunky. Anyways, I sold the 24-105 and bought a new tripod and ballhead. I have only been using the Induro (not sure of model right now; I think it weighs close to 4 lbs) to shoot with, but I guess I could take the BH-40 on that tripod and put it on my Gitzo. I still don't think it would have the proper load weight to support shooting with the 70-200 F/2.8.
BTW Harley - I like the 28-70 better than the 24-105. It is a much smoother and slightly sharper lens IMO. I guess I could quickly sell my Gitzo and buy something lighter than my Induro to use on this trip. Anyways, I appreciate everyone's comments - now I'll probably end up taking the 16-35 and leaving the 28-70 instead. I guess it does make more sense.
Posted by Rudy Ruberti on August 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM
Michael,
I just got back from a four day trip in the eastern Sierras last night. Weight was a big factor, since I was carrying enough food for my daughter and me. Initially, I planned on bringing two lenses, 14-24mm and 24-70mm. Both of these lenses weigh a ton, as does my D700. When I tried the pack on the night before we left, it was too heavy for my liking and I decided to leave the 14-24mm at home. This was partly because I knew we were going to have clear skies the whole trip, so I planned on shooting more intimate scenes like wildflowers (which were amazing at 11,000 feet). In addition, I could stitch verticals together for a wider angle. However, I missed not having a wider angle lens. I've been through Evolution Basin/Valley a few years back and these places are BIG, with a lot of vertical relief. It will be hard for me to leave the wide angle at home on our next trip.
Rudy
How much weight are you comfortable carrying in total, and how much weight and space allowance do you have leftover after accounting for your backpacking gear (food, shelter, clothing, etc)? Whatever that is, use it all and don't hold back: maybe you can squeeze in all 3 lenses. Bear in mind this advice is coming from someone who still backpacks with a medium-format film camera and 2-3 lenses plus tripod, so as advice it may admittedly be masochistic :-)
Seriously though, this July I did a four-day trip from North Lake over Piute Pass into and around Humphries Basin (Lower Desolation Lake, Muriel Lake) and back. I carried a Pentax 67II with its 2 big zoom lenses and a heavy tripod: about 20 pounds total, plus 30 pounds of backpacking gear and about 10 pounds of food for my son, father and myself. I'm a smaller-than-average guy in only fair shape; I worked out in advance of the trip but probably not enough to make much difference, paced myself to about 4-5 miles a day max, and did OK. Same with similar trips in many previous summers. I suspect you'll be fine taking as much of your photography gear as you can fit.
Michael, looking at your self-portrait now, one thing that might help is a larger pack, or smaller camera bag, such that your bag can be carried inside your pack when on trail. That way you'd be carrying that load with your pack's internal frame and suspension system - better ergonomically, and better for your endurance.
I put my aforementioned MF camera and lenses inside a largish fanny-sack - each lens cushioned inside the factory-included soft padded case, and the camera body cushioned with a little bubble wrap. The fanny-sack then fits into my internal-frame backpack's main compartment near the bottom. A zipper up the main compartment allows access to it when on the trail; when day-hiking or around camp, I remove the fanny-sack from the pack entirely, and wear it as usual. I don't think I could manage if I were carrying that gear externally in a shoulder bag as shown in your picture. Good luck!
Posted by Zachary Lake on August 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM
I’ve backpacked a couple times with gear in the Sierra Nevadas. Both trips were only about 20 miles total, and involved less than 6,000 feet of elevation changes.
My advice would be not to skimp on the tripod and ballhead, or you’ll be frustrated by the wind. I carried a Gitzo 1227 with a BH-55, wrapped in my pack towel, inserted into a nylon sack, and tied onto the bottom of my internal frame pack (phew a mouthful!). I also took my camera (then an EOS 3) with a Canon 24-70mm (a beast for backpacking!) and a Canon 100mm macro lens, in the same bag it looks like you used in the picture – a Nova 3 AW. I was also able to fit the film (lol!) cable release, filters, and other stuff in the bag without it being crammed full. I fit the Nova 3 in the top of my pack (just barely) for quick access. However, I’m more of a details and macro guy (and I’m lousy at landscapes), so I found that I really missed my 70-200mm lens. I ended up using my 100mm macro most of the time.
Another option would be to rent a do-it-all lens for the trip (such as Canon’s 28-300mm L Lens). I’ve used lensrentals dot com and was extremely happy with them. Although this option might mean that you’ll be able to take the shot at the focal length you want, there would also likely be the inherent loss in quality with a do-it-all.
This may sound simplistic, but take the lens(es) that match your creative urges.
As a suggestion: A 24 or 28mm (full frame) will be satisfactory for most of the Sierra, unless you're standing at the base of Angel Wings or the East Face of Mount Whitney. A short tele will be useful, as well. Therefore, I agree with Harley that the 24-105 with a 1.4 TC is a very good choice.
Here's a little tidbit I heard years ago---"It always amazed me to see people in the backcountry carrying 100 pounds of lightweight equipment!" By the same token, don't sacrifice your comfort and safety for more camera gear.
--P
Posted by Zachary Lake on August 20, 2010 at 5:25 PM
"By the same token, don't sacrifice your comfort and safety for more camera gear."
Aw come on... if you're not completely miserable and hacking up a lung while on the trail, you're not truly backpacking! ; )
Discussion
15 repliesI really want to take my 70-200 F/2.8, which means I'll have to bite the bullet and carry my much bigger and heavier tripod. I also own the 16-35 L 2.8 and the older, 28-70 L F/2.8 Because of the weight and bulk, I can only bring one more. I am leaning towards the 28-70 because it is a 77mm lens, which means I wouldn't have to double up on polarizers, etc. (I think the 28-70 is a heavier lens though)
I never thought I'd consider excluding the wide angle lens on part of this trip, but I like the versatility of the others lenses much more. I am looking here for any suggestions/recommendations/advice from folks experienced with backpacking in the High Sierra. Lakes, peaks, water, and meadows will be the primary subject matter I hope... Is this the right move or am I crazy for considering to exclude the 16 - 35 ....
Thanks for your time.
Michael
This image is from last year's Northern Yosemite High Loop Backpacking Trip taken in the John Muir Gorge...(6 day/ 60 + miles/ 10,000 ft +/- elevation change)
Not sure why you bringing your 70-200 requires a heavy tripod? What do you plan to shoot with it, long exposures?
I find that 24mm is wide enough in most cases with the full frame sensor of the 5D.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a beast to carry backpacking....although I have carried it a few times
Will the 1.4 actually fit on the 24-105?
BTW Harley - I like the 28-70 better than the 24-105. It is a much smoother and slightly sharper lens IMO. I guess I could quickly sell my Gitzo and buy something lighter than my Induro to use on this trip. Anyways, I appreciate everyone's comments - now I'll probably end up taking the 16-35 and leaving the 28-70 instead. I guess it does make more sense.
I just got back from a four day trip in the eastern Sierras last night. Weight was a big factor, since I was carrying enough food for my daughter and me. Initially, I planned on bringing two lenses, 14-24mm and 24-70mm. Both of these lenses weigh a ton, as does my D700. When I tried the pack on the night before we left, it was too heavy for my liking and I decided to leave the 14-24mm at home. This was partly because I knew we were going to have clear skies the whole trip, so I planned on shooting more intimate scenes like wildflowers (which were amazing at 11,000 feet). In addition, I could stitch verticals together for a wider angle. However, I missed not having a wider angle lens. I've been through Evolution Basin/Valley a few years back and these places are BIG, with a lot of vertical relief. It will be hard for me to leave the wide angle at home on our next trip.
Rudy
Seriously though, this July I did a four-day trip from North Lake over Piute Pass into and around Humphries Basin (Lower Desolation Lake, Muriel Lake) and back. I carried a Pentax 67II with its 2 big zoom lenses and a heavy tripod: about 20 pounds total, plus 30 pounds of backpacking gear and about 10 pounds of food for my son, father and myself. I'm a smaller-than-average guy in only fair shape; I worked out in advance of the trip but probably not enough to make much difference, paced myself to about 4-5 miles a day max, and did OK. Same with similar trips in many previous summers. I suspect you'll be fine taking as much of your photography gear as you can fit.
I put my aforementioned MF camera and lenses inside a largish fanny-sack - each lens cushioned inside the factory-included soft padded case, and the camera body cushioned with a little bubble wrap. The fanny-sack then fits into my internal-frame backpack's main compartment near the bottom. A zipper up the main compartment allows access to it when on the trail; when day-hiking or around camp, I remove the fanny-sack from the pack entirely, and wear it as usual. I don't think I could manage if I were carrying that gear externally in a shoulder bag as shown in your picture. Good luck!
My advice would be not to skimp on the tripod and ballhead, or you’ll be frustrated by the wind. I carried a Gitzo 1227 with a BH-55, wrapped in my pack towel, inserted into a nylon sack, and tied onto the bottom of my internal frame pack (phew a mouthful!). I also took my camera (then an EOS 3) with a Canon 24-70mm (a beast for backpacking!) and a Canon 100mm macro lens, in the same bag it looks like you used in the picture – a Nova 3 AW. I was also able to fit the film (lol!) cable release, filters, and other stuff in the bag without it being crammed full. I fit the Nova 3 in the top of my pack (just barely) for quick access. However, I’m more of a details and macro guy (and I’m lousy at landscapes), so I found that I really missed my 70-200mm lens. I ended up using my 100mm macro most of the time.
Another option would be to rent a do-it-all lens for the trip (such as Canon’s 28-300mm L Lens). I’ve used lensrentals dot com and was extremely happy with them. Although this option might mean that you’ll be able to take the shot at the focal length you want, there would also likely be the inherent loss in quality with a do-it-all.
Just more food for thought…
As a suggestion: A 24 or 28mm (full frame) will be satisfactory for most of the Sierra, unless you're standing at the base of Angel Wings or the East Face of Mount Whitney. A short tele will be useful, as well. Therefore, I agree with Harley that the 24-105 with a 1.4 TC is a very good choice.
Here's a little tidbit I heard years ago---"It always amazed me to see people in the backcountry carrying 100 pounds of lightweight equipment!" By the same token, don't sacrifice your comfort and safety for more camera gear.
--P
Aw come on... if you're not completely miserable and hacking up a lung while on the trail, you're not truly backpacking! ; )