Going backpacking in canadian rockies. should i carry 100-400 or 500 for wildlife ? and is my 50mm 1.4 to long or do i need 24-105 to be wide enough ? weight is a major concern but i want great shots so will suffer if i have to. this is a backpacking trip so i am limited in what photo gear i can carry.
First, you're going to love backpacking in the Canadian Rockies. Reach out to Darwin Wiggett for some suggestions. He's the master of Canadian Rockies.
You didn't say if you're using a full sensor or cropped sensor camera. I'm going to assume a full sensor. If it was me, I would go with the 100-400 and the 24-105. You're going to want the wider angle of the 24-105 more than the fast glass in the 1.4 50mm. Plus, these zooms are going to give you maximum flexibility for the weight. Since this is a backpacking trip you need to be concerned with weight. You might want to throw in a 1.4 teleconverter to go with your 100-400. It doesn't add much weight and as long as you have one with decent qualtiy you're going to be able to get better reach than that 500mm. Be aware you will lose some light with the TC.
Good luck on the trip. I'm looking forward to the images.
Yes full frame 5Dmii, does anyone know how approachable the wildlife is there i dont want to carry the 500mm beast if i dont need to the 100-400 is alot easier to carry but not as many keeper photos.
Can't imagine backpacking with a 500... they grow heavier and heavier, the more steps you take..
The 100-400 with TC should be fine, and greater reach and flexibility than the 500.
Sandy
last year backpacked all over yellowstone and grand tetons with 500 in backpack just incase i got that chance of a lifetime shot at wildlife and never did but it helped keep me in shape
I spent part of the weekend on the Pinnell Mountain Trail with a 300mm, 12-60mm zoom and 50mm macro. Birds, scenery and alpine tundra flowers, respectively. What you carry depends on what you want to photograph.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 25, 2012 at 8:44 AM
I would go with a DX camera for sure, and the two zooms. They are lighter and much more flexible. Not only is the 100-400mm lighter/compact, you can get away with a lighter tripod with it.
I'll put in another vote for the 24-105 & 100-400. The 500 is out of the question for backpacking. I own the lens and it weighs too much and takes up too much space for overnight backpacking trips. I personally carry the 24-105 when backpacking in order to go light and enjoy the journey as much as possible!
Got the Darwin Wiggetts books time to study ! 24-105 is my favorite and stays on my camera 90% of the time
Posted by Brad Kargus on June 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Hi Jack,
Based on your comment above, it sounds like backpacking with the 500 wasn't really a problem for you. I'm not much of a wildlife shooter and I wouldn't enjoy the weight of a 500 while backpacking, but my thinking is that why have a lens like this if not to use for this kind of opportunity? Hard to tell through the internet, but I have the feeling that your looking for a reason to take the 500 over the 100-400. If you can manage the size and weight in moutainous country along with what you need to stay safe and healthy and this trip isn't about say needing to produce a certain quantity of images (esp. wildlife images) for business reasons, then I say go for it. I took a look at the images through your gallery link and noticed that 3 of the 4 avian / wildlife images were shot with the 500.
I'm not saying the 100-400 wouldn't be a great lens to have with you - rocky mountain sheep, elk, deer, moose and maybe even bears can fall into its range but others could talk about that much better than me. I attempted to shoot bald eagles with a 100-400 equivalent lens (no TC) and realized that more reach but more importantly better technique was required.
The 24-105 can be a great one lens solution for scenic shots. Darwin's book is a fantastic guide.
Forgive me, if any of this comes across as presumptuous.
Discussion
9 repliesYou didn't say if you're using a full sensor or cropped sensor camera. I'm going to assume a full sensor. If it was me, I would go with the 100-400 and the 24-105. You're going to want the wider angle of the 24-105 more than the fast glass in the 1.4 50mm. Plus, these zooms are going to give you maximum flexibility for the weight. Since this is a backpacking trip you need to be concerned with weight. You might want to throw in a 1.4 teleconverter to go with your 100-400. It doesn't add much weight and as long as you have one with decent qualtiy you're going to be able to get better reach than that 500mm. Be aware you will lose some light with the TC.
Good luck on the trip. I'm looking forward to the images.
The 100-400 with TC should be fine, and greater reach and flexibility than the 500.
Sandy
Kent in SD
Based on your comment above, it sounds like backpacking with the 500 wasn't really a problem for you. I'm not much of a wildlife shooter and I wouldn't enjoy the weight of a 500 while backpacking, but my thinking is that why have a lens like this if not to use for this kind of opportunity? Hard to tell through the internet, but I have the feeling that your looking for a reason to take the 500 over the 100-400. If you can manage the size and weight in moutainous country along with what you need to stay safe and healthy and this trip isn't about say needing to produce a certain quantity of images (esp. wildlife images) for business reasons, then I say go for it. I took a look at the images through your gallery link and noticed that 3 of the 4 avian / wildlife images were shot with the 500.
I'm not saying the 100-400 wouldn't be a great lens to have with you - rocky mountain sheep, elk, deer, moose and maybe even bears can fall into its range but others could talk about that much better than me. I attempted to shoot bald eagles with a 100-400 equivalent lens (no TC) and realized that more reach but more importantly better technique was required.
The 24-105 can be a great one lens solution for scenic shots. Darwin's book is a fantastic guide.
Forgive me, if any of this comes across as presumptuous.
Brad