Help me pick my lenses for my upcoming trip.

[GoingUp]

So I'm headed to Nepal on March 21st for three and a half weeks of backpacking through the Himilayas. I was originally hell bent on bringing all of my lenses, but now have started to reconsider and think that I might just bring my 17-55mm IS for my Canon 40D.

I have a 70-200mm F2.8 IS lens, and it is definately fantastic. The problem is, thats its also heavy as hell. Should I leave it at home?

I'm going to be in the mountains, so the wide angle will definately be more useful as 80% of my pics I'm sure will be of landscapes. I just can't decide if I should bring my bigger lens along or not.

Those of you who have been out hiking with camera gear, do you find toting along a big zoom lens to be worth it? Or a waste of time?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

What kind of backpacking, how many miles a day, what is the current weight of your pack, how's your shape, what's the elevation gain, how often are you resupplying for food?

Something like a 70-200mm f/4 may be better. I know that I couldn't do without a telephoto when I backpack. I also find that since I do lots of panoramas my telephoto is usually my wideangle.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
What kind of backpacking, how many miles a day, what is the current weight of your pack, how's your shape, what's the elevation gain, how often are you resupplying for food?

Something like a 70-200mm f/4 may be better. I know that I couldn't do without a telephoto when I backpack. I also find that since I do lots of panoramas my telephoto is usually my wideangle.

Backpacking through the himilayas. Starting out at 2100 feet, hiking up to 18000 feet. Total trip is 160 miles over about 20 days. Food is bought in villages each night. Total pack weight, no idea yet. Still buying all of my gear. With my photo stuff fully loaded before I was at almost 28 pounds, but I'm going to can my big waterproof dryzone 200 and go with a smaller bag.

Can you recommend me a good chest sack to go on the front of my backpack? I might then just put my 70-200mm lens in its zippered holder inside my backpack.

I'd say my shape is about average or slightly above. 27 yo, 6'5, 185, rockclimb and workout several days per week.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

In my opinion this trip doesn't sound like one where you need to be ultra weight conscious. Your pack weight is not bad. An average of 8 miles a day isn't bad. Elevation gain doesn't seem that bad either. Resupply every night at a village? Damn, can't get something like that in the States. If you can, I would really consider getting the 70-200mm f/4L. It really is extremely light. Buy it used and then sell it off again after your trip. I've used the f/2.8 before and I definitely wouldn't want to take it backpacking. The problem with hiking with photography stuff is that it's heavy and it's lumpy... which makes for some goofy weight distribution. The smaller the lens, the less lumpy and heavy you'll be.

The only chest sack I've ever owned was the Lowepro 75AW. I never used it because it was way too huge for me strapped to my chest, but it may work for you because you're a good deal taller and bigger than me.

There are just so many shots that you would miss without the telephoto. Wildlife. Candids. Different ways of framing. IMO taking a telephoto with you would be mission critical. You just have to decide how you're going to take one.

BTW - how are you doing this? Is this through a tour company or something?

 

[soydios]

is there any way you can get a small cheap lens? you don't really need the f/2.8, because all halfway-decent lenses perform just about the same at f/5.6-f/11. the 70-300mm variable-aperture lenses come to mind.

if you don't want to buy a lens, then I would take the 70-200/2.8. just make sure to get some awesome shots with it if you do to make the weight penalty worthwhile!

curious: FBB, have you looked into a superzoom for your backpacking, just as a light lens?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: soydios
is there any way you can get a small cheap lens? you don't really need the f/2.8, because all halfway-decent lenses perform just about the same at f/5.6-f/11. the 70-300mm variable-aperture lenses come to mind.

if you don't want to buy a lens, then I would take the 70-200/2.8. just make sure to get some awesome shots with it if you do to make the weight penalty worthwhile!

curious: FBB, have you looked into a superzoom for your backpacking, just as a light lens?

I actually have a Sigma 18-200mm OS. I use this for backpacking. It sucks for anything else.

Image quality just isn't what I'm used to. I have to basically shoot at f/9 all the time for ok sharpness. But hey, it's nice and light and versatile with the range and IS, and it allows me to get, uh, a shot. Better than nothing and better than me not having fun anymore from lugging too much gear around.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: soydios
is there any way you can get a small cheap lens? you don't really need the f/2.8, because all halfway-decent lenses perform just about the same at f/5.6-f/11. the 70-300mm variable-aperture lenses come to mind.

if you don't want to buy a lens, then I would take the 70-200/2.8. just make sure to get some awesome shots with it if you do to make the weight penalty worthwhile!

curious: FBB, have you looked into a superzoom for your backpacking, just as a light lens?

I actually have a Sigma 18-200mm OS. I use this for backpacking. It sucks for anything else.

Image quality just isn't what I'm used to. I have to basically shoot at f/9 all the time for ok sharpness. But hey, it's nice and light and versatile with the range and IS, and it allows me to get, uh, a shot. Better than nothing and better than me not having fun anymore from lugging too much gear around.

you don't even take the 10-20mm for landscapes? if you just zoom out all the way you wouldn't have to worry about missing parts of your panoramas. 😛
speaking of, how is the 10-20mm, image-quality wise? a wideangle could be fun to play with, and they're almost within my budget on fleaBay

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: soydios
is there any way you can get a small cheap lens? you don't really need the f/2.8, because all halfway-decent lenses perform just about the same at f/5.6-f/11. the 70-300mm variable-aperture lenses come to mind.

if you don't want to buy a lens, then I would take the 70-200/2.8. just make sure to get some awesome shots with it if you do to make the weight penalty worthwhile!

curious: FBB, have you looked into a superzoom for your backpacking, just as a light lens?

I actually have a Sigma 18-200mm OS. I use this for backpacking. It sucks for anything else.

Image quality just isn't what I'm used to. I have to basically shoot at f/9 all the time for ok sharpness. But hey, it's nice and light and versatile with the range and IS, and it allows me to get, uh, a shot. Better than nothing and better than me not having fun anymore from lugging too much gear around.

you don't even take the 10-20mm for landscapes? if you just zoom out all the way you wouldn't have to worry about missing parts of your panoramas. 😛
speaking of, how is the 10-20mm, image-quality wise? a wideangle could be fun to play with, and they're almost within my budget on fleaBay

I usually do take the 10-20mm as well. But if I had a choice between taking a shot with the wide and doing a proper stitch, I'd do the stitch because it just captures so much more detail. But yeah, there's always that whole missing parts of my panoramas thing *smashes face against wall*

Back in the day my 10-20mm was quite sharp. Now, it's been dropped a couple of times and it isn't what it used to be, but it's still good. I should probably get it serviced. I would definitely consider getting one though - just know that it's a pretty specialized kind of lens.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
In my opinion this trip doesn't sound like one where you need to be ultra weight conscious. Your pack weight is not bad. An average of 8 miles a day isn't bad. Elevation gain doesn't seem that bad either. Resupply every night at a village? Damn, can't get something like that in the States. If you can, I would really consider getting the 70-200mm f/4L. It really is extremely light. Buy it used and then sell it off again after your trip. I've used the f/2.8 before and I definitely wouldn't want to take it backpacking. The problem with hiking with photography stuff is that it's heavy and it's lumpy... which makes for some goofy weight distribution. The smaller the lens, the less lumpy and heavy you'll be.

The only chest sack I've ever owned was the Lowepro 75AW. I never used it because it was way too huge for me strapped to my chest, but it may work for you because you're a good deal taller and bigger than me.

There are just so many shots that you would miss without the telephoto. Wildlife. Candids. Different ways of framing. IMO taking a telephoto with you would be mission critical. You just have to decide how you're going to take one.

BTW - how are you doing this? Is this through a tour company or something?

Just going with my best friend and his wife. I'm still debating on the lens. I have to get my backpack fully packed first before I can come up with something. I won't have, nor do I possess, the equipment to take the detailed panoramas that you do.

What kind of a setup do you have for that? And what do you use to stitch it together? How do you get the exposure right in all of the pictures?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
In my opinion this trip doesn't sound like one where you need to be ultra weight conscious. Your pack weight is not bad. An average of 8 miles a day isn't bad. Elevation gain doesn't seem that bad either. Resupply every night at a village? Damn, can't get something like that in the States. If you can, I would really consider getting the 70-200mm f/4L. It really is extremely light. Buy it used and then sell it off again after your trip. I've used the f/2.8 before and I definitely wouldn't want to take it backpacking. The problem with hiking with photography stuff is that it's heavy and it's lumpy... which makes for some goofy weight distribution. The smaller the lens, the less lumpy and heavy you'll be.

The only chest sack I've ever owned was the Lowepro 75AW. I never used it because it was way too huge for me strapped to my chest, but it may work for you because you're a good deal taller and bigger than me.

There are just so many shots that you would miss without the telephoto. Wildlife. Candids. Different ways of framing. IMO taking a telephoto with you would be mission critical. You just have to decide how you're going to take one.

BTW - how are you doing this? Is this through a tour company or something?

Just going with my best friend and his wife. I'm still debating on the lens. I have to get my backpack fully packed first before I can come up with something. I won't have, nor do I possess, the equipment to take the detailed panoramas that you do.

What kind of a setup do you have for that? And what do you use to stitch it together? How do you get the exposure right in all of the pictures?

Heh, you already possess my "setup." Just my camera, my telephoto, my tripod, and, uhhh... arms? Many times I don't even use a tripod, although I find it easier for big panoramas. The stitching software is AutoPano Pro, but there are free stitching programs.

Getting the exposure right isn't too complicated. Ideally you want all the separate pictures of the stitch to have the same exposure so they blend together well. This means you have to lock your exposure at a certain setting while taking all of your pictures. The trick is to lock your exposure so that it's able to capture detail in all of the important parts of the picture. Now, AutoPano Pro says that this isn't necessary, so if you use APP you can theoretically autoexpose for each part of the picture and be fine when blending.

 

[Fardringle]

I intentionally exposed a set of panorama shots (of my neighborhood) at wrong exposures so that they were all very different. Autopano Pro did a really good job of equalizing the exposure so that all parts of the panorama are exposed at close to the same level. There are some small differences through different parts of the stitch where the exposure differences between the individual shots were very extreme but even at those points it's not bad at all. Using photos that are relatively close gives excellent results. I usually just let my camera pick the exposure for each shot so that I don't have any blown highlights or lost shadows, then let the program balance everything out when it stitches the shots together.

For example, these two shots were taken several years ago with my old Olympus P&S camera.

Pano Left
Pano Right

Due to rapidly changing lighting conditions from moving clouds, the camera automatically exposed the first one much darker than the second one, but Autopano came up with this as the result when it stitched the two photos together:

Stitched Panorama


You can, of course, do it all manually in Photoshop, but I love the results I get from Autopano Pro, and it's completely automated after setting a few parameters (selecting the pictures to use, adjusting exposure and saturation for the pano if desired, setting crop parameters, and selecting output file type and size. You can adjust a lot more if you want to, but I don't usually bother since the automatic settings work very well.

If you don't want to pay $90 for the program, there is a free version called Autostitch that doesn't have many of the advanced features and options but still works OK.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Yeah, AutoPano Pro is an extremely powerful program, something that I have no problem spending money on since I do a lot of stitches. I mean, it can even do HDR stitches and eventually photo stacking for increasing DOF.

 

[GoingUp]

Just ordered the Lowepro toploader 75AW today. We'll see when it gets here....

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Just ordered the Lowepro toploader 75AW today. We'll see when it gets here....

GF and I just got from hawaii. we had the lowpro minitreker aw. It fits out 24-70 F2.8L lens and the 70 - 200 F2.8L lens with the camera attached, our filters, and hoods. With some room to spare for say a lens doubler. Not to mention a nice way to carry the tripod.

If you have those two lenses it will cover most of the pics you will take. Adding the lens double will give you some extra range when you need it. Bring a lot of memory cards 🙂.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Just ordered the Lowepro toploader 75AW today. We'll see when it gets here....

GF and I just got from hawaii. we had the lowpro minitreker aw. It fits out 24-70 F2.8L lens and the 70 - 200 F2.8L lens with the camera attached, our filters, and hoods. With some room to spare for say a lens doubler. Not to mention a nice way to carry the tripod.

If you have those two lenses it will cover most of the pics you will take. Adding the lens double will give you some extra range when you need it. Bring a lot of memory cards 🙂.

I love the 75AW. Loaded it up and went hiking with it yesterday while having a full backpack on my back. Im definately bringing all of my lenses now...

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Just ordered the Lowepro toploader 75AW today. We'll see when it gets here....

GF and I just got from hawaii. we had the lowpro minitreker aw. It fits out 24-70 F2.8L lens and the 70 - 200 F2.8L lens with the camera attached, our filters, and hoods. With some room to spare for say a lens doubler. Not to mention a nice way to carry the tripod.

If you have those two lenses it will cover most of the pics you will take. Adding the lens double will give you some extra range when you need it. Bring a lot of memory cards 🙂.

I love the 75AW. Loaded it up and went hiking with it yesterday while having a full backpack on my back. Im definately bringing all of my lenses now...

Yeah, it's definitely pretty awesome for the right body type. I just wish I wasn't so small. The thing is as thick as my chest and probably bigger than my head. Walking around with it was really goofy for me.