# Best lightweight crop lens for SL1 & hiking



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2013)

I have lots of photo gear. Lots of Canon bodies. Lots of lenses, mostly L. I have both Canon rugged P&S cams, the D10 and D20. (I took the D20 to Philmont in 2012 and carried it on the trail for 10 days.)

I'll go to Philmont again in 2014 and I want to try to take a DSLR this time for better pics and just suck up the added weight. I'll likely still take the D20 again, it was nice and handy to have hanging on my backpack strap at shoulder height while hiking. But when we are stopped at the camps or on side hikes, the DSLR would come out, that's where the best pictures happen anyway.

Just so you know, living on the trail for 10 days out of a pack, weight is the #1 concern. I've considered investing in a Pentax K-3 DSLR with a tough weather resistant general purpose lens. That would be around $1700 online. Not a deal breaker but it's spending close to $2000 if I ever bought a Pentax flash to own a whole other system. It would be more durable and less worry and who knows, I might love it so much that someday I would sell everything and just keep the Pentax. (Wow, I said that?!) But I digress..

I just bought the SL1 Rebel body for $349 (great price) figuring I would keep it in my pack while on the trail and use the D20 on my pack strap. The question is.....

Which _lightweight lens_ to use so I only have to take one? I might take the 40mm pancake I have for low light and maybe a TC (if it fits the lens I choose) for more reach but in general, I figured I would take the DSLR+lens+simple strap as a unit, extra batteries and that's about it. I don't mind using a non-Canon lens. I don't mind just using the STM kit lens but I figured I would get everyone's opinion before I jumped. It's not a huge rush at this point.

While on the subject of hiking photography, check out this independent filmmaker's great movie all about Philmont. The movie trailer and documentary DVD is very well done. Gives me chills every time I see it! If you love the outdoors, you should love this. If you have young sons, join Boy Scouts. If you have tomboy daughters, join Venturing and go to Philmont if you can. Also, check out his website, he's done some great work!

*Philmont Movie Promo (vimeo.com/22745967) (Copy url or click the caption link below, the video isn't loading in the forum post correctly.)- The Philmont Documentary Collection promo on Vimeo*
*Buy the Philmont Movie - http://philmontmovie.com
Larry McLaughlin's Work - http://www.larrymclaughlin.net/*


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 19, 2013)

Crystal Pepsi!!! yea, test market back in '92, when I was at Philmont. Honestly, don't worry about low light - just bump the iso on the SL1. I'd rent/buy a Tamaron 18-270 for the single lens solution, and drag along the D20 for when things are just too dusty/wet. Is it perfect, no, but it's light enough that you should be able to do without additional gear.

Worst day on the trail, food exchange had dehydrated potatoes, and the following morning we did up a pot. Too bad the pot wasn't big enough to fully cook them, so about 45 minutes into the day, said potato bits expanded even more... yea, bad day...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2013)

Halfrack said:


> Honestly, don't worry about low light - just bump the iso on the SL1. I'd rent/buy a Tamaron 18-270 for the single lens solution, and drag along the D20 for when things are just too dusty/wet. Is it perfect, no, but it's light enough that you should be able to do without additional gear.


Thanks *Halfrack*! This was one of my thoughts as well. And I already have a 18-270. My concern was possibly quality & weight with it but it's not too bad on either. Most of the times of lower light, I'll probably already be in my tent dead asleep along with the rest of the crew!!


----------



## janmaxim (Dec 19, 2013)

What about the 40mm F2.8 STM? Smaller than that is almost not possible


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2013)

janmaxim said:


> What about the 40mm F2.8 STM? Smaller than that is almost not possible


Thanks *janmzxim*. I do have that lens and it might go as a 2nd lens but that FL isn't my favorite and will be a bit limiting for me as the ONLY lens for 10 days. (40mm = 64mm on crop.)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 19, 2013)

I don't mind other comments about how some of you guys manage your photography while hiking. Which cameras you like or how you hang/attach/pack/carry or otherwise manage them. No fair saying you just take your wife or girlfriend! ;D

Here is one quick post I found on the web that isn't too bad. Not sure if I want to add that much weight just for a bag since I don't require 100% access all the time if I take the D20. The D20 is lighter, more convenient on the pack strap, durable and has the extra advantage of being a backup camera if something happens.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=15315


----------



## surapon (Dec 19, 2013)

Dear RustyTheGeek.
If I must only 1 lens for the light weight Travel, I am broken heart between EF 17-40 mm. L and TS-E 24 mm. F 3.5 L MK II----BIG BUT, I will sneak My New Baby EOS-M + 22 MM Lens in my Pocket too.
Have FUN.
Surapon


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 19, 2013)

There are not many options of small lenses to accompany SL1. Besides the 40mm pancake, Canon 24mm F2.8 IS looks great. The Samyang 8mm fisheye can be fun, but only manual focus. The Canon 18-55mm STM lens is a very versatile, and makes a perfect pair with SL1.


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 19, 2013)

I no longer have a crop camera but had an XTi and then a 50d. I've trekked many a mile (Grand Canyon, Nepal, Bhutan, Patagonia) with these bodies. Were this me, I'd put my Thinktank holster in front of me, hanging off my shoulder straps and have my DSLR with a 15-85 there all the time. The holster is sufficiently weatherproof that I'd leave the D20 home (lose the weight of the D20 and gain the weight of the lens). While this is not the fastest lens, it has reasonable IQ and a broad range. If low light is an issue, you could put a 40mm pancake in your pocket!

I know your goal is to keep the weight down. FWIW, my came4ra and my drinking water are the two heaviest items I carry. If you compare the weight of the 15-85 to the D20, it is only a net gain of 12 ounces (3/4 lb or about 1/3 kg).


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 19, 2013)

I have done lots of hiking (and/or ‘bushwalking’ as we call it here in Australia) – across many countries, from Switzerland to Thailand to Romania to Scotland to Australia. I’ve had DSLRs for almost the past decade, and before that some years of point and shoot (P&S).

It’s certainly much less ‘hassle’ taking a P&S hiking than a DSLR in terms of size & weight (and even ‘convenience’ –when it comes to protecting & storing it). But the image quality of DSLRs (& a lens or two) can be very much the deal breaker. I also ‘fear’ that one time at a unique location, a camera (or lens) will malfunction…

So when I went to Thailand I took both my 350D and 7D with all my lenses, and on each hike (day trips only) I took one of them (usually the 7D). On longer hikes I have taken the 7D usually- and most commonly with the 15-85mm lens (I love this as a one-lens-solution, for travel).

But occasionally I do take my 350D with kit 18-55mm (the old, non IS, non STM version), and it is definitely noticeably lighter (eg around the neck / in the hand) than the 7D / 15-85mm combo. Stopped down, that lens actually does all right.

For your situation, I would also recommend the 18-55mm STM IS the SL1, the IS certainly helps in low light… and it’s got great IQ, and keep the P&S as a backup. Hope that you will manage the weight and your hike well. Please share some photos.

Regards

Paul


----------



## zlatko (Dec 19, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Which _lightweight lens_ to use so I only have to take one? I might take the 40mm pancake I have for low light and maybe a TC (if it fits the lens I choose) for more reach but in general, I figured I would take the DSLR+lens+simple strap as a unit, extra batteries and that's about it. I don't mind using a non-Canon lens. I don't mind just using the STM kit lens but I figured I would get everyone's opinion before I jumped. It's not a huge rush at this point.


It depends on which focal length you like, and what kind of pictures you like to make. If taking only one lightweight lens, I'd go with either the 18-55 kit lens or the 24/2.8 IS. The 40mm pancake is a wonderful small lens, but not an all-purpose focal length (for me) on a crop camera.


----------



## Slyham (Dec 19, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> For your situation, I would also recommend the 18-55mm STM IS the SL1, the IS certainly helps in low light… and it’s got great IQ, and keep the P&S as a backup. Hope that you will manage the weight and your hike well. Please share some photos.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul



+1


----------



## rs (Dec 19, 2013)

If you're talking about low light pictures of non-moving subjects, IS as found on the 18-55 STM and the 15-85 will give you more low ISO options than the larger f/2.8 aperture of the 40 shorty. However, if you're planning on taking low light photos of moving subjects, aperture size is everything. However, as weight is a major factor here, bumping up the ISO weighs less than hauling around a second lens.

If it was me, I'd be tempted to treat a shorter zoom range lens as a reason for doing extra exercise in getting myself to the perfect position as opposed to just zooming with an 18-270 from wherever I happen to be.

I'd partner the SL1 with an 18-55 STM.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2013)

I carried a 60D and an 18-200 for a 6 day backcountry hike in Gros Morne Newfoundland... Day 1 was wicked! Lower part of the trail was flooded and then there was the climb up out of the valley!!! (picture 1 and 2)

If I can only take 1 lens, it's the 18-200. Sometimes it just was not wide enough so there were a few panorama style shots.... (picture 3)

Make sure you bring good waterproofing... I have had hikes with 3 days of straight rain (picture 4)

Hint: Take along a hiking pole that can double as a monopod.... you can also stick it in the ground for group portraits or selfies...


----------



## Ruined (Dec 20, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I just bought the SL1 Rebel body for $349 (great price) figuring I would keep it in my pack while on the trail and use the D20 on my pack strap. The question is.....
> 
> Which _lightweight lens_ to use so I only have to take one? I might take the 40mm pancake I have for low light and maybe a TC (if it fits the lens I choose)



My vote is:
*Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM*

Super lightweight, small, excellent IQ, IS nice to avoid weight of tripod when dark, and able to capture a wide variety of photos on the 60D - 40mm on aps-c I would think would be a bit too cramped for hikes.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24mm-Wide-Angle-Lens/dp/B0076BNKOY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387506260&sr=8-1&keywords=24mm+f%2F2.8+is


----------



## dcm (Dec 20, 2013)

Tough call. It depends on what you are shooting, when, and the quality you are trying to get versus the weight you are willing to carry. You might look through your photos from the last trip. Which would you use the P&S? Which would you pull out the DSLR? What focal lengths are you using for each? Do you shoot landscapes? portraits? groups around the campfire? astrophotography in the clear skies? Do you want RAW? Do you shoot your zooms primarily at the extremes? What is your weight budget? Sounds like you have a fair amount of equipment so you may already know the answers to these questions. 

Over the years my hiking kit has changed as I upgraded my equipment. I mostly day hike so I am not quite as weight conscious. On a several day hike I'd have to decide if the DSLR was worth it at all. One option is a high end P&S. Before I picked up the DSLR, I hiked with G series on my pack strap (13 oz). Until recently I hiked with the S95/S100 (7 oz) as the P&S on my pack strap for its slightly larger sensor, 24mm and RAW. I could take quick macro shots of things along the trail (flowers, mushrooms, flowers, scat, ...) and still get wider angle shots than most P&S without having to open the pack. I would consider this a viable option if I want to travel light. 

I chose the M over the SL1 to get a system with a larger sensor and smaller form factor as a replacement for the S100. In your situation I think I might just take my M with the 22 and two zooms (still need to get the 11-22) and leave the P&S at home. The M with the 22 isn't much larger than the S100 on my pack strap and worked quite well hiking this fall. I can add the 90ex to get by with 1 body (total 30 oz). There may be similar options from other vendors, I haven't looked.

When I carry the DSLR and open the pack, like you its because I stopped somewhere for a break and photo op. Depending on the situation I like to go wider or longer than my P&S and I prefer a higher quality sensor and lens combination. I carry a full frame setup - a 6D paired with the 17-40L and 70-200f4LIS+1.4xIII in my pack (about 78oz). I can shoot panoramas, wildlife, and distant peaks with this setup. I don't really need a fast lens and the IS is much lighter than a tripod.

I don't have any experience with EF-S lenses so its hard for me to recommend any. Your choices depend on how wide and long you want to go. Based on what I've read in the forum I might want to pair the SL1 with the 10-22 and 55-250 (total 38 oz) to go along with the D20 (8 oz). This would give me similar range at half the weight and some loss of quality. Choosing a single lens like Don suggests will also save some weight. If you don't need a range of focus lengths on the DSLR, then a small prime like the 24f2.8IS may be sufficient for you. 

One more thought. What's the battery life on an SL1? How many photos do you plan to take? How many batteries do you plan to carry? That would be one of the bigger issues to me on a long trek since I'm not aware of any recharging options on the trail.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 20, 2013)

Thanks for all the feedback so far! Sorry for the length here. It got a little longer than I realized. 

*dcm* - What a great and well crafted reply! You are thinking along the same lines as I am. That's why I tossed out this thread, to get feedback from others. Other than an old 18-55 kit lens and a 10-22, I don't own any EF-S lenses either. However, I do own the Tamron 18-270 and so far, that is my running favorite. My biggest concern is the IQ but regardless, it's still better than the D20 on IQ overall. The 18-270 is what kept me from buying the 18-55 STM kit lens even though I think that is a good lens for the SL1 and lightweight, etc. I could still get it later though.

I want to carry a DSLR is to get better wide shots in camps, RAW images that can be pushed more in post and have better flash or exposure controls. The lenses other than the 40 pancake that I have considered are the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 15mm Fisheye. That is such a fun lens but I'm wondering how much I would really use it for the price in weight. In general, I am more of a wide lens junkie than a telephoto shooter. If I took the 18-270 and still decided to take a 2nd lens, it would probably be an ultrawide lens which is why I purchased the 10-22 in the first place before the 2012 trek. I suspect that I would rarely change the lens while on the hike so it might just be a waste of weight. But then, you never know!! LOL! It cracks me up how long I've done this and still struggle with these kinds of decisions. But I guess eventually one just has to draw the line and resolve to 'keep it simple' (KISS). That's what I did in 2012 when I decided to just take the D20 and nothing else and I survived but this time I am trying to push myself to take it up a notch.

Aside from weight, a big concern and challenge when taking anything on a hike is (for me) the _logistics_. Using up room in the pack and then having to manage the stuff all the time. It's there, it's in the way, it has to be moved around, it takes up space and it displaces something else. It has to be organized along with the rest of the stuff. It has to be cared for and protected. So I'm weighing the aspects of either just having a neoprene cover on the camera in a ziplock inside the pack or having a ThinkTank or other decent but fairly lightweight bag outside the pack hanging on the straps in front with carabiners and stretch cords or something.

Last time, I used a small super strong magnet on the P&S and I could easily yank it off my strap, take a picture and then *click* it back on the strap without even looking. Worked like a charm. I can't do something that easy with the SL1 unfortunately.

I have an S95 but it's pretty fragile and not very tolerant of dirt. I think it would likely die on day 2 or 3 from the dust alone. I got a good deal on the SL1 and I am almost resigning it to be a potential throw away if it gets damaged or super dirty on the trip. I've got an old Rebel XT that I have had in mud, dirt and all kinds of crap and it's still going. It's just too old though.

Good point on batteries. On the last trek, I got lucky with the batteries. I barely made it through! I will definitely take plenty of batteries. It appears the batteries are smaller for the SL1.

Keep in mind that I have several months of prep hikes (shakedowns) to try things out and test different scenarios with the DSLR and P&S. 

If anyone wants to see some pics from the last trek in 2012 that I shot with the D20, here they are...

http://rustythegeek.zenfolio.com/718r - (The actual 10 day trek at Philmont is the last gallery.)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2013)

I have a carry harness (kind of like the black rapid straps) that I can clip the camera to for keeping it in front of me, but the real spot for it is in the top pouch of the pack. I keep it in a heavy duty dry bag to protect it from the rain, plus I have a pack cover to help keep everything dry in the rain. I also carry a spare battery (or 2) depending on the length of the hike and the scenery.

I also got a food dehydrator and have managed to save lots of weight with the food. Everything is one pot meals.... bring water to a boil, dump it in, turn off stove, let it sit 10 minutes, fire up stove and bring to a boil again, and eat. Saves a lot of fuel too....


----------



## dcm (Dec 20, 2013)

Rusty - mine was a bit longer than expected too. 

Dust hasn't been a problem for my S95/S100 on trails in Colorado or Idaho mountains which can get pretty dusty . I attach a Lowepro Sausalito 20 neoprene case and the camera hand strap to a gear keeper on the pack strap. When I'm not shooting the P&S pretty protected and only takes a few seconds to unzip and extract the camera from the case. I would leave it out of the case dangling on the gear keeper at times as well. I like the magnet idea.

If wide was my priority for the DSLR, then I might take a 10-22 and 40 with the SL1. The SL1/40 combo might be viable on the pack strap with a small case on the gear keeper. If dust is such a concern I might take just a single lens to eliminate changes. 18 on APS isn't wide enough for me - I'd have to look at other options.

The fisheye is a tough call. I liked the 8-15 fisheye on my 550D when I took it hiking. Makes for some dramatic photos. Fun for a day, for longer not so much. 

So many choices. Have fun experimenting.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 20, 2013)

Thanks again, *dcm*! Yeah, we're on the same wavelength. I like the little case you mention. I've had some similar in the past. I could almost see me doing that. One problem with the S95 is that if it somehow powers up in that case, it's toast. I already had to send it in for repair shortly after I bought it because it somehow got powered on in the soft case I use and it damaged the zoom mechanism. :-[ And dust in Philmont is essentially like flour. We're talking Cimaron, New Mexico.

Anyway, I agree, 18mm on a crop is just not wide enough. Hence the temptation to take the 10-22. However, the EF 15mm FishEye I have is much smaller and lighter than the 8-15 L. My biggest problem with taking any extra lenses is the space it takes and keeping up with it. Just taking a DSLR is already burning up a lot of pack space and weight that is normally used for food, shared load items, etc. Also, an extra lens means an extra case for said lens.

Fortunately, being an adult on a scout trek normally means the scouts carry everything except the adult food, etc but you always need to be ready to take on extra weight if needed.

Since the Tamron 18-270 lens is so versatile, it seems like a given that it should go. However, the 10-22 might actually get used more when in close quarters during camp activities and I shoot with my 16-35 on FF a LOT. Those two lenses would complement each other well except for low light but I think IS and being asleep most of the low light times would solve that. Yes, the 15mm Fish is dramatic and fun to use but would probably be a little redundant if I took the 10-22.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 20, 2013)

Having been to Philmont, there are enough peaks/ridges where ultra-wide would be useful. 15-85 isn't the lightest lens, but it seems to cover the ranges the best.

My one lens I go to a lot is a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro. Gives me a decent range, and if I want wider I can shoot pano and stitch. Mine is an older version that does 1:2.1 macro, which is great for everything but small insects. And the IQ is just a little better than the kit lens.

If you've got the 10-22, then maybe take that and the 40mm. Gives you a good set of options for landscape stuff, and if you want people shots, the 40mm is a good focal length. But I might not be the best judge of low-weight, as I took a 100-400L with me on multi-days in Glacier.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 20, 2013)

Also, i highly recomend something like the capture camera clip (lots of other similar systems) for hiking with a DSLR. Clip it to your pack strap and your DSLR is always at the ready. If you take a lens that has wildlife reach (18-270), its the difference between getting that bear photo or not


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 20, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Also, i highly recomend something like the capture camera clip (lots of other similar systems) for hiking with a DSLR. Clip it to your pack strap and your DSLR is always at the ready. If you take a lens that has wildlife reach (18-270), its the difference between getting that bear photo or not


OK *preppyak*, the capture camera clip is pretty cool. I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff so thanks for luring me into buying more of it!  It is similar to the cotton carrier for a pack strap. Have you used the cotton carrier pack strap item and if so (hope so) how does it compare?

If I use the CCC or other pack strap type mount, I need to find a simple and fairly workable way to cover the camera without hampering use. Something simple to help keep the dust, light rain and sun off of the camera. Kind of like a ripstop nylon little parachute or something that would just hang over it while it's on the strap. Maybe something like a shower cap that is elastic and waterproof that would go over it easy and come off easy.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 21, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I just bought the SL1 Rebel body for $349 (great price) figuring I would keep it in my pack while on the trail and use the D20 on my pack strap. The question is.....
> 
> Which _lightweight lens_ to use so I only have to take one? I might take the 40mm pancake I have for low light and maybe a TC (if it fits the lens I choose) for more reach but in general, I figured I would take the DSLR+lens+simple strap as a unit, extra batteries and that's about it. I don't mind using a non-Canon lens. I don't mind just using the STM kit lens but I figured I would get everyone's opinion before I jumped.



I do a lot of extended hiking also, both with my sons Boy Scout troop and with my older son and wife. I have an EOS-M that has become my light weight hiking camera. 

I've hiked with a T2i, 7D, 6D, S100 and now and EOS-M. I'm fine with taking a larger DLSR on day hikes, but when you are carrying overnight gear, food and water, the heavier kit quickly becomes a burden! I was thinking about the SL1 last summer, but when the M's went on sale in June, it was too good a deal to pass up and I pulled the trigger on a M+22/2 kit. 

My normal overnight hiking set-up was to clip my S100 to my backpack strap for quick access shots along the trail and my larger DSLR and lenses in the backpack for around camp and side hikes - very similar to how you are doing things! This arrangement worked well, but was heavy - especially when I took more than one lens along for the DSLR. Once I got the M, I was impressed enough with the IQ that I decided to try using it as my only camera on a few overnight hikes - I also sold the S100. On my first hike with the M, I decided to just take it and the 22/2 lens. I took some great shots, but found the single focal length too limiting! I missed a number of good wildlife shot opportunities due to the lack of a longer focal lens. For the second overnight hike, I borrowed a friends EF-S 55-250 IS lens that I used with the M adapter along with the 22/2 - it made a decent combination. 22mm isn't really wide enough for many landscape shots, so I ended up creating a number of panoramas. I attach the M+22/2 to my backpack strap using a modified wrist strap along with some Velcro to minimize bouncing around.

For next year I'm planning to buy a EF-M 18-55 and possibly a 11-22mm to give me more flexibility but still keep things small and light. I'd love to see Canon come out with a 15-85mm lens for the M at some point. When I owned crop bodies, the EF-S 15-85mm IS was my favorite outdoor lens.

Regarding your lens decision for the SL1, my recommendation would probably be the EF-S 18-55 STM if you want to keep things light. The new EF-S 18-135 STM is reportedly a terrific super zoom, but is considerably larger and heavier. I also second the recommendation for the 24 2.8 IS lens, which would be a very nice prime option. These IS primes are terrific and the 38mm FF equivalent focal length is excellent for general purpose photography. I certainly love the 22/2 prime on my M.

I'm thinking about buying my wife an SL1/18-55 kit for Christmas. If I do, I'll find a way to borrow it for some hikes next summer to see how I like it compared with the EOS-M. IQ should be roughly the same, but the SL1's superior AF will come in handy at times.

Good luck with your decision!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 21, 2013)

Thanks *bholliman*! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the SL1 after you've used it. I considered the M with an adapter. But the M and the adapter is about the same weight as the SL1 and probably close to the same size. And I was concerned that it would be awkward to use since it's sort of a live view type of thing instead of a viewfinder thing that I can tuck in close and hold still, etc. It's not exactly cheap for what it is, esp after adding the cost of the adapter. But hey, if it's a super item for the purpose, one never knows!!...


----------



## bholliman (Dec 21, 2013)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Thanks *bholliman*! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the SL1 after you've used it. I considered the M with an adapter. But the M and the adapter is about the same weight as the SL1 and probably close to the same size. And I was concerned that it would be awkward to use since it's sort of a live view type of thing instead of a viewfinder thing that I can tuck in close and hold still, etc. It's not exactly cheap for what it is, esp after adding the cost of the adapter. But hey, if it's a super item for the purpose, one never knows!!...



Yes, with the adapter the M isn't much smaller than the SL1. I'm more and more just using the M with just the 22/2 lens since it's small and light that way. If I'm going to attach my 24-70 2.8 II, I might as well use my 6D.


----------

