# Good lens for hiking



## edurieux (Feb 24, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a lens to do some landscape photography while hiking. I need something very lightweight since I'll use it during hikes of more than 7 days.

My gear currently :
- Canon 6D
- Canon 50mm 1.8
- Canon 24-105L

I saw the 28mm f1.8, and maybe the 24mm f1.4 from Rokinon.
My budget is under 800$, not enough for a 16-35mm ...

What do you think about these lenses ?


----------



## bholliman (Feb 24, 2014)

edurieux said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm looking for a lens to do some landscape photography while hiking. I need something very lightweight since I'll use it during hikes of more than 7 days.
> 
> ...



Your 24-105L is a pretty good lens for extended hikes. I took mine as my only lens on my 6D for 3-day and 5-day hikes last summer. A little heavy, but the quality of the images I got made it worthwhile. The 24-105's nice focal range and IS make it a very good single lens for hiking.

I have since sold my 24-105 and replaced it with a 24-70 2.8 II, which is better optically, but probably not as versatile for extended hikes as the 24-105. This summer, I plan to take my 24-70 and 100 Macro or 135L for hiking, although we don't have anything beyond day hikes planned at this point. I'm also considering taking my EOS-M and 18-55 and 22mm lenses along instead of the 6D and see how I like the reduced weight vs. somewhat less capable camera system.


----------



## sjschall (Feb 24, 2014)

Instead of the Canon 28 1.8 and the Rokinon, might want to throw in the 24 or 28 2.8 IS for consideration. Light and good image quality. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is nice, and is almost half the weight and a fraction of the cost of the Canon 24-70ii.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2014)

The Pancake, because Landscape does not necessarily mean UWA.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 24, 2014)

Canon 35 f/2 IS.

Small and lightweight enough (imho the most important feature for a long hike), versatile focal length, solid performance, IS for low light.


----------



## timmy_650 (Feb 24, 2014)

I would say the 24-105 is a good choice. I got a Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 Di LD SP Aspherical (IF) (older lens) for my 6D it is pretty good. I have used it on many hikes mostly long one day hikes in Zion and Bryce canyons. It runs you about $300-400 so a lot cheaper than the 16-35 it isn't as good (at least my copy) but if you stop it down like you should of landscapes it does well.


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2014)

In addition I'll add the Voigtlander 20 Pancake. Besides a really crappy Sigma and very expensive Zeiss glass there's nothing like it for the price and quality it offers. Any flaws it has are all easily correctable in Post and the color rendition and contrast are far more pleasing than lenses costing many times more such as the Canon zoom UWA duo. $549, easy choice.

I'll add, the 24-105 as a hiking lens? I believe the OP was wanting something compact and light.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2014)

The last few times I've gone out intending to use my Sigma 18-35 on the 5D2 I've taken 90% of my shots with the Pancake anyway. That lens transforms my pro-size (with battery grip) camera into something I can easily slip in and out of a bag or backpack.
The Pancake is also very sharp and distortion free. I generally find myself wanting a wider lens indoors and with urban architecture more than outdoors and in the wilderness.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 24, 2014)

The 28/2.8 IS would be a much better landscape lens than the 28/1.8 as it's sharper mid and edge of frame.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2014)

slclick said:


> The Pancake, because Landscape does not necessarily mean UWA.


And if you do need ultra wide angle, take several pictures and stitch them together when you get home...

And don't forget a spare battery and memory card...


----------



## slclick (Feb 24, 2014)

9VIII said:


> The last few times I've gone out intending to use my Sigma 18-35 on the 5D2 I've taken 90% of my shots with the Pancake anyway. That lens transforms my pro-size (with battery grip) camera into something I can easily slip in and out of a bag or backpack.
> The Pancake is also very sharp and distortion free. I generally find myself wanting a wider lens indoors and with urban architecture more than outdoors and in the wilderness.



You're using an aps-c lens on the Mk2? Tell us what FL is usable.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 25, 2014)

slclick said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The last few times I've gone out intending to use my Sigma 18-35 on the 5D2 I've taken 90% of my shots with the Pancake anyway. That lens transforms my pro-size (with battery grip) camera into something I can easily slip in and out of a bag or backpack.
> ...



I find the lens works best at 20mm-22mm.
You basically have to crop the sides unless you want long black triangles in your corners. A 4/3 crop still leaves some black in the corners, and I think it looks best with a 5/4 crop, but if you go all the way to 1/1 crop then you have no vignetting.
At 18mm the image has obvious barrel distortion and at 24mm it has pincushion (getting worse as you zoom in). In the sweet spot the top and bottom of the image is straight but I can still see things warping vertically a bit near the corners so it's not perfect, but for my first wide angle lens I'm pleased with it, and It also happens to be the best crop sensor zoom lens ever made.


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2014)

9VIII said:



> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Yep I agree, from what I've seen, if I shot (and if I do in the future) crop I'd have one. I have the other two Art lenses and I am very happy with them. Oh and my Sigma 24-105 is NOT a hiking lens, lol.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 25, 2014)

slclick said:


> The Pancake, because Landscape does not necessarily mean UWA.





Albi86 said:


> Canon 35 f/2 IS.



+1

Either one of these would be a good prime option. I'm thinking about buying one or both this year and will use for hikes if I do.


----------



## edurieux (Feb 25, 2014)

Thanks everybody for your useful answers.

My current lens (24-105L) weights 640g, which is way to much. So I won't consider the Tamron SP AF Di 28-75 f/2.8.

The interesting options are :
*- Canon 40 f/2.8 STM:* maybe not wide enough, but very compact, very lightweight (130g), and quite cheap. But I have seen reviews that criticized the autofocus and the overall image quality.
*- Canon 35 f/2 IS USM :* which could be a good FL for landscape with a great aperture. (335g)
*- Canon 28 f/2.8 IS USM :* good FL and quite lightweight, price quite low (260g)
*- Canon 24 f/2.8 IS USM :* maybe a bit wide, but weight is good (280g)

I've thrown a look at the voigtlander... What FL could be interesting for landscapes with the 6D ? 20 is maybe a little wide ?

Between the Canon primes, what is the best lens in term of image quality ?


----------



## Corvi (Feb 25, 2014)

Get the 40mm. If you need a bigger field of view just stich 2-3 frames together in PP.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 25, 2014)

edurieux said:


> The interesting options are :
> *- Canon 40 f/2.8 STM:* maybe not wide enough, but very compact, very lightweight (130g), and quite cheap. But I have seen reviews that criticized the autofocus and the overall image quality.
> 
> Between the Canon primes, what is the best lens in term of image quality ?



I suggest you ignore that review source. The reviewer clearly couldn't get his head round the price. They have probably measured a tiny fraction of increase CAs and found the STM is slower than USM. Big deal for the intended use of the lens. <sarcasm>. I find www.photozone.de to give reviews that match what I find in practice with all my lenses so far, despite the fact that they only test one copy of each. 

If you are referring to the lenses you have listed in bold type I'd say they are all virtually identical. The 40 Pancake is a great little lens but, if you are intending to get the 35 IS I wouldn't get the pancake because although 40 is noticeably wider than 50 - especially close up, it is quite similar to 35mm. 

The 40 goes well with a 28 or 24. Personally I am more of a 28 fan than 24. True, that focal length is certainly out of fashion, but I find it more versatile than 24. It's also cheaper, and i am the ultimate photographic cheapskate


----------



## edurieux (Feb 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I suggest you ignore that review source. The reviewer clearly couldn't get his head round the price. They have probably measured a tiny fraction of increase CAs and found the STM is slower than USM. Big deal for the intended use of the lens. <sarcasm>. I find www.photozone.de to give reviews that match what I find in practice with all my lenses so far, despite the fact that they only test one copy of each.
> 
> If you are referring to the lenses you have listed in bold type I'd say they are all virtually identical. The 40 Pancake is a great little lens but, if you are intending to get the 35 IS I wouldn't get the pancake because although 40 is noticeably wider than 50 - especially close up, it is quite similar to 35mm.
> 
> The 40 goes well with a 28 or 24. Personally I am more of a 28 fan than 24. True, that focal length is certainly out of fashion, but I find it more versatile than 24. It's also cheaper, and i am the ultimate photographic cheapskate



Well, considering your opinion, if there is no difference in image quality between the 4 canon lenses, the pancake may be the best to consider.
For me, there is no "bad" FL, a pancake can be quite good to hike. I may also consider a 24/28 later.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 26, 2014)

I think i would just take the 24-105....


----------



## edurieux (Feb 26, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> I think i would just take the 24-105....



I'd like too but with the 6D it weights 1.4kg (approx. 3lb), which is the same as my backpacking tent for 2 person.
When you hike nearly 40km by day, it is not a good choice. And the lens is pretty bulky too.


----------



## slclick (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm seriously thinking about an SL1 to go with my pancake for snapshots i.e. camping, travel, amusement parks, high risk zones, cycling etc.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 27, 2014)

If you are content with a single focal length, and one of those focal lengths is equivalent to 28mm, 45mm or 75mm on full frame, try one of the Sigma DP Merrills, which are heavily discounted now (at least in some locations), and which can be found on the used market. The serious downsides are that 1. it creates a second workflow, because you can't use Adobe or most other RAW converters 2. the batteries have a life of 50 shots, no chimping. I have about 6 batteries. The quality of files from the Merrills, especially the 45mm and 75mm Merrills, is shockingly good. It leaves all other APS-C format cameras in the dust. It leaves most of my lenses and 6D combination in the dust. IIRC, the weight is 230 grams. Add a grip, the original design is not ergonomic at all.


----------



## NWPhil (Feb 28, 2014)

edurieux said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I think i would just take the 24-105....
> ...


40km a day while backpacking is quite a lot, even for AT or/and PCT thru hikers.
In any case, considering your budget I would go for a higher end P&S, like the sony RX100mk2, the Canon G1X, Lumix LX7...you get the point, and still would have money left for extra batteries, memory cards, and depending on camera, a solar charger too


----------



## bainsybike (Feb 28, 2014)

What about leaving the 6D at home, and getting an M + 22mm, or perhaps the 11-22? You'll save a lot of weight that way.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 28, 2014)

My current kit for week-long hikes in is 5Dmk3, Voigtländer 20mm, Canon 40mm and 70-300L, plus Ricoh GR. Works pretty well for me.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 28, 2014)

I'm debating this very subject for my own hiking. I have a Canon Tough P&S D20 that hangs from a super magnet on my pack strap that is durable, simple, light and easy while hiking on the trail. But once I arrive at my destination, I would prefer to use a SLR with a wider lens, etc.

There are soooo many angles to this challenge. I've considered small systems. Better P&S cams like G series, S series, etc. Ugh. Expensive, fragile and a whole other system to build and maintain. However, if I _were_ to buy another system, I think it would be a *Pentax K-3* with a WR lens. I've almost bought that several times already and chickened out. It's weather and shock resistant and a very good camera to boot.

I got a Canon SL1 on a super sale before Christmas for $349. I'm thinking it might end being a throw away body if it can't hold up to the hiking. (Shocks, temps, dirt, moisture, etc.) I hate to see that and I don't want to miss out on pictures if the thing dies on day 2 or 3! _That's my biggest fear_, not that I lose the $349.

If you do a search, you'll find a thread I started back in November or December on this very subject. I'm still debating. And, I'm still considering spending a small mint on a new ultralight zPacks sleeping bag and tent to save 5+ pounds so I can absorb the extra camera weight without penalty.

Check out http://zpacks.com for some ultralight gear and you might find a way to make it all work if you can afford the prices. Also look at http://gossamergear.com for a super lightweight pack. I probably won't go for a UL pack but I am seriously considering the zpacks bag and tent.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 28, 2014)

tapanit said:


> My current kit for week-long hikes in is 5Dmk3, Voigtländer 20mm, Canon 40mm and 70-300L, plus Ricoh GR. Works pretty well for me.



Wow. 8+ pounds? Plus the space required in the pack. What kind of hiking are you doing? In my case, I will be totally off the grid for 10 days covering ~90 miles in the mountains. There could be daily rain. I'm in a group of around 14 scouts and adults. Only stops I will make are for daily program camps, and food pickups every 3 or 4 days. No power, etc. So whatever I take, I have to carry for the duration. The only weight variations are from food/water consumption and whatever weight I might take on for someone else having trouble.

So while I have learned that adding a little weight isn't a big deal if I'm in shape and trained for the trip, throwing caution to the wind and taking what you take would likely make the trip miserable for me.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 28, 2014)

edurieux said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm looking for a lens to do some landscape photography while hiking. I need something very lightweight since I'll use it during hikes of more than 7 days.
> 
> ...




I hiked the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex this fall with the 6D and 24-105. You already have what you need, IMHO.

The weight savings of a 40 2.8 over a 24-105 do not make up for the lack of versatility in wilderness conditions. These are the kinds of trips we buy camera gear *for*.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 28, 2014)

Are you equating "landscape" with "wide angle"? This is something I don't think we should do. But from your post it sounds like you're looking for a wide angle to take on your hikes.

If you're not willing to take a single 24-105 lens and your 6D, then I question whether a full-frame DSLR is going to work for you on a hike. That's not a lot of gear for a full-frame DSLR. So are you just going to take one prime lens?

I suggest a Sony RX100 or one of the mirrorless, or a Fuji 100 or something.

If you're not stuck on really wide angle, the 40 STM is really great in every way for a tiny lens.

If you do want to take your 6D and just one wide-angle lens, then I'd suggest the Voigtlander 20mm. You already have 24mm covered with your zoom so don't waste your money. The Voigt gives you something significantly different. It's super well made, it's super small for a 20mm, manual focussing is no problem at this focal length, you just have to commit to it. Great colour and contrast. Perfect sharp in the centre, very good at the edges and good in the corners unless all you do is zoom in and look at corners (every bit as good as the 16-35 and pretty much every other Canon/Minolta/Nikon 20mm out there, based on what I've read). Small 58mm filters too. $550 at BH.

Couple examples:


----------



## noncho (Feb 28, 2014)

I know a photographer who bought G1X for hiking and he was happy with it.
The new G1X II looks like will do the job.


----------



## livingpixels (Feb 28, 2014)

I'd go with a Ricoh GR if I were hiking. Superlight, truly pocketable and great image quality for the price and size.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 28, 2014)

livingpixels said:


> I'd go with a Ricoh GR if I were hiking. Superlight, truly pocketable and great image quality for the price and size.



I'm intrigued by the Ricoh GR. Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## tapanit (Feb 28, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> tapanit said:
> 
> 
> > My current kit for week-long hikes in is 5Dmk3, Voigtländer 20mm, Canon 40mm and 70-300L, plus Ricoh GR. Works pretty well for me.
> ...


Walking in the wilderness (Lapland), away from the civilization - last fall I was there alone and didn't see anybody at all for six days.


> In my case, I will be totally off the grid for 10 days covering ~90 miles in the mountains. There could be daily rain.


I remember one hike when it rained every day and last three days almost nonstop... it was still fun, though not exactly photogenic. 


> I'm in a group of around 14 scouts and adults. Only stops I will make are for daily program camps, and food pickups every 3 or 4 days.


Being able to refill food en route helps - I carry everything for the entire trip. In autumn there're usually berries and mushrooms, though.


> No power, etc. So whatever I take, I have to carry for the duration. The only weight variations are from food/water consumption and whatever weight I might take on for someone else having trouble.


One nice thing about Finnish Lapland is that there's no need to carry water, there's plenty of drinkable water around. Otherwise I have to carry everything I need, too.


> So while I have learned that adding a little weight isn't a big deal if I'm in shape and trained for the trip, throwing caution to the wind and taking what you take would likely make the trip miserable for me.


Throwing caution to the wind is not a good idea in the wilderness. I've been hiking for years and know what I need and how much I can carry (about 30kg is my comfort limit), but if you're new to the game, don't overpack.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 28, 2014)

My walk around/hiking kit 5D3, 24-105mm, 8-15mm, 300mm f4 IS, 35mm extension tube, 77mm cir Pol, 320 EX flash, Lowpro 200 sling, carbon fiber monopod, gorilla pod focus. Now I am not hiking overnight, to me that is camping. 

I like having this wide range of focal lengths, and all of this is pretty light. I like the 320EX over my 480II because it has the video light, and is just smaller.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 28, 2014)

Hey, thanks for the clarifications *tapanit*! You are fortunate that you have the luxury of easy consistent water access. That makes a big difference with how far you can go and weight reduction overall. Please don't get the wrong idea, I wasn't trying to criticize, only illustrate why weight is an important factor for me.

I try to minimize the extra effort and energy it takes to manage all the extra bits of gear. Since we put a lot of our stuff up in bear bags at every camp, there is a lot of packing and unpacking every day. The more items you have, the more you have to unpack/repack, make room for, organize, account for, keep clean, etc. It gets tiresome after a few days. IMHO, when hiking, the simpler the better. So that's why I am trying to really think the whole "better camera" thing through. Because the group loves my pictures regardless, even if they're just from the little rugged D20. I'm the only one who really appreciates/enjoys the IQ difference and superior handling of the SLR.

And yes, the rain makes for rather flat pictures but at least there are no harsh shadows and lens flare, right?


----------



## candc (Mar 1, 2014)

If you are not needing a long lens for wildlife then I would take your 24-105 and consider a 15mm fisheye. Its small and lightweight, very sharp. Good for night sky shooting and with software can be de-fished all or partly if you want. You can crop a lot out and still have a good wide angle shot. You can pick one up for $500-$600 I think


----------



## aroo (Mar 1, 2014)

+1 for just the 24 - 105 on your 6D. I've done a lot of backpacking with that combination. So versatile. If find I hardly ever want to change lenses when it means taking off the pack off. I just carry the camera in my hand, and switch sides every once in a while.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Mar 1, 2014)

Regardless of any other lens I might take, the little 40 pancake will always be in my bag. Usually it is carried as the glorified lens cap on the body. It's just too easy and too good...and too small not to take it. My lightweight trail running kit is that 40 and the 135L for tele. I can run all day with that small kit.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 1, 2014)

Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS. 

Small length for an FF zoom
Useful FL for hiking -- wide enough for landscapes but has some reach to crop / compress down-the-barrel trail views
Light -- I believe the second lightest L zoom behind the 17-40
Weather-sealed
Considerably sharper than the 24-70 2.8 Mk I and 24-105
IS is nice (but usually not much help in daytime hiking)
The 0.7x Macro mode -- despite the very short working distance -- is a nice functionality for wildflowers on a hike

That'd be my vote. I've taken it on a few hikes to good effect. 

- A


----------



## muchakucha (Mar 1, 2014)

I normally take my 14mm Rokinon and 24-105L on my 6D. If I don't have enough space I replace the 24-105 with my 40 pancake.


----------



## tapanit (Mar 1, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> You are fortunate that you have the luxury of easy consistent water access. That makes a big difference with how far you can go and weight reduction overall.


Yes. I have done some hiking in places where I had to carry all water I needed, and it does indeed make a big difference.


> Since we put a lot of our stuff up in bear bags at every camp, there is a lot of packing and unpacking every day.


Right. For whatever reason, Finnish bears are very shy of people, so there's no need to worry about them. I've only once come across a bear in Lapland, and by the time I saw it, it was already running away fast.


> IMHO, when hiking, the simpler the better.
> So that's why I am trying to really think the whole "better camera" thing through. Because the group loves my pictures regardless, even if they're just from the little rugged D20. I'm the only one who really appreciates/enjoys the IQ difference and superior handling of the SLR.


Right. My problem is that besides scenery I also want to photograph wildlife, including birds. The 70-300L is a compromise for that: small enough to carry easily, long enough to be useful - although longer would of course be better. (I have carried the 100-400L on occasion, and the moment I find myself considering dragging my new Tamron 150-600 on a hike... probably won't, though). Otherwise, I might take just the Ricoh GR (then I'd probably get the wide-angle accessory for it though).


----------



## willis (Mar 1, 2014)

Maybe not 16-35 but how about 17-40?


----------



## Frodo (Jul 18, 2015)

Resurrecting this thread, because I have a three-week hike through the Alps planned.
Some interesting comments about the 24-105. Yes, it is heavy, but it weighs less than my 35/2 and 85/1.8 combined. Bulk is a bigger issue for me (I have nice bag for the 6D plus 35 or 85, that doesn't look like a camera bag). Also comments about sharpness. Yesterday I took comparison shots with all my lenses and the 24-105 is as sharp at all comparable apertures (including wide open) to all my lenses, except the 85mm, where the zoom needs to be stopped down at least one stop to be comparable. I have not found my 24-105 to be wanting in terms of sharpness. 
So the question is weighing up the bulk of the zoom with the small size of the 35/85 combo and the nice wide-open images of fast primes, compared to not having to change lenses and having 24mm. I do stitch, but could only do that when home, and I find that stitching doesn't always work with flowing water, which is a common subject of mine.
Sometimes 85mm is too short to compress scenery and isolate details, so am also contemplating a 35/200 combo.
I have a 250D closeup lens that works well with the 85 if stopped down a bit and am considering the 270EX flash. Plus a small table top tripod.
At the moment its looking like 35/85/250D or 24-105.
Part of the fun of trips is the planning beforehand!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 18, 2015)

Well, I assume you already read through the thread so you know my story. (SL1 Rebel with a Tamron super zoom.) The Tamron was a great compromise lens but obviously not the IQ of the 24-105. The 24-105 is a great lens and since you already like it, just take that.

Hiking is definitely where the K.I.S.S. principle pays off in spades. Don't take more than you need. You can fix a lot in post with photoshop and lightroom. The only two things you can't fix in post is REALLY bad lighting and poor focus. So if you must take must take a flash, (for fill mostly) make it a small one. (Because you also have to take batteries, etc too.) I recently switched from my old reliable Sunpak RD2000 to the Meike/Eachshot MK-320 and couldn't be happier! 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00UHNT8XA/ref=sr_ph?ie=UTF8&qid=1437253320&sr=1&keywords=meike

You have a serious backpack already so use it. Don't take a ton of heavy camera bags, etc. Use heavy duty freezer ziplocks and pack your clothes around stuff for protection.

Rig up a way to carry your camera while hiking using the shoulder straps or a cotton carrier. Otherwise, you'll miss a lot of shots or kill yourself stopping, pack-off/pack-on to unload or change lenses, etc. Trust me, unless you aren't really hiking, you probably won't want to keep doing this just for camera stuff.

Keep it simple and light and you'll still get great pictures but you won't regret a lot of extra gear that is just wasted weight.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 18, 2015)

Albi86 said:


> Canon 35 f/2 IS.
> 
> Small and lightweight enough (imho the most important feature for a long hike), versatile focal length, solid performance, IS for low light.



Just what I've bought last week and for slapping on my 6D whilst out walking (English for Hiking) ;-)


----------



## jd7 (Jul 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.



+1 ... Although maybe the choice isn't necessarily easy


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2015)

jd7 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Easy choice for hiking on a FF rig = the Canon 24-70 F/4 IS.
> ...



My rationale:


With hiking, you can't always back up. Wider is better. I wouldn't choose a lens that doesn't go as wide at 24mm. So a 70-something lens would only be the call if wildlife was the principal focus of the photography.
Unless you are only shooting narrow apertures or have the time to work a tripod, LiveView, etc., having AF would be pretty useful.
Weathersealing is a must unless you plan to bag your rig when not in use.
Lighter lenses are preferred. Under 1.5 pounds, I'd say. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that's what I'll go with.

On FF, there isn't a terrific list of lenses that satisfy even those basic criteria. You have the various f/4L zooms to choose from (16-35, 17-40, 24-70, 24-105), the 24 f/1.4L II, and Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art (and weathersealing is a minor question mark with that one).

Of all of those, I'd still choose that 24-70 f/4L IS. I could be talked into the 16-35 f/4L IS if I knew I'd be tightly boxed in a ravine or other circumstance in which I couldn't get very much in frame.

- A


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.

If the trip involves many days of hiking in a group, photography is usually NOT the primary activity. And after a few days on the trail, only having a camera and one extra lens to deal with is less effort mentally. If you take 3-4 lenses, you will literally get a headache trying to decide how to use them. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Enjoy yourself! It's not just about the photography.

Unless you are getting paid big bucks to bring back professionally commissioned money shots, don't pack photo gear like you are getting paid for perfect money shots. Just take it easy and enjoy the trip.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



FWIW, as someone who does a bit of hiking with camera (I'm sure not as much as others here though), I pretty much agree with everything said above. The 24-70 4L IS is my default choice too - for the reasons above and the reasons in ahansford's earlier post in this thread. I would add the 70-200 f/4L IS (or the non-IS) to the list of zoom candidates, but agree if you're taking only one lens, it's not often going to be the right choice. If primes are in the mix, then I'd add the 35 2 IS (my choice of this bunch), 28 2.8 IS, 24 2.8 IS and 40 2.8 to my list of candidates too. If a two lens kit is an option (depending on how much you are willing and able to carry, whether the conditions will make changing lenses in the field undesirable, what you expect to be photographing, etc), I'd probably choose from one of those (almost certainly the 35 2 IS in my case) plus an 85 1.8, 100 2.0 or 135L.

That's all for FF though. If I was shooting crop, I would almost certainly choose a lens made for crop as a hiking lens. The EF-S 15-85, EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, and EF-S 18-135 immediately spring to mind (and there is EF-S 24 2.8 these days too).

I also agree with Rusty that if you're hiking and photography isn't the primary object of the trip, keeping it simple is definitely the way to go! For this sort of hiking in rough(ish) conditions, I wouldn't consider more than two lenses, and if I've got to carry all my gear (not just camera gear - food, tent, etc) and cover a bit of ground quickly I would limit to one - it would all depend on the conditions, exactly how much I was carrying, etc.

EDIT: Just read ahansford's post again, and I realise he probably excluded a number of the lenses I listed because they aren't weather sealed. And I can understand that too! Still, in some situations I might be willing to take a non-weather sealed lens on a hike, if I wasn't expecting too much dirt/dust/rain/etc and I knew I'd be able to get the lens into a good dry bag/pack if I needed to.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.
> 
> If the trip involves many days of hiking in a group, photography is usually NOT the primary activity. And after a few days on the trail, only having a camera and one extra lens to deal with is less effort mentally. If you take 3-4 lenses, you will literally get a headache trying to decide how to use them. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Enjoy yourself! It's not just about the photography.
> 
> Unless you are getting paid big bucks to bring back professionally commissioned money shots, don't pack photo gear like you are getting paid for perfect money shots. Just take it easy and enjoy the trip.



Oh, good gravy, if *crop* is on the table, your ability to keep the weight down improves dramatically, but your ability to cover (24mm FF equiv) _and still have some reach_ is greatly limited.

In that case, I'd still keep the 16-35 f/4L IS on the table, which would clock in at 25.6 - 56mm on crop, and it's a well-built sealed lens. Another option might be the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6, which is a nice 24 - 136 equivalent range, but you'd lose your weather sealing.

I still think Canon should offer a nice, light 16-50 f/4L IS. It would be a nice scenery/hiking lens for FF users, but it would be a killer standard zoom on crop.

- A


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a wider type of shooter. I could almost go with this plan myself. (In fact, I almost did. My 2nd lens in the pack for the SL1 was a 10-22.) But there are times when having some reach REALLY HELPS. So the 24-105 is a good compromise on both ends. (You can back up just a little and you can crop the image just a little for more reach.) Honestly, 70 just isn't long enough to me. I would take one lens to be used 80% of the time and work best while hiking and in most situations. The 2nd lens would be for the other 20% when in camp, packs off for more specific use.
> ...



I didn't know crop was on the table either. I thought *Frodo* was taking a 6D. So the 24-105 would be actual 24-105 FL. I agree that on a crop body the 24 isn't very wide. I mentioned the SL1 because that is what I used. I used the Tamron 18-270 super zoom most of the time and then had the EF-S 10-22 packed in the top of the backpack for wider off-pack use while stopped in camps. Sure, the 18-270 IQ isn't up to a Canon L lens but it was still acceptable. (Remember - compromises!) If I ever go on that 10 day trek again, I'll probably suck it up and take a small flash. The on camera flash was a bit of a pain due to the size of the lenses, etc causing shadows at the bottom of the frame on wider shots due to the lens itself (10-22) or the hood (18-270).

Also, I didn't worry that much about weather sealing on the lenses, camera, etc. I was careful and I either put it away or I kept it dry when carrying it. Worst case scenario, I might have to have something repaired but so far so good!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 19, 2015)

24-105 is a great focal range. And on the scale of L glass well priced.


----------



## Frodo (Jul 19, 2015)

28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens. 
I took an FD 28/3.5 and an FD 100/2.8 on a four week hike through Nepal in 1982, shot on Kodachrome 64 and the combo suited me well (couldn't have dreamed about the high ISO images now possible!). 
I tried a friend's 28/1.8 in the weekend including test targets, woodpile shots and real world shots. Reminded me how much I loved the focal length. Great for photos where the eye is drawn to the centre. But edge and corner resolution are sadly well behind the 35/2 and 24-105/4 (at 28mm).
I could very happily hike with a nice 28 and an 85 or 100, but the 28/1.8 doesn't deliver the edge sharpness needed for the images that need printing. The 35/2 is a great lens (except for coma wide open), but a little tight. Not sure I want to give up the f2 aperture for the 28/2.8IS, though.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

Frodo said:


> 28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens.
> I took an FD 28/3.5 and an FD 100/2.8 on a four week hike through Nepal in 1982, shot on Kodachrome 64 and the combo suited me well (couldn't have dreamed about the high ISO images now possible!).
> I tried a friend's 28/1.8 in the weekend including test targets, woodpile shots and real world shots. Reminded me how much I loved the focal length. Great for photos where the eye is drawn to the centre. But edge and corner resolution are sadly well behind the 35/2 and 24-105/4 (at 28mm).
> I could very happily hike with a nice 28 and an 85 or 100, but the 28/1.8 doesn't deliver the edge sharpness needed for the images that need printing. The 35/2 is a great lens (except for coma wide open), but a little tight. Not sure I want to give up the f2 aperture for the 28/2.8IS, though.



I have the 28 f/2.8 IS and love it. I too wish it was f/2, but 28mm is quite possibly my favorite single FL.

I don't know if I'd hike with it though. Sharp, small, light, IS, internal focusing -- it has it all, but a single prime would be a tough call for hiking for me.

- A


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > 28mm is a favourite focal length of mine. A bit wider than the 35 for a wider view and emphasising foregrounds, but not as wide as a 24 for people shots and as a single general use lens.
> ...



Ditto. I really like 28 & 35 too. I use the good ole 28/1.8 USM for campfire pics. It rocks. But no primes for me while long haul hiking. Just not enough versatility unless I have a serious specific need I already know about.


----------



## m8547 (Jul 20, 2015)

How about the 24-105 IS STM? It's almost as good as the 24-105 L, but it's about 20% lighter at 525g instead of 670g.

Otherwise you could get an APS-C body and kit lens, or even an EOS-M.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 21, 2015)

m8547 said:


> How about the 24-105 IS STM? It's almost as good as the 24-105 L, but it's about 20% lighter at 525g instead of 670g.
> 
> Otherwise you could get an APS-C body and kit lens, or even an EOS-M.



I get the impression from the OP's replies that he has a strong desire for pretty high IQ so most compromises that affect IQ are likely not an option.

I hope we hear what he decides, how the trip goes and get to see some images.


----------



## milkrocks (Jul 21, 2015)

I'd take my 24-105 as my only lens for a hiking trip. If i couldn't carry the weight of it, I'd chose between the 40 pancake and 50 1.8 STM. If campfire pictures were likely, the 50 would win.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2015)

milkrocks said:


> I'd take my 24-105 as my only lens for a hiking trip. If i couldn't carry the weight of it, I'd chose between the 40 pancake and 50 1.8 STM. If campfire pictures were likely, the 50 would win.



If later night shots are in play, I'd consider a 90EX, believe it or not. So small. Sure, the GN is pathetic, but it's a nice add if you shoot with a rig that lacks a pop-up. It's a great emergency option on my 5D3 provided it doesn't have to climb over a large f/2.8 zoom or large f/1.4 prime.

- A


----------



## CanadianInvestor (Jul 21, 2015)

Trudged 55 Km through Grand Canyon last week when the temperatures were hovering around the 40C mark. 5DMkII, spare battery, 24-105 f4 L IS and *Black Rapid Sport* strap was the sum total of my kit coming in at under 2 Kg., I am guessing. If I were to do it again, I'd take along a tripod and a torch (flashlight). My interest was the plants and insects that call that region home. The strap made the trip so much more enjoyable.

Enjoy your hike.


----------



## LOALTD (Jul 21, 2015)

Everyone has a different style, but my go-to hiking/backpacking/mountaineering/climbing lens is:


28mm f/2.8 IS


Why?


Small, sharp, very hand-hold-able with that big-ish aperture and 4-stop IS. I also do a lot of video stuff and the IS is so good that people frequently ask what type of "rigging" I use!


If I'm camping for the night I'll also take a tripod and a Samyang 14/2.8.


I'll sometimes also take a 50/1.4. This used to be my go-to lens, but I now find the FL a bit too tight and the lack of IS makes for shaky hand-held video. (sidebar: this is why I want a big-aperture 50 with IS so badly)


If the area is known for wildlife and/or I want to have some training-weight on me, I'll take a big-dumb zoom, like a 70-200. This is the except though, not the rule!


----------



## bholliman (Jul 22, 2015)

For me its my 24-70 f/2.8 II mounted on my 6D and 135 f/2 in a Lowepro lens case attached to my belt. These two lenses cover just about everything I need. At times I wish I had a longer lens for wildlife, but I can always use the 135 and crop and my longer lenses are just to heavy for longer hikes.


----------



## gregorywood (Jul 22, 2015)

I'll share some of my experiences evolving and perfecting a hiking setup.

I hike what I would consider moderate length day hikes in varying terrains. I hike in the Appalachians in the fall and winter, and in Texas, Colorado, and Utah in the summer. I don't pack anything non-essential and aside from camera gear, that typically includes some food, water, a rain shell, first aid kit, portable binoculars, multitool, hunting knife, pepper spray, sunscreen, etc... As far as camera gear, I've been through several gyrations and combinations and various packs to carry it all in. I have just returned from 10 days in 4 states out west and did several 3-6 hour hikes with this setup and it works wonderfully. 

I use a Black Rapid strap, over the left shoulder with the camera attachment hanging from my right side at arms length. Over that I wear my Lowepro Photo Sport 200AW. In the camera compartment (2 pockets) I carry either my 16-35mm f/4L or a 430EX II flash in the smaller pocket and my 6D with the 24-105 attached in the larger pocket. If I carry the flash, I carry my 35mm f/2 IS and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye in the upper larger compartment, but in Lowepro lens cases, which can be easily attached to the waist or shoulder strap of the pack. Access to the compartment for the lens is as ease as reaching behind my left side, unzipping the compartment with my left hand, pulling out the 16-35mm and swapping it with the 24-105mm and placing it in the compartment and zipping it back up. No need for the gymnastics of swinging the pack around the left shoulder to access the compartment (though this is precisely what I do if I want to retrieve or replace the camera into the pack, as it's easier). The camera hangs at my right hip, and I often just carry it in my hand by the grip, or lay it across my leg and use my hand to keep it there when needed. 

The pack, loaded, with water bladder weighs in at approximately 12-15 pounds. Everything is easily accessible, I have mobility, and most importantly, it's comfortable. 

I've spent the last 2.5 years with no less than 4 different attempts to get the right pack, the right combination of gear (body and lenses) and be able to hike comfortably with ease of access. 

I realize this is a bit more detailed information than what the OP asked, but in reading the thread of conversation, there were tangents about weight and comfort and I simply wanted to share my experiences. If anyone would like, I'd be happy to take some photos of my setup, how it's packed and how I wear it.

In short, the combination I use most when hiking is the 24-105 lens on either my 6D or 7D. Which camera I select depends on if I want the slightly longer reach or not. I think the 35mm f/2 IS is the perfect companion to the 24-105mm for it's low-light capabilities. If the OP wanted to just carry one lens, it might be worth looking into a superzoom, like the Tamron 28-300mm. I've been considering that myself, but don't want to compromise image quality over what I have now. There are times where having that kind of range would be great.

Hope this helps.
Greg


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 22, 2015)

OK. Now I guess I've read enough praises about the new 24, 28 and 35 primes (with IS) from everyone here that one is now on my radar / wish list. And I hold each and every one of your responsible! 

(I guess this is a borderline hijack of the thread. Sorry.)

So now comes the daunting task of deciding which one to get. If they had simply made them all f/1.8 or f/2 it would be a simpler decision but since I use my 28 f/1.8 for very low light, that keeps the 35 in my list even though it's a bit too long for my taste for a prime where I'm usually trying to get plenty in the frame. So I'll probably go with the 24 to gain some extra width and cross my fingers the IS can help make up for the loss of stops in aperture from the older 28 f/1.8.

Of course, since my older 28 is most often used in very dark situations, the IQ improvements probably are a bit moot anyway. Black is black, regardless of the corner sharpness, eh? And I assume everyone is eventually going to be shooting a 5D4 with even better High ISO so who needs more aperture anymore, right? LOL. Ah, and the G.A.S. justification begins!


----------



## d4mike (Jul 22, 2015)

Out hiking who knows what you'll run into. I'm going to assume day hikes vs overnight.

I'm lucky and my wife will take some of the burden so I carry the 6D with the 24-105 on my shoulder, in the Lowepro pack I take a Tamron 15-30, a Sigma 150mm macro, 430 flash, 90EX flash, batteries, remote, polarizer, ND filters and a Canon 70-200 f4 along with a tripod.

I like the Tamron even though its a beast, the macro for obvious reasons and the 70-200 for a more compressed landscape or a multi-row pano. 

My wife carries the gear like rain coats, food, water, bug spray, med kit, extra socks..... She loves to point out things I miss.


----------



## Frodo (Jul 22, 2015)

Hi d4mike
This thread was about multiday hikes, not day hikes or even overnight hikes. In that situation space, but more importantly weight becomes an issue. And others have said that simplicity is a virtue (and I agree). Nevertheless, its interesting to see what some posters are prepared to carry.
The other theme is image quality. I have a G11 - this is fine in social environments, but in my view is limiting from an IQ perspective. I took the G11 on a week long motorbike trip with my wife last summer. It didn't produce anything I'd like to hang on a wall. Similarly I took an older A-series point and shoot on a month-long motorbike ride through Patagonia. Nice memories, the photos on my walls are with the 20D.
For wide shots, I need corner to corner sharpness, so much as I would like to love the 28/1.8, it would go the way of my previous 20/2.8.
My 35/2 is plenty sharp even wide open (apart from coma, but that's only an issue for stars), but as Rusty notes a bit tight.
And then there is the reality of being in windy, dusty, rainy environments, so my 24-105/4 will come along. I've noted that it weighs less than the 35/2 plus 85/1.8 and is just about as sharp.
But then I read threads like "Make it long" from Michael Reichman (https://luminous-landscape.com/make-it-long/)! And my 200/2.8 becomes attractive. Many of my best landscape shots are taken at about 200mm, where I can compress perspective or isolate details. I spent a week in the US on a work trip with just my 35/2 and 200/2.8 and captured a nice sequence of ospreys breeding on the shores of Chesapeake Bay as a bonus.
So, its looking like taking the 6D plus 24-105/4, 35/2 and 200/2.8, with:
- 24-105 for the main, long hike (in a Crumpler 4 million dollar home)
- add the 200 for separate overnight hikes
- just take the 35 for more technical alpine overnighters and for social events (I have a nice case that just fits the 6D plus 35),
leaving unused lenses with my mother-in-law.


----------



## edurieux (Jul 25, 2015)

Thanks for all these answers !

I didn't expected all these answers ! I have been trekking a little with my 6D Kit but I don't really like this lens. Since it is a good all-around lens, it looks more like a not good for anything lens (in non hiking situations).

Since the beginning of this thread, I upgraded my 6D + 24-105 kit with an additional 17-40 f/4L. Great lens, lightweight and very fun to play with. But I'm not always satisfied with the IQ wide open. I should maybe switch to a 16-35 f/4L, or a prime.

Then, I wanted a telephoto, and I wanted anything but a 70-200, I was too used to it. I went with the 135L, and it was a perfect choice. I grab it for single day hikes.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jul 26, 2015)

Now that I have a 6D and a 7DII, my favorite "light" kit is those bodies and:
8-15mm fisheye
24-105mm f4 IS L - on the 6D most of the time
70-200 f4 L - On the 7D II most of the time.
1.4x III extender.

This gives me a huge range of focal lengths from 8mm to 448mm equivalent.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 4, 2015)

Perhaps a bit off topic. So you take a 24-105/4 and have 800g (1.7 pounds) spare. Would you take a a 200/2.8 (or 70-200/4) or a Surui T-025X tripod for this multi-day hike in the mountains?
I've taken tripods in the past but the weight, even at 1.5 kg, is more than the DSLR plus 24-105/4. But the Surui has my interest tweaked.


----------

