# Which lens for hiking?



## bedford (Aug 27, 2015)

Next week I will be leaving for a two week vacation on Mauritius. We are also planning to do some (short) hikes.

I will take my 60D together with the Sigma 17-50/2.8, the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6.
(For snorkeling I'll take my Olympus XZ-2 and a DigaPac underwater housing.)

The 17-50 is set, but I was wondering what would be a better choice to carry in the backpack when hiking: the tele or the wide-angle zoom?

Tele --> general wildlife, deer, birds, ...
wide-angle + tripod --> landscape, waterfalls, ...

What do you think?

Oliver


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Aug 28, 2015)

It is all a matter of interests, for me, I would probably prefer landscape photography (but I have never been to Mauritius) so it would be the wind-angel and a tripod.


----------



## gregorywood (Aug 28, 2015)

Having done a lot of hiking with camera gear, I want to keep it as simple as possible, yet still ensure I have the best range and quality. For me (an it's just my opinion), I'll carry my 6D, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4. I find that 24 is plenty wide enough and there are times when I want more reach. I'll often carry the 1.4x teleconverter also as that gets me a 280mm on the long end if needed and no appreciable weight gain on the kit. I carry all that in my Lowepro AW200 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=768091&is=REG&Q=&A=details) and have room for a water bladder, food, jacket and other things.

I have the 16-35 f/4 IS and I've carried it as well. I find that I miss the 70-200 when I don't have it more than I miss the 16-35 when I do NOT have it.

Hope that helps.
Greg


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2015)

Myself, I bring the camera and 2 lenses.... the 17-55 and a 70-200F4.

I don't worry about anything wider because I can take multiple images and stitch them together. I usually have the 70-200 on the camera when moving around. I find that I use the longer lens for animals/birds and the wide lens for landscapes. Since animals are more likely to quickly disappear than landscapes, it makes sense to me to have the camera ready for them. If a beautiful vista suddenly appears, I have time to stop and swap lenses.... not so when that eagle flies past....

Also, my hiking pole doubles as a monopod....

Hope this helps,
Don


----------



## gregorywood (Aug 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Myself, I bring the camera and 2 lenses.... the 17-55 and a 70-200F4.
> 
> I don't worry about anything wider because I can take multiple images and stitch them together. I usually have the 70-200 on the camera when moving around. I find that I use the longer lens for animals/birds and the wide lens for landscapes. Since animals are more likely to quickly disappear than landscapes, it makes sense to me to have the camera ready for them. If a beautiful vista suddenly appears, I have time to stop and swap lenses.... not so when that eagle flies past....
> 
> ...



I like that logic, and never really thought about it. I typically have the 24-105 mounted and swap to the longer one when needed. I'm hiking Colorado Bend State Park next weekend, so I'll give that a try.

Thanks!
Greg


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 28, 2015)

5D3 + 24-70 f/4L IS is absolutely money for hiking. Weather-sealed, relatively light (compared to f/2.8 glass), and a killer 0.7x macro mode lets me leave the 100L macro at home. Love it.

On a crop rig, perhaps the 16-35 f/4L IS would be a good single lens call. Same reasons as above, but you lose the macro opportunity. (And a FF equivalent of 25.6-56mm might be too short for you.)

If you are tight for space or want something more discreet, consider the EF-S pancake (24mm, right?) or possibly just bring one of the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses. In both cases, you would lose weather sealing, however.

If you need a second lens to go with that 17-50, it depends on what makes you happy to shoot. If it's a varmint/bird/child, go with the telephoto, perhaps the 70-200 f/4L IS (light and super sharp). If you prefer landscapes, it's a no-brainer: go with the very good 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens. If it's a macro, pack that (but also consider the aforementioned 24-70's macro opportunity).

- A


----------



## DRR (Aug 28, 2015)

For hiking, I wouldn't take the 17-50 personally. I'd take the 10-18 for landscapes and the tele for everything else. 

Alternatively, pack light and only take the 17-50. Just my opinion.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 28, 2015)

DRR said:


> For hiking, I wouldn't take the 17-50 personally. I'd take the 10-18 for landscapes and the tele for everything else.
> 
> Alternatively, pack light and only take the 17-50. Just my opinion.



Fair. If you crudely rethink a zoom as just two primes at each end, 16-35 and 70-200 becomes 16, 35, 70, 200. 

Thought of in that light, it's a nice spread.

- A


----------



## nc0b (Aug 28, 2015)

For trips to Easter Island, Machu Picchu, Alaska and stateside parks, I would say 75% of my shots were with a 6D and 24-105mm. I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS on a 60D, which could have been in a pack depending on how hilly the hiking trail. The macro capability of the 24-105 is quite good, so the need for lens changing while walking was minimal. For shooting raptors, I find nothing I have works except the 400mm f/5.6. I used it in Alaska and stateside, since it was easily accessible in the vehicle. I have better results with the 400mm for BIF on the 6D than the 60D from a focus standpoint. I would rather take two bodies and two lenses than one body and three or more lenses. Whether both systems are around my neck or in the back seat of the car, they are ready in an instant with no lens fumbling. If you don't plan to add a FF body, then I can see the need for the 17-50mm. I have to be doing a lot of planning to use my 18mm Zeiss for landscapes.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2015)

Just ordered a Powershot G3 X for hiking and travel when the 100-400 + 7DII will be too heavy or bulky. Don't despise these little Canons.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 29, 2015)

Here's an odd suggestion. I find that I leave my 100-400II on the camera as the main lens for hikes for two very different reasons.

1) As someone stated above, the opportunistic wildlife shots can be exploited...

2) But also because it makes for a decent macro in a pinch. You wouldn't think it, but the minimum focal distance is crazy short (some inches away from the front of the lens - don't let the MFD stats fool you, as they measure from the sensor plane). 

So I take some versatile short range lens as my back up, for times when I want to capture a vista, or members of our party, like tumbling toddlers. 

Favorite combo: the 100-400II and then the sigma 18-35 art. 

The only beef with the 100-400II is that it isn't terribly fast. That matters when you're in the woods under canopy. When it's a cloudy day, I'll take the 70-200.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 29, 2015)

bedford said:


> Next week I will be leaving for a two week vacation on Mauritius. We are also planning to do some (short) hikes.
> 
> I will take my 60D together with the Sigma 17-50/2.8, the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6.
> (For snorkeling I'll take my Olympus XZ-2 and a DigaPac underwater housing.)
> ...


I guess your 17-50mm is ok for landscape, just add a telephoto and you are done.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 29, 2015)

If Im on a hike I take my 24-105, 100-400mk2 and my X1.4


----------



## filipmakowski (Aug 29, 2015)

If you're intending to take only the one lens, I suggest the 17-50 wide angle. You're going to find more scenery shots than wildlife if you're hiking.

We took the one lens to Bali, the 16-35 F4, and it was more than enough for hiking the volcano, catching the local culture, etc. Having stabilization, it was also the perfect video lens:

Bali: Bikes, Bikinis, Boots, Boards and Bars... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ZUPj4kAeE

Granted we also had the GoPro for surfing and diving the reefs, but that's also a wide angle


----------



## kaswindell (Aug 29, 2015)

I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2015)

kaswindell said:


> I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[



For a hike, the 24-105 plus the 100-400 II is, in my opinion, streets ahead of the 24-105 + 70-200. There is simply so much more wild life you can capture with the 2-fold extra focal length (as well as the almost macro mode of the 100-400), and as lensrentals has just shown in its most recent blogs it holds it own with the 70-200mm in sharpness although the latter has a wider aperture.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests


----------



## coloradopa (Aug 30, 2015)

nc0b said:


> For trips to Easter Island, Machu Picchu, Alaska and stateside parks, I would say 75% of my shots were with a 6D and 24-105mm. I had the 70-200mm f/4 IS on a 60D, which could have been in a pack depending on how hilly the hiking trail. The macro capability of the 24-105 is quite good, so the need for lens changing while walking was minimal. For shooting raptors, I find nothing I have works except the 400mm f/5.6. I used it in Alaska and stateside, since it was easily accessible in the vehicle. I have better results with the 400mm for BIF on the 6D than the 60D from a focus standpoint. I would rather take two bodies and two lenses than one body and three or more lenses. Whether both systems are around my neck or in the back seat of the car, they are ready in an instant with no lens fumbling. If you don't plan to add a FF body, then I can see the need for the 17-50mm. I have to be doing a lot of planning to use my 18mm Zeiss for landscapes.


Interesting.This is the exact combo I am trying out on a trip to Myanmar. I just picked up the 70-200L IS F4. On my 60D thats roughly 100-300 equivalent. I rented a 70-300 L for my last trip to Japan but it stayed in my back most of the time. I am going to look at the Lowe AW 250. Hopefully I can fit both cameras in the camera part with lens attached with some room at the top for snivel gear.


----------



## Cheekysascha (Aug 30, 2015)

I'd bring the tele lens too, I recently went to the Bavarian Alps and brought a 24-70 and a 70-200 and having that 70-200 to zoom on small detail stuff or kayakers on a lake etc.. was absolutey amazing as I could get so many more shots then I would have been able to get with just the 24-70


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 30, 2015)

AlanF said:


> kaswindell said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with the 24-105 and a 70-200. I went for a hike last week with only the 24-105, saw some moose, wished I had brought the longer lens along. :-[
> ...


+1
There are two logical lens combinations for a FF body:

24-70 f2.8 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II
24-105 f4 IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS II
Of these four, the IQ advantage of the 24-70 may make it the best landscape lens and I particularly like the shallow DOF of the 70-200 for any situation -- indoor and out. But, for hiking, pending the length of the hike, I gravitate more toward the 24-105 and the 100-400. I find that the IS of the 24-105 makes it more versatile for scenery that includes moving water. It enables hand-held controlled motion blur with longer shutter speeds. Plus, I'm often shooting smaller apertures with scenery and the IS means I can leave the tripod home.

Of all these, I'm quickly adapting to the 100-400 as a primary outdoor lens. When hiking, I'm most interested in wildlife and want this lens at the ready. I also find that it offers great focal range for getting shots of my wife and kids when they get ahead of me on the trail.

While I generally prefer carrying two bodies, my "travel-lite" option would be a single body with the 100-400 and a 40 f2.8.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Just ordered a Powershot G3 X for hiking and travel when the 100-400 + 7DII will be too heavy or bulky. Don't despise these little Canons.
> ...


When I am canoeing the main kit is in a bulky/heavy pelican case (most definitely NOT practical for hiking) but I keep an Olympus Tough p/s camera in my pfd pocket. Good for quick shots and the rain.... point being, when it rains there is different set of pictures to be taken and you don't want to miss them because your DSLR can't get wet. a waterproof P/S adds considerable versatility to your kit.


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 31, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Hiking for my family is usually for site-seeing while traveling and generally not the most adventurous hikes. Photography is often an objective of the hike (at least for me), which is why I bring the good stuff.

But, when fishing in small boats, I bring a G16. This is an impressive little camera and sometimes it's fun to see what one can do with it. Although, it is most often used for photos of a child holding a fish. The G3x would fine choice for traveling lite.


----------



## bedford (Aug 31, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I don't worry about anything wider because I can take multiple images and stitch them together. I usually have the 70-200 on the camera when moving around. I find that I use the longer lens for animals/birds and the wide lens for landscapes. Since animals are more likely to quickly disappear than landscapes, it makes sense to me to have the camera ready for them. If a beautiful vista suddenly appears, I have time to stop and swap lenses.... not so when that eagle flies past....



Interesting thoughts. 

Stitching will be a bit of a problem, because I plan to use ND filters (normal and gradient) together with my wide-angle lens to capture some of the waterfalls. This will significantly increase the time I need to take pictures, and I usually only get granted a limited amount of time ;-)

Regards,
Oliver


----------



## bedford (Aug 31, 2015)

After reading the comments (thanks to everyone who responded) I think I'll go for the extremes and take the tele 
as primary lens for the wildlife together with wide-angle as backup in the backpack. 

Of course, I'll stick to my 17-50 with the macro filter (the image quality is sufficient for me) when visiting the botanical garden in Pamplemousse and as general walk-around lens.

I still can adapt my strategy after knowing the island a bit better.

Regards,
Oliver

PS: CR seems to be a bit slow at the moment...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2015)

bedford said:


> After reading the comments (thanks to everyone who responded) I think I'll go for the extremes and take the tele
> as primary lens for the wildlife together with wide-angle as backup in the backpack.
> 
> Of course, I'll stick to my 17-50 with the macro filter (the image quality is sufficient for me) when visiting the botanical garden in Pamplemousse and as general walk-around lens.
> ...



CR has been molasses slow since the 35L II announcement. No idea why -- it couldn't have generated _that_ much traffic.

- A


----------



## Ruined (Aug 31, 2015)

To answer the topic but not the OP, I would go with one of these options:

Quality:
6D + 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
7DII + 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Low weight:
6D + 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
7DII + 55-250mm IS STM


----------



## Ruined (Sep 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the topic but not the OP, I would go with one of these options:
> ...



Sure, you could go fixed lens, but you'd take a large quality hit on the wide camera and a large autofocus hit on the tele camera compared to above options, even low weight ones. Really depends how light you want and how much sacrifice you'd make, heck if you want the lightest passable quality you can buy a 41MP Lumia 1020 phone.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 1, 2015)

The wildcard for me is that there are so many different kinds of hiking photography:

1) Backcountry hikers = it's all about keeping size and weight down. That says 1 body and 1-2 (small and light) lenses, possibly a tripod for astro if that's your jam. Pack a 40 pancake (or possibly a 35 f/2 IS) and an 85 f/1.8 or 100L.

2) Day hiking with non-photography friends/family = it's all about running and gunning and not slowing the convoy down. Pack a zoom. This is where the 24-something zooms are gold if you prefer landscapes and the 70-something or 100-400 zooms are great for wildlife. Pick one and stick with it. Keep it simple, stick and move.

3) Day hiking with other photographers = bring the kitchen sink. You're with other people that are down with a 20-30 minute setup of tripod, ND grads, etc. or will wait at the great vista for the best light.

I'm always stuck with #2, so it's almost always the 24-70 f/4L IS on my 5D3. No time to change lenses, absolutely no time for tripods. 

- A


----------



## jd7 (Sep 2, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> The wildcard for me is that there are so many different kinds of hiking photography:
> 
> 1) Backcountry hikers = it's all about keeping size and weight down. That says 1 body and 1-2 (small and light) lenses, possibly a tripod for astro if that's your jam. Pack a 40 pancake (or possibly a 35 f/2 IS) and an 85 f/1.8 or 100L.
> 
> ...



Agreed that hiking means different things to different people!!

As someone who is usually in group #2 but from time to time in group #1, I generally agree with what you say, although I have found a 6D + 24-70/4L IS on a Black Rapid Sport strap can work pretty well for a group #1 trip as well as a group #2 trip. (Of course, there may be particular trips where 24-70 really isn't the focal length range you want.)

I am sure not everyone will agree, but I think the 24-70/4L IS is one of Canon's best landscape lenses, certainly in the hiking context. If you think about it:
24-70 is a pretty useful range for landscapes (yes, wider can make for spectacular shots but you need to have the right scene for it, plus of course stitching a panorama can be an option if you don't have a lens as wide as you'd like with you);
24-70/2.8L II is bigger and heavier, query if it is any better optically at the sort of aperture you would commonly use for landscapes, no IS, and it doesn't have the 4L IS's macro mode for things you spot while on the trail;
24-105/4L IS has the advantage of longer reach (which could be a real advantage sometimes), but at the expense of the macro mode, some IQ (eg not as sharp, more distortion) and a little bit of size and weight.


----------



## martti (Sep 12, 2015)

On a crop body, I would probably have the 24mm pancake and on my FF the 40mm pancake.
On the FF shot there are enough pixels to crop if you want and instead of carrying a wide angle I can do panorama.
I went to Mauritius with a 24-70 and a 70-200 f/2.8 zooms. Next time I'll carry something lighter and more discreet, probably an Olympus Tough 4.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 12, 2015)

bedford said:


> Next week I will be leaving for a two week vacation on Mauritius. We are also planning to do some (short) hikes.
> 
> I will take my 60D together with the Sigma 17-50/2.8, the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6.
> (For snorkeling I'll take my Olympus XZ-2 and a DigaPac underwater housing.)
> ...



Depends on what is more important for you. I'd personally prefer the telezoom over the UWA-Zoom on the first hiking trip, after this experience you can always change your gear. 17 mm WA covers already a lot of landscape (even on a crop sensor), and with the telezoom you won't miss tropical birds - Mauritius should be great for birding, like many tropical islands. Tele is also very nice for landscape details. I personally find such images often more interesting than typical mainstream WA/UWA shots, but that's a matter of taste. The Tammy 70-300 is less than 800 g, so that's not really heavy, if you are healthy. 

Have a nice trip!


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 12, 2015)

I really like telephoto and my experiences with the following combos are good:
5D + 100mm Macro & EOS M + EF-M 22mm or
5D + 70-200 f/4 & EOS M + EF-S 10-22mm via adaptor
Dream combos:
5D + 100-400 ii & EOS M + EF-M 11-22 or
5D + hypothetical 40-200 f/4.0 + EOS M + EF-M 11-22
EOS M is a very comfortable body for seldom used lenses because it fits with lens in a lens compartment of a photo backpack. And you have the option to use the tele on APS-C.
Another idea would be to use the EOS 100D (SL1) instead of the EOS M to stay into "one" system.

In your case:
For hiking perhaps your 60D with 70-300 zoom plus the Olympus compact might be a good "team" ...


----------

