Mountain Lenses

[Tarheelvolvo]

Hey Guys,

Been awhile since I've posted but wanted to see what your thoughts were for some good lenses to take on climbs/hikes. Obviously weight is a factor but would love to capture the majesty of high-altitude climbing that you found on the big peaks (14,000'+). Maybe some wide-angle lenses or nice telephoto ones? I know the 70-200mm is a fav. among this crowd but since weight/size are factors...was curious how small and light we could get without sacrificing to much functionality.

Thanks for the reply's!

[JSPhoto]

What, no 1200mm ????
The 70-200 f2.8 IS or non-IS version are not that heavy in my opinion, but I think durabilty would be an issue with any other lens, the added weight of the 70-200 vs 70-300 is all protection of the lens where as the 70-300 and similar design lenses couldn't take the same pounding, especially if they happen to bump rocks. The lighter metal and plastic lenses just wouldn't last long, while the 70-200 would give years of use ...they are tough, and I'd take that over having to keep replacing a lens.

JS

[Tarheelvolvo]

Fair enough...and most of the time my pack is weighing less than 20lbs (just food/water and maybe an extra fleece or jacket to put on up top) so the weight of a 70-200 lens wont be overly cumbersome. Oh, I was looking at the 70-200 f/4L sans IS cause I figure most my subjects wont be moving (at least I hope not!), thoughts on that over the f/2.8 considering price?

What about a wide angle lenses for capturing the big valleys and spanning views from up top. Would a 10-20(22) be a good buy? Or maybe like a 17-55 to get a good midrange then the 70-200 for longer shots....

[JSPhoto]

If you don't need low light, yeah the other 70-200 f4.0 is OK. I like the 16-35mm but it isn't cheap, any thing though that gives coverage in that area should work for you, they just are not as tough so pack them securly, maby wreapped in the fleece even the 17-55 should be OK. You may want to consider a TC as well so you can double that 70-200 and not add a lot of weight.

You don't want to try carrying the 1200mm eh hey, it only weighs 36lbs

JS

[Tarheelvolvo]

Well, my thought is to save a little coin, get the 70-200 f4L then buy the 2.8L next round. Also, would the 10-22 be better than the 17-40? Obviously all these lenses will be carried inside my pack and surrounded by fleece/jackets so they should be fine. Thanks for the help!

[JSPhoto]

I can't say which of those two is better than the other, I don't ususlly use those and only used the 16-35mm which is an awesome but expensive lens. Maybe a trip to a camera store where you can hold and possibly take a couple shots with each will help you figure that one out.

JS

[Photo-John]

What camera are you using? I assume it's a 1.6x conversion body since you're asking about the 10-22mm lens. I do a lot of serious mountain biking with camera gear. My big kit is a Canon XTi / 400D, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L, a 550EX flash, and a pair of radio slaves. I vary the amount of gear depending on the size of the ride and how important the photos are. Sometimes I actually take the little kit lens just because it's so small and light. I've also used the Canon 28-135mm IS a lot because the range is so nice on a 1.6x DSLR. I have other camera bodies but I love the small size and weight of the XTi / 400D for riding. And I haven't felt like I give up any quality or performance most of the time. High speed shooting usually happens at events or dirt jumps, not on the trail. I would expect that climbing photos would be the same. You're going to be able to plan and take your time for 95% of the photos. And lighter gear will mean you're more likely to carry it more of the time.

Like I said, I have the old Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L. It's a tank. I've used other people's 70-200 f/4L lenses a few times and I keep toying with the idea of selling my lens and getting the f/4 version. It's so much smaller and lighter. And I know I'd be willing to carry it more. The f/2.8 lens really is a punisher.

Although I bought the Tokina 12-24mm, I had (courtesy of Canon) the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens for a few months. I think it's an awesome lens. I have thought about selling the Tokina because I miss that extra 2mm on the wide end. I think it makes a big difference. I don't know if you're just hiking in the mountains or you're actually roped up and climbing. But I could see where the extra 2mm would be a big deal in a tight situation. I also think the Canon is built really well. So is the Tokina. But overall I like the Canon better.

[Tarheelvolvo]

Thanks for the info! You are right about weight and setting up shots, my subject matter wont be moving often unless I come across some wildlife (rams, goats, marmots, etc..). How much does your gear weigh overall?

Thats a good note about the 70-200 f/4L, I think you have convinced me to get one for my treks. Also, the 10-22 sounds like it will be a good lens for the panoramic shots up top and of the wonderful valleys we sometimes hike through to get to these peaks. And I have a regular 18-55 f/3.5 for those "in between" shots (came with the camera...)