Decided on which camera as first DSLR, now.. which lenses for long backpacking trips?

[GertjanGoetynck]

Hey all!

I finally decided to go for the D7100 as my first DSLR camera after outgrowing my Olympus Tough TG1 (still has it's place, but just feels limiting.)

Now the hardest part has come: which lenses should I get?

I plan to use the camera mainly on backpacking trips so I can't take too many lenses with me. How many lenses would you guys suggest? And also, which ones?

I was thinking to get the Tokina 11-16 lens for sure. My eye fell on it at first when I did some research about night photography, but I think this lens looks to be very good for landscapes aswell?

If it is, I basically need 1-2 more lenses to cover the rest of the spectrum. I myself was thinking about the Nikkor 18-200 mm but I am completely new to the DSLR world so I don't really know what I'm talking about...

So in short: How many lenses would you suggest taking on an extended backpacking trip, and which ones would it be knowing I would use them for Night photography, Landscape, some wildlife and overal documenting the trip?


Thanks alot in advance!

 

[wyogirl]

depends. Do you want to shoot landscapes, wildlife, people.... all of the above?? How much space do you have and how much weight do you really want to carry? Would you rather have 3 good lenses or 1 ok lens? It all depends on what you want here.

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

It feels like 2 lenses would be optimal, 3 at max.

When it comes to space, I'd be using a Lowepro Toploader with whichever zoom lens I buy to carry the camera outside of my backpack, and pack the other lens (or lenses if I decide to go with 3) in my backpack. (I am not planning to buy a specialized photography backpack made for hiking since they just don't seem built for serious backpacking, way too small for that. I'll just have to find a way to pack my extra lenses securely into my normal pack )

My main focus would be landscape (both day and night) and wildlife, with also some people mixed in. Knowing myself the people would come last though.. My family already complains about me on holidays we spend together because they feel like I don't take enough pictures of them, and too many of the enviroment. Considering this I'd say people are a low priority, but I'd appreciate being able to take pictures of them in a beautiful nature scene if the opportunity arises

 

[wyogirl]

Disclaimer: I do not shoot Nikon. Here is my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

As for wildlife, you will want a decent zoom. However anything over 300mm is going to be huge, heavy and not fit in that bag. SO, I would recommend either the 70-200 2.8 or the much cheaper 70-300 (which is more reach, but slower, it is also cheaper). The 70-200 will do well in lower light situations.
For landscape you will want something wider than 70mm so something in the range of the normal 18-55 kit lens, or a faster version of similar focal lengths. I shoot Canon and I have a Tamron brand 28-75mm and I love this range. I hardly ever want anything wider than 28, but on occasion it happens.

FYI- you can get neoprene cases for just lenses to pack in your bag, there are also lens wraps.

 

[goodguy]

I would suggest

1.Nikon 18-105mm VR or Nikon 18-140mm VR depends of your wallet, both good lenses but the 18-140m has bigger focal length and thus is more expensive
2.Nikon 70-300mm VR excellent and very reasonably priced telezoom
3.Nikon 50mm 1.8G or Nikon 50mm 1.4G or Nikon 50mm 1.4D for low light, I own the 1.4D and LOVE this lens, super sharp and very reasonably priced especially when you buy it used.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hey all!

I finally decided to go for the D7100 as my first DSLR camera after outgrowing my Olympus Tough TG1 (still has it's place, but just feels limiting.)

Now the hardest part has come: which lenses should I get?

I plan to use the camera mainly on backpacking trips so I can't take too many lenses with me. How many lenses would you guys suggest? And also, which ones?

I was thinking to get the Tokina 11-16 lens for sure. My eye fell on it at first when I did some research about night photography, but I think this lens looks to be very good for landscapes aswell?

If it is, I basically need 1-2 more lenses to cover the rest of the spectrum. I myself was thinking about the Nikkor 18-200 mm but I am completely new to the DSLR world so I don't really know what I'm talking about...

So in short: How many lenses would you suggest taking on an extended backpacking trip, and which ones would it be knowing I would use them for Night photography, Landscape, some wildlife and overal documenting the trip?


Thanks alot in advance!

Ok, well I do shoot Nikon - and believe it or not I'd probably go with wyogirl at least for the most part on lens recommendations.

I use the standard 18-55 kit lens and believe it or not it really does do a pretty good job. I don't recommend the superzooms myself, like the 18-200 mm, etc. The reason for this is that lenses that cover such a huge range in focal lengths generally have to make a lot of compromises as a function of their design, and as a result they are usually not as good in the image quality department (usually both at the shortest and longest end of the zoom) as images that don't cover such a huge range of focal lengths.

The 70-300 mm Nikkor AF-S VR is an outstanding lens in all respects. It's small, lightweight, and produces amazing images. It is worth a serious look. Since you'll be outdoors and hiking I'd probably recommend it over the 70-200 mm F/2.8, the F/2.8 is a bit bulkier and heavier and at least normally you probably won't need the wider aperture since your shooting in daylight for the most part when your after wildlife. If you wanted to invest in another lens and didn't mind carrying the extra weight I'd probably lean more towards something like the Sigma 150-500 mm or the new Tamron 600 mm zoom lens. Both of this are going to be bigger and heavier than the 70-300 mm Nikkor but of course they will also give you that extra reach which can be very handy for wildlife.

Really it just sort of depends on how much weight you want to carry. My advice, read about the lens specs on these lens, add up the approximate weight of all of the equipment and then throw some dumbells in a backpack to approximate that and find out for yourself what you think is your maximum weight limit, then go from there.

One other thing to look into is that Tamrac and a few other companies also design belt systems that you can use in addition to a backpack for hiking. I've got a tamrac M.A.S. belt and some lens cases for it, so I can put some of the heavier lenses on the belt (such as my 70-200 mm F/2.8 ) and carry them that way. It's nice for redistributing some of that weight and not having my shoulders having to bear all the load. Since a lot of the "hiking" I do is at the zoo and I'm shooting both indoors and out the F/2.8 is a goto lens for me, and having it on the belt makes it easier to carry an puts it in easy reach whenever I need it..

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone! Really some interesting stuff mentioned here, gives me alot to think about

If anyone has any other suggestions, feel free to let me know!

 

[ulrichsd]

Backpacking enjoyment is inversely proportional to weight it would be nice if Nikon made a dx wide angle prime like 16mms or something.

You might want to consider the 12-28mm tokina, I'd personally rather have the extra 12mm on the long end for more normal perspective than 1mm on the wide end. And you'll be stopped down for landscapes anyway so the 2.8 aperture isn't really helpful. That paired with a tele should be good. I wouldn't want to carry anything heavier than 70-300. The 70-200 is going to be like carrying around a brick.

 

[robbins.photo]

Backpacking enjoyment is inversely proportional to weight it would be nice if Nikon made a dx wide angle prime like 16mms or something.

You might want to consider the 12-28mm tokina, I'd personally rather have the extra 12mm on the long end for more normal perspective than 1mm on the wide end. And you'll be stopped down for landscapes anyway so the 2.8 aperture isn't really helpful. That paired with a tele should be good. I wouldn't want to carry anything heavier than 70-300. The 70-200 is going to be like carrying around a brick.

Yup.. the 70-200 is a hefty lens, no doubt about it. It's not as bad when it's attached to the camera and I have it slung on the black rapid - but boy you put that thing in a backpack with a couple of other odds and ends and after a few hours you defiantly begin to notice when going over uneven terrain. The 70-300 mm is so much lighter, but of course it's 4.5 - 5.6 limits is a bit when you start losing the light, so it's a tradeoff. I usually have the 70-300 mm when I'm out hiking and I save the 70-200 mm 2.8 for trips to the zoo and the like.

 

[GertjanGoetynck]

I mainly considered the 11-16 Tokina because I plan to get really into night photography, so the extra low light performance really would come in handy.

If I would go for the 11-16 Tokina and the 70-300 Nikon, would the "blind spot" between 16 and 70 cause me any issues? This is mainly the reason I considered the 18-200 instead of the 70-300, to not have a blind spot so to speak.

 

[ulrichsd]

You could always add a 35mm prime for normal perspective and low light. All that would be more than I'd want to carry but the 35 mm prime is very light and is going to be a very small amount of the total weight compared to the d7100 + 11-16 and 70-300. All that gear, you are talking about 4+ pounds which is an awful lot for anything more than an easy weekend trip.

Oh and you will probably want a tripod for any night time photography.

You probably need to decide if you are 1. Going backpacking and want to take some pictures on your trip or 2. Going on a photography trip and need to backpack to get to your location. If 1. I'd probably take a superzoom and that's it. If 2, then maybe you should hire a Sherpa

 

[jaomul]

You mention the 11-16 but also said you were not sure on exact needs. Is the 11-16 a definite? It is a fine lens no doubt but do you need an ultra wide angle? If so and you add a telephoto- say 70-200/300 only you and your style of shooting can dictate if you will miss the gap in between. Everyone shoots different and personally a wide angle would be at the bottom of my list but each to their own.

I would say that a 70-200 2.8 is a trekking disaster. Something has to give and a compromise here may be the Tamron 70-300mm vc. A good lens but not as heavy. If you add your 11-16 and a fast 35 prime or 50mm prime you could cover a lot.

If you don't need to go so wide the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is versatile and light with good image quality also. The two Tamrons would be my choice though even with them a faster prime will always be a great thing to have when the light drops.

 

[TheLost]

What kind of backpacking trips? Day trips? or Week long trips?

My 'Day' trip backpack is:
Nikon D7100
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8
Packed into a Lowepro Flipside Sport 10L (was a Flipside 200 before i got the sport 10l for xmas)

For longer trips i used basically the same gear but swap out the 70-200 for the lighter/smaller 70-300VR and use a bigger F-Stop Loka bag with the small insert.

However, most of the time on long trips now i just take a small Sony RX100 and save my back

As for the choice between the 11-16 Tokina and the 12-24 Tokina.. I picked the 12-24 because i wanted the extra reach and have been VERY happy with the choice.

 

[ulrichsd]

The lost, thats almost my same gear I use for a day trip carrying in a sling, although I go with:
Nikon D7000
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Nikon 35mm f/1.8
Nikon 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6

I've done a few longer trips before I had a DSLR - Philmont for 8 days as a boyscout, and as an adult few long weekend trips in the Smokies, Red River Gorge and a 4 day trip in Denali backcountry a few years ago in Alaska. I know that I wouldn't want to carry all of the gear above for any of those trips, especially on the elevation change of the AT through the Smokies. Now, for any multiday trip were you are carrying a tent, sleeping bag, cooking equipment, I'd take the Sigma 18-250 and I know I wouldn't want to carry anything more than that.

 

[slow231]

11-16 is an amazing lens. Nothing picks up the vast landscapes like a UWA. the extra 1mm is 100% worth it imo. when i was shooting crop i exclusively shot that lens at 11mm (if i could have cranked the zoom ring further i would have!). There's just some shots where you need a wide angle, and when you run across these you almost can't go too wide. The 11-16 is definitely a one trick pony, but to be honest so is wide angle shooting. I just don't find situations where i need a UWA shot and then suddenly need a normal length shot. when i need UWA, i reach for my UWA, and that's that! faster is always helpful too, the DOF is so deep with the wide angle (and especially for infinity focus shots) that the 2.8 is really more about the extra light than it is for shallow DOF. I would say that you rarely run into an instance where you actually achieve shallow DOF with the 11-16 without the subject being so close that perspective distortion is rampant. IMO hand held, a faster shutter (or lower iso) goes a longer way toward grabbing sharp shots for a lens like this, especially considering how sharp as the 11-16 is wide open.

i love that lens so much i still use it as a 16mm prime on ff. I've used it plenty of times professionally and it works beautifully. I'm a gear whore and would honestly jump at a reason to buy a new lens just because, but aside from the 14-24 i really just cant justify picking up anything else (and i'd really primarily want it for that extra 2mm on the wide end!). I just don't shoot THAT wide that often to justify the big boy nikon's price or size/weight.

as far as other lenses to toss in the bag, you really have to think about what you shoot. when i'm hiking i want either wide or reach, not much in between. the gap in "normal" focal lengths wouldn't bother me in the least. what/how you shoot may be different but that's what you gotta consider.