Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What's the next lens to buy when hiking? 5DmkII and 24-105L now  (Read 10572 times)
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1431


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2009, 03:26:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: katsucurry
I'm now looking whether I should get the 70-300IS, 70-300 DO, 70-200 F4 ISL, 70-200 2.8L or 100-400L....


I own the 70-200/2.8 (both the IS and non-IS versions.) Great lens -- but I rarely take it on hiking or other trips because of its weight and size.

For me, the choice would come down to the 70-300 DO or the 70-200/4 IS. The DO lens is very compact when stored, which would be nice for travel. The one I tested seemed sharp and handled well. It has a little extra reach at the long end of 300mm.

However, I would probably choose the 70-200/4 IS lens. It's on my purchase list right now, in fact. (All I need is a spare $1100, ha ha.) This lens is incredibly sharp, light and compact, has a fixed aperture, and handles well.

If I wanted the longer 300mm lens, I would carry the 300/4 IS lens that I already own.

I've never even seen a 100-400 in person, so I can't comment.

Good luck.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2009, 04:43:27 AM »
ReplyReply

First off, I agree the with first response that  good tripod is the first accessory. You can add to that a cable release if you don't want to use the camera's built in time shutter release.

Second, I own all of the "L" lens you are considering except for the 17-40. That said, her are my experiences:

24-105 - first one was soft. Bought second one, tack sharp. This is a great walk-about lens and is my "normal lens".
16-35 MkII - Much sharper than the original version, which I used to own. - Great landscape lens if you need wider than 24mm. Downside is that it requires 82mm filters which are expensive.
70-200 f2.8 IS - Excellent lens, very sharp, but way too heavy for hiking.
70-200 f4 IS - I bought this lens recently as my "vacation" telephoto as I got tired hauling the 70-200 f2.8 version around. This lens is relatively light and the IS works great. This would be my next lens to buy if I were in your situation. Downside is it requires 67mm filters or adapter for your 72mm filters.
100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS - The same size and weight as the 70-200. This lens was my first "L" lens and I've owned it for about 6 years. My current bodies are the 1DsMkIII and 5DMkII and I'm not happy with the sharpness of this lens at all now. I sent it back to Canon 2 months ago and they replaced a "collar" inside, cleaned and recalibrated and it's not much better. This lens just does not seem to cut it with the high pixel count DSLRs. Not recommended at all.

My recommendations in order of purchase are:
1 - Good tripod - Gitzo or Manfrotto, Really Right Stuff L-bracket and RRS quick lease and cable release.
2 - 70-200 f4 IS and polarizing filter (67mm) or adapter to use your existing 72mm filters
3 - 16-35 MkII and polarizing filter (82mm)
4 - Canon 1.4 MkII extender

Of course, you will also need a good bag or backpack to haul your gear around.

Good luck and happy shooting.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
feethea
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2009, 10:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

If I remember correctly the third Canon Lens book suggested the following as an ideal lightweight landscape lens kit: -

17-40 f4L
70-200 f4L

As you don't need the fast speeds like the heavier f2.8 lenses for this kind of work.

Just my initial thoughts
Logged
Jerry Clement
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2009, 04:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

It all comes down to how you see whats around you, and how you interpret it. I have a 24/105, yet when I am limiting myself as to what lens I will carry while hiking, I find that I set out with my 16/35 and 70/200 the majority of the time. Of course there are other times when I am hiking in a specific area, that other choices are better. Then, there are the times that you are only carrying one camera and no extra lens, when the situation that you find yourself in demands that you now get creative. So, its a lot about the skills you have as a photographer, and somewhat about the equipment you choose to carry. As I see it anyway.
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2009, 07:01:41 PM »
ReplyReply

It depends on the hike. Multi day, long days, steep terrain, expected weather etc. Will you be carrying a heavy pack e.g. 50lbs +  ?
My last hike down here in in NZ was  a 3 day 6hr a day hike with a 55lb pack. The track (trail) was rough,steep and wet.

I took my 1Ds Mrk3 and 24/105. No tripod. I found the IS and zoom range of this lens the most important feature. I was shooting early morning and evening using the warm light and during the day in the rain forest. Tthe IS , high ISO feature were great. I could zoom from wide angle to short telephoto without changing lenses in the mud and rain. (not to mention the gail force winds).

Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2009, 01:17:56 AM »
ReplyReply

location, subject, personal preference are the most important, but my choice is the 24-105 and 100-400 (i have a good one)-- the 70-200 is just not enough longer than the 24-105.  and i'd rather take a hand-held pan with the 24-105 than carry a wider angle lens (assuming the subject isn't moving).  and a 77mm 500D fits both lenses for macro and i take a 77 polarizer as well

a lighter and cheaper alternative to the 100-400 or 70-200 is the 200 2.8 which is sharper than either 70-200 and is happier with the 1.4x extender (and a step-up ring allows the same 77mm 500D and polarizer to be used) - the 5D2 is so good at ISO1600 that IS is not so necessary

Logged
Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2009, 05:01:30 AM »
ReplyReply

OK
How about this as an alternative to the good suggestions made.

  24-105 F4 perfect general walk about lens for me.
  135 F2 for low light and the fast lenses aid the cameras focusing action!! It seems people forget this when discussing focus acquisition.
   Extender 1.4 makes the 135 a fast and light almost 200 F2.8.
   300 F4 IS a fantastic and LIGHT tele not available elsewhere when I last looked. All big telephoto F2.8's are two heavy and awkward.
   Extender compliments  the 300.
   Carbon travel tripod.
   Backpack for gear that opens on the INSIDE to stop light fingers.
Logged
Shutterbug2006
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2009, 05:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I took my son and girlfriend on a hike yesterday to see a place called the "Hole In the Wall". The walk in took about thirty minutes, but because it was nearly 35C degrees, I decided to only take my Canon 5D MKII and EF 24-105mm F4 IS lens.  

I took a fair number of shots, and now I regret not bringing more gear. I used to be plenty satisfied when I used the lens as a walk-around on my 5D - and since adding the 5D MKII to my collection I've been less impressed.

My collection of decent lenses include the 70-200mm F2.8/L IS and 17-40mm F4/L. Less impressive in my collection is a 50mm 1.8, a 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS and a 20-35mm F3.5-4.5, which I rarely use.

I recently placed an order for an 85mm F1.8 and a 50mm F1.4 because I don't want to be lugging around too much weight but I want to gain some quality that my less impressive lenses just don't deliver. I'm hoping that if I bring these two lenses with 17-40mm F4/L that I'll cover all my bases. The 70-200mm is a great lens, but adds just enough weight to put a damper on things when I'm travelling on foot.

I'm not as young as I once was - and I tire more easily because of a medical condition. I'm on a waiting list for surgery. A month or two after the operation I'll probably be able to lug equipment around like I once did. But I don't want to miss all the incredible photo opportunities that will pop up over the next few months with the great weather we've been having this year.

I'll be selling off the three less-decent lenses just because I never use them anymore.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 05:15:49 PM by Shutterbug2006 » Logged
DaveL
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2009, 08:49:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I read through the posts and wondered why there was only one mention of a better P&S...a poster suggested a Ricoh.

I bought a g9 when current to always have a camera with me. I use it a lot! The story elsewhere about a trip to Japan with an M8 and G9 convinced me...

Story...I went to Vail to ski. World's largest Lowepro fanny pack filled with Nikon stuff. I've been a ski instructor for 35 years. Realization?  All that weight compromised my skiing. And that's why I took the trip.

Just a thought....a g10? Or successor should one come out?

DaveL

Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2009, 09:08:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stever
location, subject, personal preference are the most important...
Yes... if you hike in the Andes, you would need a wider lens than you would in Scotland.
most people use too wide a lens for landscape, and get a great deal of nothing instead of picking out something of interest with a tele.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 438


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2009, 07:36:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, It all depends what you intend to photograph and how.

For general Hiking and Lift served skiing when I just want to photograph basic landscapes and get a feel of the place I usually only take my 17-40L on a full frame body. Sometimes I only take my Olympus E410 with its 28-85mm (35mm equiv.) lens. The Oly is much much better than it should be and the lens is unreal, focuses very very close

For photographing waterfalls and streams I must take a tripod (gitzo g2530 CF tripod) and more often than not the Sigma 12-24mm on a full frame body. I usually pack the small 50mm f2.5 macro just in case.

Packs get heavy in a hurry. You really dont want to be hauling 30lbs on a daypack for 5 hours. But for quick hikes from the car and back its ok.

I have never hiked with my 70-200 f2.8 IS, its way too heavy. I have taken the 70-200 f4L on ocassion to photograph mountain bike races in the woods. Both are awesome lenses optically. BUT if you need the speed (also if you intent to use the 1.4x converter) the the 2.8 is a must.

Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2009, 02:45:24 AM »
ReplyReply

When I go on hike etc I find the best combination for quality and weight is the 5DII, 16-35mm f2.8II, 50mm f1.2, 135mm f2.0 and a little carbon tripod that folds up to just 35cm. I spend most of my working week lugging lighting and camera gear to jobs so it's the last thing I want to do on holiday.
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3930



« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2009, 03:04:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
most people use too wide a lens for landscape, and get a great deal of nothing instead of picking out something of interest with a tele.
That's very true: it's a lesson I am slowly learning. I've returned from a week in Cumbria in which I mainly used my newly-acquired 70-200/f4 IS for the scenery. I seem to have many more interesting shots than when I used the 24-105.

Jeremy
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2009, 10:04:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Telephoto can be useful for a certain style of landscapes, although DOF can be a real PITA. I tend to favor a normal to slightly-wide FOV.

I do agree that the really wide FOV is often overused, and poorly at that. For instance the Nikon 14-24 AF-S seems to be very popular with some landscape shooters, but I could probably count on one hand the number of really good landscape shots I've seen at 14mm on full-frame; most of them have too much empty space, too much clutter, a gimmicky distrorted perspective, or some combination of the three.

Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2009, 03:54:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Telephoto can be useful for a certain style of landscapes, although DOF can be a real PITA.
This is why view cameras are ideal for landscapes, and lenses of normal construction and long focal length are better, and tend to be lighter and cheaper... having said that my zoom looks pretty good ... looking forward to comparing it to apo-digitars... have you tried DOF photomerge?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
250swb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2009, 04:24:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: katsucurry
Hi there. I've been reading this forum for a while and used the search feature but I'm still not sure which lens I should buy next so here's my first posting.

I have a Canon 5D Mark II and the kit lens 24-105 4L.  I'm thinking about doing more light hiking(nothing serious...just 3,4  hours hike) this year and thought what most people would buy next when they go hiking.

I was thinking about the following lenses.

1) Canon 16-35 2.8L II
2) Canon 17-40 4L

or if telephoto is the one I should get first then,

3)70-200 IS 2.8L (heard that it's good for portraiture and indoors)
4)70-200 IS 4L  (much lighter, super sharp, less expensive)

What would you guys recommend. Get the wide first or the telephoto?
If I were to get both at the same time, what would you prefer?

I don't think I'll get a macro lens yet.
I don't think I'll be taking early sunrise photos and even if I did, will F4 be fast enough?
I don't think I'll be shooting indoor sports although I would be taking photos at indoor parties(so maybe 2.8 is better?) and I love tennis so I'll be taking
photos of tennis at U.S. Open etc.(but that's day time although it may be cloudy. Is F4 fast enough?)

Any other information regarding how to carry gears for light hiking would be appreciated as well.
(Backpack, slingbag, trek/monopod, tripod suggestions, gear suggestions)

Sorry for asking too many things in one posting but any advice would be greatly appreciated.
(p.s. English is not my first language so sorry if there are any grammatical  mistakes, etc. You can correct me so I can learn  )

I also thought about 100-400 Canon zoom but for now, I think a 70-200 with a 1.4 telecon might be more useful for my situation(thinking about other things other than hiking).

Thanks!

Sounds like you have money burning a hole in your pocket. I'd suggest that if you can't identify a particular thing you can't do now with the lenses you already have you don't need a new lens. If you come back from a 4 hour hike and think 'damn, I wish I'd had a macro lens', then thats the one to get before the next hike. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

If on the other hand you are really looking for a lens to challenge you, or offer a view or quality you may have never experienced, try a prime. Go for a Zeiss, something that will show what IQ your camera is capable of.

Steve
Logged

pathfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2009, 12:28:59 AM »
ReplyReply

As an owner of a 70-200 f2.8 IS L, which I love in the studio, I find I rarely carry it in the field. Too big and too heavy.

 Instead, I carry my 200 f2.8 L prime.  It is sharp as a tack, will be used on a tripod anyway, and weighs a lot less than the zooms.  

Many of my shots with the 200 are as panos, so it works very nicely paired with the 24-105 on a FF camera.  I rarely miss the 70-190 part of the range, and usually shoot as 200 anyway, so I just use the prime.  Cheaper a bit also!

The 16-35 f2.8 L II is hard to beat, but I do frequently leave it behind and use a Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8 .  Again, for the same reasons I like the 200 f2.8. smaller, lighter, and very sharp indeed.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad