[MLHSN]

Just curious what assortment of lenses people select to carry into the backcountry? What are your go-to hiking lenses? I'm going to purchase a DSLR and I'm debating between buying a package deal with the usual 18-55mm and 55-200mm or just buying the body only and selecting several different lense. I'm just wondering if I would be better off getting a wide-angle lense like a 12-24mm and something like a 50mm prime, and a 75-300mm. What do you guys carry?

[GaliWalker]

I only have three lenses: 1- 17-40mm wide-angle zoom 2- 70-200mm tele-zoom 3- 400mm tele I would like to buy a 50mm prime, but not for landscapes. The thinking is: Why would I want to shoot in a perspective that I see in. I want to use unusual angles to make things more interesting. (I'd be getting the 50mm for people shots, where my wide-angle distorts features and the 70-200mm limits my field of view.) I take the first two with me pretty much everywhere. I almost never use the 70-200mm without a tripod, so taking that one means I must take the tripod. I sometimes ditch these last two items if I have a strenuous day-hike and can't afford the extra ballast or tripod setup time. I really like my 17-40mm and 70-200mm lenses and use them both a lot. The 400mm doesn't get much use; I don't do enough wildlife photography. It's also built like a small canon and is just too heavy to cart around on hikes of any substance.

[seattlenativemike]

I have a bunch of primes and usually go with an 18mm and a 50mm if I'm being weight conscious and swap in the 21mm if not. I typically use the 50 to create panos. Example: 21mm

Zeiss 21mm

Pano of 50mm shots:

Horseshoe Lake Infinity Sunrise

[MLHSN]

Very nice Seattlenative. So you typically don't take a telephoto? For weight reasons or do you not take a lot of flower/wildlife photos? Just curious, trying to learn a bit here before I purchase. galiwalker, what kind of settings do you often use for your landscapes? I've always liked the photos from your TR's.

[Riverside Laker]

I like the 40mm pancake lens, because it's light and has such small volume. But I get out-voted by my better half, who really likes the zoom. Somehow, I enjoy the lack of freedom of a fixed-length lens. It makes you more careful about composition... somehow.

[jcocci]

When I just took one lens I took my 24-120mm. But I used my 18-35mm mostly when I was hiking and then would either still bring the 24-120mm of my 70-300mm in case i needed something longer. Depends on what kind of shooting you are doing. I tend to like wide angle stuff so I tend to lean towards that. What camera you looking to get? I've switched camera systems and have a D600 with the 18-35mm lens I am selling.

[MLHSN]

I haven't decided yet. The D600 is probably out of my price-range. What are you asking for it?

[boot up]

I would suggest clicking on the "photos" link under everyone's avatar in this thread, after they give their preference. Try to listen to the advice of people that match up with the type of shooting you want to do. Lots of different preferences, but then when I review their styles, I understand why. I shoot M4/3, so I will give my preference in "equivalent" numbers. I like a minimum of 120mm zoom and a minimum of 30mm wide angle. My favorite lens is 28-240 zoom for hiking. Sometimes I like taking my 50mm prime, because its very fast (good for low light) and the results are absolutely spectacular. But I have to get very creative on shooting and know I will miss a fair number of photo ops. My latest camera came with a 28-80mm kit lens. Its not a bad lens for crappy conditions when I know visibility will limit distance for telephoto anyway. And it only added $100 to the cost of the camera, so I don't feel quite so bad if it gets trashed in bad conditions. In general, to stereotype, I would say people fall mainly into 3 camps on this forum. 1) The Zoom and superZoom folks. 2) The Super Wide angle folks. 3) The Jugglers....i.e. the Prime folks I also hate swapping lens in the field. Its a really good way to trash your sensor. And I toss my camera into a ziplock with reusable dessicant in it on wet days. Canon cameras are especially notorious for sensors dying due to moisture. ( I know this from owning many Canons that died this way)

[jcocci]

Some good info from Boot up. It really does depend on what type of stuff you want to shoot and how many lenses you want to carry. Everyone will have an opinion on prime vs zooms and why one or the other is "better". Again its all about what you are looking for. Unless you know for sure exactly what focal range you want it may not be a bad idea to get a decent all in one and see where you end up shooting it at and go from there. Some people don't like the all in one zooms and they "lack quality" but honestly. I loved my 24-120mm but I found myself shooting mostly at the wide end of that.

[Schroder]

I use an 18-105 and that's all I carry. I was thinking of getting a higher zoom for wildlife shots but I'm thinking a camera upgrade is in the future so I've been holding off.

[kite]

for backpacking (short trips) 20mm f/1.8 50mm f/1.2 200mm f/4

[RichardJ]

I only have a 105mm macro and a 18-200mm lens. If it is wildflower season I usually take the macro. I like that it is not a zoom and my mind stays in a macro state with my vision usually down. If I take the zoom (much lighter) I move faster and have my head up more for landscapes and wildlife shots. I don't like taking both because of size and weight issues, and the hassle of changing lenses. Unfortunately I have been working hard the last few years to get my pack weights down when backpacking and have been using the point and shoot too often. My goal next season is to drop 5 more pounds somewhere (lighter gear) and bring the DSLR every time. I do hope to get a 12-24mm wide angle lens soon.

[GaliWalker]

[NacMacFeegle]

Wow, nice shots everyone! Makes me want to go out and invest in some new lenses! If only they didn't cost an arm and a leg (plus a few vital organs) Until I'm done being a poor college student I'll have to stick with my 60D and all-in-one Canon 18-200mm lens, which is great in most situations, and is ideal for backpacking since I don't have to carry a bunch of lenses around and risk getting dirt into the camera. It is however starting to show the rigors of life as an adventure camera. Despite my best efforts to keep it safe and clean I've found that dust has penetrated the interior of the lens (don't ask me how), and I'm not sure whether to take it to a shop to be cleaned, or to invest in a brand new lens, or to save money for a long period of time until I can invest in a brand new camera with a full frame sensor and a high quality lens or two.

[Bedivere]

I think when expressing your preferences that it's important to note the sensor size of your camera as this has a HUGE influence on the field of view of the lens you use. When speaking of DSLRs, a DX sensor camera with a 16-85 lens will have essentially the same focal range as an FX sensor camera with a 24-120. I find the 50mm very limiting in outdoor photography with a DX sensor camera. If I was going to stitch a bunch of shots together in a panorama like snmike's example I might change my mind, but not only have I not had the best luck with stitching software, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he shoots with an FX sensor. In fact, I find the 50mm a fairly worthless focal range on a DX altogether, but that's just me and the way I shoot. YMMV and all that. I hear it's an excellent portrait lens but I've never had the need for that. For indoor work like family gatherings, going to live shows at small venues, or walking around I'd very much like to have a fast (f1.8 or better) 24mm. I own two lenses at the moment, a 16-85 and a 70-300. I very rarely use the 70-300 unless I'm highly confident of finding wildlife to shoot. so, most of the time I'm just carrying my D7000 with the 16-85. If I can swing it, I'd like to upgrade to the FX sensored D750 next year with the 24-120 f4 lens. I'd love to have a big selection of primes as prime lenses deliver the ultimate in sharpness/clarity with minimum distortion but I'm poor and usually trying to travel as light as possible. I'm sure if I could afford a nice selection of primes I'd make excuses to carry them... The 16-85 is a very sharp lens and while it has a fair amount of distortion that's not usually an issue in nature photography. It's produced some very nice pictures for me:

Link

If you have the full 16mp version of this you can zoom in and clearly pick out ski and skin tracks all over the place. (Chair Peak, Alpental Backcountry)

Link

Link