|
Somehow I overlooked the fact that hiking/camping is a major potential factor driving your decision. Let me offer a bit of perspective as someone who purchased his K-7 and DA35macro specifically for the purpose of backpacking continuously from Georgia to Maine with them in tow:
You can do a LOT with a single focal length. I had one lens for my entire 6-month, 2200-mile journey and it was fixed. And when you're hiking around, weight matters. It really does. Unless you're only hiking a handful of miles a day and expect a LOT of time to shoot, and have a huge backpack where you can carry extra gear and predict you will actually take the time and effort necessary to remove it, dig around in your supplies, swap lenses, carefully compose shots, etc., then I don't think you should backpack with more than one lens. Anything that's not already on your camera and immediately accessible is dead weight you probably won't get around to using.
So, point number 2, mentioned above: your camera needs to be immediately accessible. I had a holster-style camera bag that I converted to a fanny-pack of sorts, so I could have the camera resting at my left hip, literally at the ready like a trusty firearm whenever I needed it. If you can't reach if with your hands while still wearing your backpack, you're probably not going to use it, unless, again, you're expecting a GREAT deal of leisure time. So your camera+lens needs to be small enough to fit into a convenient, independent camera bag. Others may disagree with me on this, but this was the strategy I settled on and it worked for the entire Appalachian Trail. You can't have a camera swinging around your neck when you hike, and it can't be sitting in your backpack. In the former situation you're not going to end up anywhere and run the risk of hurting your equipment; in the latter, you will simply never use it. Sad, but true!
Alright, so size matters, weight matters, accessibility matters. I do feel that in the backcountry, versatility also matters. Again, unless you think you're going camping primarily as a photographic expedition, you might be surprised at how difficult it is to consider swapping lenses a reasonable activity. So you really need a focal length, or a focal length range, that you are comfortable with. This is going to be different for different people. I chose my 35macro because it was a middle of the road focal length lens with excellent close focus abilities. However, I was disappearing into the wilderness for 6 months, so you might not be as concerned about making sure all your bases are covered for half a year. You might feel like going on a camping trip with an eye for wide angle, or an eye for telephoto, or an eye for macro, and hey, you'll get the other types next time. Something to think about...
Another thought: I don't know where you're going to be hiking, but it's surprising how dark and close the forest actually is. If you are expecting lots of sweeping vistas this may be less of a problem, but there are surprisingly few wide angle scenes to be captured under canopy. And when there are, it's going to be dark -- are you packing a tripod? Lightweight? Will it support a large lens?
All this may not be very helpful: I can tell you that on my own trip there was no shortage of times when I wished I had something way longer, or something way wider, or a zoom in this range, or whatever. Backpacking photography is a long list of compromises.
Which ones will you make?
| 
View Poll Results: What WA or UWA lens would you get? 
Originally posted by northcoastgreg 
. Maybe i'm just waiting for one to pop-up with a price i won't be able to resist.
.
Post #15 by v5planet
Similar Threads 
