[HenrikDK]

Do you have a good tripod? The 55-300 will be pretty good stopped down, whereas the Da* 300 is sharp from f4. However, as always, a good tripod will make all the difference, especially with these long lenses.

I got my 31mm fairly recently and took a few test pictures handheld. Fairly good light, however itt did NOT look great when pixel peeping. Tried again with a tripod, and voila - razor sharp! Because of its speed it is fairly easy to get good pictures with the DA* handheld - much harder with the 55-300.

[normhead]

I've been thinking about the carry bit, I think I can add a bit more of relevance.

I guess I must have made myself sound like some kind of carrying wuss. In the summer I work as a canoe guide. It's not uncommon to carry a load like the one I'm carrying here, 20-30 pounds on my back and a 55 pound cane on my shoulders... ad that up, I think it comes to 80-85 pounds, on a gien day I may carry that kind of weight as far as 3 miles. So I don't really qualify as the kind of person anyone here needs to be lecturing about getting in shape.



Tess and I actually start working out in Feb. so we're in shape for the season, once we get into full swing we're doing elliptical and weight training, I do about an hour a day, it's harder for women to build muscle mass (less testosterone), Tess often does 1.5 to 2 hours, but by canoe season she'll be as strong as I am.

Next exhibit, me with my gear for a typical hike.



My camera K-3 and 60-250 weigh a little over 5 pounds. Actualy weight, I have no idea what the Pentax numbers add up to. I using my scale.
My sigma 70 macro. weighs 1.3 pounds
My Sigma 8-16 weighs 1.3 pounds
My 18-135 weighs 1 pound.
Teleconverters and back up batteries, 1 pound
K-o1 with short lens 1.3 pounds.
Tripod 3 plus pounds, and if you using a 4 pound lens, that's as light as you're going to be able to use.

I consider that a minimum, Usually Tess will be carrying another couple lenses like the Tamron 17-50 I can use if I feel they're appropriate and she isn't suing the, There's nothing worse than coming back from a 10 mile hike and wanting to do it again tomorrow because you didn't have the right lens.

I'm already at 13 pounds. No food, no rain gear, no bug stuff, no first aid or knife yet, and already 13 pounds. What I consider a minimal kit is already probably over 20 pounds.

A little bit about carrying... unlike what's implied it's not about the weight, it's about how it carries. Either Tess or myself is fully capable of carrying 60 pounds 2 miles if the weight is balanced right.

The problem with carrying camera gear is, there's no good way to carry it. If you put in in a comfortable pack, I'll carry 40 pounds all day. If you want it convenient to shoot pictures with it becomes another issue. In the Picture above I'm using a Lowenpro technical belt, and the issue with that is the shoulder straps. It's better than anything else I've carried with, but after a long day the straps dig into your shoulders. So it's actually the pain of your carrying device that's likely to slow you down. And the more comfortable it is to carry with, the hotter it is to wear. There's no good trade off. I've done the whole everything in a back pack, where it takes considerable time to get at your camera gear. In my experience you won't have many pictures, it''s not worth 3 or four minute of prep to take a snap shot. I walk with the 21 ( K-5 or K-01) on a camera body on my front and the 60-250 in a holster on my belt that can be removed quickly and without encumbrance. I could carry it much more comfortably in a back pack, but hey, I'm committed.

This is what I'm comfortable carrying. The hike in the photo above with my pack was 7km, so maybe 4 miles, and I was sore. So if you think you're in better shape, more committed, whatever, have at her, I'm just saying. I'm not feeding you any lines about what soldiers carry, or who's committed and who's not, I'm sharing some advice from a guy who's carried 15 pounds of camera gear for as much as 5 miles in a single day, as well as boats and tents and food.

And my opinion based on those qualifications, is you don't want to carry a heavy lens like over 5 pounds for much more than a Km unless you're walking on a paved road or sidewalk. I've carried the 60-250 around my neck for 10 miles before. By the way my 60-250 weighs 1286 gm, not the 1040 in the spec sheet. So factory specs on a 2 pound lens are half a pound off, do the math,

There are days when I'm not feeling up to it and I just bring the Sigma 18-250 and hope I don't see anything special. Anyway, that's my take. Obviously others here have different experience, so I have to ask, how far have any of you actually carried a heavy lens set up, say over 5 pounds in a ready to shoot case? I'm either going to have to stop this parade of bad advice or figure out what I'm doing wrong.

The only way to easily carry a heavy lens for any difference is over your shoulder, mounted on the tripod. And if you fall, you can kiss your set up goodbye.

As a very smart man said before I bought my DA*60-250, "heavy lenses will suck the life out of you." We were talking about 2 pounds. Talking a 5 pound lens and 2 pound body, well , the pain of carrying increases exponentially by the pound over a long period of time.

Taking a two pound camera ( just measured my camera, with battery, I'm not interested in what Pentax says it weighs) and a 5 pound lens over rough terrain, where you want the camera protected as much as possible when you fall, yet accessible for wildlife, is tough. I suggest you carry 7 pounds of eggs for ten miles on a neck strap or holster before you invest in a heavy lens for a 10 mile hike, just to see if you can manage it.

And if you're more "committed" than me, let's have a beer, We can tell some stories. Most of the guys I see with heavy lenses set up in the back of their cars in a parking lot and carry less than 100 meters. It's amazing to find so many long haulers here on the forum.

Sorry about the rant, I just hate to see peole being talked into thinking they can do something they can't, and that if hey don't carry as much camera gear as soldier does, they're wimps. For most people, a small back pack with a couple consumer grade lenses is all they can muster.

I know because, when they aren't the supermen the think they are on the canoe trips, I'm the guy who picks up the slack for them. And I've seen quite a few really grumpy people struggling with heavy camera equipment on trips. It really did ruin their lives for a time, and nature being what it is, sometimes you get next to nothing for your effort.

[ramseybuckeye]

Last May I rented a 50-500 and carried it around for three days from from dawn to dusk. I use a Black Rapid sling which has a nice wide shoulder and connected it to the lens for balance. I was also carrying a massive Q kit at the time.

[wildman]

Long lenses and hiking

That's a contradiction in terms.

[Pål Jensen]

As a very smart man said before I bought my DA*60-250, "heavy lenses will suck the life out of you." We were talking about 2 pounds. Talking a 5 pound lens and 2 pound body, well , the pain of carrying increases exponentially by the pound over a long period of time.

This is very true. Going lighter makes you more mobile and less tired and hence more inspired for photography. I used to carry a lot of gear with no problem until I for once made the same mountain trip with a minimum of gear. That was a revelation.

Another thing is that I'm getting older and for some reasons heavier......


I plan to add the 15 Limited, the 20-40 Limited and the 55-300 to my kit. This is a terriffic lightweight outfit cover almost all focal lenght one could reasonably want. My super telephoto work while travelling anywhere far from the car or boat will be the FA* 200/4 + the Q7; this combo has a lot of potential!
I'm coming to the conclusion that if it doesn't fit into my Lowe Pro Orion AW backpack it isn't worth carrying...

[lesmore49]

I have the Sigma 150-500. It's a very good lens, but heavy and awkward. I've hiked for 45 minutes to an hour with it and I wouldn't want to go much further. I'm a big guy, well over 6 feet and around 240 lbs. and don't have problems with lugging around equipment. But the Bigma with my heavy K-5....I have a battery grip and two batteries...it's a heavy body/lens combo.

I have one of the first 55-300 lenses (bought new in June 2008) and I dunno...but the pictures are very sharp. I've been an avid photographer for around 46 years...have Leitz, Mamiya medium format, used to take pics professionally...so it might be my long experience...or maybe I've just got a really good , early production 55-300.

Anyways I like it....for hiking. Light, relatively robust, sharp.

[crewl1]

Tony this thread may be of interest if you are considering the DA*300
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/265362-comp...ml#post2846118

[DSims]

It does! But then again, even a 3.5 ounce 67-225mm F/13-22 lens sounds interesting.

Which lens did you have in mind here?

[ElJamoquio]

The q's 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5.

[DSims]

Tony this thread may be of interest if you are considering the DA*300
Comparing Sigma 50-500 OS to DA*300 w HD-TC

Very interesting - thanks for posting this!

---------- Post added 06-09-14 at 10:08 PM ----------

It does! But then again, even a 3.5 ounce 67-225mm F/13-22 lens sounds interesting.

The q's 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5.

Yes, I suppose 3.5 ounces is the key statistic. But didn't something go wrong with math on the FL here?

[jimr-pdx]

All this talk of major packing weight makes me still happier with my quantaray 100-300! Yes it's the f/4.5-6.7 so lots of sunlight needed, but for $30 its size and general iq is fine by me. It focuses faster than the da55-300 too... or hunts faster in low light I can't imagine adding a tc to steal more light, but I'll give a 1.4x a try some time.

[bdery]

I do carry a backpack, but it typically is loaded with water, tripod, tools, first aid kit, etc.

I see no problems here, except if your tripod is a huge and heavy beast. I've received the Sirui T-025X as a gift and cannot believe how much of a difference a good and light tripod makes (that tripod is 11.8 inches long when folded, 1.8 pounds total, and still sturdier than most light aluminum tripods).

On the last hike I made, I made a bet with friends and ended upcarrying four beers to the top of a mountain, alonside m y tripod, K-3, sigma 17-70, DA21, Da40, DFA 100 WR, 2 liters of water, food for four people, snacks, a jacket,a rain cover, some odds and ends. the beer was wonderful (and drew jealous looks from other hikers ) but I could exchanged it for a longer lens and be better off regarding weigth.

The backpack will make all the difference in the world.

So true.

Most camera specific bags are under engineered from my perspective and that is what is going to contribute most to discomfort during and after the hiking trip.

What he said.

fitting your body shape regardless of what camera equipment you end up taking with you.

You need a bag properly fitted to your specific body, and it's unlikely that a camera backpack will fit, there are not enough models available.

[normhead]

Last May I rented a 50-500 and carried it around for three days from from dawn to dusk. I use a Black Rapid sling which has a nice wide shoulder and connected it to the lens for balance. I was also carrying a massive Q kit at the time.

What, it was never on the tripod being used for taking pictures? That really sucks. For me, half the joy of pictures is stopping at a place where I can get the weight off my back and leave it on the ground for a bit, while I do camera stuff.

I'm not saying there aren't people who can do it, I'm just saying, find out if you're one of them, and work your system out before you buy the lens. The first thing you should know before you buy a heavy lens for hiking is figure out if carrying it is going to disrupt your hike.

Here's what it's like for me on the last trip. Just of 8 km of hiking (5 miles), 4 hours, 37 keepers, 10 keepers an hour or one every six minutes, I probably took at least 3 to 5 images at every stop, and some stops I got no keepers.

The main lenses used were the Sigma 8-16, a few with the K-01 and 21, but the workhorse (17 images) was the 70 macro, 6 were taken with the 21 ltd), 8 with the Sigma 8-16 and a few with the 40xs.. The DA* 60-250 never made it out of the case. Just because you bring a long lens on a hike, doesn't mean you'll get a chance to use it. At one location (the images around the dam, I used 3 different lenses, 8-16, 70 macro, 21 ltd.)

The vast majority of these images could have been taken with the 18-135, which is a surprisingly good flower lens at 135mm and minimum focusing distance. Excellent center sharpness and the softer edges sweeten the bokeh.

That to me is a pretty average hike. The thing you realize with the long lens is, when you want it, you really really want it. I didn't get a chance to use it one this hike, but if there'd been a moose across a meadow... it's happened before.

Long lenses are usually for if you're going someplace where it's a short walk along groomed trails to take pictures of things like small birds where it's absolutely essential to have one. The trail in the following is groomed in places, but also has boulder gardens that are treacherous when wet, patches that are mud holes after rains and stretches that can be difficult to navigate even not carrying heavy gear. If you want to enjoy the hike, take your 18-135. If you want to enjoy the pictures without "I didn't have my "fill in the blank" lens, remorse, figure out how much you can carry and be ready to experience a bit of pain, How much, the decision is yours. But in my experience, don't be thinking there's an easy way to carry a heavy lens. A bearable way perhaps, but a price will be paid.

The reason I carried the 60-250 on this hike is, for my art sale portfolio, I don't have enough wildlife prints, and when I finally get a few, I want them to stand out, but I don't know why anyone else wouldn't just go with a Sigma 18-250 or similar "do everything" lens.

Spring-2014-Track-And-Tower-Hike Slideshow by Norm_Head | Photobucket

[TonyTurley]

Do you have a good tripod? The 55-300 will be pretty good stopped down, whereas the Da* 300 is sharp from f4. However, as always, a good tripod will make all the difference, especially with these long lenses.

I do . . a Sirui T-025.

Big snip

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Norm. I've often thought I'd like to make my living in the Great Outdoors. I can see you and Tess put a lot of work into it. Those are very nice photos in your slideshow, by the way.

That's a contradiction in terms.

How so?

My super telephoto work while travelling anywhere far from the car or boat will be the FA* 200/4 + the Q7; this combo has a lot of potential! I'm coming to the conclusion that if it doesn't fit into my Lowe Pro Orion AW backpack it isn't worth carrying...

Now the FA*200/4 and the Q is an intriguing idea. I know my Q and long lens chops definitely need some work. I just haven't had much success getting good pics with it and the Minolta MC 30cm. I realize that lens isn't in the same league as the DA*300, but I have gotten very good pics with my Sony NEX and the MC 300. Still working on the Q.

I have one of the first 55-300 lenses (bought new in June 2008) and I dunno...but the pictures are very sharp. I've been an avid photographer for around 46 years...have Leitz, Mamiya medium format, used to take pics professionally...so it might be my long experience...or maybe I've just got a really good , early production 55-300.

Anyways I like it....for hiking. Light, relatively robust, sharp.

The more I read these replies, the more I think I need to look more critically at what I need/want. I'm asking myself now if it's really IQ I'm fixating on, or is it lens lust?

I do appreciate all of the replies, and I recognize that as with most things in life, there are a wide variety of opinions/preferences. I definitely need to do what works best for me, and not compare myself to what others can and can't, or won't, do. What has worked best to now has been portability. While I don't put in the same grueling miles as Norm and Tess, I do like longer hikes sometimes, and our terrain can be pretty unforgiving. As for sales . . . nah. I've sold exactly two prints, and those were to people who saw one of my pics and asked to buy a print. Some people seem to make a good living at photography, and at one time I thought I wanted to do that, but I've given up on the idea. Now, I just take pics of things that interest me, and hope that when I share them, others enjoy them, too. So for now, I'm just going to focus on making the highest quality photos with the equipment I have, and look into the possibility of getting one of the shorter * lenses to go with the Q.

[lesmore49]

Reading Normhead's last post makes a lot of sense. When I think about it, the main reason....only...I carry my Sigma 150-500 is on the off chance I come across something (animal/bird) far away I would like to get a picture of.

Mostly my smaller lenses are used. My 50 Macro, my 55-300 (a great general purpose lens)....and I'm finding my new favourite...my WR 18-135. I do find that the majority of my best photos on hikes were probably taken with my 55-300....some close up and birds/animals.

I have a feeling my 18-135 will be in the same class as the 55-300 for getting the job done. Great range and sharp...I find.