[Conqueror]

What DSLR lens(es) do you take on a hike up a mountain?

-I think perhaps an 31mm, 50-135mm + K5iis is too much

Do you even take your DSLR up mountains?

[jatrax]

Hike or climb? I hike up mountains all the time. But I don't climb mountains. Climbing implies ropes and special gear and skills. Hike implies walking up the trail.

When hiking I usually carry k-3, da 12-24, da*16-50, da*60-250 and HD 1.4x RC. Plus tripod, filters and other stuff.

And lunch. Taking lunch and water is always a good idea.

[Conqueror]

Not climbing - talking a full day or days up mountain though

Yup that includes food and water in the load

[normhead]

Try a DA 18-135.... I find at some point on your way up a mountain, you start thinking about tossing stuff. If I was going to add a second lens, it would probably t be the DA 200 ƒ2.8 or DA*300 ƒ4, and whichever I took, I'd also take the 1.4 TC. But for just one lens the DA 18-135. Excellent IQ 18-60, excellent centre sharpness 18-135mm. Not many lenses can give you that much range, and excellent sharpness at so many settings.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-13-2015 at 12:02 PM.

[GlennG]

K5 and a standard zoom seems to do the trick for me. Maybe a prime - I have DA 40 - for a higher quality shot. I've taken a long lens before and not used it on multiple occasions, but you do have to know a little about your style of shooting. Mostly, I'm hiking, not climbing. One hike was very strenuous and it was almost like climbing. On that one, the K5, standard zoom, and DA 40, along with water and food was plenty enough weight, and the backpack itself was starting to get difficult.

[Conqueror]

Try a DA 18-135

Gahh Norm you keep trying to sell me this lens and I keep finding a no from somewhere

You might have me this time though

It probably is one of the best bets for the mountains... as I've found out lots or even a couple of heavy lenses isn't ideal

[jimr-pdx]

I'm fine with the body and 50-135; having no FA31 I'd go with my K24 and maybe seek out a DA40. I'd prefer the 20-40 Limited and it's on my list.

edit - extra pressure, I see an 18-135 just hit the marketplace (not mine)!

[Conqueror]

Yeah the 20-40 is possibly on my list... but the one time I do appreciate a long/tele lens is up a mountain

[starbase218]

I'd probably take the 16-50 and/or 12-24. Maybe a tele, it depends. But I wouldn't want to have the 18mm of the 18-135 as my widest angle.

[RMabo]

FA 135 f/2.8 for tele and the DA 35 f/2.8 Macro for macro and normal. More lenses than that would be too heavy for me.

[sholtzma]

Well, there are minimalists who believe in taking as little gear as possible (whether to keep weight down or for other reasons), and there are maximalists (like myself) who believe in covering all the possibilities. But the first question I think you should ask is, what kinds of images do I expect to reveal themselves? If you are mostly after landscapes, then a wide angle zoom and maybe a mid-range zoom could be sufficient--or some primes in that range. If you expect to photograph birds, you'll likely need focal reach. If you expect to photograph small flora, perhaps a macro. What are you after?

[vonBaloney]

Depends how good you are at hiking up mountains. Are you used to hiking up mountains carrying a backpack? Will you be at high elevation? (There is a big difference between hiking at 3000ft and 10000ft.) If you don't know, keep it light and focus on your essentials -- food, water, sun/rain protection. I wouldn't want to be carrying more than 10lbs or so if I didn't know I could handle it (on a mountain). And assume it is going to take you at least twice as long as you would think.

[normhead]

Gahh Norm you keep trying to sell me this lens and I keep finding a no from somewhere

You might have me this time though

It probably is one of the best bets for the mountains... as I've found out lots or even a couple of heavy lenses isn't ideal

Don't take it personally, I try and sell everybody this lens.

How come Pentax gives the 150-450 to kenspro and not me. I don't get it.

But don't be like those other guys and come back to me saying "how come my pictures aren't like yours?" I hate that.

If you're that type buy a 16-85 and blame bdery

I can recommend it, but like every lens of this type, as in well less than $1000, not everyone likes it.

My wife doesn't like it for grief sake, although she did lower herself to take it away for the weekend.

[Heie]

Hike - anything I want, although I haven't been hiking since getting into off-camera flash, however if there's a good reason to, I have no objection to carrying a lightstand and a couple of speedlights.

Actually climbing? Like with gear and harnesses and ropes? When I was a fresh lieutenant in Germany (about four summers ago), I found a civilian mountaineering company that would lead me up the Matterhorn (which, unfortunately was never attempted - stupid weather). Regardless, we climbed for a week all around Chamonix-Mount Blanc on both the Italian and French sides. I climbed (both on the glacier, which is more of just a hike) and technical climbing, with a 45L pack. that was filled with my gear, food, water, and the bottom sleeping compartment. Laid out for the repeating day trips (no overnighters) during week, everything looked like this:



And packed up:



One of the images I shot after a rappell (HEAAVVVYYYY fog), K-7 + DA 55-300 (non-WR)



Climbing up this awesome alpine rock piece, backpack on. The wind was so strong at times I felt I would be blown off - hence the hood being worn to protect my neck/ears. (Pentax WG-1):



A more technical piece, backpack still on (Pentax WG-1):



And then the "actual" images I walked away with from the excursion, all with the K-7 and the 55-300 except the first wide angle shot, which was with the 12-24.












***I'm just seeing now that you meant just hike, not anything technical. Instead of deleting all of the above, I'll keep it as it may be of use to someone else. And I'm too invested to delete typing all that up and linking all the images haha

Regarding just hiking, as you mentioned, it really depends on how comfortable you are carrying weight. I'm comfortable with quite a heavy pack (stupid Army ), but that's not the case for everyone. I know many people that shy away from adding a DSLR and a mere kit lens because of the weight and bulk, much less multiple lenses like I would.

So I guess it depends, and I'll mention my recommendations, but broken up by the type of hike.

Day Trips (Out and Back) - whatever you want, honestly. Are you running to catch sunrise/sunset at your favorite overlook? Then certainly prioritize the wide angle stuff. If you are going to pay attention to some of the wildlife, then perhaps the DFA 100 Macro WR or the 55-300 WR.

Overnighters - here is where you have to be more aware of what you are packing and keep it to two lenses. The 16-85 and 10-17 would be my recommendation. Excellent standard zoom that has wide angle to short tele covered, and with a WR package and excellent resolution (proven as an outstanding standard lens). Then the 10-17 would do excellently for the ultra wide angle stuff. I've used the 8-16 before (I'll explain in a bit about that experience), but I prefer the 10-17 as it is much smaller, lighter, faster (aperture), and despite being only 10mm vs 8mm, it is significantly wider in it's field of view thanks to being a fisheye. If you are still determined to carry a tele lens for longer stuff, and the DA* 60-250 has you intimidated by the size (certainly not something to just drop in your bag without deliberately choosing to thanks to its heft), then the DA 55-300 WR may still be an issue. It's quite a bit smaller, but it's not exactly tiny. I have found the DFA 100 Macro WR to be an excellent telephoto lens when I travel as it has outstanding resolution and can allow for some SERIOUS cropping if need be. And then what do you know, it can even double as a WR macro lens too

The other thing that I would HIGHLY recommend is a good tripod. Yes, they are bulky, heavy, etc., but I am 10000% confident that I have found the absolute best travel/hiking tripod there is. Full stop. I've become accustomed to "carrying" the tripod when on the move by just looping it on my belt loop by the carabineer (which you can use to hang your bag for instant stability):

Lastly, the final thing I wanted to mention (other than the obvious - extra batteries, memory cards, etc.). How to actually carry your camera. I love the OP/TECH system, as it's interchangeable between the different carrying methods using the same quick release snaps. As first I was worried about how they were going to survive rough treatment, however after a deployment of combat camera in Afghanistan, I can assure you that you have nothing to worry about with regard to the snaps/threading failing. I recommend both the SLING STRAP as well as the BACKPACK/REPORTER.

The SS is a cross-body strap that allows the connector to slide up and down when you raise/lower the camera. I prefer it over Rapid Strap or similar for two reasons. OP/TECH is FAR cheaper, as well as connects to the camera strap lugs, rather than the tripod plate. The Backpack/Reporter is comprised of two adjustable-length straps (from about 7 inchs to just about a foot long) that securely attach to the 1 inch webbing on the outside of your hiking pack straps. Holding the camera essentially in the same manner as you would using a normal neck strap however there's no weight on your neck, and it also holds it up a lot higher (rests on your check rather than you gut). Additionally, as you know with using neck straps with a high-backed hiking pack - it removed the annoyance of getting the strap back there between it and your neck (if you overload your pack). Here's me in Afghanistan using both the SS and the B/R while on patrol. K-30/DA* 16-50 on top (B/R), the K-5/Grip/DA* 60-250 on the Sling Strap below it:



Lastly, as I mentioned above regarding the use of the Sigma 8-16. When I was in New Zealand (warning - epic photo essay to follow if you head to the link ), I spent about 100 km on multi-day hikes and carried the K-30, 16-50, and 8-16 as my two lenses during the actual hikes, and that combo was perfect for versatility and my needs. I didn't find a need for tele (although if I had the DFA at the time, it would have certainly come in handy on a few select shots). I would estimate that the 16-50 covered about 85% of my needs and the 8-16 came out only on very select shots that called for the extreme wide angle. Hence my recommendation about the 16-85 being perfect for the job. Also, I carried the tripod that I linked above during that entire trip (and my entire three week trip to Scotland as well, which I carried the K-3, 10-17, 16-50, and the DFA 100 WR only for the entire time), and found that tripod to be one of the most critical components of my kit. I would have rather left behind a lens than that tripod.

Anyway, best of luck and remember to pack extra socks too

I hope you found this helpful

-Heie

[jimr-pdx]

Depends how good you are at hiking up mountains. Are you used to hiking up mountains carrying a backpack? Will you be at high elevation? (There is a big difference between hiking at 3000ft and 10000ft.) If you don't know, keep it light and focus on your essentials -- food, water, sun/rain protection. I wouldn't want to be carrying more than 10lbs or so if I didn't know I could handle it (on a mountain). And assume it is going to take you at least twice as long as you would think.

Very true! For example a Sierra Nevada peak can be grueling - plus the view from the top would be served well by a wide lens. Other peaks may be somewhat isolated and telephoto views would be more interesting. For any Sierra-type jaunts that may be in my future the DA10-17 would find a spot!

For that matter, macro would be nice in many instances. Definitely depends on what mountain you climb..