[bobbotron]

A good zoom and a short wide would be all you really need in my opinion. It's already all been said here. 2 or 3 lenses and you're good IMO. WR is definitely good, but I think you'd be totally fine without, people use non-WR cameras in such locations all the time. With a little smarts you'll be ok.

Bring a mini tripod, you can take amazing landscape photos with most lenses with a tripod, stopped down to f8 or so, set the camera to ISO 200, shutter as necessary.

These little tripods weigh nothing, support a dslr and can be quite useful in a lot of situations.

[Lowell Goudge]

So the weather resistance of the 55-300 is trumped by the speed and length of the 120-400 - that's useful to know. And the 16-85 is fast enough that the 16-50 isn't preferred? I realize a gap from 85-120 is smaller than one from 50-120 but I wonder if it would be noticed over the speed lost.

Does anyone have a chart that shows the 16-85 f/stop vs. focal length? I'm curious where it falls at 50mm or so. if it's only f/4 that seems rational - a one stop loss doesn't seem bad. Shots I've seen make the 16-85 look more compelling than the 16-50 in many ways.

For me, the 16-85 is a useful range, much more so than 16-50, and the gap between 85-120 is much smaller than the 50-120mm Gap the 16-50 leaves you with. You can easily crop a little if you don't get the tight framing with a 16-85, it is much more dicfficult with the 16-50

The big sigmas are pretty solid. I use my 70-200/2.8 with a 2x and have gotten pretty wet, I've had the lens now 13 years.

Use a bag that they wrap newspapers with, put it over the body and lens when shooting. Wrap the open end around the hood. It works pretty well. Camera backpacks usually have rain covers but you can get one pretty cheap if your bag does not have it.

Speed is critical for long lenses, but much less so for short ones. I use a K5 and you can push the ISO to 6400 if needed to get a shot. You'll need it in the canopy of the rain forest. Either that or a flash

[ChatMechant]

A good zoom and a short wide would be all you really need in my opinion. It's already all been said here. 2 or 3 lenses and you're good IMO. WR is definitely good, but I think you'd be totally fine without, people use non-WR cameras in such locations all the time. With a little smarts you'll be ok.

Bring a mini tripod, you can take amazing landscape photos with most lenses with a tripod, stopped down to f8 or so, set the camera to ISO 200, shutter as necessary.

These little tripods weigh nothing, support a dslr and can be quite useful in a lot of situations.

Who makes that tripod? Looks great.

[bertwert]

These little tripods weigh nothing, support a dslr and can be quite useful in a lot of situations.

That is not DSLR

Who makes that tripod? Looks great.

Lots of makers make mini tripods:
Tabletop & Mini Tripods | B&H Photo Video

[bobbotron]

Who makes that tripod? Looks great.

I bought it from MEC, I bet you could find it at REI or similar. It works great for primes and small telephotos, will tip over on an larger lens. The velcro strap is great for attaching to railings, poles, etc.
PEDCO Ultrapod II Large Tripod - Mountain Equipment Co-op. Free Shipping Available

For the OP, I was thinking more about this, depending on your budget, it might make sense to bring a lower cost 18-55 WR lens for your wide angle/landscape lens. Less heartbreak if it ends up succumbing to the conditions.

My folks went to costa rica the last few years, the photos my mom brought back with a mid range Canon point and shoot were quite nice, I think you could overdo it with gear. That said, a good long telephoto is a good call, there are a lot of amazing critters down there.

---------- Post added 01-12-16 at 12:15 PM ----------

That is not DSLR

Haha, busted.

If you really can't find what you're looking for, you can always make your own.

[simsburyphoto]

Thanks everyone for this great input. Keep it coming. I don't know where we are going yet. Still in the planning phase. My wife and I will be there for 8 days and would like to stay in no more than 3 different locations. We want to see out door flora and fauna. My wife like to look for exotic birds and I am along for getting the photos. We will hopefully hike quite a bit but neither of us are extreme athletes and are in our mid 50's.

[UncleVanya]

Thanks everyone for this great input. Keep it coming. I don't know where we are going yet. Still in the planning phase. My wife and I will be there for 8 days and would like to stay in no more than 3 different locations. We want to see out door flora and fauna. My wife like to look for exotic birds and I am along for getting the photos. We will hopefully hike quite a bit but neither of us are extreme athletes and are in our mid 50's.

Looking back at your first post and notwithstanding the excellent first hand knowledge of some of the other people on the thread I wonder if you will be comfortable lugging the Sigma at 1700g+ vs. the 55-300. That's a huge difference. The 16-85 vs. 16-50 question is also open in my mind if you take the 55-300, the difference in weight between the 16-85 and 16-50 isn't much - however with the 16-85 you might have fewer lens changes needed. On the other hand anytime you need low light performance you would have the f/2.8 lens with you. Add a Raynox or two for pseudo macro work and you would have a fairly light kit. I also would consider converting the 16-50 to screw drive for the trip. Less to go wrong, that's not an option (or as much of a concern) for the 16-85 but both offer manual focus as fallback).

[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks everyone for this great input. Keep it coming. I don't know where we are going yet. Still in the planning phase. My wife and I will be there for 8 days and would like to stay in no more than 3 different locations. We want to see out door flora and fauna. My wife like to look for exotic birds and I am along for getting the photos. We will hopefully hike quite a bit but neither of us are extreme athletes and are in our mid 50's.

Just to add perspective, I don't consider myself an athlete and am of similar age.

My normal kit for any travel where birding is a possibility is the following
2 bodies, K7 and K5 plus 1 charger and 3 spare batteries
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Sigma 70-200/2.8 plus sigma 1.4x and 2x converters
Plus iPod, iPad cell phone and gps ( hand held unit for logging where I have been plus navigation and 4-6 double A batteries )

All the above fits (tightly) in a Lowepro microtrekker 200 backpack

Also in the pack is a first aid kit, rain cape, and rain cover for the pack (note that while most Lowepro packs include rain covers,their micro Trekker does not)


Don't know what it all weighs, but it didn't kill me even on days where we logged ove 25000 steps (about 20km on foot)

Most I have done in a day touring was in Prague, where my gps says I logged over 50km, but I think the jitter in location when standing still accounted for about 15km of this, I really think i only logged about 35 k of aimless wandering.

Don't get too bent out of shape over gear weight, what is critical is it is comfortable to carry. If the load is well managed no issue

[grispie]

I recently purchased a travel tripod from this brand.
Handy & useful to carry along for sunrise & sunsets. They have different sizes..

Amazon.com : Sirui T-005KX 52" Aluminum Alloy Tripod with C-10X Ball Head & Case (Black) : Camera & Photo

As was mentioned by others, having 2 bodies for travel is very convenient. one with the 16-50 & one with the 55-300.