[Nesster]

a 28mm Takumar, a 50/55 mm Takumar, and the 200mm f/5.6 preset Tele Takumar. Very small and light weight, especially if you carried a Super Program or ME Super instead of a heavy DSLR.

Oh: and a yellow, red, ND, and polarizer! As the three lenses are all 49mm thread, one set is enough. OK so put B&W in the film camera and bring the heavy DSLR with the 43mm for color work.

[pcarfan]

DA21 and the FA43. You can keep either in the pocket and the other on the camera. The combined price will be around the price of the FA31.

[gapnh]

DA21 and DA50-200 for wildlife. I've taken the Tamron 28-75 but its too heavy for rough hikes and not wide enough.

[Lowell Goudge]

if weight is really an issue I would go for a really good bridge camera, perhaps 6-8 MP with full controls, and a front end 50% wide angle adaptor.

this would give you an equivelent of about 17mm out to what ever the zoom of the bridge camera gave.

it might be more important to be able to capture a lot of things as opposed to only limited to the better quality of a DSLR but perhaps only a 20mm lens.

[Nesster]

The duration of the trip does have an impact: with an electronic device, batteries (and damp weather) become an issue. Carrying extra batteries solves that... but also, carrying a mostly mechanical camera does so too.

Weight and bulk become issues on longer or more strenuous trips - when I'd be inclined to go with a Yashica T4 or similar. Or even a folder such as a Kodak Retina.

But, let's say we're going out with the DSLR. I'm in agreement with the pair of small lenses philosophy, over the one zoom.

[Lowell Goudge]

The duration of the trip does have an impact: with an electronic device, batteries (and damp weather) become an issue. Carrying extra batteries solves that... but also, carrying a mostly mechanical camera does so too.

Weight and bulk become issues on longer or more strenuous trips - when I'd be inclined to go with a Yashica T4 or similar. Or even a folder such as a Kodak Retina.

But, let's say we're going out with the DSLR. I'm in agreement with the pair of small lenses philosophy, over the one zoom.

if bulk is an issue, a mechanical film camera seems to loose out, where do you fit the equivelent of an 8GB memory card in terms of film, even compared to shooting raw, that is a lot of film?

I don't disagree however with having a fully mechanical back up, but many people don't have that option, as they have gone with FA-J mounts and / or digital only lenses and can't cover a full frame.

I stand by my comment that for small size etc a bridge camera might be the best, but for sake of argument here, let's assume the decision is to go with a DSLR. That will help focus (pun intended) the discussion.

the real question for me, is what is the intended range of subjects. that should be the basis to dictate the lenses. Do you want Macro? tele for wild life? fast lenses for night shots? these points need to be considerd first.

[arbutusq]

I took my K100d, 16-45 and FA J 70-300 (J is for junk) on the West Coast trail this summer and had no problems with weight. The WCT is a pretty gruelling 75 km hike along rocky coast lines and up and down canyons via giant ladders.

Despite spraining my ankle near the beginning I still found the weight of my camera gear was more than manageable. Changing lenses in sandy/dirty environments has its own attendant problems and you could easily have a bunch of pictures ruined by dirt on the sensor.

Having said all that we have a lightweight backpacking tent and hi tech clothing so we lightened up in other areas. I think it all comes down to personal preference and photographic style. If you are used to shooting with primes stick with them, if you are comfortable with zooms stick with them.

I wouldn't take a PS though as with most landscapes you are dealing with high DR and lots of color subtlty and most PS cameras don't quite have the IQ for my tastes.

[David07]

In August, I had a hiking trip in the Japanese Kita Alps. I had the small National Geographic backpack and I brought my K10D+battery grip, DA 12-24mm (with polarizer), FA 43mm and FA77mm. They all fiited in the camera compartment. The DA 12-24mm is quite big, but it was so useful for dramatic perpective of landscapes. I enjoyed a lot using this lens.

[fractal]

Not exactly light weight, but i'd definitely second, third, whatever the 16-50mm.
I have the 18-250mm, (slightly lighter), on mine and it copes ok, as long as there is decent daylight.
I'd also suggest leave the primes at home.

[heliphoto]

Out of that list of primes, I'd probably go for the DA 35/2.8 macro... a slightly long normal lens, with macro capability, not too long to capture group shots, but not too wide to get detail in landscapes.

Personally I would vote for the DA*16-50 for the versatility and wx. sealing. It's heavy, but only about 8 oz. heavier than the FA 31 limited (which if I owned, I doubt I'd be willing to take backpacking). If I were primarily going backpacking, I'd likely just bring a P&S, but since the purpose of any trip I'd take these days would be photography, I'd likely bring the DA* 16-50 and the Tamron 70-200 (and only make it five miles 'cause I'm that out of shape )

[Jewelltrail]

Jamie:

There are times when you will be thrilled to have the faster zoom on hand--believe me. Obviously, sweeping landscapes are best portrayed with smaller apertures to maximize depth of field, however, there are special moments which look great at fast apertures too.

I have over 2000 miles on my legs. If you can afford it, I highly recommend a wide-to-normal, fast zoom (like the Tammy 17-50mm or 16-50mm Penny). Here is the Tammy @ 2.8, for example.

PS: When you get home you can put that faster zoom to even more use.

[Grzldvt]

I have thousands of backpacking miles on my Pentax's, and the 18-55mm is perfect, plus I drag along a 70-210mm with 1:4 macro and it is the perfect set.
That way I get these types of shots

Tiger Lilly - Yosemite


or the bigger views - Horizon Ridge - Yosemite


And the in between shots Waterwheel Falls - Yosemite


I tried just a 50mm and felt I was missing alot, it simply wasn't flexible enough to do everything I wanted. I don't worry too much about the weight, although my stuff is pretty reasonable. I think the body, two lenses, plus two sets of batteries is around 2.5 lbs. I hauled that combination around on all my trips and trust me camera weight was the least of my worries. I am more concerned about missing a shot, rather than a few extra ounces from my camera gear.
Steve

[TKH]

I spent every year a week or two for backpacking in Scotland.

The DA21 is fine for me for landscape:



Also the DA35 is a nice glass:



The FA43 has something special:




And its also interesting for landscape:




This year I think I will take with me also the (for me) new FA135 on the West Highland Way.

I love all my Pentax primes and I love to hike in Scotland. So why should I drop one of me lenses at home? They are so less in weight and I feel better when my babys are with me in cold nights in the tent...

Rainer

[Votesh]

I have yet to do any backpacking, but I'd probably take the Pentax DA* 16-50mm and maybe a small 135mm.

[247nino]

same here 16-50, and body with no grip...

but if you must take primes,

take the 21 and the 43!