Lenses for Tasmania

[sufran]

We'll be flying to Tasmania in mid-January for a two-week trip. We'll have a hire car, with the main focus being on doing nature and sea-side walks, but we will also be doing the Salamanca markets and towns. I don't want to have unnecessary weight, but I also do not want to miss photo opportunities. I have a 1d4 (and Sony RX100 for lightweight walking). I will take a flash and a tripod (for slow water shots). I will definitely take a wide-angle zoom (16-35) and a mid-range zoom (24-70). However, I am not sure whether to leave it at those two lenses or take a prime or two (out of the 24/1.4, 50/1.2, 100/2.8, 135/2) and whether there would be any benefits in taking the 70-200/2.8. I like the low depth of field of the primes; the 100/2.8 can also be used for macro; and the compression and reach of the 70-200 is also useful at times. However, when I went to Japan on a walking trip (the only time I have done anything comparable), I never used the 70-200. The reality is also, that when I am walking, I don't really like to swap lenses around or to carry lenses that I won't be using. And I can only take a few lenses on the plane (cabin size and weight restrictions). I don't normally do much scenery photography, so I don't have much experience to draw on. Thanks in advance.

[oztraveller]

Hi "sufran",
As a Tasmanian, and given what you have told us re this holiday, I would suggest that your 16-35 and 24-70 mm lenses will be plenty for your needs.
I understand the need to keep weight to a minimum, so if you would really like to have a small prime lens as well, then you could carry it in a jacket pocket, this way it would not be classed as part of your hand baggage and would not be subject to weight restricions.
Cheers
Ian

[ricktas]

The 16-35 will probably get the most use and the 24-70 is a good all round length to take as well. If you plan on doing some candid street photography the 70-200 would be good for that as it lets you keep back and 'anonymous'. But it really depends on what you want to photograph. Certainly I use my 70-200 for candid street stuff more than any other lens, but if your priorities are to get landscapes etc, then you can probably do without it.

If you want to get some good early morning shots then a tripod would be a better choice over a 70-200.

[fabian628]

id go the wide, 50L and the longest you have. For me i was using my 24mm for landscqape and 200mm becase the 400mm was too big last time. If you want to catch some nice birdie shots take the 70-200 with extender if you have it

[hdn177]

I was there last month for 5 days with work and managed 5 minutes to myself. I used my 24-70mm mostly. For what your listing as most above said, you have it spot on. But you can never have enough and think of the extra calories you burn with a extra 10kg on your back while walking

[sufran]

Thanks all for the comments, especially useful to have the views of other photographers (who understand the burning importance and difficulty of this decision!) with the added plus of obtaining insights from people with local knowledge. TBH, post Chrismas and New Year, calorie burning is, sadly, an issue; but optimistically I am hoping the Tasmanian walking with the slimmed down lens selection will make an enough of an impact without the need for additional lenses. This concept of lens-weighted walking could be the start of a whole new line of eco and photographic tourism though, hdn177, as well as opening a whole new aspect for consideration in the Nikon-Canon debate.

[Roosta]

When I toured the South Island of NZ, I limited myself to my 50D and left the 1D at home, but I did use a variety of lenses. Looking back, I would keep the 16-35 mm for land/seascape work and the 24 - 70 mm as the next, but mostly all day lens. I did use my 70 - 200 mm quiet regularly on a tripod for panoramic work. The mountains and lakes just worked so well with the setup. My Sigma 18 - 50 mm F2.8 is always my 50D's goto lens, as it just works so well on the body. But your on FF, so the 24 - 70 will fit that bill nicely.

I guess it depends on the day, knowing what you're up to on a day to day basis, will and should help you limit yourself to the photographic needs/limitations of the day, and also your needed/required/desired gear, fit for purpose. So, no need to pack the 200 mm if UWA's are the theme of the day. I don't think you'll regret taking a long lens, and you don't have to carry it everyday if you've got somewhere to store it whilst out. But you'll kick yourself if you don't and latter regret it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

BTW, Enjoy your trip, and post dome of the results.

[sufran]

Hi all, just wanted to say thanks for all the advice. I wound up taking my 50d (I'm okay with risking it on perpendicular mountain climbs), the 16-35, 24-70 and a prime (which I didn't use). What I definitely should have included, but as I only rarely take landscapes, so I didn't, was my ef-s wide angle Sigma (10-20). I learned from this and took it when I went to Thailand in March.

[dt86vyss]

LANDSCAPES = 16-35 & 70-200

GENERAL = 24-70

If you're toing some walking, perhaps a 135 prime will assist you in getting some of those close up shots of moss, mushrooms, bugs and all other things make an interesting 'Macro' shot.

Enjoy the trip.