If you had to bring just one lest for Nature/Wildlife

DigiScapes

Quick question, that may garner many opinions. I'm headed on a trip soon and would like to know your opinions. If you had to bring only one lens on a backpacking/hiking trip what would it be? My primary focus is on landscapes/nature/wildlife shot. Ive already ruled out my Macro and Wide Angle (the wide only because there are times where I need to be closer, especially for wildlife)

I shoot Nikon BTW.

rookieshooter

I'd go with the new 28-300 AF-S.

puzzledpaul

Surely depends on how much you want to fit into a landscape (as single shot) and how much you want to fill the frame with wildlife ...and what sort.
Are TCs allowed in the mix?

pp

ThatCanonGuy

What pp said. I'd go with my small, light, 70-200 f4, but there's no Nikon equivalent. I'd also pack my 24mm f/2.8, because it's SO small and light. Unfortunately, you're not really gonna get a landscape AND wildlife lens all in one, unless a 70-200 works for landscapes for you. Or, you could get a 28-300, but you'd be sacrificing image quality and max aperture. I'd much rather pack two lenses, if one is very small and light.

If I really had to choose only one lens, it would be the 70-200.

Art Scott

since I started shooting with a 70-210 (about 1978) and learned that I could actually create every image i wanted with it then, ... ... ... if only 1 lens was all i could take for a wildlife shoot it would be my 70-200 ... no worries ... if I saw a landscape I wanted I would simply go to portrait orientation and shoot the necessary frames to create the image I desired... I may need to start looking for a 70-200f4 as they are considerably lighter than my f2.8... ... ...

ziggy53

There is too little information shared to give a reasonable answer.

Why are you limited to one lens?
What is the reason for the backpacking/hiking trip? Is it for photography?
What are you likely to see? (Be as complete as possible.)
What level of image quality do you expect?
Are you planning to rent what you don't have?
Environmental considerations? (Snow, rain, sand, cold ...)
Will this be a "base camp" type of camping, with daily excursions, or is this more of an Appalachian Trail adventure?

The more you tell us the better we can advise you for your trip.

puzzledpaul

Art Scott wrote: »

since I started shooting with a 70-210 (about 1978) and learned that I could actually create every image i wanted with it then, ... ... ... if only 1 lens was all i could take for a wildlife shoot it would be my 70-200

If only that was true for me too ... ... and yes, I've got a 70 -200 so am familiar with what it has to offer.

@OP
Is a dslr + tele zoom for wildlife + a decent PnS for the rest out of the question?

pp

fldspringer

I'd forget the DSLR and pick up a superzoom.

The reason for the DSLR is having more than one lens. If you are restricted, why not choose versatility and small size.

DigiScapes

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Surely depends on how much you want to fit into a landscape (as single shot) and how much you want to fill the frame with wildlife ...and what sort.
Are TCs allowed in the mix?

pp

Since I don't own a TC, not allowed

DigiScapes

ziggy53 wrote: »

There is too little information shared to give a reasonable answer.

Why are you limited to one lens?
What is the reason for the backpacking/hiking trip? Is it for photography?
What are you likely to see? (Be as complete as possible.)
What level of image quality do you expect?
Are you planning to rent what you don't have?
Environmental considerations? (Snow, rain, sand, cold ...)
Will this be a "base camp" type of camping, with daily excursions, or is this more of an Appalachian Trail adventure?

The more you tell us the better we can advise you for your trip.

The primary reason for the trip is to go backpacking with friends (about 5-7 mile hike with around 3000 ft of elevation gain with camp between 10,000 and 12,000ft) and while at our destination/base camp we would do some hiking. As it is I carry about 60lbs in my pack, so the reason is really the weight, not the space.

Aside from the beautiful country, There are birds, lots of wild flowers and likely bears.

Image Quality, I want it as good as possible for what I can get in the $1000.00 range as I will be getting a new one for this, and future trips. Thunder storms can roll in at any time in the Sierras but It's not been an issue n the past.

DigiScapes

fldspringer wrote: »

I'd forget the DSLR and pick up a superzoom.

The reason for the DSLR is having more than one lens. If you are restricted, why not choose versatility and small size.

This is what I've done before but the superzoom point and shoots just down have that much reach for wildlife.

ziggy53

For a very lightweight long lens I use a old Tamron 500mm, f8 SP (55BB) (catadioptric, aka "cat" mirror lens). For both birds and bears this is an acceptable working length. It is manual focus, so you need to develop special techniques for accurate focus. It would additionally require the proper Adaptall-2 adapter.

A review (but my lens appears to test a bit better than the lens in this review):

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/286-tamron-500mm-f8-sp-macro-adaptall-to-nikon-review--test-report

Then I would add a second lens that would be more flexible to use, perhaps a super-zoom, understanding that image quality might not be as good as a more moderate zoom range lens. Perhaps the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm, f3.5-5.6G ED VR that user "rookieshooter" mentioned. The lens is very convenient and versatile, but image quality suffers. Images from this lens would require considerable post-processing and 8" x 10" prints would probably be the limit for most subjects.

Here's a review:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff

davev

It's been a while since I've been up to that elevation, but I don't remember any birds others than Grey Jays that high up. (Rocky Mountain National Park)
If you're looking to keep it light, forget about pro lenses, they're built like tanks, and weigh about as much.

I don't know anything about Nikon lenses, so I'll throw out a Canon lens, maybe you can find the Nikon (Sigma, Tamron) equal.

Canon has a 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 consumer grade lens.
This is a great lens if you're looking to keep the size and weigh of your kit down.
It works on full frame and crop cameras, and it gives you pretty good IQ.
I think it sells new for about $250.

Pair that with a small gorilla tripod with a wireless remote, and I think you'd be doing pretty well for
landscapes, group, and maybe some friendly critters.

I don't think I'd try using that one for the bears though.

After a quick look at the review area on the Fred Miranda site, I see Nikon has the same lens, but I don't think it's being made anymore. LINK

Zerodog

I took a 28-300 up to yellowstone and used it on my D3s. I brought other lenses, but I never used them. It is light, relatively small and it is pretty damn sharp. I would like to get one at some point. I would have no problem using it on DX either. But 28 is not super wide for landscapes with DX . On FX, not to bad.

DigiScapes

davev wrote: »

It's been a while since I've been up to that elevation, but I don't remember any birds others than Grey Jays that high up. (Rocky Mountain National Park)
If you're looking to keep it light, forget about pro lenses, they're built like tanks, and weigh about as much.

I don't know anything about Nikon lenses, so I'll throw out a Canon lens, maybe you can find the Nikon (Sigma, Tamron) equal.

Canon has a 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 consumer grade lens.
This is a great lens if you're looking to keep the size and weigh of your kit down.
It works on full frame and crop cameras, and it gives you pretty good IQ.
I think it sells new for about $250.

Pair that with a small gorilla tripod with a wireless remote, and I think you'd be doing pretty well for
landscapes, group, and maybe some friendly critters.

I don't think I'd try using that one for the bears though.

After a quick look at the review area on the Fred Miranda site, I see Nikon has the same lens, but I don't think it's being made anymore. LINK

Thanks Dave, you are correct in that birds are not all that plentiful at higher altitudes but there are scrub jay, some hawks and eagles we saw the last time out. One reason I'd like a little reach on lens. I was toying with the idea of a 70-300 type lens that is designed for full frame bodies as that would translate to over 400mm on my DX

DsrtVW

I would take my Nikon 28-300mm If I only had one to take for the wide angle landscapes or wildlife at a distance. it is a good capable lens but it is a trade off. If I could take 2 lenses it would be 17-55mm f2.8 and Sigma 170-500mm. Or my Nikon P100 point and shoot. You could get the nikon P500 equivilent to (22-810mm lens) and have money left over for the price of the 28-300mm>

PS I bought my 28-300mm refurbished from Nikon 840.00 roughly It is a good all around lens.