I am about to purchase a Nikon D600 and need some advice about glass. Next summer I will be backpacking in Alaska for 45 days, what lenses do you think I should take? I've been looking at the 24-70, 24-120 and, of course, the 50 f/1.4G. What do you recommend? Feel free to suggest other lenses not listed here, but keep in mind that I have to keep weight as low as possible (hopefully below 7-8 lbs net weight). Thanks for your help.
Lightweight Glass
(12 posts) (10 voices)-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
I'd say simply keep away from the f2.8's and go for the f4's. Maybe analyse your photos and see what FL you use then leave the rest at home.
If I were going I would take the lightest rigid tripod, the 16-35 and 24-120 for full frame but ymmv.
Welcome to NR!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Welcome! Let us know what you think of the D600 when you get it :-)
I agree with spraynpray. but if weight is a real issue then the 28-300 looks like a good choice. I would also take a tough waterproof P&S like the AW-100. for when its wet! or when you cant be bothered to lug the big gear and tripod.
Me ? I would take the new 70-200 F4 but that's me .. :-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
When I want to travel light with my D800 I use the 24 -120 f4, Nikons best "do nearly everthing lens "
Posted 6 months ago # -
@ sevencrossing
+1
Other thoughts....you have mentioned the 24-70mm f/2.8 which is a $1900 lens. So, it would appear that money is not a critical issue.
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED, AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G, D800 is $7100 and weighs about 6 pounds. If this is too much money, substitute the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D for the 24mm f/1.4 and have about $5525.
If your budget is $4000… D800 and 20mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8 or D800 plus the 24-120mm f/4 VR.
Posted 6 months ago # -
My light kit would be something like the 16-35, 50 f/1.4, and 70-300 VR. These three lenses come in around 5 pounds. You might add extension tubes to this mix. I agree - the f/2.8 lenses are simply too heavy for a light kit. With the body, battery charger, filters, and other accessories you would be at 7 pounds.
All of these lenses are FX lenses. All are reasonably high in quality. Both the zooms have VR for lower light handholding.
If you are willing to shoot DX and FX, the 16-85 and the 70-300 make a good kit. The 16-85 would be in crop mode, and they share 67mm filters.
I'm a little concerned about weather sealing for an Alaska trip. I like the idea of a P&S for wet weather, but my guess is the novelty of photography in the rain will wear off pretty quickly. I would have a good backup plan for dealing with failed gear. You can get replacements shipped, or even arrange to have a backup camera held for you in the area. Most retailers are reluctant to ship to hotels and other travel locations, so you need a good plan.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Take lots of batteries.
For 45 days, I'd go with either the 24-120 or one or two primes. For backpacking I'd suggest the 60 mm micro-nikkor and the 28 f1.8. The money saved on not buying the heavy glass should all go to batteries...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Wataru said:
Take lots of batteries.For 45 days, I'd go with either the 24-120 or one or two primes. For backpacking I'd suggest the 60 mm micro-nikkor and the 28 f1.8. The money saved on not buying the heavy glass should all go to batteries...
Or get a solar charging backpack?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Or shoot film....45 days will definitely require recharging batteries. There are hand cranked battery chargers and they weigh about a pound. I would suspect this is a good thing to take....
Posted 6 months ago # -
I will not recommend You, which one You should take. instead will share with You what I pack during hiking/trekking - including my last Kalla Pathar trek in Himalayas. My basic setup for this year is (for up to 14days of trek):
- d800 - no extra grip, just one spare battery + kirk arca-swiss mount
- N24-70/2.8 - I'm spoiled with the quality I get from this lens, though on d600 - N24-120/4 may do good
- N70-200/2.8vrII - as above, I'm spoiled with the quality
- TC1.4 - for that extra reach
- heavily chopped manfrotto 190CXPRO4 carbon fiber tripod - I've replaced the column mount, so I can mount my ballhead directly on the tripod - w/o any extensions, more like gitzo systematic style - +/- 1kg
- manfrotto 486 ballhead - modified with kirk arca-swiss plate
- waterproof lightweight bag - sth similar to Sea To Summit Ultra-Sil Nano Dry Sack
- lowe alpine attack 45:55 backpack - 1.2kg - good up to 15kg of load
- tailor made 3-season down sleeping bag by Cumulus - good up to 4000m - 600g
- thinktank backpack attachment strap
- thinktank camera strap
- B+W mrc polarizer filter
as You can see, I don't carry a dedicated photo bag, for me it's just to heavy.@msmoto - I would suggest a solar charger, You can get some good quality chargers from Brunton, which can be easily attached to backpack.
@SCS - as for taking 50/1.4g prime along with zoom... well, for me it's just a loose of weight.
Posted 6 months ago # -
msmoto said:
Or shoot film....45 days will definitely require recharging batteries. There are hand cranked battery chargers and they weigh about a pound. I would suspect this is a good thing to take....The best pack packing camera I've used was a Leica M4P with a 35 f/2. And lots of kodachrome. No batteries! No longer an option, I suppose...
If you are really backcountry backpacking, you want as little glass as possible. Food, shelter, and warm,dry clothing are vastly more important than your 24-70.
Posted 6 months ago # -
ericbowles said:
My light kit would be something like the 16-35, 50 f/1.4, and 70-300 VR.+1 this. That is almost the lightest you can get. I would even consider the nikon 24-85vr and skip the 50mm (that would be painfully). You could also consider the 28-300mm as well. That is the lightest you can get. If you are doing this to photograph, go with more and better, if not, then go with less.
This is assuming you are hauling it yourself everywhere. If you are working from a vehicle most of the time, I would go to the 2.8s (24-70 & 70-200) and a 1.7TC and still consider the 16-35vr. Hell if I could, I probably would try to figure out a way to carry my 300mm 2.8 and a 2x TC as well. But that is me and I would only be there to photograph stuff.
1 thing that should be considered is how much you think it will get banged around. If you anticipate a lot, the 2.8 will handle it for sure. If you will not have access to a place to get new equipment I would personally pick up the best so I'm not left out.
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
