What's new

Lens Suggestion

This could be a tough one. A good friend has a Nikon which came with a 18-55 mm 3.5 - 5.6 lens and a 70-300 mm 4.5-6.6 lens. He will be taking a trip which will entail some very long hikes. Last year he hiked down the Grand Canyon and found that the two lenses were too bulkly to carry. He said that the 18-55 mm lens was fine for about 75% of the time but there were times when he saw some wildlife that required a switch to the telephoto zoom. Unfortunately, by the time he switched over the animal was gone. He is strictly an amateur photographer and wants to memorialize his trip in a photo book. This spring he is planning a difficult hike where weight is an important consideration.

Any suggestions on a zoom lens that is relatively light, that he can keep on his camera while hiking, and cost less than $1,000?
 
Unfortunately I'm a Canon guy, not Nikon... so cannot give exact recommendations for that brand. But for nature walks I generally use a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom which is very portable and gives excellent results. If I think I'll need a longer range I also pack the 70-300mm DO which is not too bulky IMO. I don't know if Nikon has something similar to the latter; DO=diffraction optics, i.e. thin and light lenses and that makes this particular zoom much smaller and lighter that you'd think from its focal range.
 
When I hike, I take the smallest, lightest camera possible.

You may not get all the shots but you be dragging around weight.

You'll miss more shots because of the time involved to break out and attach a lens than you will miss because your instantly available point and shoot won't zoom enough.

proxy.php
 
With that budget, I would spend around $300 on a quality point and shoot with an electronic zoom. If he's taking daylight photos the quality won't suffer very much. A full sized DSLR will be a hassle to carry without a lens and any decent telezoom will double the weight and size of the camera. JMHO
 
I have to agree with the smaller camera. I have a Canon DSLR with an extended grip, external flash, and 3 lenses. I finally got tired of lugging all of that around an island and bought a point and shoot. I get great pics and I don't feel beat to death when I'm done.
 
I have to agree with the smaller camera. I have a Canon DSLR with an extended grip, external flash, and 3 lenses. I finally got tired of lugging all of that around an island and bought a point and shoot. I get great pics and I don't feel beat to death when I'm done.
Exactly why I bought a Powershot G7x MkII to lug in far corners of the world instead of my 6D.
 
Exactly why I bought a Powershot G7x MkII to lug in far corners of the world instead of my 6D.

I had to spend a few bucks ($800 used) a couple years ago on my Fuji XT100T, but it is very easy to carry and the images rival my full frame Nikon.
 
I'm in the other camp. even when i know I'm walking/hiking if I suspect a fast opportunity for aan animal or bird i just leave the long lens on, and switch to the wide field when i need it. as far as weight, it depends. If you use the basic neck strap, yeah it sucks. I got extension straps, and sling it so it rests on my bag if I carry one. I can always switch to the other hip, move the strap further out on my shoulder, that sort of thing. that said I cannot speak highly enough of the Nikon 18-300 ED VRII lens, Sigma makes a decent version of the same lens.
 
Top Bottom