<<My question is to anyone who has done extensive trekking/backpacking where
weight is a premium but quality is important as well. What combination of
Nikon's AF primes and/or "consumer grade" zoom lenses would you recommend that
would cover the range from around 24 to 200-300mm in focal length?>>
Frankly, there are differences between the quality of the slides you shot with
your top of the line Nikon lenses and your friends cheap-o Canon lenses.
However you may not have the eyes to see them. Nikon lenses almost always
have greater contrast than the Canon ones. This is seen as a separation
between tones, not "maximum contrast." The Nikon lenses you were using are
sharper than the Canon ones he shot with but your inability to see that
difference may be due to your loupe quality. Was it a Schnieder or Rodenstock
loupe? Or just a $30 plastic cheap-o? Were you both shooting at f/22 all the
time? Diffraction will limit all lenses resolution at that aperture. It is
when the lens is in the mid to open apertures where the sharpness difference
will jump out at you. As for what lenses to pack, it depends on were you are
going and what you expect to find there. When I am hiking, I rarely take more
than an N90s body, 24 mm and 105 Micro with an SB-26 and SC17. If I were
going on an extended trip I might consider: 24 mm f/2.8, 55 mm f/2.8 Micro, 85
mm f/1.8 and 180 mm f/2.8. If there were wildlife, I'd think about a 300 mm
f/2.8 and TC14b but only if I were going with someone who would be splitting
up the load. Considering that except for scenes where you need everything
from your toes to the stars in focus, most of your landscape work can be done
around f/8 if you hyperfocal focus and your prime lenses will be in their
optimal aperture while the small-cheap consumer zooms not will be at their
best there. E-mail me if you have further questions.
Jonathan Castner
Photojournalist
Denver
