jim wrote,
>>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?
IMO weight should not be a major consideration when selecting lenses and a
tripod for hiking. I do consider weight with everywhere I carry. But I
find that as a minimum I need a wide angle lens for scenics, a macro lens
(preferably 200mm for working distance with small critters and bugs) and I
absolutely must have the longest telephoto lens that I can afford which for
now is a 300mm f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter. I suppose you could get by
handholding the above on sunny days in open country, but in the woods, early
mornings and late afternoons, you need a good tripod. I carry a very heavy
and very sturdy Gitzo.
I usually carry a couple of other lenses but I've resolved that the above
lenses and tripod are a minimum necessity. I've gotten used to the weight
and never complain about it, even to myself :^) Admittedly I only hike up
to about 12 miles a day and usually less than that but I do go at least 40
times a year.
If someday I should be able to afford one of the Nikon Tele-monsters (400
f/2.8, 500 f/4 or 600 f/4) I wonder if I would stick to my convictions and
attempt to lug it around. I think so. It does seem like I always want to
get closer to my subject, however that is not always possible. When hiking
with others it's difficult to take the time to try to get closer. And you
also don't have the time to sit patiently behind cover or a blind. I guess
that is one of the reasons I really enjoy hiking alone once in awhile.
Bottom line: Start a weight training program; the right photo equipment is
heavy.
Art
Art Searle, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lake Grove, NY, USA
20 miles east of Nikon USA www.erols.com/w2nra
