t3i lenses and backpacking/backcountry set up help

Hello all. I currently have the T3i and the kit 18-55. I am an avid backpacker and spend many muti day trips in the backcountry. I am trying to come up with a set up that is, one, light, and two, not full of lenses. I primarily take landscape and night photos, some wildlife (when close enough); a bit of macro i.e. flowers, lichen, fish. I have many hobbies and unfortunately can't afford L series lenses, YET! I was hoping to have a max of two lenses. A telephoto and a macro? This is why I am asking. I was hoping to be within the 300-400 dollar range per lens. I understand you get what you pay for, but everyone has to start somewhere. Any help would be great. Thanks.

For the use that you describe I think you may want to add a macro lens, something like EF-S 60mm. It will let you shoot flowers, bugs, etc, and back at home it will double as a good portrait lens. Used it can be had for under $350.

Or you can buy a telephoto for wildlife, and the EF-S 55-250 is a good lightweight candidate for that at about $150-$175 used.

At that, your 18-55 should work very well at daylight.

Heya,

Well, night photos require either long exposure (tripod, which can be a tiny one, or little bean bag, etc), or wide aperture. I assume you mean night sky? If that's the case, you need both wide aperture and long exposure. The 18mm end of your kit lens at F3.5 is ok, but really, wider is better here and faster is better here, F2.8 should be a starting point.

Sounds like you want macro & telephoto as well. Those are easier to fit the bill with, on a crop, than ultrawides. Unfortunately, you cannot really have an ultrawide for landscape, a macro, and a telephoto and keep it as 2 lenses. The only way to really do that, would be to use extension tubes or a clip on diopter to make a macro lens on the fly out of one of your lenses.

Here's what I'd do:

Night/landscape: Rokinon 14mm F2.8, and take a little bag that you can fill with sand/dirt to act as a make shift tripod for long exposures, unless you want to carry a small tripod.

Wildlife/Macro: Tamron 70-300 VC. And carry around a Raynox DCR-250 clip on lens, which converts it to macro on the fly by clipping the lens on the front. Drop her back to 70mm to 100mm, and you're set for macro. You will just need a lot of light, or take a small flash. I imagine you'll want to do natural light. The alternative is to carry a 3rd lens.

As an alternative, you could get a 3rd lens. Get a macro lens. EF-S 60mm is a good one and not too big. I find the Raynox DCR250 ($75) plenty good enough for walk around macro, if you're not into dedicated macro anyways.

Very best,

I too am a backpacker and am also a small girl, so weight is very important to me since it doesn't take much to get my pack to the max of 1/4 of my body weight. My husband got me a small mefoto tripod that is both lightweight and also the legs split almost to to ground for macro shots also. Great little tripod. I also have a joby gorilla pod tripod (the large one with a ball head)- this one is nice because I can wrap it around tree branches etc and use it for macros. I have a shutter remote that weight 1-2 ounces for long exposures to avoid camera shake. The other suggestion of a beanbag/sandbag is a good idea also.

As far as lens go, you are really stating a need for everything from a wide angle for landscapes and night shoots to the telephoto end for wildlife shots, with something for macros in between. I am not sure all that is possible in 1-2 lenses. The sigma 17-70 2.8-4 macro lens could work for both wide and macro. My friend has this lens and uses it for weddings. It is nice and can be found used for around $300+. This lens could serve for landscapes, night shoots, and macros. Then you need something longer for wildlife. Tamron makes a 28-300mm 3.5-6.3 macro and Sigma makes an 18-250mm 3.5-6.3 macro that is on sale on B&H right now. I have never seen nor used these lenses, but if you are okay with these smaller varying apertures, one of these lenses might fit all of your needs.

A circular polarizer filter is nice for shots with water also.

cole4570 wrote in post #16922498
Hello all. I currently have the T3i and the kit 18-55. I am an avid backpacker and spend many muti day trips in the backcountry. I am trying to come up with a set up that is, one, light, and two, not full of lenses. I primarily take landscape and night photos, some wildlife (when close enough); a bit of macro i.e. flowers, lichen, fish. I have many hobbies and unfortunately can't afford L series lenses, YET! I was hoping to have a max of two lenses. A telephoto and a macro? This is why I am asking. I was hoping to be within the 300-400 dollar range per lens. I understand you get what you pay for, but everyone has to start somewhere. Any help would be great. Thanks.

I used to backpack the Rockies with a 35mm Minolta. I carried a 28mm for wideangle, 50mm normal, and a 70-150 Vivitar zoom which could also do 1:3 closeups for everything else. I also had to carry 6-10 rolls of film for a 4 day trip too. Not a perfect photographer's setup, but good enough for hiking and backpacking. I had a tiny tripod that had legs that folded into the stem. It was about 5 inches high, but could be set on a rock or log for low light. It took up almost no space and only weighed a few ounces, but you did need something to set it on, and it only did landscape.

Now I have the heavyweight Gorillapod, and I use a Vanguard SBH-50 ball head on it that uses the same quick change plates as my regular Vanguard tripod and SBH-250 ball head. The plates are always mounted on my 60D body and the mounting ring for my 70-200, I never have to worry that I have the wrong setup. This setup is significantly heavier than that old one, but a lot more versatile. By picking the right stick or branch, I can quickly turn it into a monopod.

cole4570 wrote in post #16922498
Hello all. I currently have the T3i and the kit 18-55. I am an avid backpacker and spend many muti day trips in the backcountry. I am trying to come up with a set up that is, one, light, and two, not full of lenses. I primarily take landscape and night photos, some wildlife (when close enough); a bit of macro i.e. flowers, lichen, fish. I have many hobbies and unfortunately can't afford L series lenses, YET! I was hoping to have a max of two lenses. A telephoto and a macro? This is why I am asking. I was hoping to be within the 300-400 dollar range per lens. I understand you get what you pay for, but everyone has to start somewhere. Any help would be great. Thanks.

How important is pack wright to you?

I used to use a 60D with sigma 17-70 OS (the rest if the kit was a cullmann micro tripod, CPL, and cable release). My backpacking kit has since changed to a micro 4/3 camera (gx1) with its 14-42mm kit lens and macro extension tubes (along with the tripod, CPL, and cable release). That cut about 2lbs off my pack weight. For about 7oz I could also add a 45-150 or 45-200 lens. I'm currently looking at possible changing to Fiji for better sensors and glass but slightly more weight over the micro 4/3

Now obviously the t3i is lighter then the 60D and buying a whole new backpacking camera kit is going to go above your budget. There are going to be some compromises with any lens you go with. But here are some options;

Keep the 18-55 and add a 55-250 and macro extension tubes

Get the 17-70 OS C or older 17-70 OS

Get a sigma 18-200, sigma 18-250, canon 18-135, or canon 18-200 (place wxtentions tubes of needed)

You'll have to decide what combination of weight, optical quality, and usefulness you need.

I am relatively new with a t3i after upgrading from cheap digitals but I am finding the 18-55 stock lens adequate for scenic and flowers and a EF 75-300 zoom Ok for wildlife at the moment. Before digital I used a Pentax K1000 with a 50mm lens and a Tamron 70-210 zoom with a 600mm Pentax telephoto lens for wildlife. I will eventually get a bigger lens for wildlife on a better body to avoid switching lenses in the field. With the combination I have now I can fit everything in a 12x10 pelican case for in the canoe.

The new 10-18 is great. The 55-250 is also pretty nice. Those and a tripod and you would have a fabulous, but still light, kit.

botw wrote in post #17005655
The new 10-18 is great. The 55-250 is also pretty nice. Those and a tripod and you would have a fabulous, but still light, kit.

With a huge gap in it. The gap you propose leaving is where I shoot probably 75% of my photos.

May I suggest the two-lens combo, both Canon: 10-18EFS-IS and the 18-135STM. The latter is probably outside your budget, but the two lens would give you a lightweight combo for backpacking.

Preeb wrote in post #17006159
With a huge gap in it. The gap you propose leaving is where I shoot probably 75% of my photos.

although this thread is rather old...i take somewhat of the same combo suggested above, the 10-20mm, 55-250mm, and a 35mm prime...although, i probably use the 10-20mm for 70% of my shots when backpacking...35mm is used for people around the camp, and what not for about 15%, and 55-250 is for any wildlife, and telephoto landscapes

Preeb wrote in post #17006159
With a huge gap in it. The gap you propose leaving is where I shoot probably 75% of my photos.

OP already has an 18-55, so no gap.

botw wrote in post #17006320
OP already has an 18-55, so no gap.

I thought you were recommending that he only take the two lenses you mentioned and leave the other one at home. That's the gap I was referring to. If that isn't the case then never mind.