smmokan wrote in post #17800284
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Based on the input here and some articles I've read over the last few days, I'm leaning towards bringing my 24-105 and 70-300.
Looks like the weather will be perfect the first few days of the trip, and it has a chance to get interesting during the last couple.
24~300mm sounds like everything is covered. The only time I find I want ultrawide on something like that is when I am right on top of something and want to shrink it to incorporate it, or if something is huge and I'm on top of it and want it dwarfed. Ultrawides are good for that. Otherwise, a massive gorge will lose it's size when put through an ultrawide. I'd stick to the 24mm. You can always do panoramas for the truly large stuff instead of dwarfing it!
If I had to choose a single lens, I'd do the 24-105 on full frame. I'd rather have more room for a speedlite, small stand, transmitter, tripod, remote shutter release, etc. But I like grabbing portraits of self and the group in the context of the place we visit. Just another way to look at it. I can fit all that into a small backpack no problem.
But it depends on how you do things. I'd rather have one versatile lens on a long hike, and just be creative with it. Less opening the camera, less chances of funky dust and debris, etc. Also less stuff to bust. If it were me, I'd take a camera + versatile zoom (mid range, wide to telephoto like the 24-105) and a little 2nd camera for the "snap" stuff, like an EOS-M + 22mm pancake. I do a ton these days on my swamp hikes with my EOS-M more than my 5D, 1D's, etc. It's so small and when I'm just doing landscape, etc, I don't need fancy autofocus and it's nice to have the screen to look at so I don't have to lay in the mud. My ultrapod ii fits in my bag, smaller than some of my lenses!