Backpacking - single lens?

On a lot of my hiking+camping trips, I bring my Canon 16-35 F4 IS + 70-200 F4 IS. Normally walking around with the 16-35 mounted.

Going to be doing some longer trips, and wondering about a single-lens solution. Naturally falling to the 24-105 F4 (over the 24-70 for the longer focal range coverage). Are there other lens to be considering? It's been forever since I've looked at lenses...

I previously owned the 24-105 and didn't love the image quality, but maybe it's worth the tradeoff for space+weight of a single lens. I don't want to TOTALLY sacrifice image quality though...

Finally concern would be if 24 were wide enough (i do often shoot wider with my 16-35) for landscapes... but again, maybe just make do...

The 24-105 is a really nice range to work with. It's the all-around lens I use at work.

For my personal use, replacing the 16-35 with the 24-105 leaves a large void on the wide end for me. It would be tough for me to do. It wouldn't hurt to pull your images into Bridge or Lightroom to see what your most used focal lengths are. That may be able to help you consolidate the two into the 24-105 or rule out the option of just one lens?

Assuming I didn't mess up anything, here is my usage for 2019:

https://i.imgur.com/4A​RBaV2.png

I think with a 24-70, I could still deal with not having 70-105.. but I do worry that I'll be missing out on the wide end 16-24. I wonder if I bring a 24-70 f2.8 II plus 16-35... 24-70 as my general lens, and 16-35 for "set up" shots like sunrise/sunset type of things where I want wide angle more.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

On longer backpacking trips where weight and space might be an issue I take only my 24-70. Unless I am trying to really get a lot of foreground in focus I tend to like multi shot Pano's closer to 40-50mm anyway. But that is just me. I tend to miss longer than 70 more than less than 24 on full frame. I tend to like Telephoto landscapes a lot but I do not get myself in good enough shape to take my 70-300L with me up and down the mountains. Since I like taking my 5DIV and 24-70II that is enough weight for me at my age

This year I will take my EOS R which is a little lighter than 5DIV so we will see. Plus I will be doing day summit hikes this year instead of multi day backpacking.

timd35 wrote in post #18857954
On longer backpacking trips where weight and space might be an issue I take only my 24-70. Unless I am trying to really get a lot of foreground in focus I tend to like multi shot Pano's closer to 40-50mm anyway. But that is just me. I tend to miss longer than 70 more than less than 24 on full frame. I tend to like Telephoto landscapes a lot but I do not get myself in good enough shape to take my 70-300L with me up and down the mountains. Since I like taking my 5DIV and 24-70II that is enough weight for me at my age

This year I will take my EOS R which is a little lighter than 5DIV so we will see. Plus I will be doing day summit hikes this year instead of multi day backpacking.

Sounds like we're very much the same. I like taking panoramas too, and when I have my 16-35+70-200, I often want to shoot somewhere in between but don't have the focal range covered!

I wonder if I'll miss having the 70-105, if I choose the 24-70 over the 24-105....

Looking at your usage, I think that any solution you decide is going to be a compromise. You're either compromising your focal length range (24-105), image quality (18-200mm), or weight (16-35 + 70-200). I don't know of any single lens that will produce the IQ you're used to, across that broad a range. So unfortunately, the tough question is which compromise is the least of the three evils? Maybe try a shorter and lesser-priority trip where you limit yourself to the 24-105 range with your existing lenses (ie, use the 16-35 as a 24-35 and the 70-200 as a 70-105). Is that enough range for you? It seems silly to bring the 70-200 and use it as a 70mm prime to see if the 24-70 would cover you, but you could try that as well.... Depending on what you didn't love about the 24-105 last time you owned it, there is a v2 out now, but I don't believe the IQ is supposed to be earth-shatteringly-better.

Personally, I was trying to decide what to bring to Machu Picchu in the fall to cover the long end. I'm good carrying a 10-22 and 17-55, but wasn't sure about the long end. Ultimately decided to bring a 100-400 for tele landscape and wildlife, which means committing to a lot more training this summer if I'm going to pull it off... I only mention this because I wouldn't think you're crazy for bringing both lenses on a longer trip. Just crazy strong/fit!

Sorry to come along so late, but I would add a suggestion....if I were a backpacker and had the weight concerns most backpackers seem to have, I’d take a Sony RX100 (any of the last few versions would do) instead of an SLR and L lens when I went backpacking. Excellent image quality and lots of options for manual control. I love my Canons, but when I want to take something more than the phone camera, and it isn’t a real photo-centric trip, out comes the Sony.

I just came back from a five-week trip to Europe and took my Lumix LX100, which I bought specifically for lightweight travel. It has a 35mm equiv 24-70mm zoom and that is fine, 80% of the time. I would say I missed having a little more on the wide end than the long, but that's because my holiday photo style uses wide angle more than reach.

As for IQ, I find the convenience, lack of bulk (more so than weight) and unobtrusive style (making me less conspicuous and drawing less attention from prospective subjects) makes up for any loss in that area, especially as I never print my holiday pics, only viewing them on a screen. In particular, I find the low-light ability of the little Lumix to be amazing, given the spec and price.

Photo from Spencerphoto's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (983912)

Photo from Spencerphoto's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (983806)

Photo from Spencerphoto's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (983619)

Photo from Spencerphoto's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (970760)

Canon is coming out with a 24-240 for the RF mount that could be a game changer for this kind of stuff.

Best backpacking gear I ever carry was the EOS-M + 22mm.
After that I tried to carry 5DIII /24-105 and most recently 5DIII/24-70.

After 10 or 20 miles per days in the mountains, nothing beats the 300g M/22 + gorillapod ߘ. For sure some pictures will not be as you want, but you will take others as good if not better. It forces creativity.

I have used my Rebel T3i and EFS 24mm f2.8 pancake for hiking with camera and been happy with it for landscapes and such. Not a wildlife rig, however

As I get older, my body aches lot more, so I find myself compromising what gear to carry on what trips a lot more, too. My compromise 5 years ago was to carry the 24-70L for just about everything except for birding and wildlife, but now I even find it heavy, so it's been 16-35L f/4 in most recent years. Eventually, I'll replace my heavy 5D IV to a lighter body.

Most recently, I went hiking with 5D IV and 16-35L f/4 for mostly winterscape shots when I ran into a herd of mule deer. That's when I felt the sting of not having my longer lenses. But no matter, I took photos of these beautiful animals nonetheless, went home, cropped the images in, and they were good enough for my web postings. So, one way to compromise is having the high resolution camera body that could allow you to crop in for those "reach" challenged subjects. Of course, even then some subjects (like birds) just aren't going to work, but then if my primary objective in going out to shoot is birds, then I'd choose my lens accordingly. For hiking, street candids, travels and whatnot, I just stick to 16-35.

I do a lot of backpacking (wilderness) with my X-T2/3 and the 10-24 and now the 16-80. I was carry various primes. For me I leave the 100-400 home as most of the time ~100mm has been more than long enough. So far 80 has been enough to not warrant carrying another lens. I find the wider end to be more beneficial than being in the 100-200 range...