Do you need >70mm in Peru?

[kxl]

My itinerary takes me deep within the Amazon (after a 2-hour boat riade from Iquitos) for 4 days, up to Cusco/Machu Picchu for 3 days and to Anapia Island (Lake Titicaca) on the frontier betwen Peru and Bolivia for 4 days.

My initial thoughts:

1) Peru cries out for color.
2) I've decided to bring my D700, with a 17-35mm and 24-70mm
3) I will also have a digi P&S as backup.

My questoin:

Based on the above itinerary, would I need my 70-200mm/2.8? I'm trying save my poor back and shoulders from the bulk and weight. Also, would a 75-150mm/3.5 (manual focus) lens suffice for reach?

 

[dexdog]

Depends on what you want to photograph of course, but unless you are trying to get pics of wildlife, especially birds, I think that 70mm should be OK. Having done a similar trip several years ago, I rarely found that I was using a focal length longer than 75mm or so on a Canon 24-105 zoom. In my opinion, Machu Picchu and Cusco are definately wide-angle territory.

 

[KenR]

I hiked on the Inca trail a couple of years ago with a Bessa R4 - 21mm, 35mm and 50mm. I never felt there was a need for a longer focal length lens.

 

[ferider]

Longer lenses (a small 200 ?) are very useful for landscapes. Much more so than the super wide.

 

[goo0h]

As others have said, it all depends on what you're primarily interested in shooting. I brought my 28, 35, and 50 on my ZI and my Bessa R3a. Since you're shooting digital and a zoom, a 2nd camera isn't so pressing, I think. I'm not a huge wide-angle freak, so the 28 was wide enough for me, and I felt anything wider would have been awkward for me. Honestly, at Machu Picchu I shot the 50 a number of times too.

You're definitely right about color. I'm glad I brought a bunch, even though I tend to lean more towards black and white. Though, in Caral, which is mostly desert, I was glad I had some black and white with me.

Anyway, enjoy the trip! I'll probably be going back next Spring.

 

[Dr Gaspar]

1) Peru cries out for color ²

 

[uhoh7]

you will shoot yourself if you go without something 135-200

 

[kxl]

My main thought about needing something longer was for "shooting the banks of the Amazon" or "caymans at night" images while on a boat. Note: I don't know the scale so 200mm may not even be long enough. Other than that, I'm anticipating that my 17-35mm and 24-70mm should have the trip covered. Thanks everyone.

 

[sparrow6224]

I htinkn Nikon had a 135/3.5 that was light and small -- manual focus of course. The 75 - 150 is also great but you'll want it for the 135-150 range so a lighter prime would be even better I think. The Ai or Ais 200mm f/4 is tiny and superb and available even cheaper than the 135/3.5, I think.

 

[Mablo]

Amazon is very wide so a longer lens would be nice to have there. For Cusco and Macchu Picchu the 24-70 is just the perfect choice. Anapia is just outside Puno and I think you'll spend a lot of time on the other islands like Uros (the main tourist destination) or in Puno. You'll need a wide lens there too but I think 24mm is wide enough.

 

[rxmd]

Do you really need the 17-35? That's the more interesting question. The added value from a 70-200 seems much greater than that from a 17-35 and leaving the 17-35 at home will already save you half the weight of the big zoom.

If you don't need the 2.8 maximum aperture, you could buy a 70-210mm f/4 or f/4-5.6 for this trip. Both should cost around $150, they're much lighter (under 600g, less than the 17-35) and give decent images. The choice between them would be whether you need the close focusing of the f/4 version or the fast autofocus (and push-pull zoom action) of the f/4-5.6. I'd probably prefer the latter.