Do you need >70mm in Peru?

K

kxl

Social Documentary
Local time
3:37 AM
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
3,014
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom