If you were going mountain climbing, would YOU pack a 105mm lens?

[Ade-oh]

On my last mountain trip - see above - I took a Nikon F5, an 85mm f1.8 and an 18-35mm Nikkor zoom, together with about 8 rolls of Provia 100, polarising filters and an ND grad for the 18-35mm. It was just on the limit of being too much gear, bearing in mind our original intention of wild camping at high altitude. In fact, the weather was mostly so bad on the French side of the Pyrenees that we stayed at camp sites and did day walks, so it wasn't as much of an issue.

 

[filmfan]

Not unless there is a point and shoot camera with a 105mm lens in it. I guess that would mean I would bring a zoom point and shoot?

 

[ornate_wrasse]

Matterhorn by Eirik0304, on Flickr

That is one gorgeous shot. Nicely done!

ELLEN

 

[andredossantos]

Well, I have a 90mm but I have to agree longer that longer tele's rock in this capacity. I bought my 90 Cron specifically to use for "urban" landscapes (though I would definitely take it hiking as well!). Anyway, don't have much scanned at the moment but here's one example:


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr

And here is a landscape I took with a friend's 90mm Elmar


Untitled by andre dos santos, on Flickr

 

[LKeithR]

Too many photographers suffer from wide angle fever when shooting landscapes. Shoot some longer lenses and get closer. Nine times out of ten you end up with better photos. I personally do not like the tendancy for many scenic photographers to strand back with a wide angle to "fit it all in" It seldom works or conveys a sense of place. IT just ends up with tiny details too small to see and no sense of the grandure of the whole scene.

Boy, I couldn't agree more. I see so many landscapes that are blah because 2/3s of the frame is empty sky. Get in close and show me the detail...

 

[sepiareverb]

I would not pack a 105 as I don't own one. I'd likely take the 90 or the 135, depending on where I was going.

 

[Keith]

I think I'd take the smallest SLR body available with a good quality zoom. I spent a month in the Himalaya in the nineties and carried a Canon AE1 and a 35-105 macro zoom and shot ten rolls of Kodachrome. I knew squat about photography but that combination got the job done perfectly. I look at those pics occasionally and realise I couldn't do better with the armoury I have at my disposal now.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Boy, I couldn't agree more. I see so many landscapes that are blah because 2/3s of the frame is empty sky. Get in close and show me the detail...

+1 though some of the most fascinating photography I've seen recently was just that, 2/3 sky. Google Murray Fredericks.

Back on topic, and not taking the climbing quite literally -- yes, makes perfect sense. For the same reason that you'd take along binoculars.

 

[uhoh7]

long lens in the mountains...

bigger
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6037882662_8246a94c10_b.jpg
above: nikon 180ED AIS

bigger
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/5837907867_01176acaf9_b.jpg
above Nikon 300/4.5 ED AI IF

bigger
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6081/6042769754_52162b0d87_b.jpg
Above Leica-R 400/6.8

OK OK I would not lug any of those up the matterhorn, but I would not leave this behind...

6.48 oz

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think I'd take the smallest SLR body available with a good quality zoom. I spent a month in the Himalaya in the nineties and carried a Canon AE1 and a 35-105 macro zoom and shot ten rolls of Kodachrome. I knew squat about photography but that combination got the job done perfectly. I look at those pics occasionally and realise I couldn't do better with the armoury I have at my disposal now.

It crossed my mind that modern light weight af variable aperture zooms serve the same purpose today as the mountain Elmar did way back. An afs 24-85/3.5-4.5 serves that purpose for me.

Bob

 

[JayM]

Long lens would be nice for photographing views but probably less nice for photographing you and your partner(s) climbing. Assuming we're talking about actual technical climbing and not walking up a steep hill.

 

[rovnguy]

I generally stick to a basic camera body, my favorite being an OM-1 and three Zuiko lenses: 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.8. And ALWAYS, one of my sweet little XA rangefinders.

 

[alan davus]

I'm just back from a 5 day hike in the Flinders Ranges here in South Australia (completing the final leg of the 1200km Heysen Trail.) I took a 50 lens as my main shooter and a 35 for wide angle shots. For me they are mandatory. A 75 or 90 would be nice but not at the expense of either of the other two. When you have to carry everything day after day there must always be compromises and even more so if a lot of climbing is involved. Virtually everyone I know who climb on a regular basis rarely take anything more than a small zoom digicam . I'm considered a bit weird because I still use an "old fashioned" camera with several lenses (and film.)

 

[lacavol]

When hiking an evil SLR like an OM or a rangefinder works fine and I always take something in the 9-10 cm range. Sometimes in the mountains you can't zoom with your feet, unless you can fly. When rock climbing I have had really good results with a Tessina around my neck with a little temporary duct tape to protect it and it fits in my shirt pocket. I've tried digital P&S cameras but always end up taking pictures of my fingers. I never had that problem with the Tessina, it's just ergonomically better. NB. your pants pockets are not easily accessible while in a harness.

 

[LTN]

Weight is always going to be an issue so I carry my Panasonic Lumix GF2 and the 14-42 zoom lens. Just because it's compact and light.

 

[ferider]

In addition to a normal lens (35 or 50), I find a short tele much more important for landscapes than a wide.

 

[faris]

That's what I always have with me. Either the cron 75mm on M8 or the
zf 100mm planar on my D700..

Both these with the ZF 100mm Makro Planar..

In the Alps..

In the Rice fields, Bali..

 

[David.Boettcher]

Just as I think this thread is coming to an end it kicks off again, and am I happy about that! What a fantastic response!!

Although we have wandered far from the screw fit 10.5cm f/6.3 Mountain Elmar that I had in mind when I started the thread, the wide range of equipment discussed, and particularly the fantastic photographs posted, has really opened my mind to the use of a long lens when photographing scenery.

Maybe Leitz made a mistake when they dropped the 10.5cm Elmar after less than 4,000 units . . .

Thanks to everyone that has contributed so far!

Regards - David

 

[Ade-oh]

Long lens would be nice for photographing views but probably less nice for photographing you and your partner(s) climbing. Assuming we're talking about actual technical climbing and not walking up a steep hill.

IIRC, Galen Rowell carried a 24mm and an 85mm with a single Nikon body when climbing.