Wide angled lens for mountains?

Gary from Seattle wrote:

I last did a trek around Manaslu in 1999 with my film camera and lenses 20, 35, 55, 105 and 180. I mostly used the 105 and 180 for cultural shots of the local people. The lenses from 20 to 55 were what I used for the vast majority of my mountain scenery shots. I carried this kit plus at that time plus a 5 lb. tripod throughout the 22 day 200 mile journey. With m4/3 a much lighter tripod will suffice. If you are going with porters, which I would recommend both for convenience but also culturally your pack needn't be heavy. Yours could easily weigh less than 15 pounds, perhaps even ten.

There is not only a great deal of relief to the snow-capped peaks but the mountains are very large, extensive. The width is valuable to encompass the great height and breadth of scenery.

We fall into 2 main camps re gear on the trail.  I m of the persuasion that ultralight is nirvana.  I am a helicopter pilot, and an ultra-light back packer, and I DETEST carrying too much.  I find it robs me of the joy of going foot-loose and fancy-free.  By being ruthless in slashing weight, I go further w/ much greater enjoyment.

I love my FF Nikon & glass, but definitely not on the trail!

i am very impressed by you Gary.

I suppose porters (or your personal lama) might change the equation.  (Ansel Adams used pack mules)

But it can't be feasible to have them constantly at your side on the trail. (?)