Walk around Long lens?

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

We hike So California wilderness quite a lot this time of the year' (cooler) and i enjoy shooting on the long side, My old 300mm was just to heavy to carry, I love the new Nikon 200-500 but after a couple miles it's killing me, My Tamron 150-600, is ok, but a pound or so less wouldn't hurt, I used to take My Nikon 70-300mm VR, but after moving up to the higher quality Tamron and Nikon my 70-300 just doesn't cut it (quality).

I'm thinking about buying the Nikon 300mm PF, but I think I would miss the Zoom factor. Are there any other (lightweight) zooms available that will give me close to the quality of my Tamron/Nikon zooms?

PHXAZCRAIG · Nov 10, 2015

I personally walk (not hike) with the 80-400g, often also with the 24-70, on a D810. I use a waist bag.

I have a couple of suggestions that are outside the range of what you're looking for, but perhaps either might be a consideration.

First - sometimes it's the weight, but sometimes it's how you carry the weight. The best place to carry weight is to transfer it to your hips. You'll feel it on your knees and feet, but your back and neck will be fine. I've found I can carry a DSLR with a long lens on a neck strap for maybe 10 minutes before it's really uncomfortable. The same weight put on a shoulder gives me 45-60 minutes - but I can move back and forth between shoulders for hours. Putting that same weight into a good waist bag (with a good waist strap) gets me most of a day. My waist bag of choice is a Think Tank Speed Racer (the only one big enough for a gripped DSLR). Shoulder bags are definitely out. Backpacks are even better, if they have a good waist strap, but end up too inconvenient plus end up overpacked with too much gear.

Second - if weight really is the consideration, the lightest halfway decent camera and long lens combo I can think of is a Nikon 1 (I like the V2) with the Nikon 70-300 System 1 lens. That's a REALLY light way to get to 810mm equivalent. Controls are funky but can be lived with. It's dynamic range/high ISO limitations that keeps me carrying the DSLR. I really like my V2 with the 10-100 zoom for general purpose lightweight travel.

Other than that, I don't have much to suggest except that the old non-VR Tamron 200-500 is a very light lens for that focal range. I've compared a friend's to my 300f4 with 1.4tc, and it seemed like half the weight.

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

PHXAZCRAIG said:
I personally walk (not hike) with the 80-400g, often also with the 24-70, on a D810. I use a waist bag.

I have a couple of suggestions that are outside the range of what you're looking for, but perhaps either might be a consideration.

First - sometimes it's the weight, but sometimes it's how you carry the weight. The best place to carry weight is to transfer it to your hips. You'll feel it on your knees and feet, but your back and neck will be fine. I've found I can carry a DSLR with a long lens on a neck strap for maybe 10 minutes before it's really uncomfortable. The same weight put on a shoulder gives me 45-60 minutes - but I can move back and forth between shoulders for hours. Putting that same weight into a good waist bag (with a good waist strap) gets me most of a day. My waist bag of choice is a Think Tank Speed Racer (the only one big enough for a gripped DSLR). Shoulder bags are definitely out. Backpacks are even better, if they have a good waist strap, but end up too inconvenient plus end up overpacked with too much gear.

Yes I agree its not the weight its the way you carry it. I always take a back pack with at least two bottles of water, extra battery, cards, cleaning cloths, glasses, short lens, filters, I can put a five pound lens in there and carry it for many hours with no problem. I never use the strap any more unless its walking to the car. have found that a medium tripod moved shoulder to shoulder is the most comfortable way to carry my D810 w/long lens, (even better than a monopod) but most birds/Bobcats/Deer/coyotes/Cougars/and other wildlife just won't wait for me to put a lens on my camera and shoot.

I can really feel the difference between the Nikon 200-500 and the Tamron 150-600 and it's only 14 oz's lighter, i was just hoping that there was a good quality lens out that would weigh in at 2 or 3 pounds.

PHXAZCRAIG said:
Second - if weight really is the consideration, the lightest halfway decent camera and long lens combo I can think of is a Nikon 1 (I like the V2) with the Nikon 70-300 System 1 lens. That's a REALLY light way to get to 810mm equivalent. Controls are funky but can be lived with. It's dynamic range/high ISO limitations that keeps me carrying the DSLR. I really like my V2 with the 10-100 zoom for general purpose lightweight travel.

Thanks for that information, I will check out the V2 w/its long lens, Maybe I need a different system just for the great outdoors (hiking).

PHXAZCRAIG said:
Other than that, I don't have much to suggest except that the old non-VR Tamron 200-500 is a very light lens for that focal range. I've compared a friend's to my 300f4 with 1.4tc, and it seemed like half the weight.

No thanks I had that lens and it's a big downgrade from what I now have, I would rather stop and rest more often.

PHXAZCRAIG said:
--
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

Thank you, Bob W.

razormac · Nov 10, 2015

+1 on the V2 with 10-100 or 70-300. In good light it has decent IQ and can't beat it for lightweight and portable.

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

razormac said:
+1 on the V2 with 10-100 or 70-300. In good light it has decent IQ and can't beat it for lightweight and portable.

Do you know the V2 crop factor?

kayaker353 · Nov 10, 2015

+ for the 80 to 400. I carry it on hikes as long as 11 miles on a D800, Never seems to be a problem. I have difficulty with carrying weight on my hips, so use a bag with a wide shoulder strap.

Steve Bingham · Nov 10, 2015

Nikon 70-300. Great from 70 to 200-220, starts getting a little less resolution at 300.

Here are a few samples taken in the 200-300 range:

The cliff shot was taken at 86mm (70-200), not 200-300 on 70-300.

Here is an actual test done with an old D50 (6 mp) at ISO 500. Pretty much a worse case as the D50 was noisy at ISO 500. All photos are hand held. You see, all things are relative!

This sort of resolution would be fine for 90% of the users out there. The squirrel looks fine at 13 x 19 print.

Squirrel%20(72%20dpi%20at%2013%20x%2019).jpg

Be careful what you read in forums.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.

Steve Bingham · Nov 10, 2015

I posted some kayak shots just for you! (FibArk a few years back)

kayaker353 said:
+ for the 80 to 400. I carry it on hikes as long as 11 miles on a D800, Never seems to be a problem. I have difficulty with carrying weight on my hips, so use a bag with a wide shoulder strap.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.

Michael Benveniste · Nov 10, 2015

BobWorrell said:
Do you know the V2 crop factor?

2.7x

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Michael Benveniste said:
BobWorrell said:

Do you know the V2 crop factor?

Click to expand...

2.7x

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Steve Bingham said:
Nikon 70-300. Great from 70 to 200-220, starts getting a little less resolution at 300.

Here are a few samples taken in the 200-300 range:

The cliff shot was taken at 86mm (70-200), not 200-300 on 70-300.

Here is an actual test done with an old D50 (6 mp) at ISO 500. Pretty much a worse case as the D50 was noisy at ISO 500. All photos are hand held. You see, all things are relative!

This sort of resolution would be fine for 90% of the users out there. The squirrel looks fine at 13 x 19 print.

Be careful what you read in forums.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.

Those shots look good, maybe i just need to send it in for cleaning/adjustment i've been using it for 8 or 9 years and its only the last couple years that the results are disappointing, I've got shots from My D40X, and D300, D7000, 2008-2010, that look pretty good with it.

Roy Kikuta · Nov 10, 2015

BobWorrell said:
Yes I agree its not the weight its the way you carry it. I always take a back pack with at least two bottles of water, extra battery, cards, cleaning cloths, glasses, short lens, filters, I can put a five pound lens in there and carry it for many hours with no problem. I never use the strap any more unless its walking to the car. have found that a medium tripod moved shoulder to shoulder is the most comfortable way to carry my D810 w/long lens, (even better than a monopod) but most birds/Bobcats/Deer/coyotes/Cougars/and other wildlife just won't wait for me to put a lens on my camera and shoot.

Thank you, Bob W.

I think you've captured the dilemma hikers face... I can carry my D810 and 300f2.8 (or 200-500) on mountain trails as long as it stays in the backpack. Problem is - in the few seconds it takes to dig the camera out of the pack - the wildlife/ideal shot is gone! If photo opps of wildlife are abundant - but fleeting - the only solution is to have the camera in the hand, ready to shoot. Not sure of the wilderness trail conditions in so. California, but having a largish kit in the hand on mountain trails here on Oahu is asking for trouble, and will slow me down to a crawl to protect both equipment and myself

One solution is to carry two systems - FX and CX. FX in the pack until you come upon a photo opp that you're willing to stop and break it out; CX in the hand while you're hiking. Thankfully, the CX kit adds little weight (31 oz for V3+70-300CX). A couple of earlier posters suggested a V2 - I've used a V3 with wide zoom (6.7~13mm) and 70-300CX for tele that worked well. Of course, if the trail is really long, steep, or hazardous...I'll probably leave the FX kit at home (still gotta carry lunch, water, first aid, phone, rainjacket, et al, after all...).

Roy

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Roy Kikuta said:
BobWorrell said:

Yes I agree its not the weight its the way you carry it. I always take a back pack with at least two bottles of water, extra battery, cards, cleaning cloths, glasses, short lens, filters, I can put a five pound lens in there and carry it for many hours with no problem. I never use the strap any more unless its walking to the car. have found that a medium tripod moved shoulder to shoulder is the most comfortable way to carry my D810 w/long lens, (even better than a monopod) but most birds/Bobcats/Deer/coyotes/Cougars/and other wildlife just won't wait for me to put a lens on my camera and shoot.

Thank you, Bob W.

Click to expand...

I think you've captured the dilemma hikers face... I can carry my D810 and 300f2.8 (or 200-500) on mountain trails as long as it stays in the backpack. Problem is - in the few seconds it takes to dig the camera out of the pack - the wildlife/ideal shot is gone! If photo opps of wildlife are abundant - but fleeting - the only solution is to have the camera in the hand, ready to shoot. Not sure of the wilderness trail conditions in so. California, but having a largish kit in the hand on mountain trails here on Oahu is asking for trouble, and will slow me down to a crawl to protect both equipment and myself One solution is to carry two systems - FX and CX. FX in the pack until you come upon a photo opp that you're willing to stop and break it out; CX in the hand while you're hiking. Thankfully, the CX kit adds little weight (31 oz for V3+70-300CX). A couple of earlier posters suggested a V2 - I've used a V3 with wide zoom (6.7~13mm) and 70-300CX for tele that worked well. Of course, if the trail is really long, steep, or hazardous...I'll probably leave the FX kit at home (still gotta carry lunch, water, first aid, phone, rainjacket, et al, after all...).

Roy

Southern California is much drier and in most cases, not as steep as Oahu, I've only fallen once, off the edge of a creek with my D800/24-70, somehow managed to lay the camera down on the bank on my way in, the camera was OK, my wrist was broken, but bones heal, Cameras don't.

Bob W.

Michael Benveniste · Nov 10, 2015

BobWorrell said:
Thanks, so the 100mm lens would be the equivalent view of a 270mm?

Correct.

Turning for the moment to SLR/dSLR gear, the late Galen Rowell was known to use a 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED, and in real-life use the current VR model is a big step up from that older lens. I use it as my "walk around long lens" quite a bit. It's even capable of some quick-and-dirty macro work when combined with a Marumi 330 close-up lens.

One alternative I've tried with some success is using a 180mm f/2.8D and adding a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter as needed. This approach benefits from a monopod or some sort of other support. Unfortunately, on a D800 it's really too heavy for my TrekPod.

Roy Kikuta · Nov 10, 2015

BobWorrell said:
Roy Kikuta said:

BobWorrell said:

Yes I agree its not the weight its the way you carry it. I always take a back pack with at least two bottles of water, extra battery, cards, cleaning cloths, glasses, short lens, filters, I can put a five pound lens in there and carry it for many hours with no problem. I never use the strap any more unless its walking to the car. have found that a medium tripod moved shoulder to shoulder is the most comfortable way to carry my D810 w/long lens, (even better than a monopod) but most birds/Bobcats/Deer/coyotes/Cougars/and other wildlife just won't wait for me to put a lens on my camera and shoot.

Thank you, Bob W.

Click to expand...

I think you've captured the dilemma hikers face... I can carry my D810 and 300f2.8 (or 200-500) on mountain trails as long as it stays in the backpack. Problem is - in the few seconds it takes to dig the camera out of the pack - the wildlife/ideal shot is gone! If photo opps of wildlife are abundant - but fleeting - the only solution is to have the camera in the hand, ready to shoot. Not sure of the wilderness trail conditions in so. California, but having a largish kit in the hand on mountain trails here on Oahu is asking for trouble, and will slow me down to a crawl to protect both equipment and myself One solution is to carry two systems - FX and CX. FX in the pack until you come upon a photo opp that you're willing to stop and break it out; CX in the hand while you're hiking. Thankfully, the CX kit adds little weight (31 oz for V3+70-300CX). A couple of earlier posters suggested a V2 - I've used a V3 with wide zoom (6.7~13mm) and 70-300CX for tele that worked well. Of course, if the trail is really long, steep, or hazardous...I'll probably leave the FX kit at home (still gotta carry lunch, water, first aid, phone, rainjacket, et al, after all...).

Roy

Click to expand...

Southern California is much drier and in most cases, not as steep as Oahu, I've only fallen once, off the edge of a creek with my D800/24-70, somehow managed to lay the camera down on the bank on my way in, the camera was OK, my wrist was broken, but bones heal, Cameras don't.

Bob W.

. Similar experience - walking down a gravelly switchback, my left foot slid out from under me and I ended up sitting down on my right ankle. Saved D3 with 14-24 in right hand, but broke my right ankle in 3 places

Roy

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Steve Bingham said:
Nikon 70-300. Great from 70 to 200-220, starts getting a little less resolution at 300.

Here are a few samples taken in the 200-300 range:

The cliff shot was taken at 86mm (70-200), not 200-300 on 70-300.

Here is an actual test done with an old D50 (6 mp) at ISO 500. Pretty much a worse case as the D50 was noisy at ISO 500. All photos are hand held. You see, all things are relative!

This sort of resolution would be fine for 90% of the users out there. The squirrel looks fine at 13 x 19 print.

Be careful what you read in forums.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com
Latest postings are always at the bottom of each page.

Steve, I did a quick test to compare

33-4

36-7

38-9

39-10

the 70-300, at 200mm, please rate them and let me know what you think.

Bird pics · Nov 10, 2015

The second shot looks best to me. In fact that one would be good with about any lens. You might try that shot stopped down a little further.

Steve

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Bird pics said:
The second shot looks best to me. In fact that one would be good with about any lens. You might try that shot stopped down a little further.

Steve

Thanks, I need a few more opinions.

BobWorrell · Nov 10, 2015

Steve, I did a quick test to compare

View: original size

33-4

View: original size

36-7

View: original size

38-9

View: original size

39-10

the 70-300, at 200mm, please rate them and let me know what you think.

simon2001 · Nov 10, 2015

BobWorrell said:
We hike So California wilderness quite a lot this time of the year' (cooler) and i enjoy shooting on the long side, My old 300mm was just to heavy to carry, I love the new Nikon 200-500 but after a couple miles it's killing me, My Tamron 150-600, is ok, but a pound or so less wouldn't hurt, I used to take My Nikon 70-300mm VR, but after moving up to the higher quality Tamron and Nikon my 70-300 just doesn't cut it (quality).

I'm thinking about buying the Nikon 300mm PF, but I think I would miss the Zoom factor. Are there any other (lightweight) zooms available that will give me close to the quality of my Tamron/Nikon zooms?

Perhaps there are alternative carrying options? That's what I found.

I carry my 200-500 lens + D7200 + 7kg backpack (extra clothing, rain gear, water, snacks etc) on 8 hour hikes including portions at 45-60 degree angles on very rough terrain/climbs....and i am not ultra fit...i use the bag below for quick access and put that bag in the main backpack when i need/want to. The result is the weight of the camera/lens is far less of an issue. So the camera doesn't have to be in my hand or around my neck for long, but is easily accessible and protected.

On shorter hikes or cycle rides I of course just take the camera bag, not the back pack, so its the only camera bag i actually need.

There are probably similar bags by other manufacturers, my point is just that the burden of the weight is very much a matter of the method of carrying.

http://www.kata-bags.com/access-17-pl-for-dslr-with-70-200-lens-lens-lens

Walk around Long lens?

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts