Hiking in national parks, lens suggestions?

Arizona Sunset wrote:

Hi

When hiking this week I took my EM10 mkII and 12-32mm. Nice and small and light. But there again I take general pictures of scenery and family when out and about. So for me no need for a longer FL in these situations. If there was wildlife involved I would take the 35-100 f2.8.

400-600mm equivalent is where wildlife happens in western parks

My family and I did day hikes up to 12 miles in Rocky National Park and also visited about 10 other parks where we did shorter day hikes or 1/2 day hikes. We got as far west as Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. We saw little wildlife while hiking up higher and I thought I had little need to zoom in during the hikes. A 400-600 equivalent is needed for Elk in the lower pastures at Yellowstone. I am not sure I would have much use for a 35-100 in the western parks while on a hike but I may keep it in a vehicle if it would be safe while I was out hiking.  You can drive to the areas where the are commonly seen in the evenings during rutting season so I did not need to carry this type of a lens on a long hike. We took the trip in 2012. I bought a refurbished E-PL1, kit lenses, 14mm Panasonic lens, Panasonic camcorder, Canon S95, and other gear for the trip. I never used the 14-42 and seldom used the 40-150. I used the Panasonic lens for all the landscape photos. I used a Canon S95 for some landscape photos and for all the closer shots and all the shots with family members. It was nice to have this small camera on my belt that I could pull out quickly. I put the E-PL1 away at times into my Lowepro Slingshot 102 camera bag. I could quickly pull it from the bag when needed but I used the Canon S95 for photos where I had like time. We also stopped at Badlands, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Grand Teton, Zion, , Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde and a few lessor known parks. We often stayed in the parks until sunset so fast lenses would help with low light evening photos. Our trip took 4 weeks. One consideration was my wife and two teenage daughters enjoyed hiking with me but they did not want to stop long for me to take photos at every scenic point so I had no little time to switch lenses and I did not want to carry a lot of weight. I tried to balance taking photos and also enjoying the scenery and being with my family.  We took day hikes so we did not need to carry a lot of gear but we did need to carry plenty of water and some food. It was 106 degrees F outside when we hiked in the Badlands.  I carried water on a belt and also attached to my Lowepro camera bag.

We saw much more wildlife on our trip to the Everglades and along the coast near San Diego than we did on our 2011 trip out west or our trip to Arcadia.

I now have a E-PM2 and many more M43 lenses.  I bought a Sony a6000 to cover high school XC and T&F meets.  If I went to the national parks today I would want an even wider lens than the 14mm.  For hiking I would want at least two light weight and small cameras because changing lenses often would not be convenient.  It seemed that most of the large animal sighting were done from a vehicle at the side of the road so I did not need to take the 40-150 lens on most hikes.  Now I would use the Sony for video or a newer M43 camera for video while on a hike rather than carry the camcorder.  The 20x or greater zoom of the camcorder would still be useful other times when not on a hike.

So for national parks one needs to consider what they will photograph, how much weight they want to carry, how good of physical shape they are in, and how far they plan to hike.   I think it would be worthwhile to carry a heavier, longer lens for hikes in some national parks while in others it may not be worthwhile depending on how likely one would see wildlife from a distance.