More versatile lens needed? Hiking in Nepal

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

That's not a lot of extra reach you're getting. If you don't mind the PZ, the 18-120 looks great. Otherwise the 18-135 perhaps? It'd get you close to what a 50-140 would bring.

If you don't mind three lenses, the 50-230 would be great.

I'm pushing the range here a bit because in the mountains, you can use it!

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

You may want to look at Andy Mumford's use of the 16-80 for his landscape work - he always takes it with him ....

britcam said:

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

You may want to look at Andy Mumford's use of the 16-80 for his landscape work - he always takes it with him ....

https://www.andymumford.com/blog/2024/1/1/fujifilm-xf16-80mm-f4-review-a-do-it-all-lens

Click to expand...

I would also offer this old account of a Nepalese trip…


You don’t need more reach if you’re happy to invest your attention purely on the images that fall within the reach that you do have. But I think that’s the zoom vs prime mindset.

Personally on a trip like that I’d take one normal (23~27mm) and one wide (12~18mm). If you’re in the zoom mindset then you’re covered by the 18-50, but the zoom mindset can’t stop worrying about what’s beyond the range

britcam said:

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

You may want to look at Andy Mumford's use of the 16-80 for his landscape work - he always takes it with him ....

https://www.andymumford.com/blog/2024/1/1/fujifilm-xf16-80mm-f4-review-a-do-it-all-lens

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of exceptional copy of the 16-80 Andy Mumford had but I wouldn't trust mine to be as reliable. It is pretty much unusable past 60mm except for portraits, and at the corners are somehow always soft even at 16mm.

My conclusion after years is that I would be better served with said the new 16-50 2.8-4.8 or the 16-55 2.8 mkii.

If OP want to be light, then the 16-50 is what makes the most sense, with optical qualities largely superior to the 16-80.

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

First, what a wonderful adventure. The Everest Base Camp trek is on my bucket list. My brother has trekked in Nepal and visited the country a few times.

In discussions with him about my aspiration to go there, photographically one point became apparent. In trekking at altitude one's torso heaves more than at sea level as the body needs more air. Thus, if one stops to capture that wonderful vista, one's body is likely to be heaving and the body core moving up and down as one breaths in and out. Some form of stabilisation is helpful. It is not a complete solution and one will still have to conscientiously stop breathing at the top of the inhale to steady the camera to press the shutter button, but it helps.

So, assuming this is a 'trip of a life time' I'd buy a Fuji 18-55, which has OIS, as the normal lens. With introduction of the new 16-50 they are relatively cheap on the second hand market and one can sell it after the trip.

For reach, the 50-230, which I had, provides excellent image quality, has OIS, has decent reach and is pretty light.

So a kit comprising the Sigma 10-18, the Fuji 18-55, Fuji 50-230 and perhaps a Fuji 23/2 (for tea house low light shots - also secondhand) would be a pretty comprehensive kit that is light, has good focal range and is not overly expensive (especially if one sells the odd lens post trip).

PS, a good second hand Fuji XC16-50 II is an alternative option to a 18-55. Same build quality as the 50-230 II, lighter than the 18-55, starts are 16mm, OIS and decent IQ.

Hope that helps.

--
J.
http://jules7.smugmug.com/

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

I did the same trek decades ago. With a 35mm analog camera and a 28mm, 50mm, 35-70 zoom lens and 200 mm telephoto lens.

Of course hiking is more comfortable if you travel light, e.g. a backpack less than 10 kg including all camping and camera gear. That's not that easy to achieve. If you have an excellent physical condition this is less an issue of course

I would suggest a ultra wide angle lens is less important in the mountains. The 16-80mm would be a good general choice. Or the 16-50 and the 55-200mm if weight is less an issue.

In 2017 I went on three-week long Three Passes trek in Nepal, with porters -- I carried only my day pack. I took only X-T2 with 18-55 kit lens, and a very lightweight travel tripod.

This turned out to be completely sufficient, and I was glad that I didn't carry more gear. The altitude is physically demanding, so you want to go as light as possible. I do have mountaineering experience and packed accordingly.

Most of my pictures were of people, villages, plants and miscellaneous close-ups. For landscape shots I was content with the reach of 55mm. Tripod was for long exposures and selfies.

Other tips:

I also had an iPhone, Garmin inReach, three camera batteries, adapter for their AC outlets, power bank, chargers for all devices, camera & lens cleaning supplies, spare SD cards, and a waterproof bag for all devices in case of rain.

I had the camera in a holster bag (Lowepro Toploader Zoom 45 AW II) strapped on my chest to the backpack shoulder straps with quick release buckles. That allowed quick access to the camera, with neck strap around my neck when shooting, didn't bounce around, and protected the camera from dust, which is often abundant and blown by wind on frequented trails. I would not carry the camera unprotected for prolonged time, like, e.g., on Peak Design Capture clip.

Become familiar and proficient with your camera. Figure out proper aperture for desired depth of field -- I didn't, and missed some focus. Same for hand-held shutter speeds -- with physical exertion and heavy breathing your hands will be shaking. At least halve the recommended SS for the focal length. An app like PhotoPills will be useful.

For me, the main enjoyment of the trip was hiking, seeing and experiencing the nature and local culture. Photography was enjoyable, but not the main focus or objective of the trip. I think trying to turn the trek into a photography hunt takes away from the enjoyment. There are so many things and scenes to photograph, don't try to capture it all -- rather look, see, take it in, revel in the experience with your family.

With today's lens choices, I'd go with XF 16-50 or XF 16-55/2.8 II. I also have XF 10-24 and XF 55-200 that I use on shorter hikes, but would not drag them on a Nepal trek.

Thank you everyone

I do have the wide end covered (at F2.8 as well) so that should be ok for the tea houses and “people shots,.. Perhaps most of you are correct in not needing more reach as well.
I guess I had read a few years ago about having a tele-zoom was “good” for landscape as it allowed one to “compress the scene” and show more detail,. But I would rather be in the moment and enjoy the time than worry about finding, buying and getting familiar with a new longer lens.

hmm it’s a tougher choice than I thought it would be!

thanks again everyone

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

One of the easiest trails in the area of Kathmandu, I had a backpack with a xH2s, 100-400 and a 16-55. I underestimated an uphill, approx 2.2km altitude trek. Though this one was steep all the way up but still, going light is preferable, the weight of your bag and straps will be felt each 100m you climb. The Annapurna will be over several days, and some days will be long and difficult, others a bit more forgiving. It's one of those ones where you'll regret not bringing everything .

Zambonis13 said:

Hello all

my family and I are hiking the Annapurna trek in Nepal soon

I have X-E4 and Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 but should I have something with more reach?

was thinking of getting fujifilm 16-80mm for a little more reach?,.

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hi!

I was at EBC trek last april. Had rather much of gear: X-E4 with three batteries, Sigma AF 12/2, XC 15-45, 35/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4 and XC 50-230 (old version). I also had Canon G1XIII. That tele zoom was not one I used most, but I sure feel it was important part of kit.

I'm sorry I have only couple photos taken with 50-230 to share here, but I'm on phone now. Also this are just hastily selected and processed in situ, with Snapseed...

A s l a




Take Off, Lukla




Thamserku


Somewhete between Namche Bazaar & Mongla


Upper part of Ama Dablan


Young Monks, Tengboche


Last Glimpse, between Namche and Phakding

How about Tamron 18-300mm. 16-80 is not long enough. You need a longer tele to make those mountains look majestic also in your picture. You can also pick small details without stepping out of the trail. 18 is wide enough for shooting action on trails. And most important: you don't need to swap lenses all the time.

Wide angle zoom you already have. Third lens in your bag should be something like 35mm F1.4 for low light photos.

Veritable said:

...

I had the camera in a holster bag (Lowepro Toploader Zoom 45 AW II) strapped on my chest to the backpack shoulder straps with quick release buckles. That allowed quick access to the camera, with neck strap around my neck when shooting, didn't bounce around, and protected the camera from dust, which is often abundant and blown by wind on frequented trails. I would not carry the camera unprotected for prolonged time, like, e.g., on Peak Design Capture clip.

Click to expand...

I just found a good option for carrying the camera on your chest while backpacking:

Peak Design Outdoor Sling 2L
https://www.peakdesign.com/products/outdoor-sling?Size=2L&Color=Black

Take a look at the product photos, they show it attached to the backpack straps. Small, light, packable.



Bought one myself, multiple ways to use it.

Hello

funny you mention the zoom range thing as I do often hope for longer or shorter when using them! Lol

I believe you may be right about my lenses I currently have with me. I’m sure I will be happy with my photos.

i also have the 27mm f2.8 ii and the x100F with me as well,.
one problem with getting another lens (and selling one in that purchase), is that I am in Cambodia and photo shop options are very limited!

thanks again for your thoughts and comments

Cheers!

Veritable said:

Veritable said:

...

I had the camera in a holster bag (Lowepro Toploader Zoom 45 AW II) strapped on my chest to the backpack shoulder straps with quick release buckles. That allowed quick access to the camera, with neck strap around my neck when shooting, didn't bounce around, and protected the camera from dust, which is often abundant and blown by wind on frequented trails. I would not carry the camera unprotected for prolonged time, like, e.g., on Peak Design Capture clip.

Click to expand...

I just found a good option for carrying the camera on your chest while backpacking:

Peak Design Outdoor Sling 2L
https://www.peakdesign.com/products/outdoor-sling?Size=2L&Color=Black

Take a look at the product photos, they show it attached to the backpack straps. Small, light, packable.

Bought one myself, multiple ways to use it.

Click to expand...

I second that. I have the everyday sling 3L and 6L https://www.peakdesign.com/products/everyday-sling?Size=3L&Color=Black

The 3L fits my X-T5 with lens attached and spare batteries and SD cards. The 6L can take the camera with three lenses (Sigma 10-18mm, and Fujifilm 18 and 33mm LM WR lenses).

Great bag and water proof to some degree.

Veritable said:

Veritable said:

...

I had the camera in a holster bag (Lowepro Toploader Zoom 45 AW II) strapped on my chest to the backpack shoulder straps with quick release buckles. That allowed quick access to the camera, with neck strap around my neck when shooting, didn't bounce around, and protected the camera from dust, which is often abundant and blown by wind on frequented trails. I would not carry the camera unprotected for prolonged time, like, e.g., on Peak Design Capture clip.

Click to expand...

I just found a good option for carrying the camera on your chest while backpacking:

Peak Design Outdoor Sling 2L
https://www.peakdesign.com/products/outdoor-sling?Size=2L&Color=Black

Take a look at the product photos, they show it attached to the backpack straps. Small, light, packable.

Bought one myself, multiple ways to use it.

Click to expand...

... and found out that X-T2/3 won't fit in. I plan to use it as a hip-pack for holding filters, remote control, batteries and such within quick reach when shooting from a tripod.

Hello and thanks for the tips!

I have three batteries between my XE-4 and my X100F and also a charging pack and adapters as well. Will carry the camera in a sling type bag for easy access so I agree with you there as well.

still thinking of picking up a used 50-230mm (light weight and good reach), or still maybe the 16-80 if I can find one in Bangkok before we fly to Kathmandu,.. but the 55-200 seems a little heavy for the XE-4,…thoughts?

cheers!

i don't understand why people keep recommending you get the 18-55 or the new 16-50...what you have is a really nice and compact kit which can do pretty much anything

for more reach i see these as the possible options:

• Fuji 16-80: the lens is good, not perfect, but definitely not worthy of all the hate
• Fuji 18-135: old, could use a refresh
• Tamron 17-70: same 2.8 aperture but quite large compared to your 18-50 and on the X-E4 ( i have it for the X-T5 on which i balances nicely)
• Tamron 18-300: all the reach you could want
• if you're ok with adding a 3rd lens then: Fuji 50-230, 55-200 or 70-300...all very good

andrei1989 said:

i don't understand why people keep recommending you get the 18-55 or the new 16-50...what you have is a really nice and compact kit which can do pretty much anything

Click to expand...

For two reasons. First, neither the XE4, which I used to own, nor the OP's current lenses have stabilisation, which when hiking at high altitude and a heaving body core could be helpful. Second, especially the 18-55, which i also used to own and used for Alpine hiking, has OIS and is now very reasonably priced on the used market.

Hello

yes I appreciate the post and I agree the two Sigma lenses I have are great (for my use case), and I love the small sizes and weight,.
And to your second point I was indeed curious about more reach for the mountains and am considering the 55-200, or the larger, longer, but lighter 50-230, or 16-80 but not sure if it is longer enough to make much difference vs cropping etc

cheers!