South America / Rainforest trip - lens selection

Hello all, I am lucky enough to be going on a holiday to South America in August, which weill include Machu Picchu, Patagonia and the Peruvian rainforest in Puerto Maldonado. Weight and luggage space means I should limit the number of lenses I bring, so I have a few questions for this forum:

I will be taking the XT1 with 16-55/2.8 which will do me fine for Machu Picchu and Patagonia. I am unsure if the 14mm (which I also own) is also warranted for some nice wide landscapes. I have seen many mention that the 16-55/2.8 at 16mm is unsuitable for landscapes - why is this?

I believe getting good photos in the rainforest will be the main challenge. I currently also own the 55-200 zoom which I am very happy with, however it is not WR - should I be concerned about this?

I remember seeing a thread a while back from someone who took the 50-140 to Borneo, they appreciated the bright aperture but wished for a greater focal length..... Would the 100-400 or 50-140 lens be a better option to take photos of birds, insects, monkeys and any other creatures we find in the rainforest than the 55-200? Is the 100-400 lens too large/heavy to comfortably walk through the undergrowth with?

Thanks in advance.

I would only take the 16-55 hiking with me, whichever telephoto I choose to bring would be waiting back in Cusco along with my winter clothing.

For me, the 10-24 would be the only must-have lens for a trip to MP.  Can't imagine going without it, and I'm not sure I'd take much more.  If I was ultra-concerned about weight I'd take the 14 instead.

If I felt I could pack more than the 10-24, I'd probably go with the 35/2 or maybe the 18-55.  The 16-55 is a great lens but I wouldn't want to pack it up such an extreme hike.  Not enough benefit IMO.  But I like to shoot wide and 16mm would not satisfy me on such a trip.

The 14 + the 18-55 would be a good pair as well.  58mm filters on both, which are light.  Just one CP and you are good.

In fact, I might even be tempted to prioritize a small, light tripod & some ND filters over FL range so that I could do some long exposure photography.

But I have not researched MP that much, so I'm shooting from the hip here.  I'm sure a telephoto would be interesting as well.  Probably the 50-230 to keep weight down.

The most important thing to me would be a second body. Not only as a backup, but to avoid changing lens.  Protecting the sensor is a real necessity in most of those places.

I never visited Peru but I've been in the Amazon forest, Atacama and Patagonia. Long glass is more important then fast glass, I would say. Below the canopy in Amazon is very dark,  so it's high ISO anyway. The 55-200 should be enough. Count on bad weather, even in august, so I would take the 16-55 instead of the 18-55. Not a large weight difference, in my opinion.

Regards

lsanto wrote:

The most important thing to me would be a second body. Not only as a backup, but to avoid changing lens. Protecting the sensor is a real necessity in most of those places.

I never visited Peru but I've been in the Amazon forest, Atacama and Patagonia. Long glass is more important then fast glass, I would say. Below the canopy in Amazon is very dark, so it's high ISO anyway. The 55-200 should be enough. Count on bad weather, even in august, so I would take the 16-55 instead of the 18-55. Not a large weight difference, in my opinion.

Regards

Yeah, for the rainforest the 16-55 would be a good choice.  And I agree about the weight there.  But for MP, I've been told you feel every ounce that you carry.

BTW, in terms of carrying the big lenses, I really like to use one of these mounted to a backpack shoulder strap:

https://www.peakdesign.com/product/clips/capturepro/

Makes it VERY easy to handle a large lens while hiking. I'm about to try mine with a 50-140, which I just acquired today.

In addition to the clip, I also use their "Clutch"

https://www.peakdesign.com/product/straps/clutch

The combination of the two is very nice.  The camera is on the shoulder strap when not needed, and in your hand when you are actively scouting/shooting.  The clutch works great with the 16-55 - it seems like it would be uncomfortable with that much weight in one hand but it's really not.  You just tighten the strap and it sort of dangles from your hand - no death grip required.

Now, the 50-140 might be a different story.  Again, I'm going to try that combo this weekend.  But I like not having a neck strap or sling attached to the camera, at least when hiking.  City work is another matter - I prefer a sling in that scenario.

I have seen a few threads over time involving people who have used a "non weather sealed" lens or camera without issue...I personally if on a trip like yours would prefer my gear to be weather sealed...

I believe there are many different types of covers that can be affixed to your camera too,,and I'm considering one for my xt10 and 55-200...

That aside,,sounds like a fantastic trip awaits!!

Dave...

George - I like the look of that Peak Design Capture Pro, I've been looking for something similar for a while.
How did you find it went with the 50-140?

AP81 wrote:

George - I like the look of that Peak Design Capture Pro, I've been looking for something similar for a while.
How did you find it went with the 50-140?

You know, I have not tried it yet.  Maybe this weekend.

I have since ditched the clutch.  I switched from the "large" Fuji (non-battery) grip to a "Metro Case" 3D printed grip, which has much better ergonomics (and lighter to boot) but the new grip just didn't work well with the clutch, particularly with a large lens.  So I'm going to use one of their straps instead.  Which will still work with the Capture Pro, allowing me to keep the camera at the ready on the strap when needed, but lock it in place when I don't need it or when covering more technical terrain.