Going to a long hike in mountains, which lens to choose?

Hello,

Planning to start a long hike soon, need to pick a single lens to take with my XT-2.

I have two prime lenses:

1. 14mm f2.8

2. 23mm f2

I'm struggling to decide which one to pick. I'm going to shoot mainly landscapes but also take images of me and my family.

I'm limited to take a single lens due to weight constraints. We're going to do a long walks with avg ascent of ~1,5 km every day so taking too much gear is not a good idea.

My brother is probably going to take with him a Panasonic lx100 .

Any advice?

Thanks

Ofir

14mm and crop if needed.  You can't zoom out (unless you can with your feet) with the 23mm.

I went hiking 4 times this spring (day-trips, so no weight issue) between 1000-2300 m altitude. I've used most of the time the 14mm but depending on the scenery, the 23mm works very well, too.

I've also tried the 35mm but found it too long for the purpose. It stayed in the bag mostly.

I made exactly the same experience a few tears ago when visiting the Isle of Skye - I had the 35mm but hardly ever used it. 14 and 23 mm were just fine.

I would take the 14mm.  If you need to you can crop, but remember you can’t crop what’s not there!

elfroggio wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't bother with x-t2.

Take your x100s and get used to do handheld panorama. With just panning the camera and not the body, I became good.

Ciao Elfroggio

Sounds like an interesting suggestion.

I am interested: do you use a large overlap? Or not?

Why not turning the own body? Because turning the camera only comes closer to the nodal point this way, or for what reason?

Manual exposure to keep it constant?

Other recommendations?

Portrait or landscape?

Cheers,

Martin

The panos can either be stitched in Lightroom or the free Hugin.

-- hide signature --

Thanks
http://www.sritch.com
The Dogs of Vancouver, BC

MrSee wrote:

I would take the 14mm. If you need to you can crop, but remember you can’t crop what’s not there!

Not if you stitch together a pano

OP, I had and sold the 23, and have the 14 as well. The 14 is definitely sharper and has a cool character to it. The 23 is great at a distance but looks awful on close-up shots. Depends what you like to shoot.

Also, if you’re expecting dust or moisture, heavily consider the 23.

Seems like the 14mm is the winner.

Thank you all!

I’d think carefully before choosing just the 14mm unless you are certain that there will be really interesting foregrounds. Everyone assumes wide angles are the right choice for landscape, but in really big spaces they don’t always work because the near/far effect they produce results in anything distant looking insignificant and tiny, and disproportionately small compared to everything else. You’ll need interesting foregrounds to prevent such scenes lacking an obvious point of interest.

I’d probably go with a more normal lens and stitch if I needed to shoot a bigger vista. I’ve even found moderate telephoto lenses useful in ‘big’ landscapes too.

14mm, you can take some landscape shots with the 23mm but the 14 will offer you much more landscape freedom, and if you stay at night there you can shoot the milky way with the 14mm

I would take the 23mm lens. You can always stitch for panoramas. People photos with the 14mm lens may look strange if you place them near the corners.

Since you have already the wonderful 10-24 on your wish list you should purchase now and take it with you.

For longer FL take your brother‘s camera...

Hi BMF,

I absolutely agree with your thoughts on this. There is a tendency to view landscape as the province of wide angle lenses, but that's far from the only story. Especially in mountain ranges, I would look to something longer than the 14mm to retain some of the grandeur. The 14mm will result in significant foreground exaggeration but compression of majestic backgrounds. If it were me (and I acknowledge that it isn't) I would take the 14mm and quickly find a good used 27mm - as light as it gets and noticeably longer than the 23mm. Used 27mm Mk 1's are very affordable at the moment.

The other inexpensive option I would watch out for (in the interests of light weight travel) is a good used 50-230mm. But that's just me again.... Nothing like reach in the mountains for a distant peak, a far crag, a single tree, and perhaps some wildlife (eg the kids).....

Regards, Rod

The choice enterely relies on the type of landscape phiotography you do and like

For me it would be the 23mm and you can always shoot severazl shots for panoramic stiiching later on

Now, I'm normally a prime shooter and own both lenses that you mention. But the FOV difference between the 14mm and 23mm is massive.

For the range of subjects that you'll be photographing, would you consider maybe buying a used 15-45mm? That should serve you rather well for both landscapes and some candid family photos. It's smaller and lighter than both the 14mm and 23mm, plus it can be had for a rather small price used.

23mm f/2 as it's weather resistant, so is X-T2.

downfall wrote:

23mm f/2 as it's weather resistant, so is X-T2.

This - most people read 'landscape' and think you need the widest possible - family shots can be a little odd using a WA if you like to get some closer/candid portraits.  23 is much nicer for that purpose and you can shoot landscape with any FL.  I don't see OP mention being squeezed between buildings and wanting WA architecture images!  The 23 is the more sensible option here.  Though I don't see ANY reason not to take both ... the 23 would fit in even a small pocket

Many thanks elfroggio.

I need to try that next time I'm in the mountains or see a nice landscape. I simply haven't even thought about this option in the past.

Certainly I won't take a tripod with me when weight and size matters, don't even own a nodal point adapter, but as you explained, it can be done handheld. At least it's worth a try.

The more prominent and the closer the foreground, the more difficult I guess. So one should have a feeling (play around at home) where approximately the nodal point is with the lens of choice.

23 mm seems a good fl.

AFAIK a polarization filter is not recommended since the sky will become unevenly dark, depending on the angle to the sun.

Thanks again

Martin