Light setup for hike X-E4 with 14 2.8 or 16 2.8?

I've no idea why people take primes when hiking, and I've done more than my fair share. In my experience you can't beat a standard zoom if you're travelling light, no need to change lenses and wide to normal telephoto are covered. The other obsession seems to be wider than usual with fast apertures, again, I have no idea why, if you're at any kind of altitude telephoto is far more useful for interesting shots. Wide angle shots with no foreground interest are just so bland and uninteresting and make anything of actual interest smaller and more distant, each to their own I guess, but I just don't get it.

Gringostarr wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

I've no idea why people take primes when hiking, and I've done more than my fair share. In my experience you can't beat a standard zoom if you're travelling light, no need to change lenses and wide to normal telephoto are covered. The other obsession seems to be wider than usual with fast apertures, again, I have no idea why, if you're at any kind of altitude telephoto is far more useful for interesting shots. Wide angle shots with no foreground interest are just so bland and uninteresting and make anything of actual interest smaller and more distant, each to their own I guess, but I just don't get it.

My kit before swapping to using the X-E4 and 2 primes (or one prime and a true telephoto zoom) was the X-T30 & 16-80 before it was stolen and to be honest I was never truly happy with. My issues with my original kit was that it was much bigger and so would either hang off my shoulder strap totally exposed when I used a capture clip or I had to stick it in a non-easily accessible compartment of my bag. Plus the capture clip dug into my chest on hikes lasting longer than about an hour which for me was pretty much every hike. I also found that I mostly used the 16-80 at either 16mm or in the 60-70mm range while never wanting to use anything in between and also wishing I had a macro lens on me to take close-ups of plant life and critters while on trail.

Now my setup keeps my gear much more protected from dust (what I really wanted to protect it from) and as easily accessible as using the capture clip while being much more comfortable to carry. Plus most hikes are out and backs so I typically have one lens mounted while on the way to the destination and one lens mounted on the way back.

See my recent trip to Lassen National Park using the 14/2.8 and 60/.24 on the hike to Widow Lake, and 14/2.8 & 70-300 on the hike up Cinder Cone for an example of why I'm fine hiking with either those two primes or the ultra wide and a true telephoto.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4587275?page=3#forum-post-65318532

As I said, whatever works for you, the 70-300mm seems like a big lens for such a trip, personally I'd go for the XC 55-230mm. The combination of that and the 18-55mm would seem like the ideal combination for me personally. However, you know how you prefer to shoot and what you're prepared to carry.

absquatulate wrote:

I've no idea why people take primes when hiking, and I've done more than my fair share. In my experience you can't beat a standard zoom if you're travelling light, no need to change lenses and wide to normal telephoto are covered.

It could be weird indeed to sacrifice the freedom of having a zoom, but actually it works for me quite opposite. When I'm limited with a given focal I'm working a lot to get a shoot that I'm happy with. With the zoom I often end up with rotating the ring back and forth. Second thing is quite a low profile and weight - it also counts.
I know that 16-80 could be the option, I really hoped it is a quality lens, but after having Canon 24-105L and seeing the samples from it I really can not stand it, the drop of quality is higher as expected.
After the responses in the thread I'm really now thinking about the combo of 14 with 60 2.4.
Thanks for replies!

christ0f wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

I've no idea why people take primes when hiking, and I've done more than my fair share. In my experience you can't beat a standard zoom if you're travelling light, no need to change lenses and wide to normal telephoto are covered.

It could be weird indeed to sacrifice the freedom of having a zoom, but actually it works for me quite opposite. When I'm limited with a given focal I'm working a lot to get a shoot that I'm happy with. With the zoom I often end up with rotating the ring back and forth. Second thing is quite a low profile and weight - it also counts.
I know that 16-80 could be the option, I really hoped it is a quality lens, but after having Canon 24-105L and seeing the samples from it I really can not stand it, the drop of quality is higher as expected.
After the responses in the thread I'm really now thinking about the combo of 14 with 60 2.4.
Thanks for replies!

I've also owned the the 24-105L, and I'm more than happy with the 16-80mm in comparison, internet samples don't tell you anything useful about a lens IMHO, you have to try them yourself. I've read so much nonsense about this lens it's difficult to know where to start.