DSLRUsers.com

Hi All,

Looking for a bit of advise, i'm sure some of you have been in this situation before or maybe just have more product knowledge than I.

I'm looking at going on a 3 day trek along the Hollyford track in New Zealand, there will be plenty of great shots to be had but i'm not sure if my gear will do the scenery justice.
I'm currently running on a Nikon D80, 18-135mm AF-S DX Kit Lens, 50mm 1.8D and the 70-300 AF.
I'm been looking at whats available, the 70-200 2.8 looks sweet but the $2500 is way more than I wanna spend , I like the look of the 80-400 VR, seems to have good reviews and the price is half of the 70-200 AND has better range I thinks(Has anyone used the 80-400). I use my 70-300 almost %50 of the time now with my scouting, hikes, Water skiing, general wandering etc so the tele lens with VR would get good use after the trek anywayz.

I'm thinking the longer lens(70-300 or 80-400) would be fitted most of the trip as I want to be able to snap that fancy looking bird when it flys past, should have some extra time to setup for the long exposure waterfall shots, from what I have experienced with my 18-135 it will take a decent photo(What is everyones thoughts on this lens?)

What about batteries and cards, I dont think i'll have any charging opportunities(I'll assume I dont). I have an aftermarket battery grip that i'm really happy with, It cost $80 from Ebay and seems to work really well, I'm thinkin of buying another one of these and maybe an extra standard battery?

As for storage, I work in IT so can get SD cards at whole sale so I was thinking of stocking up on 2Gb cards which seems to be at the best price point at the moment.

Any comments appreciated.
Thanks
Cory

CoryH wrote:
I'm been looking at whats available, the 70-200 2.8 looks sweet but the $2500 is way more than I wanna spend ,

The 70-200 is $1881 delivered from Poon. I think Nikon aust will honour warranty on lens grey imports (I am not 100% sure on this)

I want one badly, but may have to settle for 80-200.

CoryH does not yet have Member access so he won't get the Poon prices. There is however nothing stopping him from getting the lens from HK Supplies on ebay

Cory, have a read of the FAQ if you want to know more about getting full member access.

As for your question, your kit looks pretty good, you cover all the focal lengths. Sure you can get better lenses but they come at a cost, both in money and weight. The 70-300 may not be the best zoom but if you get used to it's limitations, it is a great hiking lens.

I have done the Hollyford and I suspect your 18-135 lens will be more useful on the track. It is not till you get to the end that you may want the longer reach. On the beach at the end, you should see some seals and penguins. The penguins we were lucky to get were the Fiordland Crested Penguin.

In terms of power, there used to be power only at the lodge at the end.

Have fun, it's a great walk and very different then the "standard" Milford and Routeburn.

Cheers,

André

My family and I did the Hollyford guided walk in January. A wide, fast and lightweight lens is what you want. 20/2.8 or 24/2.8 and your 18-135 will cover most other things.

If you are doing the guided walk then you will have power every night. If you are doing the independant DOC trek then you won't have any power for recharging so you will need a solar panel recharger or a couple of batteries.

Lake Alabaster is great for panos and I got a great shot of the Hollyford river from the swing bridge at the start of the demon trail. There are lots of good opportunities for forest and waterfall shots as well but you will need a tripod for those.

The day that we had at the beach was very grey - too grey for the aeroplane to fly us out so we had to get a FOC upgrade to heli. There are some great dune and beach shots on the west coast

HAve a great time

Hi.

Sounds like a good trip.

I haven't done any multiday NZ walking, but concur that a wide lens and legs will cover most landscape opportunities. I did a weeks walking in Tasmania with just a 21mm and really did not miss the other lenses in that context. I especially did not miss the weight

Ok, that's a lie. I also had a plastic fantastic 50 1.8 (weighs nothing) in the bottom of the backpack, and I did use it one night.

You'd probably know how many shots you can get out of a battery.

How many shots can you take in 3 days? That will tell you how many batteries and memory cards to take.

Take a tripod. Any tripod is much better than no tripod.

How heavy will your pack be, and how will you carry the camera whilst walking?

Michael

Probably this comment is superfluous, but just in case - the most important gear is full wet weather protection both for you and your camera gear. Milford Sound, not that far away, has 5 metres of rain in an average year.

Regards,
Murray

I have done a great many 3-7 day hikes over the years, including Tassie, Brisbane Waters, Blue Mountains etc. The overriding factor in bushwalking is weight. Every gram counts. For me these days, one camera, one lens, a couple of batteries and several CF cards is all I want to carry, plus, as has been stated, rain proofing gear. There is no way I could contemplate lugging a 70-200 F2.8 lens on a lengthy bushwalk (unless my wife carried it for me! ).

I imagine the Nikon 18-200mm lens would come into its own on a trip like this for its sheer versatility.

Ozi

I have to agree with Ozi... forget about the idea of taking a 70-200 2.8.... the extra weight will not guarantee you any better images. On New Zealand's tracks you are better off taking less camera gear and more survival gear like thermal clothing and extra layers and energy food. The 70-200mm is not going to save your life when the weather changes in the space of an hour. I have been in the New Zealand mountains and seen it go from warm sunshine to three inches of snow in less than three hours. The wide-angle zoom will be your best lens for this trip and take the kit lens 70-300 if you think you would like the shoot longer images.

what Australian state is NZ in...?

appreciating the shots of one of the members in here from his NZ trip last year, think it was stubssy, think a wide lens would be great for the landscapes. 10.5FE, or 12-24, or 10-20...

if you really want to get a 200mm, perhap the money saved getting the very nice 80-200 (over the 70-200) could be spent on a sigma 10-20 that the folks here love, maybe even add in a x1.7 teleconverter to get your 80-200 to 340mm?

remember, enjoy your travels too!

Thanks all, lots to think about there. It looks like i'm looking at the wrong end of the scale and should be looking into the wider lenses not the tele's.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a good wide lens at a resonable price. I have read stacks of review and tech specs etc but first hand experience would be great.

or a Tokina 12-24. Both the Sigma and Tokina UWA are very good.

Hi Corey,

I'll second what Ozi and Antsl said about weight. I have no idea how much hiking you have done, but I will say it anyway. If you are hauling too much gear you will spend to much time worrying about the pain instead of observing what is around you and taking the photo opportunities as they arise.

One camera, one lens, a CPL, a couple of extra batteries and as much CF capacity as you feel the need for.

No tripod - grab a sand bag sans sand and fill it up with whatever is handy at the time. A large zip-lock bag (with a small hole for air release) will do it in a pinch. Use whatever is around to rest the camera on and take a wireless remote with a fresh battery.

As far as lenses go, my suggestion would be to take the 18-135 or if there is a real need to spend the cash on a new lens, something versatile like an 18-200 (if you feel the need for extra reach - but your legs can do that too). I get good mileage out of my 18-70 when I need to travel light. An ultra wide is a little limited and it takes a degree of skill (which comes with time) to get the best out of it and fortunately scenic shots do not necessarily need an ultra wide or even a wide lens.Take a lens that you know well.

Cheers

I'm just back from NZ - Milford sound. I took a good complement of lenses as I was traveling by car and boat. I mostly stuck to my 28-70 f/2.8 but did reach for the 80-200 f/2.8 a few times, mostly on the boat where I couldnt get any closer to my subject. The one thing I didn't have but would liked to have had is a grad ND filter. There can be some really dramatic differences in the sky and without getting into HDR work it can be tough to get a decently exposed image in some cases.

Having done a variety of NZ trips I agree with Steve
Wide and fast is your friend... unless you are specifically going after wildlife long is not really needed... NZ is B-I-G!

Ahhh NZ!

MHD, Those thumbnails look awesome. well done.

As per the posts above, I've done a fair bitof full pack and day pack hiking as part of my 10 years in scouting. But i'm willing to sacrafice the extra weight if it will help with opportunities and or quality.

I'm not looking at this an an opportunity to spend several hundred on a peice of glass but if thats what needs to be done to make the difference between an average and a great shot then thats what i'll do.

I just discovered the Grampians and Halls Gap the other day(OMG, What a fantastic place!!) so I might take my current gear for a spin and see how we go.

Thanks All