Best lenses for Galapagos

[David DesRochers]

I will be traveling to the Galapagos Islands this summer. What lenses are best? Do I need to lug my 500MM or will a 100 to 400 MM do? What about a flash? I've heard they are not permitted.

[Ian McHenry]

Only seen the Galapagos from way out to sea but how about the 100-400 with teleconverter plus say an 18-80 lens?
Might be worth taking a close focus point and shoot as back up.
Ian Mc

[Cliff Beittel]

Depends on your camera. With full-frame, I'd definitely want the 500 for many subjects, including warblers, flycatchers, and finches, but also for larger but more distant subjects including boobies, flamingos, and even tortoises (which might be far from shore if you visit ponds in the highlands). At a minimum I'd take the 17-40, 70-200, 400 f5.6, and 500, along with extension tubes and both teleconverters.

[Alfred Forns]

I'm with cliff on taking the 500.

Might want to search Arties bulletins, he made some trips and has info. As I remember he had to limit himself to a 400 DO (medical problem).

[Deborah Harrison]

The wildlife in Galapagos can be incredibly tame so take advantage and have a good wide angle with you. Having checked on the lenses I used on my last trip, the most used was my 70-200 then the 24-105 and 300 were tied in second place. Have a good monopod with you, with the current visiting regulations you won't have as much time as you want to set up a shot. If weight allows a 500 is nice but by no means essential.

You're in for a fantastic experience - regardless of lens choice you'll have great photo ops.

[michael]

On my trip to the Galapagos Islands I took a 17-40 mm, 70-200 mm and 500 mm lens along with extension tubes and converters.

Of these I used the 500 mm lens the most followed by the 70-200 mm.

We were advised by our guide that the use of flash was not permitted.

Michael

[Jen Howell]

When I had the pleasure of visiting, my biggest problem was being too close (using a 200-400). If I were you, the primary lens to use would be the 100-400, but I would definitely not forget a smaller lens or even a wide-angle for those awesome land/watersapes. As for the 500mm, I would bring it just in case for such instances as capturing a blue-footed boobie diving into the sea from the shore or for when the pathways limit the 100-400's range.

On a side-note, definitely use good amphibious shoes that cover all the soft spots of the foot - the lava sure did a number on my feet! It truly is a photographer's paradise and I'm sure you'll have a blast!

[Jay Gould]

I expanded this topic in the gear section to cover all of South America.

Michael and Deborah: did you use the f/2.8 or the f/4 70 - 200; if the f/2.8 did you find it a bit heavy?

[Deborah Harrison]

Jay,
I have both the f2.8 and f4 70-200 lenses - recently I've been using the f4 lens, it's very sharp and the weight is a big difference whereas in my eyes, the IQ seems to be the same. It does not come with a tripod mount but, if you have a 400 5.6 you can use the same mount (it comes with the 400).

If I am on a trip with absolute minimal weight and luggage allowance I would take two lenses only, the 24-105 and the 100-400. That will cover most situations.

Hope this helps.

[Ian Cassell]

I'd like to reopen this old thread as there are many new folks here who might give me some input. I'm in the same spot as the OP. I'm going in November and thinking about my lens lineup. Should I take my 500/4? I have the 400/5.6 and the 70-200/2.8 II .

[Norm Dulak]

Hi Ian.

I think the 500/4 would be overkill, since Galapagos wildlife is generally quite approachable. I shoot Nikon and used an 80-400mm with good results. Given your choices, I'd leave the heavy lens home and take the other two.

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks, Norm. Even though I joined a gym, I really don't want to carry a ton of stuff. My 500 is the earlier heavier model, not the version II. I'm nervous they'd not let me take too much on the small plane to the islands anyway. If I don't take the 500, I can get away with a monopod instead of my tripod too. I know there will be shots where I'd want my 500, but am starting to think there will plenty to see without it. I wish I could afford the new 200-400, but that's far overbudget. I'm interested in the thoughts of others too.

[Steve Kaluski]

Ian, for Land or Marine Iguanas you can use either 70-200 (with the option of the 1.4) or 300/500, although slow in the morning these can move swiftly. BF Boobies, BIF, 70-200 or 300. Seals in the water 70-200, on the beach perhaps a longer lens, remember Beach masters can move fast even out of the water, but if pups come to you and you are careful, even a 16-35 can work. Just remember, you have dry landings and wet landings, wet is sometimes easier as you are knee deep in water and then walk to the beach, dry landings can be slippery so think what you need to take and how easy it is to carry. The landings are well controlled by the warden/guides and although the wildlife have no real fear of man, always give them respect. Depending on the route, landscapes are also on offer too. Yes in an ideal world, 200-400, 70-200, 16-35 would be about right IMHO.

Also remember about backing up your images as you will shoot a lot. If you do not take the 500 then no need for a tripod.

[Steve Kaluski]

Ian I meant to add, you could always hire the 200-400 and I know B&H also ship too if that helps?

[Ian Cassell]

Thanks, Steve. I think I'll pass on renting a lens of that price for international travel. I don't want the responsibility for it and I don't want fights with my insurance company. The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to leave my 500 and tripod at home, but insanity may win out in the end. I've heard conflicting things about flash. Here I will use it for fill, but I think I read somewhere that are not allowed in the Galapagos. Do you know if that is true? Should I leave it at home?

[Steve Kaluski]

I took it, but never used it. Take it, all they can do is say NO, and things may have change since I was there.