I am going to the Galapagos at the end of the month and would like some advice. I have the following lenses I am considering....your ideas.??????......I shoot with the Nikon D3s and D-300. .....mostly interested in wildlife
200-400mm......great glass but heavy....hard to hike with......Do I really need this?
80-400mm.....maybe....but slow
80-200mm....for sure but as it is an older model there is no TC ( checked with Nikon)
28-300mm....maybe
All comments and suggestions would be most appreciated!
Bob - I was in the Galapagos in 2009. Most of the wildlife with the exception of BIF are within a few feet of you and sometimes even on the path. Fortunately, the wildlife do not see humans as a threat so they remain in place as the small group passes by. I shoot Canon and used my 100-400 most of the time and my 70-200 f4 at times. My feeling is that any of the lenses you list will serve you well and you should choose whichever you like the most. I did also have my 16-35 with me for some landscapes but did not take this on most landings.
Bob,
I was in the Galapagos in July and took everything I had, including a 500mm. This was used a coupleof times but allowed me to get some distant shots which woudl have otherwise been missed. Most of my shooting was done with a 100-400 (I shoot Canon)but also had 24-105. We went on a tour of the 'Eastern' galapagos and few of the hikes are long the biggest concern is the landing (take a waterproof bag). Much of the wildlife does not need th long glass but it gives you options - it is also tough trying to take photos from a zodiac /panga even when it is relatively calm (at least it was for me).
I woudl take two bodies with teh 28-300 and 200-400 - if you dont have two bodies buy or rent the additional one. And take LOTS of card capacity and something to download them on a daily basis! You will have a great time, enjoy!!
Let me know if you have specific questions.
Bob I was in the Galapagos last year I took the 500 along with a 70-200 and a wide angle. I used the 500 for a few images and am glad I brought it but a long lens certainly isn't essential. The two biggest challenges with the Galapagos are bad backgrounds and harsh lighting. Anything you can do to separate your subject from the background helps and thats mainly what I ended up using the 500 for. However most of my images were with the 70-200.
It comes down to what you're willing to carry and still enjoy yourself. If I were in your shoes, I would take the 200-400, but then I don't mind the weight and the hikes IMO aren't all that strenuous (but again thats relative :) ). For reference, I believe Artie takes his 800 to the Galapagos...
I was in the Galapagos in June. My wife shot with a 24-105 and I used a 70-200 F2.8. This was more than adequate for 90% of the shooting. I did occasionally use a 1.4 or 2 X TC but this was rare. As was mentioned the animals and birds are very approachable. The hardest part was getting low and getting good backgrounds
I too was in the Galapagos in June and found that the problem is not seeing the animals but avoiding stepping on them. I did have the 500 with me (used in the Pantanal) but found I did not want to hassle with it on the landings and on the hikes. Unless you are on a photo only tour I doubt you will have time enough to setup a tripod and Wimberly to adequately support a 500, so this means you will be hand holding - good luck. If I had to guess I did not miss a whole lot of shots because I had only a 70-200 (f2.8). If you are worried about length take a converter with you that will get you some more length. I agree with the others to take an additional body for a wider angle, used the 17-55 f2.8 for this purpose.
Have fun and hope you are with a small group, ours was only 20 people on the boat and had one guide for every 10 people, very nice.
Which telephoto for the Galapagos?
Reply With Quote
