Shooting Portland/Columbia River Gorge--am I travelling too light?

I'm headed out to Portland wednesday evening for a long weekend of day hikes in the Columbia River Gorge and, well, beer drinking.


This is my first trip out there since the photography bug has bitten. I own a 40D, a 70-200 f/4 (non-IS), 17-55 f/2.8 IS (my main lens), and a nifty-fifty (my first lens).


As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I'm very much a traveling light kind of guy, and have been thinking of just taking the 40D, the nifty fifty, and my gorillapod tripod. Am I going to regret that not having one of the other lenses?


(And for those who know the gorge, both Larch Mountain and Mt. Defiance are on the agenda.)

The first rule of hiking is that no matter what you bring with you, the thing you miss the most will be the one thing you left behind. I think the 70-200 is expendable, but I would urge you to bring the 17-55 no matter what the cost. Even if it means packing one less bottle of our hand-crafted Portland microbrew. It's so powerful and versatile that it's like packing four prime lenses.


EDIT: Consider renting or borrowing an 18-55 IS. It's super light weight, and the quality is actually very good. A wide angle shot with the kit lens is better than no wide angle at all.

Oh, I'm not hauling bottles up the hill. The draught pints are a reward for after. Thanks for your thoughts on the 17-55, though.

If your traveling light I'd go with the 17-55 & 70-200, forget the 50 & the gorillapod.

I agree. When I go hiking in the Gorge, I either bring the 17-55 or the 10-22. I think you would really miss not having something on the wide end while hiking up here. So suck it up and enjoy the excercise of bringing a couple of extra pounds. But don't go crazy -- leave the 70-200 behind.

I'd vote for just the 17-55.


I went hiking carrying a 180mm f3.5macro, two bodies, and a 16-35 f2.8, and a tripod.


I got tired.


Daniel's 18-55 IS sounds appealing too. You can miss a lot screwing around with your camera.

You NEED the wide-angle! I went hiking in Portland (up by Hood) years ago and all I had with me was35mm Rebel and a crappy 80-200mm zoom attached (just out of college, this hand-me-down kit was all that I had[:(]). It totally killed the perspective of the height of the cliffs and theview down 45 degreeterrain that we were hiking. Rember that your nifty-fifty will provide the same angle of view that my 80mm did on my 35mm Rebel. If you can get your hands on the 18-55 kit like Daniel suggested that would be great since it's so light but I personally don't feel like the 17-55 f/2.8 is very heavy.

If you were thinking of renting this is whenthe EF-S 18-200mm f-3.5-5.6 IS seems like it would be nice. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarhead5811

If you were thinking of renting this is whenthe [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx]EF-S 18-200mm f-3.5-5.6 IS[/url] seems like it would be nice. Just a thought.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Good suggestion

Thanks for the advice, everybody. The 40D and 17-55 f/2.8 are packed and ready to go. The 70-200 will have to wait for the next visit to the zoo.