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

[moldovamark]

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.)

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[moldovamark]

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.

[nerdmonkey]

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.

[Colin]

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.

[Mark Elberson]

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.

[Jarhead5811]

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.

[shutr]

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