Trip to Iceland , what gear?

Robert Eva

Robert Eva

Messages
292
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I am going to Iceland for 4 days in February, obviously can’t take all my gear , so out of the lenses I own which would you take?
Camera is Nikon D850.

Sigma art 35 mm 1.4
Nikon 50 mm 1.8
Sigma 105mm 2.8
Nikon 14/24 mm 2.8
Nikon 24-70 mm vr 2.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8
Sigma 150-600 contemporary.

Will take Lee stopper as well , although can’t use this on the 14-24

Cheers,

Rob.
 
trevorbray said:
@gazmorton2000
Click to expand...

Hello. Ha. Thanks for the tag, Trevor but honestly, I don't think someone in Rob's position or most shooters on this forum would share my thoughts, probably trying to choose as much of the focal range as possible whilst keeping gear as light as possible, where my approach was a single focal length, with two primes at the very most.

So to answer the original question from the original post of which would I take? The 35mm and or the 50mm. Done. But then I am not and will never class myself as what you would call a landscape shooter, instead choosing to document my trips my way. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m just back last week from my first trip to Iceland.

I took

14 f2.8
35 f1.4
16-35 f4
24-105 f4
70-200 f2.8

I used for non aurora

24-105 (70%?)
16-35 (10%)
70-200 (20%)

Aurora was the 14 and 35

I’ll be going back but have decided to leave the 70-200 and take the 150-600 next time

From your list i’d probably go for

14-24
24-70 and
150-600

If youre restricting lenses to 3
 
Jim_Tod said:
I’m just back last week from my first trip to Iceland.

I took

14 f2.8
35 f1.4
16-35 f4
24-105 f4
70-200 f2.8

I used for non aurora

24-105 (70%?)
16-35 (10%)
70-200 (20%)

Aurora was the 14 and 35

I’ll be going back but have decided to leave the 70-200 and take the 150-600 next time

From your list i’d probably go for

14-24
24-70 and
150-600

If youre restricting lenses to 3
Click to expand...

Why 150-600 instead of 70-200mm??
 
When I travel I prefer just primes, always leaving the 24-70 behind. With that setup I would probably take the 14-24 if wide is needed, although i would look to get a 20mm/24mm prime instead (you can always buy used now and then sell upon return, did this with a 20mm 1.8 for NY). Also take the 35 & 50, and the 70-200
 
14-24-70-200; 3 zooms to cover most eventualities. Maybe add a 1.4x teleconverter for the extra reach.
 
I took 7D, 10-18, 24 ef-s (pancake), 15-85 and either (can't remember but it's significant) 55-250 STM or 70-200 F4in 2017. Apart from our first day Reykavik walkaround and lunch at the Hard Rock Cafe where I used the 10-18 and 24 because it wasn't raining, pretty much exclusively for the remaining 4 days I used the 15-85. I don't remember which tele-zoom I took as I didn't use it once.

Our trip was to hike the Fimvordhalls Trail and take in the sights on the southern coast/road. No Northern Lights for us at the end of May and, anyway, the weather was awful. Only clear day was the Fimvordhalls day, when the sun shone for a few minutes.

Unless wildlife was a mandatory subject for the trip I'm not sure I'd bother with a long lens. Also depends on how you're planning to travel about, we hired a car so could pack it with "stuff", if on foot or public transport, different story. The weather was so bad for us that pretty much any thought of swapping lenses out in the open was out of the question. We managed some souvenir snaps but nothing much else of worth.
 
nandbytes said:
Why 150-600 instead of 70-200mm??
Click to expand...

I was always at the 200 end and felt it was still not tight enough in frame on landscapes. If shooting at f8-10 then not a lot of benefit at 2.8 although accept glass is probably a bit sharper. Just how i felt about the shots available
 
Jim_Tod said:
I was always at the 200 end and felt it was still not tight enough in frame on landscapes. If shooting at f8-10 then not a lot of benefit at 2.8 although accept glass is probably a bit sharper. Just how i felt about the shots available
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was wondering if you felt 200mm wasn't long enough for landscape or if you had found some wildlife or something else to photograph in Iceland. I hear whale watching is a thing, so I was suspecting perhaps you were suggesting it for that.
 
Leave 50mm and 105. The rest all look very useful. 35mm presumably mainly for aurora.

nandbytes said:
Why 150-600 instead of 70-200mm??
Click to expand...

There are some amazing landscapes you can do at 400mm (and over). This is not to say 70-150 range is any less important so I'd have both.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Leave 50mm and 105. The rest all look very useful. 35mm presumably mainly for aurora.



There are some amazing landscapes you can do at 400mm (and over). This is not to say 70-150 range is any less important so I'd have both.
Click to expand...

Yep exactly my reasoning for suggesting the 35mm. Also since he has a D850 there is plenty of crop room to get 50mm f2 equivalent in crop mode. Then with 14-24 and 70-200mm he is covered for below 24mm and above 70mm onwards. So might as well leave that 24-70mm and save space. Again APS-C crop mode would give him up to 300mm equivalent with 70-200mm with plenty resolution and range left to print poster size!

I carry a 100-400mm (or 100-300mm if I have weight issues). Can't say I have felt the need for more than that on travels.
 
nandbytes said:
So might as well leave that 24-70mm and save space
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't. This is by far my most used landscape lens, and I have a feeling I am not alone there. I actually did quite well in Scotland without anything wider for a year, until that magic new Canon 16-35 f/4 came out and I just had to get it. That's probably no2.

nandbytes said:
I carry a 100-400mm
Click to expand...

That would be perfect actually. That near enough covers 70-200mm and the longer one without being ridiculous. I fancy getting one some day when I can have maybe another reason to buy one. For now it's 70-200/4 and 400/5.6 which probably weight about half of the OPs equiv. Sigmas.
 
Consider the 14-24 in preference to the 35. We have experienced horizon to horizon aurora where my 12-24 was seriously useful.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I honestly wouldn't. This is by far my most used landscape lens, and I have a feeling I am not alone there. I actually did quite well in Scotland without anything wider for a year, until that magic new Canon 16-35 f/4 came out and I just had to get it. That's probably no2.



That would be perfect actually. That near enough covers 70-200mm and the longer one without being ridiculous. I fancy getting one some day when I can have maybe another reason to buy one. For now it's 70-200/4 and 400/5.6 which probably weight about half of the OPs equiv. Sigmas.
Click to expand...

I have the opposite setup in that I use primes at wide end and a zoom at long end. I have a 28-75/2.8 and a 24/1.4 which I agree is plenty wide for the most part. But OPs 24-70/2.8 is rather huge and it seems he'd like to save some weight/space.
 
checkmate91 said:
I took 7D, 10-18, 24 ef-s (pancake), 15-85 and either (can't remember but it's significant) 55-250 STM or 70-200 F4in 2017. Apart from our first day Reykavik walkaround and lunch at the Hard Rock Cafe where I used the 10-18 and 24 because it wasn't raining, pretty much exclusively for the remaining 4 days I used the 15-85. I don't remember which tele-zoom I took as I didn't use it once.

Our trip was to hike the Fimvordhalls Trail and take in the sights on the southern coast/road. No Northern Lights for us at the end of May and, anyway, the weather was awful. Only clear day was the Fimvordhalls day, when the sun shone for a few minutes.

Unless wildlife was a mandatory subject for the trip I'm not sure I'd bother with a long lens. Also depends on how you're planning to travel about, we hired a car so could pack it with "stuff", if on foot or public transport, different story. The weather was so bad for us that pretty much any thought of swapping lenses out in the open was out of the question. We managed some souvenir snaps but nothing much else of worth.
Click to expand...


I have been to Iceland I took my EOS 7D original, Sigma 17-70, EF 70-300L IS USM and a speedlite.
The weather was ok some days and other days wet, cloudy etc.
The gear I really needed was a tripod as I took a Gorilla pod ( which goes every where with me ) !

Check out Thomas Heaton & Branden Van Son Youtubers as they run workshops in Iceland !
 
I should have added that I also took a Manfrotto Befree but, like I said earlier, weather was so poor that I think I only used it once. If we go back will certainly look out those names, thanks!
 
Don't forget that at lower temperatures batteries charge depletes quicker. Bring several spares and keep them somewhere warm, like close to your body.
 
4 days, where are you planning to visit is the first question. Having been 5 times and a Canon shooter with a 5Diii I take 16/35 f4, 24/105 f4, 70/200 f2.8 and 24 f1.4, grads, c- and nd’s. Most shots are not a massive hike so weight isn’t necessarily an issue, however if you do intend to hike, I would certainly pack crampons.
 
Thanks for all the replies folks , Im gonna take the 12/24, 35, 24/70 and the 70/200 plus tripod , filters and spare batteries.
 
Robert Eva said:
Thanks for all the replies folks , Im gonna take the 12/24, 35, 24/70 and the 70/200 plus tripod , filters and spare batteries.
Click to expand...

LOL that was the exact combo I was going to suggest.

If you can pack a decent tripod as it gets pretty windy there in feb. First time I went I took a travel tripod and wished I'd put my bigger tripod in my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top