UKH

I'm planning on crossing the Pyrenees in the summer, and as much as I would like to remove the 1kg lump of camera and accessories from my bag, it seems to be missing the point somewhat to go on such a long walk into the mountains and not take with me the ability to 'create'. I have a Fuji X-T1, fairly new to me, and I was planning on taking just the 27mm f/2.8 pancake lens with it, because it weighs the best part of nothing.

I just tried it out in the Highlands though, and unsurprisingly found myself consistently wishing for something slightly longer. The issue is, the only alternative that I currently own is a 50mm f/1.1 that weighs 600g. My questions are:

1. Do you think I'm going to end up frustrated by only having the 27mm with me?
2. If you could take only one lens with you on a long mountainous adventure, and with weight being a key consideration, what would you personally choose?

Well, you either accept the limitations of a prime, or you take a standard zoom, something like the usual 24-70(ish) FF equivalent.

I recently got a Sony 28-60 to go on my A7 for times when I don't want the 24-240 (which is bloody great, but heavy). The 28-60 is very compact, pretty much the same size and weight as a prime....not sure if Fuji have an equivalent.

I'm happy accepting the limitations of a prime (I think and quite like that it forces me to think about composition more carefully); my worry is more that a 27mm prime might be a bit too wide and just become immensely frustrating for big-mountain photography.

I suppose a useful third question would be 'what focal lengths do people seem to gravitate towards in the hills'?

Focal length is something very personal, so only you can know if you will miss something wider or longer. 

27mm is 40mm FF equivalent, which for me, personally, would not be wide enough for a tracking/landscape use case. 

I am not a Fujifilm user right now, but in the past, the F2 series has served me well as a lightweight option. The 50mm (75mm FF equivalent) would be a nice and relatively small addition to your 27mm to give you a bit more reach. On the wider end you have a small 18mm, but that's not what you asked about .

BTW, I used to be a 28mm and 50mm combo person, but now own a camera with very high resolution and make do with a single 35mm lens and crop a lot if necessary (all on full frame). 

I’d be taking the 18-55. Excellent kit lens, decent range of focal lengths, robust and weatherproof.

For climbing, on my X-T1 I have the cheap plastic  XC 15-45mm. On the plus side, it is comparatively cheap, takes cracking shots (I can’t tell the difference with the kit XF18-55) and 15 is actually quite a bit wider than 18 so is good for landscape and some climbing shots. Downsides are not waterproof, more fragile, it’s an electronic zoom so less tactile and uses more battery.

My favourite lenses are the 35mm F2 for general, the 14mm F2.8 for landscape amd indoors, and the Viltrox F56mm F1.4 for portraits/people but for a trip like your the kit lens should cover it.

I wouldn’t really myself a ‘photographer’ but my general go to is my 16mm on 1.5 crop. So 24mm on FF.

Only you will know, but I’d personally find your 27mm too narrow for a hill day.

I often hear this argument. On the contrary I think clearly just limits your composition and constrains creativity.

If I were to carry only one lens for my Fuji it would be the 18-55, though if I had no choice but to take one lens for an important trip I might invest in the 18-135. 

I have a pancake 28 for Nikon. It's OK on FX (trad 35mm sized sensor) but is not wide enough for me on DX. 18-55 or similar would be best for me. My wife has a 18-200 for DX and that is great for travel, but is not a weight saver. 

I agree with this. Composition, particularly in the hills, is often hugely constrained by the environment and so a zoom becomes, in my experience, extremely helpful (if not essential) to compose well without prior knowledge of the shot you are after.

If going somewhere totally new, you are far more likely to throw away opportunities by taking a prime.

I used to carry a 20mm prime and took 1 decent shot with it in perhaps 20+ days in the hills. Looking at my keepers in the last 2 years 90% have been taken with a 24-120 and the other 10% with a 70-200.

I would take a 24-70 or, even better, 24-105 (or equivalent on a crop sensor). If weight is a major issue take a Sony rx100 or similar. Jamie's photos are testiment to what you can do with a camera like that. 

I agree with this. Composition, particularly in the hills, is often hugely constrained by the environment and so a zoom becomes, in my experience, extremely helpful (if not essential) to compose well without prior knowledge of the shot you are after.

If going somewhere totally new, you are far more likely to throw away opportunities by taking a prime.

If incorporating a foreground, I prefer to take shots at 35 or 50mm if I can and will often start composing at these focal lengths, to see if I can make it work. But often it just doesn't. So as much as having a favourite focal length is a thing, a better composition will always outweigh my preference. 

If not incorporating a foreground, I can't see a case for a focal length preference. Whatever works works.

I used to carry a 20mm prime and took 1 decent shot with it in perhaps 20+ days in the hills. Looking at my keepers in the last 2 years 90% have been taken with a 24-120 and the other 10% with a 70-200.

I would take a 24-70 or, even better, 24-105 (or equivalent on a crop sensor). If weight is a major issue take a Sony rx100 or similar. Jamie's photos are testiment to what you can do with a camera like that. 

I hear what you're saying and firmly believe in 'each to their own' when it comes to art and creativity - but I think it works for me (for this genre of photography). I'm not taking photos to publish or generally to show, and photography is never a focus of being in the hills so much as a natural thing  to do while in the hills. I see it like only having one pencil - it engages creativity in a different way. Ideas have to be bent to the medium. I feel that being constrained by lens often forces me to look for creative opportunities to use it.

The real problem is that I'm off on a six week walk that will hopefully be one of the more fun things I do in my lifetime, and I don't want to be continually frustrated by thinking 'I wish I had a 35mm/50mm instead' every time I look through the viewfinder. I did consider acquiring a standard zoom, but I can't accept the weight penalty (and to be honest don't want to spend the money). I'm encouraged by the number of people who gravitate towards wide lenses in the hills, so I think I'll go with it and see what happens.

I am taking more than one pencil though, so maybe the missed photo opportunities are just an opportunity to draw them instead?

My historic answer would be that I nearly always had a 35mm on the front of the camera with my old DSLR, or if not, the alternative would be near-guaranteed to be an 18-55mm at about 24mm. But I haven't taken a camera into the hills for a long time until the other week. I think my issue was where I was lent itself to lots of shots down valleys at distant flanking hills where a longer focal length would have been useful, but it made me generally pause for thought.

27mm it is I think - and the worst-case scenario is that it will better inform my next glass purchase.

Which Pyrenees traverse are you intending ? I did the HRP in 2002 - sent off a parcel of kit to reduce payload after 14 days; but I did keep my then pentax SLR with 40mm pancake lens

A loose version of the HRP; I'm trying to see things less as 'official' and well-defined challenges to be ticked and more as journeys to be enjoyed along the way, so the plan is to do the HRP but if I end up detouring onto the GR10 or GR11 for bits, or doing something different entirely, I'm not fussed.

My pack base weight currently sits at just under 8kg, of which camera and ancillaries make up about 750g and journal/minimalist art supplies make up about 500g. Much scope for weight reduction by losing either of those things - but then I'd have less fun, I think.

Don't worry there are no hrp-truthers policing the pyrenees - the HRP does in any case borrow sections of GR10 (esp); there's a basic itinerary and many more demanding stage variations - to suit weather, fitness or adventure.

I was carrying way more than you plan to - not sure whether that was my idea of comfort or unwillingness to buy specialist ultra lite kit; heaviest loads followed 5-day stocking up - then regaining altitude out of the valley. I should have cut my toothbrush handle

Just carried Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 with 80d on trek over Andes, took a pocket camera too for general snaps. 

Not a long mountainous adventure but something where I wanted to travel light despite basically being a hostel-and-minibus traveller - I went to Peru and Bolivia in 2017 and eschewed what might have been my "standard kit" - Canon dSLR with 18-135mm and 24mm prime - in favour of a Sony NEX F3 with the kit 16-50mm lens, on the grounds that it was NOT a photography trip despite being maybe "once in a lifetime". I have no regrets. There was a mountain slog (Salkantay and back down, then up to Machu Picchu) so weight was a consideration for that part of it. The NEX F3 is a 2011 entry-level Sony mirrorless, not comparable to your Fuji at all perhaps in quality, but the same size sensor so the numbers are like-for-like....and I think your main question is about focal length. Looking at the pics from the mountain trip, many are at the widest end, a few around 21mm and actually some at 50mm . Across the non-mountain pics (in towns etc), focal lengths are all over the place, a lot at the wide end. 


A long way of saying what others have said above. Get the 310g 18-55 and just take that. Or if you feeling fancy and fit, and think telephoto might be handy, the 490g 18-135mm. Again, I have no experience of the Fuji system, and although I like the 16-50mm on my Sony mirrorless because it adds up to a neat and very light package, I mostly use that at the wide end and despite the above comments, I find a zoom range like this to be "neither here nor there" which is why on my dSLR I got rid of the 18-55mm as soon as possible and got an 18-135mm. HOWEVER none of this relates to a 6 week Pyrenees trek, so I'll stick to the "get the 18-55mm"


OR

Take your 27mm and when you want wider, use your phone. 

I have been going through a similar set of ponderings in relation to a walk across the northern half of Iceland in a few days. I fancied the challenge and constraint of taking only one (wide angle) lens for my X-T2, but then the prospect of having to carry water for several days started to bulk large in my mind. (Yes, real, dry – if cold – desert, apart from snow melt, much of which the exceptional heat of the last few weeks will have stripped by the time I get there!)

I am now the proud owner of an LCE 2nd hand Sony RX100 III (fast, 24-70 equivalent), and feel content with that  – especially the massive weight saving. My Mk II produced some good results, though in general RX100s are fragile. But had I decided to take the Fuji I'd have junked aesthetic asceticism and taken the 18-55.

Whatever you decide, hope you have a great trip and get some nice snaps.

I used an RX100 mark iii on an HRP crossing last year - https://www.smugmug.com/app/organize/Alpine-Mountains/Haute-Route-Pyrenees. It's so much easier to handle than an SLR on a long trip and I didn't regret forgoing the SLR.

I've had RX100's as my compact for climbing, but I find them just too small and fiddly to get much actual pleasure from the process of taking photos. I think that, if I were looking to save weight on my Fuji for a multi-day trip, I would consider getting a Panasonic LX100 - it seems to be about the only camera offering significant weight and bulk saving but still having proper dials and knobs like the Fuji and with great image quality. I would probably carry it on hill days when photography is not a priority.

Depends on whether you see it as a walking holiday, with the camera documenting the trip; or a photography trip involving some walking.  As to capturing panoramas, you can always take multiple shots and stitch together back home.   I’ve often found it’s the complementary photos (to landscape ones), that capture my eye when I look back at trips of yore.

I know what you mean about "too small and fiddly" – especially with gloves – but there is a pleasure in their being cute and satisfyingly compact, just like my first camera: a Rollei 35B.

My personal preference would be for a good wide angle zoom. The Fuji 10-24mm is what I would be packing good for landscapes and you could squeeze in some nightscapes.

I’ve not really been a fan of midrange zooms, although I do have a 24-120mm for my Nikon but this was mainly purchased for doing video work, having said that I do use it on the hill for walking.

https://www.5050travelog.com/camera-and-lens-reviews/fuji-xf-10-24mm-f4-r-o...

a nice telephoto like the 90mm f2 is great for framing people in the hills and with modern sensors you can always crop a little if you need to be tighter.

I have the 10-24. When out taking photos I carry it along with the 18-55 and 55-200. If I had to pick one, it would definitely be the 18-55; I would just find the 10-24 too wide for general use. I also have the tiny and brilliant Samyang 12mm, which I bought for night stuff, but am now often tempted to carry rather than the heavy 10-24, so I might just sneak that in!

Thanks everyone - lots of helpful thoughts there. I've pondered it and I'm just going to take the 27mm and see what I can do with it. I was actually more worried about it being too wide than too long; I've done very little photography in the last few years but took the camera for a long walk down the Great Glen Way the other week, and I think, because the terrain lends itself to shots down the glen towards distant flanking hills a lot of the time, I was finding it frustratingly wide a lot of the time and was worried I'd have the same experience in the Pyrenees.

I know that you mentioned that your mind was made up but had you considered just using your phone. The last gen IPhones are amazing and you can shoot in RAW and have 3x zoom. I am sure the Android ones are the same. I am seriously thinking of selling my Fujifilm as for the weight vs reward argument, tends to tip towards the phone everytime.

I have seriously considered it, and I've done a lot of decent (mostly canal) photography with my phone in the past, but my current phone camera is pretty rubbish (my mum's old phone, replacing my own ancient Pixel 2 that got a bit wet in Scotland last summer), and it's as much about the process and creative 'engagement' as it is the photography to be honest. Essentially, I'm going to be walking for 4-6 weeks on my own and want fun and creative things to fill my time with other than walking.

I'm also hoping to end up with enough decent material to create a decent photobook for my parents for Christmas, because I think they don't at all understand what I do for fun or why I do it.