70-200 & landscape

[JohnBrew]

I'm leaving this week for Utah for some shooting in a workshop with Andy Biggs and Bret Edge. I have a dilemma in that they recommend a long tele along with the usual suspects. I don't even own a tele lens, only shooting primes. I can get a 70-200 f4 rental if need be. However, for those of you who have shot in Utah and know the topography - how often would such a lens be needed?

And secondly, there is more to the story than first appears. I'm hauling quite a load as it is and adding a heavy lens to my already heavy bag is daunting because I have a herniated disc in my lower back which may force me to ditch the bag altogether and simply carry a camera body w/lens around my neck and hand carry my tripod. I would enjoy hearing about others experiences.
Thanks for all replies.

 

[Jack]

John, I can only think you'd want it for wildlife or isolations, or maybe combined with an element to make the Moon appear larger against it. I personally would not feel under-gunned if my 85 was my longest lens, but that's me.

 

[JohnBrew]

Thanks for the reply, Jack. The longest lens I was planning on taking is the 85 1.4G. I also have a 105 2.5 Ai, but no real advantage there.

 

[Jack]

If you wanted to save weight then take the 105, but I think you'll be happy with either choice for your long. Speaking for me only, in red rock area landscapes, I am using my 24 and 50 about 90% of the time. The other 10% is gonna be the 17 and 85. The only time I ever used my 70-200 was to zoom in on some individual petroglyphs, and then honestly they by themselves don't make that great of shot, they're far better when placed in context to the area.

A final thought: I don't even own a 70-200 now, but *IF* I expected to need to isolate like that, I have a late version 180/2.8 AF-D, which is very good optically and cheap, and relatively compact/lightweight. I have been tempted to get a 70-200/4 VR as a travel lens specifically for isolations, but then upon reflection back to when I owned them, I know I virtually always used a 70-200 at the long end, and then only rarely when travlling. So now I figure I can make do just fine with the 180 I already own, and it's a stop faster with lesser DoF when wanted, also a great long portrait lens. Just a thought, and KEH allows returns

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Shot many times in Utah and it's pretty rare to get to a 200 but I do and use a Minolta 200 2.8. Not a big fan of the longer zooms myself but as Jack said for Nikon there old 180 2.8 is a nice lens and not near as bulky and heavy. Outside of that Nikon is a big system overall and may want to think about that down the road with your back.

 

[bab]

Why not rent a mirror less with a 50-150, 10-24 and a 1.4 ext.
It will introduce you to lighter weight and you may learn something.
BAB

 

[Bob]

I have used the 70-200 f/4 recently on a landscape trip, and there are a few distant compositions and isolations, but in general I haul it only when I am traveling by car.
-bob

 

[JohnBrew]

Why not rent a mirror less with a 50-150, 10-24 and a 1.4 ext.
It will introduce you to lighter weight and you may learn something.
BAB

Thank you. I did buy an NEX-7 when they came out. It was ok but I have a Leica system I prefer for everything else.