ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

We've been there and I took 16-35mm and 70-300mm lenses. These worked out well. I'm thinking of trading my 70-300mm for 28-300mm lens for future trips assuming travel becomes possible. I didn't take my 105mm macro and don't recommend it. We were in a group of 16 with a guide and not much time for shooting macro.

Also, I did snorkeling there and a small water proof camera would have been nice to have.

photoman43

For the Galapogos Islands which I have been to, I would not take a macro lens. I would take an extension tube so one of my tele lenses could focus closer. My most used lenses were a 300mm f4 prime and a 70-200mm.If you shoot Nikon a 500mm f5.6 pf would work too. And one regular zoom like a 24-85mm.

The most needed accessories for the GI are good walking shoes or boots and hard knee pads as most of the surfaces you will be on are razor sharp volcanic rock. You will be doing a lot of photography from your knees.

MountainDave

I mostly agree with others. for the Galapagos you need to cover 24-400+. I also recommend a good portrait lens. I had a 135 f/2L with me and wish I used it more. You are often close to animals that beg for portraiture. For Machu Pichu, a 24-70 is fine for me though some may want a wider lens for some shots. For Quito, a 24-70 was again fine for me but a wider angle would be useful if you are into architectural shots. Quito is also a good place for street shots so a 35 or 50 prime would be good tools.

classic320

More great input. I've done a lot of travel photos over the last few years--Europe, North Africa, etc. (I retired 4 yrs ago), but this is my first wildlife-centric trip. Some great pictures posted here by UHers--I'm inspired!

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

I chose not to bring one and worried that I might be sorry. Glad I didn't bring it! Forgot to mention in my last response that my trip was NOT specifically for photography. I travel with my husband whose nickname is "Mr. Point-and-Shoot". He's just not into photography but we always manage to work out a good balance during out travels. For example, when we were in Scotland in the summer of 2018, he went off to check out his castles and cathedrals while I hopped on more than a few boat tours to get up close and personal with the birds. We'd usually have dinner together except for the one day that I was so exhausted that I fell fast asleep on an 8 minute ferry ride that connected with the one that was taking me back to Mull and then on to Oban. What a heck of a long day! Dinner for me that night was a pile of fries and a nice cold Stella Artois followed by a long walk back up the hill to our B&B.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

It may be your first, but I guarantee it will be far from your last. it is just plain addictive!! IMO, you should put Alaska on your list for wildlife-centric trips. You will love The Galapagos.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Thank you for your kind comment.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Having been to both places, I'd say a macro might be extra weight. I did shoot some orchids growing wild at Machu Picchu. There are some places there that could use a wide angle. Actually, I shot MP with a 28-135 once and a 28-300 the second time. Both were quite adequate except for the Temple of the Condor. At Galapagos, you'll need reach. Except for the tortoises, you'll likely be shooting at a distance, as people are required to keep their distance. I have to admit that my 300 was not adequate for that trip, and I don't recall using the short end very much. One thing to keep in mind is that changing lenses could be problematic in either place. And you'll be doing a LOT of walking, so look at the weight you'll be carrying.

DanCSF Loc: SA Bay Area CA

What to bring...always a tough concept...got space - bring the "kitchen sink and be prepared for anything" or be selective and willing to skip shots and be happy with that...it's a personal thing there is no absolute answer, to each his own. Of course if one had their own sherpa/photo assistant I'd bring the kitchen sink and then some..LOL

Hip Coyote

I've been to Macchu Picchu (MP) but not the Galapagos. For the Galapagos, I'd follow the recommendations of folks who say that most animals are much closer than you might imagine, making a 100-400 unnecessary. Also, take a waterproof camera (I have a cheap Fuji that I use..works great.)

Regarding MP. First, you will most likely be going to and staying in Cuzco. It is a quaint colonial town, that has great street photography potential. My wife sets up small walking tours of cities through Viator. In Cuzco we ended up at the market which was great for photography.

MP demands (generally) a wide angle lens. Tripods are not allowed, as I recall. And there could be quite a lot of people there, so shooting with a tripod would be awkward. (Think of Disneyland kind of crowds.) To see the place properly, there are a lot of very high steps. At MP, I had two lenses....one a very wide zoom (7-14) on my Oly. And my Oly 12-100. That's all I ever needed. There are walls everywhere. Make use of them to brace yourself to get good results. Also, the wider the lens, the less shake there is. I was at MP for a few days. Be on the lookout for the stray llama that is grazing on the site. If you are lucky, you will get a shot of the llama and part of MP (if you can avoid the throngs of people doing the same.) The first day it rained non-stop. So be prepared for foul weather.

photoman43

If your trip in the islands has swimming from the boat as part of the trip, consider a small waterproof point and shoot as you can get some remarkable pictures of turtles, etc.

If your legs and knees are not perfect, consider bringing a walking sick. Some of the boats may have them available to you. I ruined one knee walking up and down the very long staircase for the beautiful overview at Bartolome.

When you are in the pangas, a small waterproof backpack or bag is perfect for your gear. I do not recommend full size photo backpacks for panga related day trips. Transfer what you need for that trip to a small bag.

If you have a 100-400mm lens, bring it. On my trip, a photo trip, the shortest tele was a 300mm. Some had 500mm f4. I used my 300mm f4 both with and without a 1.4x tc. On some of the islands you are restricted to the trails. Unless the bird is right there next to you, teles are very much needed. Most of my trip members had tripods. I used mine mostly for low level shooting of reptiles when I was sitting or kneeling on the ground. Most of my upright shots were hand held. Most had two camera bodies plus a point and shoot.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Your MP image is to die for - absolutely gorgeous and one of the best I've ever seen. We were to have been there at the beginning of November, but Covid reared its ugly head. Maybe 2021.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

All I can say is "it depends"....

I often don't carry any macro lens.... but I always have macro extension tubes with me "just in case" and some of my "regular" lenses are quite close focusing on their own.

Generally speaking, I don't do a whole lot of high magnification macro.... But I do some and when I do, I gear up specifically for it.

When traveling, I don't usually take a macro lens. But I always have a set of macro extension tubes with me. I also have a close-up diopter for use on one of my non-macro lenses. I can get pretty close to full 1:1 without a macro lens.

Next time I buy a mid-range zoom, I'm seriously considering a 24-70mm that can do .70X. The one I have now only does about .21X or around 1/5 life size. A "normal" lens that can do nearly 3/4 life size... or even higher with an extension tube added.... would make a macro lens unnecessary for all but the most specialized shots.

So a lot of it depends upon what other lenses you have, their close-up ability, how much macro you shoot and whether or not you have and carry accessories like macro extension tubes or an auxiliary close-up lens.

jtang2

We have been to the Galapagos Islands twice and you won't need the macro lens unless you plan to do flowers and other inanimate objects.

timcc Loc: Virginia

I made the same trip last year, with the addition of Cusco and Urubamba in Peru. We stayed in Urubamba several days before Machu Picchu to get acclimated to the altitude. It was a great trip! I hope the coronavirus lets you go.

For gear, I travel light: Sony a6000 with 16-70, 55-210, and 12mm crop lenses; Olympus TG-5 for underwater. You won't need a macro lens or a tripod -- they will only add weight. The TG-5 has a macro setting you could use if needed (I didn't use it), and I suggest getting a small ring-light attachment for close-ups.

In Galapagos, you get quite close to the wildlife, so a long telephoto is rarely necessary. I mostly used the 16-70. Snorkeling is fun, so I suggest bringing an underwater camera. The TG-5 takes pretty good photos out of water, too, so it is a good backup camera.

In Machu Picchu, you will probably want relatively wide-angle lenses. My carry lens was the 16-70 (crop), and the 12mm was handy. We had great weather, but I carried a rain cover for the a6000 just in case.

You can check out my website below if you want photo ideas or to see how these lenses fared. Have a great trip!