Galapagos question (Page 2): Thanks again, pmorin. Planning on my 14 - 24 and 24-70 and 70-200. With you and Paul’s experience and comments, I’ve decided to leave the big primes at...

pmorin Loc: Huntington Beach, Palm Springs

Silversleuth wrote:

I would take something wider too. There are some very nice opportunities for close work.

Thanks again, pmorin. Planning on my 14 - 24 and 24-70 and 70-200. With you and Paul’s experience and comments, I’ve decided to leave the big primes at home. Just the advice I’d hoped for.[/quote]

Reading photoman43’s reply, I would add that for footwear, I had a pair of Teva sandals. They are lightweight and designed for use in a water environment. They have a nice grip for walking on the lava and can be worn on either dry or wet landings. I also had a good fitting and well broken in pair of hiking boots for the mountain hikes.
Here’s a link to the Teva site:
https://www.teva.com/sandals/

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Silversleuth wrote:

A bucket list trip is coming up, Nat Geo Galápagos... (show quote)

Since you have a Nikon, I suggest leaving the 300 and 400 f2.8 at home. Yes, there will be scenes that could be shot with them, but everything I have heard or read indicates there will be very little need for a long lens. The 105 macro is probably a good decision. And if you do take a long lens, take the smallest and lightest plus a teleconverter. I still think the lens will only collect dust on the trip.

george19

I brought my 24-85 and 70-300. Hardly used the long lens.

Almost all the critters were close enough, so no real worries there…land and marine iguanas, blue footed and Nazca boobies, lava lizards, sea lions.

Some of the bird shots (albatross, flamingo, magnificent frigate bird, pelican) could have used the longer lens, but that’s about it.

Don’t discount landscapes…they’re amazing.

At the time, I was shooting DX, but now FF, so you might want something wider than what I had.

Consider a P&S with an underwater housing if you’re thinking of snorkeling.

Consider a harness to carry two bodies.

AnotherBob

Silversleuth wrote:

A bucket list trip is coming up, Nat Geo Galápagos 10 day excursion with visits to Santa Cruz, Bartolomé, Florena, Española, San Cristóbal and Baltra islands. A question for folks who have actually been there. ..... I'll take 2 bodies and the Nikon Holy Trinity of 2.8 zooms plus a 105 macro and wonder if 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 glass is advisable or if the critters there are close enough to skip the big telephotos. ......

::Ed::

Based on my experience, you may well be climbing into and out of inflatable boats to get you to shore or just around backwaters. The less equipment you carry, the better. The scenery is wonderful. The animals will generally come to you; you will be strongly advised not to go to them. I didn't have long lenses, and didn't miss them.

Have a great trip!

Goober Loc: Southeastern PA

I was there about 5 years ago and took 2 FF bodies, a 24-70 and 70/300 lenses. These focal lengths covered everything I needed. Leave the big glass at home and don’t forget a couple dry bags to protect from spray when going ashore. Also as mentioned earlier the Teva-type shoes are a must have. I did not take a tripod and glad I didn’t as it just gets in the way of yourself and others you will be on the islands with. One guy used a tripod and was constantly getting left behind the group. I would only consider a tripod if it was a dedicated photo trip.
Have fun!

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

Fully 99% of the photos I took while there were with my 24/105. Very little need for long telephoto.

Hondaron74 Loc: Pleasanton,CA.

Do NOT eat any uncooked vegetables..... I learned the hard way a few years ago.