Ksocha Loc: Bethesda, MD

What focal length is best for this trip? I understand the animals are close, but I've heard that very long lenses are useful as well. To be be specific, is 200mm enough or is it worthwhile to bring lenses 300mm, 400, 600?

Thank you.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

What camera will you be using?

Ksocha Loc: Bethesda, MD

Either a MFT or the Fuji XT-2. I understand the difference re focal length, but I'm wondering whether 200, 300, 400, 600 effective focal length is beneficial.

Thank you.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Take them all, hey it's a once in a lifetime trip, might come prepared (for everything). I would take a whole arsenal ( in my case, I probably would take along about 20 or so lenses)!

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

Take a look at my March 6, 2015 post asking this same question. My husband & I spent 2 weeks in the Galapagos in April/May, 2015. I wound up taking my Nikon D5200 along with the 55-300 kit lens. I also brought my 18-105, Canon SX50 HS and Sony P&S. I left my Tamron 150-600 at home and am glad I did. There was no need for it. I always had 2 cameras with me on our land excursions - usually the D5200 with the 55-300 and EITHER the Sony P&S OR the Canon SX50 HS. The P&S or the Canon SX50 were used for longer reach on the rare occasions I needed more than the 300mm. The P&S and the Canon SX50 came in handy when the 55mm was too long. Hence, the reason for carrying the Nikon AND either of the 2 other cameras. Looking back, I can honestly say I made the right choice as to what gear to take and what to leave behind.
This truly is a once in a lifetime very special trip, Enjoy it.
Feel free to PM me with any questions.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

70-200 and 200-500 would do the trick, other primes are too heavy and get in the way when traveling by boat to islands.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

12-100 f4 for m4/3
40-150mm f2.8 w/emc14

edhjr Loc: Needham, MA

Really the only time you might want very long (Nikon 200-400 plus teleadapters for example) is for birds in flight. Otherwise 300 f4, 70-200 plus tele-adapters longest you need. We shot from zodiacs as well as walking so really big lens plus tripod will just sit. Suggest you buy waterproof bags for each lens/body with roll top seals like folks use for canoeing -- water and sand everywhere. Take a small, very lightweight backpack (in a roll top waterproof bag) for shore excursions and then select the gear you need for that particular walk, drive, zodiac ride. Guides can tell you what to expect on each excursion. Wonderful place! Enjoy.

Goober Loc: Southeastern PA

I was in the Galapagos with NatGeo/Lindblad Expeditions in October and used my Sony A7r and 70-300 lens for 90% of my shots. Also took my 24-70 lens as well as a Canon SX-50hs which I really didn't use much. Having 36 megapixels and FF also allowed considerable cropping in pp if necessary. A 400mm lens would have been nice but not essential. In my opinion a 300mm lens with an APSC or micro 4/3 sensor should be about ideal and plenty long enough without lugging a lot of extra weight and bulk around. I did not take a tripod and glad I didn't. It would have slowed me down a lot and just been an extra burden when hiking with other folks around you.
Have fun.....you will love the experience.

JeffR Loc: Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

Definitely leave the tripod home. I never found a use for it on the islands, and your group will resent you if they have to constantly wait for you. Some of the walks can be strenuous, so you won't want the weight either. Birds in flight would be the only use for a very long telephoto -- most of your shots will be fairly close range. One albatross built her nest right in the middle of the path and refused to budge, making everyone walk around her!

nikonlad Loc: Venice, FL

Pro photographer Arthur Morris takes a 300 2.8 and 1.4x and 2x tele converters as his "long" combo. He says the animals are so tame you do not need a longer lens.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I brought a 300mm f/2.8 prime to put on one body, and I put a 70-200mm f/2.8 on the other body. But I took a small backpack with a 16-35 and a 24-70 with me too. I also took my 1.4x and 2x. On the 300mm prime that teleconverters gave me the reach I needed on the crop sensor 1D Mark IV body, and I used the shorter lenses on my 5D MkIII body. It's a lot to take with you and if I got the chance to go back I'd probably take the 100-400mm Mark II lens, 16-35, and 24-70 with just a full frame body and the 1.4x teleconverter. That would lighten the load. If you have other equipment that Canon, I can't vouch for their 100-400 lenses. Canons new 100-400 has been improved so much, that I wouldn't hesitate to take it on safari or to the Galapagos.

Oh, I almost forgot, take a GoPro with water tight housing for your snorkeling. Rent or bring a weight belt with enough weight to allow you to go down to 10-12 feet and stay down. Taking video of the sea creatures is awesome. I got a penguin, flightless cormorant, green turtles, white tip shark, starfish, eels, sea lions, marine iguanas, and a host of other fish. Make sure you don't go on an El Nino year. I wouldn't go the year after either.

coastwalker

When I went I took an 18-70 and a 70-300. It was all I needed, I got some great up close shots of birds, marine iguanas, tortoises, etc. Never really wished for a bigger, heavier lens. I do suggest an underwater set up of some type though.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

100-400mm MII. Excellent range and extremely close focus capability.
One lens does it all. and add a 10-18 STM for panorama and fits in a large pocket.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Like I always counsel, due to personal experience and disappointment, if this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip, take everything you have. You will never regret that you did. I envy you. What a great trip.