what lens for a 4 mile hike?

I'm going on a hike where i will shoot terrain, fall foliage, and maybe some wildlife. After, i am visiting a zoo for more photos.
What lenses or lens would you recommend i use with my d610? Is there an all-in-one solution or should i use a couple of lenses.
Remember, i don't want to carry too much weight as i hike. thanks for the advice.

For the hike itself, I'd take my 28-200 in a heartbeat.

The zoo's a whole other kettle of fish.

I have only just moved to a full-frame and only have a 28-300, however, I found that really useful on our long hikes along cliff paths as I could go from a wide shot to a long zoom without having to change a lens (as I used to do on my old camera) I know its not the best/fastest/sharpest lens out there, but when we were walking it was handy to not have to keep changing lenses, and to only have to carry the camera/lens and no extras.

Are you asking which of the lenses you already have, should you take? or what should you buy? If the former maybe tell us what you have, so we can advise you

I think the first question would be which type of carrying system bag you have. If it's a backpack, then we can help choose a nice selection. As others have mentioned, it would help to know which lenses you have.

nikonpup said:

experience says whatever lens you chose will be the wrong one for that special shot.

Click to expand...

LOL... So true.

I'd put on something on the lighter end, weight-wise (says the guy who routinely hikes the desert with a 3 Lbs. Sigma 50-150mm).

As I so often repeat, at some point you have to stop asking yourself, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking yourself, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"

Nikon 24-70/2.8 for FX

My hike-rig is my D3300 with a 12-24/4 Tokina. Very light; very handy.

I hike with my 18-35g and 70-200 f4, both very light.

I have a few lenses: 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 105 f/2.8.
I am willing to rent a lens because i enjoy trying them before maybe buying them. I don't think any of the above is
sufficient alone, nor do they have any significant reach. I thought of renting the 28-300, the 70-200 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 thinking the last one may be too heavy to carry for 3-4 miles. I have two different backpacks: one for light duty, another for heavier duty. the Llight one can carry the camera with a lens and then two additional lenses. Add water, maybe a rain jacket, and the lenses and you have some weight to carry. So, what do you think? The 28-300, a combination of 24-85 and then 70-200? Maybe look at something 300-400? HELP!

I'd suggest borrow the 70-200mm f4 for some reach & take your 24-85mm.

As I mentioned on my previous post, I walked around all day (for 4 days) with the D800 and 28-300 combi. Nicely balanced/no lens changing out in the field. OK its the only lens I have, so I cant compare it to any others... but even when I had my D5100, when I went on long walks I have always prefered to have just the camera with lens attached, and not take another lens... I'd always been worried about gettting dust etc on the sensor while out and about.

Do you have a local camera shop you can try the other lenses on your camera for weight/balance and shoot a few images?

going on the hike Sunday. I rented the Nikon 70-200 f/4 and will likely carry my 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 in a backpack
loaded with other items: water, food, first aid kit. I might bring a prime lens (50mm) but probably not. I likely will
leave that one in the car. I will use my D610, but not my D7000 despite the temptation for the extra reach. I want
to see what the 610 gets me in the wild.

ok - got sick, couldn't make the hike, used 70-200 f/4 a bit in backyard and found it sharp. thanks
for the suggestions.