How did you get those foods into Iceland? I read you can’t bring any animal products (such as meat, egg, dairy).
Jack Mead
July 9, 2020 5:39 pm
A good article, but I would like to have more details on clothing. I’m going to visit Iceland in October (I hope, at least) and what do you think about jackets from the Cools website? What is the best choice for this time of the year?
The jackets at the website you mentioned range from so many different brands that I can’t generalize which ones are good or bad. Some of them definitely looked overpriced to me.
More important than the brand is to do what I described in this article by following the layering system for clothing – a wool base layer, a mid-layer of fleece or something similar, a synthetic insulating layer, potentially a down insulating layer, and a hardshell outer layer. If you’re planning to do a lot of hiking, you may want to swap out the down insulating layer for something synthetic. I wouldn’t go with a heavy all-in-one jacket for hiking, but possibly for just taking pictures outside your car. Hope this helps! Have a good trip.
Ellie Kurick
February 16, 2019 11:31 pm
This is a great article, very informative. I was planning on hiking this trail in late May (probably starting the 25th). Do you think it will be at all passable? Thank you.
Dieter
September 28, 2018 4:33 pm
Spencer,
thanks for the article, I found some really useful info in there. As a matter of fact, I intend to visit Iceland myself next year (june), and gradually started to buy into the necessary gear.
I’m considering the Baltoro 65 myself, but I was wondering: can you fit both a small and a medium core unit in there ? I’ll will need to carry 2 D800E’s, and a 25, 35 and 85 Milvus (and batteries, filters, …). I plan on doing day hikes only, sleeping in my car by day and photographing (landscape) in the evening/night/morning, so there will be no need to carry a tent or sleeping gear.
On the lenses: I’m on the lookout for something in the 180/200 mm range, mostly for those layered mountains-in-the-distance shots – for which I expect the 135 Milvus will come short. It would seem however that the possible lens choices for that focal length are not exactly numerous, especially because I want something that’s optically close to the quality of the Milvi. That said, the Nikon 200 2.0 is out of the question price-wise. I’ve been considering (a late version of) the Leica R Apo Telyt 180 3.4 (supposedly better than the Nikon 180), and even a Sigma 180 2.8 macro (no idea whether performance at infinity is up there). Even going for the “old” AF-S 300 4.0 has crossed my mind (though light, the PF version appears less even as far as sharpness is concerned), but I’m not sure whether I’ll need that much tele, to be honest.
Any insight you (or anybody else, of course) you might have on the core units and/or the lens would be greatly appreciated !
Dieter, thank you for the reminder, and I apologize for my lack of reply at first!
The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, the small core unit can work well at the bottom section of the Baltoro, separated from the medium core unit with the Baltoro’s built-in divider. That’s not how I did it on the hike (I used the bottom section to stuff my sleeping bag, which barely fit) – but it could work quite well.
Your second question is tougher. I think a 300mm lens would be too much, but the range from 100mm to 200mm is amazing in Iceland. Given how much stronger the 135mm Milvus appears to be compared to other telephoto options, that probably would be my recommendation. I think you’ll want the 100-150mm range in Iceland more than the 150-200mm range – but both could be useful. That’s the dilemma; I don’t want you to get the 135mm and then curse my name when you see a particularly distant landscape :)
That said, the first time I went to Iceland, my longest lens was a 105mm, and it worked. I definitely felt like I wanted something longer at times, but I don’t think I missed any killer shots because of it. 135mm is about the sweet spot for a lot of landscapes there.
If you’ve settled on a longer focal length, I’d recommend against the Nikon 180mm, which is a good lens, but has been outclassed in sharpness by today’s zooms; I would even pick something like the 70-200mm f/4 ahead of it. Macro lenses typically will not be optimized for infinity, but I can’t speak directly of the Sigma 180mm f/2.8, so it might be quite good. The Leica is a creative solution indeed! Although I have yet to see any measurements that show how sharp it is in comparison. There does appear to be a dearth of Zeiss-quality primes beyond the 135mm mark, aside from insane lenses like the 200mm f/2.
Enjoy your trip – it sounds like it will be amazing!
no worries, no rush. I appreciate you took the time to thoroughly answer my questions !
As you point out, lens choice can be quite a dilemma for several reasons, which gets magnified when travelling to a destination that I’m not likely to visit again for a number of years. My initial idea was to take a 14-24 (or 15-30, or perhaps even a 24-35, as I’m not particularly drawn to UWA shots), and a 70-200 4.0, and be done with it. No lens changes, very flexible in terms of range, and therefore making for a very smooth and fluid shooting experience. Not to mention the feeling of satisfaction and peace of mind, knowing that all the bases are essentially covered, since I’m basically there for landscape shots.
Then I sat down and looked at what I actually valued above all else, and that’s image quality in its broadest sense. I’ve shot zooms before, and while sometimes the fluidity of shooting that way feels liberating, especially after a period of nothing but deliberate tripod shooting using manual focus primes, afterwards I’m often a bit disappointed when working on the files (because I’m too much of a pixel peeper perhaps, but also because the shots feel as if they haven’t been thought through far enough, compositionally). So, I began thinking about using primes for the trip.
I know this will entail lens changes (which I’m not that fond of), but I hope that a couple of primes, and especially manual focus primes, will help suppress the urge to shoot away (tempting in such a majestic landscape, in order “not to miss anything”) and end up with a greater number of images, that are weaker to boot.
So, the missing piece is the “compression tool”, and it was interesting to read what worked for you, in Iceland (I strongly believe that the place does indeed dictate the most used focal lengths). Whatever I end up choosing, I think it will be important to go in with the right mindset, i.e. the thought that I will (have to) make it happen with the focal lengths I brought, be happy with them (I would be a fool not to), and not worry too much about the shots I may miss. As such, there will be no cursing ;-)
Thanks for your take !
preston
August 7, 2018 9:52 am
For many people the tent camping part would be a dealbreaker so it should be mentioned that you could stay in heated huts along this hike. They are placed about 7-9 miles apart so most people hike that in a day making that whole thing a 3-4 day hike. If you are capable of doing 15 miles in a day you could shorten that duration though. I was planning on tent camping next to the huts (purely to save money) but it was raining so hard each evening when we arrived that I chose to pony up and stay in the huts to dry off. It ended up being a wonderful experience chatting with the other hikers staying there from all over the world.
I brought the 16-35, 24-85, 70-300, and a 50/1.8. If that seems a little excessive, well, yes, it was (live and learn!). I never used the 70-300 or the 50/1.8 and hardly used the 16-35. For most of the times I wanted to go wider than 24mm I put the camera in vertical orientation and did a couple shot pano and then stiched in post. That ended up being a good decision because it allowed me to print my favorite shot super big to go up on my wall! I love the 24-85 focal range for hiking but just wish that lens had better image quality :(
Nice to hear about your experiences on the Laugavegur as well! Hut camping is a great way to do it, and you’ll also be able to lighten your pack significantly if you do. Unfortunately, with the reverse schedule I was on, that wasn’t very feasible – but I might try it next time. That is quite an extensive kit! I’m glad you got some images you’re happy with.
JOPh
August 6, 2018 6:23 pm
I’m actually headed over there later this month to hike the Laugavegur and was excited to see your article on it. As far as the camping goes, did you camp at/near the shelters/cabins every night, or elsewhere? I’ve not been able to find any resources on where you can legally camp other than around the cabins (which costs $), but have read that there are other options, it’s just that there aren’t any maps or resources saying exactly where they are.
Awesome, I think you’ll really enjoy it! I ended up camping near the shelters each night, and I don’t know of any other way to do it – I don’t think you’re allowed to camp by the trail in most places, but unfortunately I haven’t heard anything further. The problem in many areas is that there’s no easy off-trail place to stay, since you can see for quite a distance in every direction.
Guillermo Paneque
August 6, 2018 1:24 pm
I love your article. I like both hiking and photography and I am planing to visit a natural park in Asturia next year. I have considered the NIkon 24 70 VR as the only lens. Is it a bad decision? I great appreciate your input
I don’t think it’s a bad decision, although you may want to go with a slightly longer lens if you have the opportunity – something like a 24-120mm, for example. Then again, 70mm should be enough for most of the landscapes you come across. There’s no wrong answer, really.
Louise Fairfax
July 30, 2018 5:38 pm
HI. Lovely to “meet” someone with the same philosophy as I have. My favourite thing is to photograph on hikes for all the same reasons. And, when in Iceland, we slept in the afternoon to enable long stints shooting sunset and rise. The light in the middle of the night thrilled me by its subtlety. Midday photography is boring, and the crowds formidable. We had everything to ourselves by keeping odd hours. If you want to check out some hikes of this type in Tasmania, my blog is www.natureloverswalks.com/ . I am about to post the first of my Iceland blogs. Meanwhile, Instagram @natureloverswalks has some of my Iceland shots – all taken “out of hours” :-). You sure can carry a heavy pack!! I am female, small and light, so don’t have your capacity. I have to restrict myself to a single lens (16-35). In Iceland I had my sturdy tripod, although in the Tasmanian wilderness, I generally take my sirui travel tripod, which is not nearly as good when shooting LE, but is all my back can cope with. I have more limitations than you. Apart from that, our gear is pretty similar.
Sigurd Rage
July 30, 2018 4:35 am
Great read! I am always a bit amused reading gear lists, I’d pack fewer clothes than you. From my scouting and infantry days, I leared that you can get by with:
– two sets of wooly underclothes – one or two long sleeved cotton shirts – wooly jumper – field pants (rain resistant if possible) – field jacket – poncho + web belt – one pair of sturdy boots, wooly socks – wooly gloves + mitten shell, wooly watch cap and scarf/pullover
With this, you can rig yourself comfortable to almost any condition (within reason). Just don’t except to smell nice at the end of your trip… I don’t like synthetics much, but my field pants are gore-tex, with airing zippers inside the thighs that works quite well when marching.
Adrien Patané
July 28, 2018 6:38 pm
Great stuff Spencer!! I did the hike a few years back and loved it, still heaps of snow around when we did it however so it was a little different. I have a very similar hiking photography setup with the Baltoro and use a Wotancraft waterproof camera insert, works brilliantly
How did you get those foods into Iceland? I read you can’t bring any animal products (such as meat, egg, dairy).
A good article, but I would like to have more details on clothing. I’m going to visit Iceland in October (I hope, at least) and what do you think about jackets from the Cools website? What is the best choice for this time of the year?
The jackets at the website you mentioned range from so many different brands that I can’t generalize which ones are good or bad. Some of them definitely looked overpriced to me.
More important than the brand is to do what I described in this article by following the layering system for clothing – a wool base layer, a mid-layer of fleece or something similar, a synthetic insulating layer, potentially a down insulating layer, and a hardshell outer layer. If you’re planning to do a lot of hiking, you may want to swap out the down insulating layer for something synthetic. I wouldn’t go with a heavy all-in-one jacket for hiking, but possibly for just taking pictures outside your car. Hope this helps! Have a good trip.
This is a great article, very informative. I was planning on hiking this trail in late May (probably starting the 25th). Do you think it will be at all passable? Thank you.
Spencer,
thanks for the article, I found some really useful info in there. As a matter of fact, I intend to visit Iceland myself next year (june), and gradually started to buy into the necessary gear.
I’m considering the Baltoro 65 myself, but I was wondering: can you fit both a small and a medium core unit in there ? I’ll will need to carry 2 D800E’s, and a 25, 35 and 85 Milvus (and batteries, filters, …). I plan on doing day hikes only, sleeping in my car by day and photographing (landscape) in the evening/night/morning, so there will be no need to carry a tent or sleeping gear.
On the lenses: I’m on the lookout for something in the 180/200 mm range, mostly for those layered mountains-in-the-distance shots – for which I expect the 135 Milvus will come short. It would seem however that the possible lens choices for that focal length are not exactly numerous, especially because I want something that’s optically close to the quality of the Milvi. That said, the Nikon 200 2.0 is out of the question price-wise. I’ve been considering (a late version of) the Leica R Apo Telyt 180 3.4 (supposedly better than the Nikon 180), and even a Sigma 180 2.8 macro (no idea whether performance at infinity is up there). Even going for the “old” AF-S 300 4.0 has crossed my mind (though light, the PF version appears less even as far as sharpness is concerned), but I’m not sure whether I’ll need that much tele, to be honest.
Any insight you (or anybody else, of course) you might have on the core units and/or the lens would be greatly appreciated !
A gentle reminder to my question, perhaps ? ?
Dieter, thank you for the reminder, and I apologize for my lack of reply at first!
The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, the small core unit can work well at the bottom section of the Baltoro, separated from the medium core unit with the Baltoro’s built-in divider. That’s not how I did it on the hike (I used the bottom section to stuff my sleeping bag, which barely fit) – but it could work quite well.
Your second question is tougher. I think a 300mm lens would be too much, but the range from 100mm to 200mm is amazing in Iceland. Given how much stronger the 135mm Milvus appears to be compared to other telephoto options, that probably would be my recommendation. I think you’ll want the 100-150mm range in Iceland more than the 150-200mm range – but both could be useful. That’s the dilemma; I don’t want you to get the 135mm and then curse my name when you see a particularly distant landscape :)
That said, the first time I went to Iceland, my longest lens was a 105mm, and it worked. I definitely felt like I wanted something longer at times, but I don’t think I missed any killer shots because of it. 135mm is about the sweet spot for a lot of landscapes there.
If you’ve settled on a longer focal length, I’d recommend against the Nikon 180mm, which is a good lens, but has been outclassed in sharpness by today’s zooms; I would even pick something like the 70-200mm f/4 ahead of it. Macro lenses typically will not be optimized for infinity, but I can’t speak directly of the Sigma 180mm f/2.8, so it might be quite good. The Leica is a creative solution indeed! Although I have yet to see any measurements that show how sharp it is in comparison. There does appear to be a dearth of Zeiss-quality primes beyond the 135mm mark, aside from insane lenses like the 200mm f/2.
Enjoy your trip – it sounds like it will be amazing!
Hello Spencer,
no worries, no rush. I appreciate you took the time to thoroughly answer my questions !
As you point out, lens choice can be quite a dilemma for several reasons, which gets magnified when travelling to a destination that I’m not likely to visit again for a number of years. My initial idea was to take a 14-24 (or 15-30, or perhaps even a 24-35, as I’m not particularly drawn to UWA shots), and a 70-200 4.0, and be done with it. No lens changes, very flexible in terms of range, and therefore making for a very smooth and fluid shooting experience. Not to mention the feeling of satisfaction and peace of mind, knowing that all the bases are essentially covered, since I’m basically there for landscape shots.
Then I sat down and looked at what I actually valued above all else, and that’s image quality in its broadest sense. I’ve shot zooms before, and while sometimes the fluidity of shooting that way feels liberating, especially after a period of nothing but deliberate tripod shooting using manual focus primes, afterwards I’m often a bit disappointed when working on the files (because I’m too much of a pixel peeper perhaps, but also because the shots feel as if they haven’t been thought through far enough, compositionally). So, I began thinking about using primes for the trip.
I know this will entail lens changes (which I’m not that fond of), but I hope that a couple of primes, and especially manual focus primes, will help suppress the urge to shoot away (tempting in such a majestic landscape, in order “not to miss anything”) and end up with a greater number of images, that are weaker to boot.
So, the missing piece is the “compression tool”, and it was interesting to read what worked for you, in Iceland (I strongly believe that the place does indeed dictate the most used focal lengths). Whatever I end up choosing, I think it will be important to go in with the right mindset, i.e. the thought that I will (have to) make it happen with the focal lengths I brought, be happy with them (I would be a fool not to), and not worry too much about the shots I may miss. As such, there will be no cursing ;-)
Thanks for your take !
For many people the tent camping part would be a dealbreaker so it should be mentioned that you could stay in heated huts along this hike. They are placed about 7-9 miles apart so most people hike that in a day making that whole thing a 3-4 day hike. If you are capable of doing 15 miles in a day you could shorten that duration though. I was planning on tent camping next to the huts (purely to save money) but it was raining so hard each evening when we arrived that I chose to pony up and stay in the huts to dry off. It ended up being a wonderful experience chatting with the other hikers staying there from all over the world.
I brought the 16-35, 24-85, 70-300, and a 50/1.8. If that seems a little excessive, well, yes, it was (live and learn!). I never used the 70-300 or the 50/1.8 and hardly used the 16-35. For most of the times I wanted to go wider than 24mm I put the camera in vertical orientation and did a couple shot pano and then stiched in post. That ended up being a good decision because it allowed me to print my favorite shot super big to go up on my wall! I love the 24-85 focal range for hiking but just wish that lens had better image quality :(
Nice to hear about your experiences on the Laugavegur as well! Hut camping is a great way to do it, and you’ll also be able to lighten your pack significantly if you do. Unfortunately, with the reverse schedule I was on, that wasn’t very feasible – but I might try it next time. That is quite an extensive kit! I’m glad you got some images you’re happy with.
I’m actually headed over there later this month to hike the Laugavegur and was excited to see your article on it. As far as the camping goes, did you camp at/near the shelters/cabins every night, or elsewhere? I’ve not been able to find any resources on where you can legally camp other than around the cabins (which costs $), but have read that there are other options, it’s just that there aren’t any maps or resources saying exactly where they are.
Awesome, I think you’ll really enjoy it! I ended up camping near the shelters each night, and I don’t know of any other way to do it – I don’t think you’re allowed to camp by the trail in most places, but unfortunately I haven’t heard anything further. The problem in many areas is that there’s no easy off-trail place to stay, since you can see for quite a distance in every direction.
I love your article. I like both hiking and photography and I am planing to visit a natural park in Asturia next year. I have considered the NIkon 24 70 VR as the only lens. Is it a bad decision? I great appreciate your input
I don’t think it’s a bad decision, although you may want to go with a slightly longer lens if you have the opportunity – something like a 24-120mm, for example. Then again, 70mm should be enough for most of the landscapes you come across. There’s no wrong answer, really.
HI. Lovely to “meet” someone with the same philosophy as I have. My favourite thing is to photograph on hikes for all the same reasons. And, when in Iceland, we slept in the afternoon to enable long stints shooting sunset and rise. The light in the middle of the night thrilled me by its subtlety. Midday photography is boring, and the crowds formidable. We had everything to ourselves by keeping odd hours. If you want to check out some hikes of this type in Tasmania, my blog is www.natureloverswalks.com/ . I am about to post the first of my Iceland blogs. Meanwhile, Instagram @natureloverswalks has some of my Iceland shots – all taken “out of hours” :-). You sure can carry a heavy pack!! I am female, small and light, so don’t have your capacity. I have to restrict myself to a single lens (16-35). In Iceland I had my sturdy tripod, although in the Tasmanian wilderness, I generally take my sirui travel tripod, which is not nearly as good when shooting LE, but is all my back can cope with. I have more limitations than you. Apart from that, our gear is pretty similar.
Great read! I am always a bit amused reading gear lists, I’d pack fewer clothes than you. From my scouting and infantry days, I leared that you can get by with:
– two sets of wooly underclothes
– one or two long sleeved cotton shirts
– wooly jumper
– field pants (rain resistant if possible)
– field jacket
– poncho + web belt
– one pair of sturdy boots, wooly socks
– wooly gloves + mitten shell, wooly watch cap and scarf/pullover
With this, you can rig yourself comfortable to almost any condition (within reason). Just don’t except to smell nice at the end of your trip…
I don’t like synthetics much, but my field pants are gore-tex, with airing zippers inside the thighs that works quite well when marching.
Great stuff Spencer!! I did the hike a few years back and loved it, still heaps of snow around when we did it however so it was a little different.
I have a very similar hiking photography setup with the Baltoro and use a Wotancraft waterproof camera insert, works brilliantly