Galapagos Photography

I went to the Galapagos with some friends and family in July 2008 on a great tour run by Etienne and Ely De Backer. This is a report on what worked for me in terms of taking pictures. If you're going and you're interested in Galapagos photography, maybe this can help.

The Pictures

The most important thing: here's how the picture came out, separated into three galleries of about 30 photos each. Click to see them.

Gallery 1: Birds
Gallery 2: On Land
Gallery 3: In the Sea

You can also see all the pictures together.

Lens Selection

What lens(es) to bring? For my full-frame Canon 5D, I brought the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS, and 100-400mm. Interestingly, all four of these had been recommended in different forums as the "perfect lens for Galapagos" or "the one I used for 95% of my shots." How did it work for me? Well, here's a histogram of the percentage of my photos at different focal lengths and the lenses that cover those lengths (not necessarily the lenses actually used for the shots):

In summary, here is my preference for lenses (for a full-frame sensor):

100-400mm (84% of my shots). Excellent range, but somewhat soft at the long end (better if stopped down to 6.3 or 7.1). Possible alternatives: If you can handle the weight, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a teleconverter and a monopod might be ideal: sharper and faster (but no IS). Or the 70-300mm IS if you are on a budget. Or 300 f/4 prime. On an unlimited budget, a 400mm f/4 or 300mm f/2.8 prime with teleconverters would be great. Renowned bird photographer Arthur Morris went to Galapagos about the same time as me, and took the 400mm f/4 DO. He got great results as he always does, but the close focus distance of 3.5 meters meant he had to fuss with extension tubes when he wanted to get closer (and of course teleconverters when he wanted more zoom). And he didn't have the 100-399mm range. On his previous trip he lugged the 500mm f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.)
17-40mm f/4 (14%). Possible alternative: 16-35mm or 18-55mm kit lens. I could have left the 24-105 home; usually 24mm isn't wide enough and 105 isn't long enough. Between the 100-400 and the 17-40, I've got 98% of my shots covered; you could easily stop there.
15mm fisheye or Sigma 12-24 mm (0%). Right before I left, my friend and Galapagos expert Frank Sulloway recommended a 15mm fisheye (he says the Sigma is better than the Canon). Fisheyes had never appealed to me before, and I didn't have time to get one, but in retrospect I really think Frank was right. 9% of my pictures were at 17mm; for some of them I wanted to go wider. If I could do it over and bring just three lenses, the third would be either a 15mm fisheye or the Sigma 12-24mm (the widest lens you can get on a full-frame SLR with a standard mount). But the 12-24mm only gets mediocre reviws, so maybe if you want to go wider you can just shoot several frames and merge them in Photoshop like this or his. Frank also gave good advice with "I probably use my 16-35 mm lens and my 70-300 mm lens more than any of the other lenses."
70-200mm f/4 IS (21%). Yes, 21% of my shots fell into the range of this lens, but most of those were actually taken with the 100-400. The days I did hike with the 70-200 I did appreciate that it was lighter, but I could easily have done without it. But if you go with a 300mm or 400mm prime for your long lens, then this (or the f/2.8 version) would be ideal as a complement.

There are rough equivalents of these lenses for any camera system. For a Canon crop sensor camera I would recommend:

100-400mm or 70-300mm IS
10-22mm or 10-20mm
(optional) 17-55mm f/2.8 or 18-55mm kit lens

100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS
17-40mm f/4 L
12-24mm
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
70-200mm f4 L IS

100-400mm

Some example shots showing the advantage of the long range:

Yes, you can get close to lots of iguanas, but when one does something interesting, you're likely to be at the 400mm range, not the 50mm range.

The ghost crabs are skittish; you'll need a long lens (in contrast, the colorful Sally Lighfoot crabs are more tolerant).

The Waved Albatross is a rather large bird, and you'll get lots of chances to photograph one at 100mm, but again, chances are the more interesting courtship behavior will be farther awy (400mm).

17-40mm

Some example shots showing the advantage of the wide angle:

A curious Nazca booby juvenile comes right up to the lens (set at 17mm).

Capture the wide expanse of an empty beach (17mm).

Use perspective to reveal the rare giant frigate bird (40mm).

Panorama

If you don't have a wide-angle lens, you can still make landscape photos by stiching together two or more images in photoshop (or equivalent). It won't work if there are moving animals in the picture, and you have to be careful about exposure (this one is slightly off at the right end), but it can work:

Other Equipment

Every day (usually twice a day) you transfer to shore in dinghys. Nobody had any mishaps getting gear wet, but I still think it is a good idea to pack gear in a dry sack. I also felt that a photo vest makes more sense than a bag; easier access to lenses etc. when they're in your front pocket rather than on your back. Others agree. So leave your bag on the boat, wrap your gear in your vest, put it in your dry sack, and when you are safely and dryly on shore, put on the vest.

Leave your tripod home; the few who brought tripods on our trip abandoned them after the first day. Several people used monopods to good effect, both as a camera support and as a walking stick.

Don't forget to bring something to clean your sensor. If you change lenses you will get spots on your sensor.

Flash photography of animals is not allowed, so don't bother with a flash.

You'll probably want something for underwater pictures while snorkling. I used the underwater housing for the Canon G9; several people used waterproof cameras such as the Pentax W30 or the Olympus 770SW. The housings seem to work better.

Dinghy
Dry Sack
Vest
Monopod
Sensor cleaner
Underwater housing

Other Sources of Advice

Art Morris (famous bird photographer) has trip reports from 2005 (part 2), 2006, 2007, and 2008 along with an excellent gallery .
A Traveler's Guide to the Galapagos Islands: this book is by the owner of the tour company we went with, but it is objective and informative.
Ecuador, there and back again : great photos, along with commentary on the trip.
A Photographer's Guide to the Galapagos by Phil Greenspun, founder of photo.net.
What lenses to bring by Thom Hogan, famous nature photographer. Conclusion for Nikon: 80-400, 24-120, 17-35. Best rational for a longer lens than 70-200: "It's not a matter of not being able to get close to the animals. Instead, it's a matter of getting close to the animals when they're doing something you want to capture on film."
Galapagos trip and photography equipment by Fredo Durand, MIT professor and computational photographer. With extensive gallery. Brought 500 f/4 and 100-400.
Large gallery at Galapagos Conservancy. Very nice, but at one point they had mis-labelled a red-footed booby as a blue-footed (in a picture that does not show the feet, obviously) and a hybrid iguana as a land iguana. A month ago I would have had no clue as to the differences, and now I am outraged at the error!

Peter Norvig