Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk
Thread started 18 Nov 2017 (Saturday) 23:07
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

travelling to Alberta in January - what gear?

 
pelooyen
Goldmember
pelooyen's Avatar
2,790 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Sydney
Nov 18, 2017 23:07 |  #1

I am travelling to Canada in January and spending 2 weeks in the Calgary area - Banff, Jasper etc
My aim is landscape as well as any wildlife but I also have to keep in mind my wife will want some touristy shots as we walk around town(s)
Torn whether to travel light with only 2 lenses or to pack more. (Carry on wont let me take all)

I have
17-40L
24-105L
70-200 f4
100-400 II

What would you take if you could only take 2? Is it worth taking the 100-400 considering its twice the mass of the 70-200?

And those that travel lots, how do you manage to travel with lots of gear?


cheers, Paul
---------------
Flickrexternal link | My Websiteexternal link | Like me on Facebookexternal link
6D | 5Dc | 17-40mm L | 28-135mm IS USM | 70-200L f4 | 100mm f2.8 macro USM | MPE65 | MT-24EX | 580EX | Kenko extension tubes | 1.4x TC
| couple of umbrellas and softbox and other lighting stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
patrick ­ j
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2009
Denver
Nov 23, 2017 10:58 |  #2

Judging only by me and what focal lengths I seem to be at most of the time, I'd go with the 24-105 and 70-200. That would cover most of the range you are going to be using for landscapes. I do very limited wildlife, but are many critters going to be out and about in January? If you expect to see something, I suppose the 100-400 would be the choice, but for only or mainly landscapes, the 70-200 will cover most of what you are going to want to shoot.


Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 23, 2017 11:00 |  #3

24-105 & 100-400 covers 24~400mm. I'd do that. Covers your in-town stuff for your wife. Covers all kinds of landscape opportunity. Covers wildlife.

A decent backpack or a little pelican case would do the trick.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
bluemoons
Junior Member
Joined Aug 2017
Post has been edited 1 month ago by bluemoons.
Dec 05, 2017 13:19 |  #4

I use a Pelican 1450 for my carry on. I'd use something bigger, but my trips are mostly fishing trips so a small waterproof case is imperative to me. The 1450 holds a 7d2 body with 70-200 2.8 ii attached, 35mm 1.4L, 24-70 2.8 ii, extra batteries, chargers, and a polarizer. That's with the pluck foam. I think I could probably fit another prime in there vertically if I had the dividers.

As for what to bring, I'd second the 24-105 and 100-400. That gives you a ton of options based on what happens when you get there.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Archibald.
Dec 05, 2017 13:35 |  #5

Wow, bring mittens.

Re travelling, I routinely fly with a 100-400mmII, 100mmL, 7D2, SL1, laptop, and travel docs all in my laptop bag as carry-on. Plus I have the roll-aboard for everything else. No checked luggage. This is for trips to overseas destinations. That might be too light for many, but it works for me. Maybe your wife could carry on more items if need be.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
conraderb
Member
44 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Dec 06, 2017 10:25 |  #6

My impression is that the 100-400 II is in a whole new ballgame compared to the 70-200 F4. Personally, I think i would leave the 70-200 F4 at home, walk around with the 24-105, and when you are doing serious shooting, have the 17-40 and 100-400 II at the ready.

For what it is worth: enjoying time with wife, IMHO, is incompatible with serious shooting. Your mileage may vary :-)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Tom Reichner.
Dec 06, 2017 11:43 |  #7

patrick j wrote in post #18502669 (external link)
I do very limited wildlife, but are many critters going to be out and about in January?

Spruce Grouse, Hares, Northern Hawk Owls, Pine Martens, Chickarees, Elk, Bighorns, Dusky Grouse, Ptarmigan, etc. Lots of winter residents that will be "out and about" ...... but you do have to go looking for them.

patrick j wrote in post #18502669 (external link)
If you expect to see something, I suppose the 100-400 would be the choice . . .

Yes, the 100-400mm would be the best choice for the winter residents, with the possible exception of the Elk and Bighorns, which can sometimes be effectively photographed with the 70-200mm focal lengths.

.

conraderb wrote in post #18511903 (external link)
For what it is worth: enjoying time with wife, IMHO, is incompatible with serious shooting. Your mileage may vary :-)

Very true. Serious shooting means that if you find a good Elk, you stay with it for hours, waiting for it to present the very best opportunity with respect to backgrounds, light, etc. Same with any other animal or bird, no matter how big or how small it is. You find something you want to shoot, you then stick with it all day if you're able to.

Same with landscapes - you find a point of view that you really like, you stay there for hours, or keep returning to it over and over again, in order to get it when the light is just right.

I know from experience that wives may tolerate this serious photography, but they don't like it.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

302 views & 2 likes for this thread
travelling to Alberta in January - what gear?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00144 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is pineaple
858 guests, 464 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017