Yosemite lens questions

I'm planning on taking my 17-55 and was wondering if I should also take the 10-20? On a 40D. I'm trying to keep the weight of my pack down, so do you think I would 'really' benefit from 10 vs 17?

Thanks, Janie

I wouldn't take both lenses. At Yosemite, it's not like you have no room to back up if you needed wider than 17mm (unless you're hiking high up or over a waterfall). I used a 12-24, 28-105, and 70-200 over several days.

I used a 12-24, 24-105 and 70-200 on a full frame camera during my most recent trip, mostly the latter two. I would leave the 10-20 at home if you want to cut weight.

I visited the yosemite 3 weeks back and I used my 24-70 all the time on my 5d MK2, and very few times the 70-200 . So translating that for the OP, the 17-55 on the 40D crop should be just ideal and the 70-200 for closing up on the half dome, the dears and bears... so cut the weight, hike long ..have fun , its a great place and this to me is the right time.

You might also want to add a Circular Polarizer filter, the skies turn so very good and you can also cut through the glare of water on the river beds and rocks. I have some pictures posted on my flickr, if you want to take a look.

Arun:
nice shots.

How much hiking did you do to cover the images you have on Flickr?
Did you use only a CPL? (looked like there may have been a ND filter in one or two shots, too)

I'm planning on going for max waterfalls later this month.

Thanks to all for the replys. The 10-20 will stay home and I will be glad for the lighter load.

I will be taking several different filters and hope to get some good waterfall shots to show off to my camera club friends here at home. We tend to get excited over the little after rain waterfalls in the ozarks..lol

Thanks again, janie

I used the 17-55 almost exclusively there 2 weeks ago. The 10-20 only came out at Fern Spring. I agree on the CPL, and if you have GND filters they will come in handy. I also did a lot of bracketing for blending later(and for not missing the shot as I am still a rookie).

http://drlodi.smugmug.​com/Landscapes/Yosemit​e

Pat

avwh wrote in post #10169998
Arun:
nice shots.

How much hiking did you do to cover the images you have on Flickr?
Did you use only a CPL? (looked like there may have been a ND filter in one or two shots, too)

I'm planning on going for max waterfalls later this month.

Thank you ! And yes I only have the CPL and it was on my 24-70 all the time.

I travelled to Yosemite from Fresno, so it was the southside entrance for me, which is hwy 41N. Almost all the classic views can be seen in that route towards the valley visitor center. I had bought the book 'Photographers guide to Yosemite' by Michael Frye in Amazon a week before the travel,which proved to be of great help and guidance,I knew what I would see where and what time is best at which place and how to get there in quick time. With family,friends and a kid and the desire to see everything(being the only one inclined towards photography makes it even more difficult to let people understand what I was after !), I needed to plan the trip well. I had taken only the short trekking routes to Lower Yosemite falls,Vernal falls and the one to Mirror lake (parked the car in curry village parking lot, took the valley shuttle to the start of the trails) , covered the rest in car itself ! .

I think the Wawona, Glacier Point would be opened now to cars, not sure about the Toulemne meadows though. A good three days would be ideal but we never get that much time do we !! I could only accomodate a day and a half to spend in Yosemite ( two days for LA and 1 day for hanging out with friends in Fresno !).

It was overall a great trip .

Thanks for the info about that guide, Arun.

I may get a trial run from Merced this weekend (just a drive-through, though, since we have a graduation that's the primary purpose of this trip).

ptsdds wrote in post #10171217
I used the 17-55 almost exclusively there 2 weeks ago. The 10-20 only came out at Fern Spring. I agree on the CPL, and if you have GND filters they will come in handy. I also did a lot of bracketing for blending later(and for not missing the shot as I am still a rookie).

http://drlodi.smugmug.​com/Landscapes/Yosemit​e



Pat

Great shots!!

jag757 wrote in post #10162659
I'm planning on taking my 17-55 and was wondering if I should also take the 10-20? On a 40D. I'm trying to keep the weight of my pack down, so do you think I would 'really' benefit from 10 vs 17?

i was up there two weeks ago, with my 40D and a 17-55mm. didn't need anything wider. sometimes i wanted some more reach though.

hope the weather treats you well, we got rained and hailed on


J.

jag757 wrote in post #10162659
I'm planning on taking my 17-55 and was wondering if I should also take the 10-20? On a 40D. I'm trying to keep the weight of my pack down, so do you think I would 'really' benefit from 10 vs 17?

I took my 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200... Ended up I used 70-200 most of the time followed by 24-70. I barely took out and shot with the 10-22.

I took my 70-200, 17-55, and 10-22.

I used all three, but could have gotten by with just the 17-55 (and my back and shoulders would have been grateful ).

avwh wrote in post #10283824
I took my 70-200, 17-55, and 10-22.

I used all three, but could have gotten by with just the 17-55 (and my back and shoulders would have been grateful ).

My experience two weeks ago was a little bit different. I seldom, if ever, used my 55-200. Used my 28-135 a lot and a good number of shots using my Sigma f/3.5 10-20mm. On occasion I used my f/1.4 50mm but didn't need it too much since I had that focal length covered with the zoom.