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

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 26 Apr 2016 (Tuesday) 09:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lens suggestion for Yosemite trip

 
Saginus
Member
70 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: San diego
     
Apr 26, 2016 09:08 |  #1

Hi folks,

I have canon 50mm and tamron17-50mm lenses.. Planning to borrow friends canon55-250mm is there anything else you folks suggest? I can look into renting options.. Got all the filters I need too..
Thanks in advance


===============
Canon T3i, Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II Non-VC, 50mm f/1.8,
Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Ball Head Tripod, Hoya HMC Haze UV(0) - Filter - UV - 67 mm, HOYA CPL, HOYA Warm filter, STK battery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,089 posts
Gallery: 1546 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9965
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 26, 2016 09:36 |  #2

Heya,

Depends on what you plan on shooting. With your 17-50 & 55-250 on board, on APS-C, you have landscape and general shots covered. I wouldn't even take the 50 prime honestly, unless you think you need low light portrait with shallow depth of field--to me, these kinds of trips are about the environment, so for portrait, I'd just use a wide lens and get full depth of field (which your 17-50 provides fine). The only thing to consider at this point is if you're doing wildlife, and if you feel you need a longer lens or not. Renting a 100-400 would be a nice option and mostly eliminate the need of the 55-250 in many ways, while giving you a lot more total reach for chance encounters with wildlife. From there, maybe consider a light tripod, lots of low light opportunity for shooting wildlife and of course landscape stuff (water, mountains, weather, etc).

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,095 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5468
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Apr 26, 2016 10:30 |  #3

The most famous images of Yosemite are large landscapes, but there's plenty of small stuff if that interests you. Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, plants, mosses, lichens, picturesque rocks. This is a great year for wildflowers.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,045 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3417
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 26, 2016 12:23 |  #4

MalVeauX wrote in post #17985633 (external link)
Renting a 100-400 would be a nice option and mostly eliminate the need of the 55-250 in many ways, while giving you a lot more total reach for chance encounters with wildlife.

OhLook wrote in post #17985722 (external link)
The most famous images of Yosemite are large landscapes, but there's plenty of small stuff if that interests you. Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, plants, mosses, lichens, picturesque rocks. This is a great year for wildflowers.

Both of these replies go hand-in-hand, as the new version of the 100-400mm is a superb lens for small stuff, due to it's wonderfully intimate minimum focusing distance, as well as its 4 stop Image Stabilization. It may not be a true macro lens, but in practical usage it comes pretty close.

.


"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
johnandbentley
Senior Member
Avatar
932 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 176
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 26, 2016 12:51 |  #5

If you can handle hiking with a slightly heavier lens, I think spending some $$ and renting a 100-400 for a trip like that would be fun for you and give you fruitful results in the wildlife area. Your 17-50 will be great for landscape captures.


6D, Sigma 24mm f1.4 art, sigma 85 f1.4 art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikepj
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Likes: 63
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
     
Apr 29, 2016 23:07 |  #6

I took a 70-200 the last time I went to Yosemite and hardly used it at all. While Yosemite certainly has wildlife, it's not as prevalent there as other National Parks like Yellowstone. Yosemite is more about the landscape, where your 17-50 will suit just fine.

You mentioned you have all the filters you need, but I didn't see an ND filter in your signature. Might be useful for adding blur to the clouds passing by or slowing down waterfall exposures during the day.


Radiant Photography (external link) Instagram (external link) Instagram (Sports) (external link) Flickr (external link)
5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, Rebel SL1
16-35 ƒ4L, 24-105 ƒ4L, 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II, 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6L, 85 ƒ1.8, 50 ƒ1.8 STM, 24mm ƒ2.8 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flyfisher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,047 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 71
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Ma, USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by flyfisher.
     
Apr 30, 2016 10:08 |  #7

MalVeauX wrote in post #17985633 (external link)
Heya,

Depends on what you plan on shooting. With your 17-50 & 55-250 on board, on APS-C, you have landscape and general shots covered. I wouldn't even take the 50 prime honestly, unless you think you need low light portrait with shallow depth of field--to me, these kinds of trips are about the environment, so for portrait, I'd just use a wide lens and get full depth of field (which your 17-50 provides fine). The only thing to consider at this point is if you're doing wildlife, and if you feel you need a longer lens or not. Renting a 100-400 would be a nice option and mostly eliminate the need of the 55-250 in many ways, while giving you a lot more total reach for chance encounters with wildlife. From there, maybe consider a light tripod, lots of low light opportunity for shooting wildlife and of course landscape stuff (water, mountains, weather, etc).

Very best,


I agree with MalVeaux when I was there I used the 17=40 for wide landscapes and the 100-400 for wildlife and more intimate landscapes such as photographing the Half Dome from Glacier point and bringing it in much closer I used both lenses at that location I found that i used the 100-400 more than I thought I would .


Steve

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 186
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Apr 30, 2016 20:10 |  #8

Lens suggestions for trips really depend on who is taking the trip.

How do you visualize? How do you approach photography, and what do you look for in your images?

Just because 99% of people reach for their widest lens when it comes to shooting landscapes does not make a wide angle lens the right tool to pick for you.
Of the lenses I own I find that my 28mm, widest lens I currently have on hand, is by far my least used. My 85mm, my 70-200, and my 120-500 are my go to lenses, and I personally would rather have a telephoto setup for landscapes, often in portrait or cropped fairly square, than photographing them in wide angle. To me, wide angle landscapes are 'nice', but they never really capture what it is like to be there, and I would prefer to focus in on specific details. Drill down into the image so to speak, and bring specific elements right up front and centre.

One of my old classmates when to Yosemite or Yellowstone last summer (I forget which), and admitted that a fairly wide angle lens with a stack of extension tubes never left her camera. (She is however a botanist and has a thing for mineralogy, and didn't really have much interest in the landscapes other than the clues they could offer her as to where 'neat things' might be found.)

So what do You think is the best lens for your style, and why do you feel that way?


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Obey
Senior Member
327 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 177
Joined Dec 2006
Location: San Francisco
     
May 09, 2016 14:37 |  #9

I usually go to Yosemite at least once a month and most of my pictures are with the Sigma 35 ART or 24-105L.

All comes down to what you're looking for though.


Canon 6D & 80D | 135 f2 L | 24-105 f4 L | 70-200 f4 L | Sigma 35 1.4 ART | Canon 85 1.8
Canon EOS 3 + Mamiya RZ67 film
BradBphoto (external link)| Instagram (external link)

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

2,701 views & 3 likes for this thread
Lens suggestion for Yosemite trip
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is astrobalcony
901 guests, 236 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.