Which lens for San Francisco on 5DII - 17-40 or 14 f/2.8 II

We're going to visit our son in San Francisco in mid-June. We have not been there since 1980.

Will definitely be taking the 5DII and the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 24-105 f/4.

Also, my daughter will use the original 5D with one of my lenses.

Thinking of also taking the 17-40 or renting the relatively new Canon14mm f/2.8 II.

Will do all the normal tourist stuff in the city as well as the GG Bridge and south down to Carmel/Monterrey.

We also have a one or two day side trip to Yosemite planned.

I have done most of this before (not Yosemite though) but not with decent photo equipment.

As light as the 17-40 is (compared to all the rest of the above lenses) I'd rather not take it along with the 14mm. Which one would you leave home? Or leave both home? Is the 24-105 sufficiently wide for these destinations?

I'd go with the 24-105 and rent the 14mm. The 14 will cover your landscape shots at yosemite and the 24-105 will give you better coverage for walking around.

I'd take your 17-40, the range and flexibility of a zoom will be handy. I'd question the 70-200 before the 17-40 for this type of trip (great lens but will the range and utility here be worth the weight?). I don't think I'd bother renting a 14mm lens. I would take a tripod for the scenery stuff esp. Yosemite, you can then stop down and/or do panoramas. I doubt there's that much difference stopped down between 17-40 and the 14mm (other than focal length).

I bring my 17-40, no question about it.

17-40. Don't klnow what use for 70-200mm f2.8 and I am telephoto guy. Yosemite lot of folks user longer focal lengths but it depends on kind of landscapes you do. To me 14mm on FF, I would have to see the shots. If I was renting I will rent some nice tilt shift stuff if I was serious.

if you already have a 24-105, then IMO the 14mm for those shots that you really need really UWA shots.

Samyang 14/2.8. Way sharper and cheaper than the Canon.

The 17-40 and 24-105 are a must for both locations. There is plenty of wildlife in Yosemite, but the trick is capturing it. Beyone the occasional deer and Stellar Jays (related to Bluejay) you don't frequenty see wildlife.

Some suggestions, there used to be a Kodak Photo Walk at about 6:00 AM. It was a freebee and you registered for and started at the Ansel Adams museum. A "pro" would take you to numerous places, even loan you filters etc. to capture some really great shots. You will likely walk about a mile and it takes an hour. More or less over shortly after sunrise which is one of the favorite images. You capture the sun over some rock formations, not sure but don't think it was El Capitan.

Eastport wrote in post #14384995
We're going to visit our son in San Francisco in mid-June. We have not been there since 1980.

Will definitely be taking the 5DII and the 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 24-105 f/4.

Also, my daughter will use the original 5D with one of my lenses.

Thinking of also taking the 17-40 or renting the relatively new Canon14mm f/2.8 II.

Will do all the normal tourist stuff in the city as well as the GG Bridge and south down to Carmel/Monterrey.

We also have a one or two day side trip to Yosemite planned.

I have done most of this before (not Yosemite though) but not with decent photo equipment.

As light as the 17-40 is (compared to all the rest of the above lenses) I'd rather not take it along with the 14mm. Which one would you leave home? Or leave both home? Is the 24-105 sufficiently wide for these destinations?

Where are you visiting from? And what part of Yosemite are you visiting?

Also if you are visiting sf you MUST indulge in the food!!

i would leave the 14mm 2.8 because lets say your shooting some landscape with it ( 14mm pretty ultra ultra wide for FF camera) and then suddenly you want to shot something requires a bit of zoom, you must change it because its a wide prime and it weights 645 grams while the 17-40mm have a bit of low zoom range and it weights 476 grams.
i would take the 17-40mm.

Many thanks for all the advice - particularly the suggestions re where to go etc.

Sounds like I should open the discussion to another similar thread going on now dealing with whether to take the 70-200 f/2.8 at all. Clearly if I left that beast at home I would not mind bringing the 17-40 and the 14mm. Two of us will be using DSLRs.

My thoughts re the 14mm is that it is a lens I have read up a good bit on but have never used - so I am thinking I will get some shots I have never tried before. It's probably more applicable to downtown SF than Yosemite or Carmel.

I will definitely have the 24-105, so the real question is will I miss the 17-24 portion of the 17-40 lens. And whether to leave the 70-200 home. I suspect I would miss the 70-200 at Yosemite. Right?

Method of transport may eneter into this. If you are driving, I would take the 70-200mm without question. If flying then I would then carefully about that decision. I do hope you have your lodging in Yosemite, sometimes tough to come by!

We are flying and we do have lodging close to all our destinations.

I have taken the 70-200 before travelling by air. Did not seem a problem.

Would see a shame to leave the best lens behind but I do recognize that this is going to be a walking trip so I am giving taking the 70-200 a second thought. The other thread is helpful on this topic but it's becoming clear it's a "what works for me" issue.

In terms of the air, I was thinking about just minimizing what to bring, not the 70-200mm being a problem per se as far as the airline and/or security. Since your daughter is along, then two of you have demands on the lens, so perhaps bring it.

By the way, something fun to do in Yosemite is the horseback riding. Its about 2 hours in duration and goes through some stuff that thankfully the horse is good at traversing. There are trips on the valley floor, as well as some up top at various meadows. Lots of fun but is has a downside (cost).

Also, take bathing suits or some shorts you can wear in water. There are some great water activities (wadding, tubing, etc) in some of the most crystal clear water you'll find in the "wild".