Preparing for Yellowstone

The family and I will going to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons the beginning of June. I'm bringing the following equipment:
Canon 30D
Canon 40D
Canon 100 macro - for flowers and bugs
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS - for snapshots
Canon EF 100-400 IS - for animals
Canon EF-S 10-22 - for landscapes, especially at the Grand Tetons (just ordered it and the wife doesn't know yet)
monopod
backpack
lots of gas money
Is there anything else I should consider bringing? We've never gone to the park before so if you have "must see" items, that would be nice to know too.

You need to join the Yellowstone Web forum for info on pictures and upcoming events. The address is: http://www.yellowstone​.net/forums/ Lots of good info and one thread that is dedicated to pictures at Yellowstone Park.

I know that you list a monopod, but I would add a tripod if you have one. I've gotten to the point that I never travel without one because I like to take shots in very low light situations that a monopod might or might not work in.

Also, make sure you have polarizers for your lenses.

Tim

Find someone, like me, that used to work up there that can take you to all of the back country really cool places that others never get to see so you can get the really great pictures!! Must see items? Hmmm Lower Undine falls at the north end of the park is a must, although you have to hike in a little ways to see it. Head up to the NE entrance for some great panos with the bison. The top of Mt Washington is also a must do. Take the time to hike down the the canyon falls as well, awesome sight.

As for the Tetons, Jenny lake is a must see, gorgeous blue lake. This will show you the turnouts on the Teton Park Road and most of them are worth the stop.

Since you are going mid Touron season, patience will be the best thing you can take with you! There will be a lot of traffic, most of it RV's. You do know that the fee for park entry is actually the storage fee people pay beacuse they leave their brains at the gate?! Have fun!

mustangman wrote in post #5514323
The family and I will going to Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons the beginning of June. I'm bringing the following equipment:

I might see you there. I'm going to Grand Teton NP in early June as well. The gear I'm taking:

Canon Rebel XTi
Canon 5D
Sigma 10-20mm for landscapes
Canon 17-40mm for landscapes
Canon 24-105mm for landscapes & general shooting and flowers
Canon 100-400mm for animals and isolating landscape features
Canon 85mm f/1.8 for high res pano shooting and thin dof shots
monopod
tripod
Nodal Ninja
CPL, 2 round ND filters, 5 rectangular GND filters, enhancing filter
and the 50mm f/1.8 if I can find room

lots of gas money

Tell me about it. I fly into to Salt Lake City and drive up to Jackson Hole from there, but that was mainly so I'd have an excuse to do some research at the genealogy library in SLC on the way home.

I'll second the suggestion to bring a CPL and tripod and throw in a either the cable shutter release or IR shutter release for the landscape shots.

This will be my second visit to Grand Teton. Last time we did the park in a single day, hardly time to do it justice, and only drove the park road missing the vistas from the highway. Jenny Lake is a must. If you have time, take the ferry across and do the short hike to the falls atleast if not up to Inspiration Point. I've had a couple of people recommend the Two Ocean and Emma Matilda Lake trails for their beauty and isolation compared the other more tourist swamped locales in the park. There is also a beautiful very old tree called the Old Patriarch off the park road that makes for excellent shots with the mountains in the background (see here for example). It isn't marked on the park maps (it is about 3/4 mile east of the park road a few hundred yards south and the North Jenny Lake Junction), so very few people visit it making it a hidden gem for photographers.

Thanks all. I forgot about a tripod. I have to find a filter for the 10mm too.

Yellowstone has spectacular clouds... CPL is a must... as well as GND filters for water falls.

mustangman wrote in post #5514323
Canon EF-S 10-22 - for landscapes, especially at the Grand Tetons (just ordered it and the wife doesn't know yet)

The 10-22 won't get used much for the Tetons unless you hike up into them. Anything less than 20mm on a crop will make them look like ant hills from the flats which defeats the purpose of photographing them. I'd look at the 17-55 IS or 17-40 to replace the 17-85 IS. Where the 10-22 will come in handy is the geothermal features of Yellowstone - especially the pools. But is that enough to justify?

For Yellowstone and Teton, the most important lenses are a wildlife lens and a good quality walk around. I'd put more emphasis on a 17-40 or 17-55IS than a 10-22 for those two parks *unless* you plan multiday treks into the actual mountain peaks.

Don't forget a CP, portable storage, and good maps.

lots of gas money

Yeah no kidding. I save a ton of money by camping and not staying in hotels. I also wake up right in the middle of the park! This is a huge advantage.

Tons of Yellowstone and Teton info here:

http://parkcamper.com …d-Teton-National-Park.htm

http://parkcamper.com …owstone-National-Park.htm

Mike55 wrote in post #5519092
The 10-22 won't get used much for the Tetons unless you hike up into them. Anything less than 20mm on a crop will make them look like ant hills from the flats which defeats the purpose of photographing them. I'd look at the 17-55 IS or 17-40 to replace the 17-85 IS. Where the 10-22 will come in handy is the geothermal features of Yellowstone - especially the pools. But is that enough to justify?

I disagree. The 10-22mm may be necessary to get the entire Cathedral Group in the same shot from many spots along the Park Road or Jenny Lake area. It runs reasonably close to the base of the mountains. It is also helpful when you want to avoid perspective distortion if you don't have a tilting lens as the expansive FOV allows for the camera's sensor to remain level while still getting everything in the shot and cropping out the waste in the foreground later.

It can also be used to good effect for low to the ground shots of vegetation or a rock with the mountains in the background keeping both sharp. Or the geothermal features of Yellowstone as you suggest. The longer the lens, the farther you have to stop down to get infinity depth of field and stopping down further than about f/16 on a crop camera generally isn't advisable because diffraction starts setting in. For example, at 10mm at f/11 and focus set for 3 feet, you get depth of field extending from 1 ft to infinity. A 17mm lens has to stop down below f/16 to get the same depth of field.

ckgowens wrote in post #5519801
I disagree. The 10-22mm may be necessary to get the entire Cathedral Group in the same shot from many spots along the Park Road or Jenny Lake area. It runs reasonably close to the base of the mountains. It is also helpful when you want to avoid perspective distortion if you don't have a tilting lens as the expansive FOV allows for the camera's sensor to remain level while still getting everything in the shot and cropping out the waste in the foreground later.

Ok, fair enough. But what good is doing that when it sucks out all the drama of the Cathedral Group? It turns them into Wisconsin hills. I've yet to see a wide angle shot from the flats that I even like. Sure, there have been shots with gorgeous sunsets and pretty plants in the flats, but the Tetons end up looking like ant hills. I'm far more impressed with shots in the 30-70mm range on a crop body for the flats. And most of Yellowstone is already incredibly wide. You need to be in close quarters and find an interesting foreground.

Any chance of some example shots to illustrate both sides of the 10-22 argument (pros/cons)? I would have thought 10-22 would be a no brainer but the argument against it sounds convincing.

GCD1 wrote in post #5538358
Any chance of some example shots to illustrate both sides of the 10-22 argument (pros/cons)? I would have thought 10-22 would be a no brainer but the argument against it sounds convincing.

Here are some shots I found on Flickr for comparison. All focal lengths have been converted to their equivalent focal length on a Canon 1.6x crop.:

First is Schwabacher Landing, a photographer favortie located at a distance of just under 7 miles from the peak of Grand Teton. These shots were taken by James Neeley.

Schwabacher's landing @ 11.25mm (i.e. near the 10-22mm's widest FOV)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jpn/1127948210/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jpn/1251467089/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jfew/1221434844​/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kenlund/1273367​184/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/roddh/227891430​/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/txcraig75/21578​14310/

ckgowens wrote in post #5538733
Here are some shots I found on Flickr for comparison. All focal lengths have been converted to their equivalent focal length on a Canon 1.6x crop.:

First is Schwabacher Landing, a photographer favortie located at a distance of just under 7 miles from the peak of Grand Teton. These shots were taken by James Neeley.

Schwabacher's landing @ 11.25mm (i.e. near the 10-22mm's widest FOV)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jpn/1127948210/

Gorgeous photo! But I have to say that it really makes the Tetons look too small, at least in my opinion. If you have ever stood at that spot, you'd know the Tetons are much more impressive than what this image conveys. Alot of the other shots are too wide as well IMHO. Sure, you can fit more in the image but you greatly reduce the drama of the Tetons.

Mike55 wrote in post #5541631
Gorgeous photo! But I have to say that it really makes the Tetons look too small, at least in my opinion. If you have ever stood at that spot, you'd know the Tetons are much more impressive than what this image conveys. Alot of the other shots are too wide as well IMHO. Sure, you can fit more in the image but you greatly reduce the drama of the Tetons.

I definitely agree. Just looking at the next photo after that, which seems to be taken from almost the exact same spot -- it doesn't even seem like the same mountain range. There's just that much of a difference, at least to me.

Good examples. Thank you.