National Parks in the US: Which lens ??

<p>I might have the opportunity to visit the US, Seattle area around May-June this year.<br>

Possibly a trip to Utah, Moab would be possible as well as Grand Canyon, MT Rainer in Seattle and maybe Yellowstone National Park.<br>

This trip might not cover it all since its only 2 weeks long but it will be one of those scenic national parks.<br>

Nikonians based in the US, i really don't shoot wildlife, deers or elks, for that matter so I don't plan on using long teles, much more affording them.<br>

I'm just planning to bring my old EOS 20d along with a 70-200 f2.8 lens and possibly by then the Nikon D700 and 24-70 f2.8 lens. Will do outfit do it ? mostly shoot landscapes, trees, maybe some macro shots, flowers, geysers, etc.<br>

Many thanks.</p>

 

<p>The problem that most photographers - me very much included - run into when going to spectacular places like that for the first time is that you are stunned into spending a lot of time taking obvious shots, which is fine of course and indeed should be done up to a point, but ultimately they will only be high quality 'record' shots (no matter how well composed, how beautiful the light etc).<br>

If you want to move up a level rather than take record shots you need to get somewhat more intimate with the landscape. The way you choose to do that is highly personal - but it will almost certainly not be by using the 70-200mm very much.<br>

Speaking strictly for myself from now on I will be using my 17-35mm on FX to the virtual exclusion of everything else and the furthest the camera will be away from the ground is the tripod at its lowest setting. Foreground is everything and that beautiful iconic mountain everyone has come to the park to see is secondary (and horror of horrors can even be left out-of-focus!).<br>

This all rather presupposes what your photographic intentions/capabilities/ambitions are but assuming you don't have the D700 by then you will certainly have a miserable time trying to capture the feel of the places you list using a 70-200mm on a cropped sensor camera. If buying the D700 doesn't work out by the time you leave then you should invest in a decent wide-angle zoom for your 20D (which takes perfectly good pictures - I used to have 2 of them years back). I'm now a bit out of date with Canon's EF-S lenses but you should consider something pretty wide (equivalent of 17mm on FX) and be prepared to crawl about on the ground a lot!</p>

<p>Hi James, the D700 will be there for sure & at the very least an old Nikon AF 35-135mm. The 24-70 f2.8 is something I would probably pick up while in the US, so it will be with the trip.<br>

If you feel the 70-200 f2.8 might not be that important, i can always leave that back home.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>James</p>

<p>On the other hand if you feel the 17-35 f2.8 is highly usable, i can skip the 24-70 f2.8 for the time being and just get the 17-35 and use this lens in conjunction with my old 35-135 nikkor lens AF ?</p>

 

<p>The 70-200 and 24-70 on their respective cameras cover a lot of ground, and will work, of course, but the latter will get the most use by far. Those two outfits are going to be on the heavy side together, so you will need a good quality photo backpack. I would also bring a good (10+mp) P&S with at least a 28mm at the low end of the zoom range. There are times when you don't want to be dragging an SLR, or both SLRs.</p>

<p> Bring, borrow, or buy a decent tripod.</p>

<p>If you like trees, right near Seattle is:</p>

<p>http://www.nationalgeographic.com/destinations/Olympic_National_Park/Hoh_Rain_Forest_to_the_Pacific_Beaches.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is always a difficult question to answer because everyone is different. For example, 24mm is not my idea of landscape-type wide angle but it is fine for many others.</p>

<p>On the other side, I would certainly want something longer than 200mm for all the wildlife but if I had no interest in that, than why have a 200mm lens at all?</p>

<p>My point is, neither lens is right or wrong. If this is what you want, that's fine. Just remember, carrying both bodies with a lens attached to each is a bit heavy after a while. Again, some are okay with that, others will feel all the weight quickly.</p>

 

<p>i would say that the 24-70 will do you just fine, so in that regard, why don't you just stick to your original plan?<br>

as for your itineary, that's an awful lot to cover in 2 weeks. but i'm sure you'll have a great time!</p>

<p>IMHO its more important to use focal lengths you are comfortable with. Landscapes can be done with many different focal lengths. Tele's are very useful for isolation of subjects. I have seen many of John Shaw's shots with longer lenses and appreciate them. Others do very well with the wide end. I plan to spend a 12 days in Arizona in late June. I will be taking a range from 20mm to about 180mm, with one zoom. In my experience its more important to spend time in a place to get a good feel for it and capture good light. A couple of days in one place is usually is not enough for me. A couple of years ago I spent 12 days in Yellowstone-Tetons alone.</p>

 

<p>Don't forget a pro class tripod/head and polarizer. Those are every bit as important, tripod is at least equal in importance.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I would take a wide angle lens ~ 12-24mm, in addition to the mid range and tele.<br>

I've been to Yellowstone and Grand Canyon; several days in both. I've been to Yellowstone in summer and winter. Take a 4wd vehicle so you can get to extreme remote spots -- especially true in Grand Canyon, where you can literally drive to the edge. Take a good detailed map and GPS receiver; water, food, and extra fuel.<br>

Both have vast vistas and close in shooting. Old Faithful is an excersie in patience and is a good subject for wide angle. Coming from Jacob's Lake to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, there is a campground with a view beyond belief, and few people, offering a good place for a great pano, several images stitched. I traveled to Yellowstone from Bozeman, MT one winter; saw lots of bison covered in frost and the hot springs create some spectaclular frost on trees and rocks.<br>

The inn near the entrance of the Grand Canyon North Rim has good food.</p>

<p>Have a good time.</p>

<p>Wide angle will be used much more than telephoto.<br>

Take a coat and gloves. The canyon rim is at high altitude and can be very chilly in May and early June.</p>

<p>Hi Noli,<br>

It's not that I don't think the 70-200mm is unimportant - indeed when I pack a kit to go on such an expedition my 80-200mm will always be there along with a 17-35 and either a 50mm or the 24-70mm.<br>

What I am saying is that using long lenses in landscapes, although it can be extremely effective and is something I have done probably too much of until now, I have lately come to think of as being an 'easy way out' in some ways. If you want to give out in your images the impression that you are passionate about the landscape you are in I feel you need to get 'into it' and show intimate detail with the famous peaks/glaciers/lakes as an 'extra'. Of course it is much harder to find a composition which is captivating from inches away from your tripod legs to infinity whereas it is easy to strap on a telephoto and pick out something a mile away. That difference in effort usually, but of course not always, makes itself felt in the final result.<br>

I'm glad to hear that you will have the D700 and the 24-70mm. What I would say is that a year or so ago I would have said 24mm is wide enough for most purposes - even landscapes. But today I think otherwise and when I look through my portfolio of shots I now think I could have improved on most of them and made them more 'personal'.<br>

Later this year I will be going back to New Zealand for the second time - easily the most beautiful place I have ever been to - and rather than going for the headline shots I did on my first visit (mouth agape at Milford Sound etc) - I will be almost literally crawling around with a 17-35mm on a D700 and this time I will come back with photos which have more of me in them and much less of the 'lone tree taken on a 300mm lens' kind of shot. There will be some of those of course - they are irresistible - but just far fewer.</p>

<p>I used Tokina 12-24/4 lens on a DX sensor size cameras in Grand Canyon, Sedona, Bryce... initially without knowing what the expensive B+W circular polarizer does to a picture when used on a very wide angle lens. After removal of the polarizer, all pictures were better. </p>

<p>I do understand more why Nikon did not even bother to provide a way to attach a filter to the 14-24/2.8 lens, besides possible vignetting...</p>

<p>as the other posters have suggested, 24-70 is a great walkaround lens on FF. i'd probably want something a bit wider, though-- which is where FX glass choices are limited. there's the nikon 14-24 ($$$) and 17-35 ($$), and... that's about it. sigma makes a rectilinear 12-24 which is FX-compatible and wont dent your wallet as much, if you cant swing one of the nikkor FX ultrawides, it could work. kent makes a good suggestion about a tripod, that should be de rigeur no matter what glass you bring.</p>

<p>also, as far as a P&S, let's say you got the d700+17-35 and something like a panasonic FZ28 superzoom. you'd have a pretty versatile kit covering true 17mm to about 500mm (with image stabilization on the long end) for less than a d700+24-70. not to say that a 24-70 wouldnt be a good choice if you can only have one lens, but there will be times when you wish you had an ultrawide.</p>

<p>For that trip, I'd rather have the 17-35 than the 24-70 - in particular since you have a 35-135 to match it. Ultimately though, you are the only one who knows your lens preferences. Since landscape is usually not shot wide open at f/2.8 - maybe the 18-35/3.5-4.5 is an alternative - stopped down to f/5.6 or more, it'll get the job done too.</p>

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>I was also thinking of the 18-35 f3.5 as its not a very costly lens & in my hometown i hardly use that lens.<br>

Looking at the shots I've made in the last few years domestically i always use 90% of the time the 24-105 in my Canon system.<br>

I think its probably wise for my to just invest in the 24-70. Possibly, another option would be to rent a 14-24f2.8 for a few days to use in the national parks rather than purchasing one Or just buy a 18-35 along w/ the 24-70 and be done with.</p>

 

<p>I have the 18-35 - a left-over from the film days - shooting slides, zoom was a necessity. Today, in a pinch to get a wide shot, I just take a few shots and stitch them together later - in which case, the 24-70 would do just fine and nothing wider was needed - except, of course, if you like the steeper perspective of a wider lens. An alternative to the 18-35 would be a 20mm prime - would complement the 24-70 nicely too.<br>

I have been contemplating to trade the 18-35 for a 17-35 - and then decided not to. Don't really need the f/2.8, don't think at smaller apertures there will be enough difference to really matter, and hence saved the money and the weight.<br>

In the film days, I liked the 24-120 as a walk-around lens - and now have a 24-85 for my F5; the lens does double duty on my DX DSLRs too - though I miss the wider angles and loath having to switch between it and the 12-24 DX all the time.</p>

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>How do you find the 24-120 3.5-5.6 ? They can be had for under $400 used & seem to be a nice all in one lens ?<br>

is this lens also an FX lens ?</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Noli</p>

<p>A nice travel kit for parks is 17-35AFS, 60 Micro, and the 80-200MM. If you can afford and take them along, I go with a 85MM PC Micro and a 24MM PCE - sometimes my 300MM EDAF as well. I used this kit at Rainer and other places.<br>

Add in a polarizer, and a few graduated neutral density filters.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

 

<p>I have the older 24-120 (non-VR), purchased when it came out sometime in the 90s - so yes, it is FX. Haven't used it for some time as I have given it to my wife who uses it as her primary lens on her F100 - and she loves it. There is a "newer" version (introduced 2003) - often the D700 is sold bundled with it as a kit - this version has VR and AF-S. Optically, both are said to be not as sharp as the pro-grade lenses - the newer worse than the older model - and with some wild distortion to boot. Would prefer the 24-85/3.5-4.5 over both any time - that's why I have one.</p>

<p>with two set you point out ARE PERFECT FOR landscape trip the only thing I consider is FISHEYE IF YOU CAN ( the 2nd one is 800mm5.6 in case you turn around like to shot wildlife bald eagle in that erea ) wonderful planing trip good luck & joy.</p>

<p>Dieter, thanks for the reply again. There is also a 24-85 f2.8-4.0 I think that is a newer version.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.glazerscamera.com/rentals.html" target="_top">I would suggest the EOS kit lens 18-55mm which is extremely sharp as a walk-around lens. You definitely need a good tripod with you for water falls, sunset and sunrise. You can also go to Glazer's in Seattle to rent lenses you may want to try. The service there is very good and price is very reasonable.<br /> </a></p>

<p>I don't recall which of the 24-85's came out first but I think the 3.5-4.5 has been discontinued. I still have a 24-85/2.8-4 that I loved with film. Nice lens but very rarely use it because the FL is awkward to me with a DX body . However, it is a decent budget cutting alternative with an FX body. Nevertheless, no one would ever confuse the 24-85 with the new 24-70.</p>

 

<p>20-35mm with Gitzo tripod.</p>