Driving Pacific Coast Highway - What Lenses??

<p>Hi All,<br>

I'm new to posting here but have been following the site for a while now. My fiance and I are taking our honeymoon to CA and driving from San Fran to San Diego then up to Yosemite. I just traded my Sony A330 in for a Canon 60D (trying to get more into photography) and am wondering what lenses I should bring with us (I plan on renting because I certainly can't spend that kind of money on lenses quite yet). I'll probably bring my 18-135 that came with the camera because it seems to be pretty good (for me anyway). I was thinking about renting a telephoto such as the 28-300 or 70-200 Canon. Also, I'd like a good lens for landscapes since that's what I assume we'll be shooting the most of. I was thinking the Tokina 11-16 or the Canon 10-22. What do you guys think? I, admittedly, am not as familiar with camera gear as all of you so I hope you can help out and give some good advice on all of those lens choices!!</p>

<p>Depends on what you want to shoot, of course. Some could do that drive with nothing but a Macro lens for close ups! If you are after landscapes, you probably would want a fairly wide angle (or even one of the ultrawides you mention for some cool foreground effects). You would probably also want a telephoto for the bird and animal life and also to get some nice compression on those seascapes. With my crop sensor camera, I would have my 17-50mm Tamron along as well as my 70-300 and I would be quite happy. I shoot Nikon, so you'd have to translate. I would also suggest a tripod for some cool ocean and sea effects, but since it is your honeymoon, that may be going a bit far...unless you can convince your finace it could be used for some more intimate shots later! : )</p>

<p>Last summer I drove the opposite way from San Diego To SF and then Yosemite a few days later. I used Nikon 12-24DX lens the most. The equivalent would be the Canon 10-22. Of course it all depends on your style. Buying a lens the day before a trip usually isn't a recipe for success.</p>

<p>I used to live in Santa Cruz and went down to Big Sur all the time (spelled a couple of times a month, it wasn't very far). If you are planning to stick to the highway sweeping vistas a the rule so I would take a good wide angle lens and the 18 on you 18-135 is not wide enough. Get the wider EF-S zoom (the 10-22). If you want to go tramping in the woods, a nice macro is the ticket. I used to use a Canon 100/2.8 macro. No need for a real long lens in this part of the world (especially off the road). Photo ops tend to be looking at details or shooting big vistas, not much use for a tele.<br>

As you get down to SoCal, stuff stops being so picturesque (except for the girls in the bikinis), so your normal zoom will serve you well. Between Big Sur on the south and SF on the north the prime spot is Ano Nuevo State Park (if CA still has those :)). There you might want a tele to shoot the elephant seals. They are big and mean...<br>

For Yosemite, anything goes. Fast lenses are nice because because the valley at least is best shot at sunrise. During the day and at sunset there are too many people up and roaming around.<br>

In almost all of these cases a tripod is absolutely necessary. Get a good one. Basically what you are looking at is a full bag tour. I all of these locations I have used every one of the lenses I had (sob, long term unemployment hurts) in my bag, ranging from a 15/2.8 ultrawide to a 400/5.6 tele. The most useful lenses for me were the ultrawide/wide lenses and the mid-range zooms. I would suggest taking a look at the shots you got with your A330 and think about what you liked and didn't like and what you might have liked to do better. Start from there. It all depends on what you like to shoot.</p><div></div>

<p>Be prepared for good and bad weather. Some days, the fog will roll in around 1 p.m., and you will then discover it is difficult to get a sunburn in parts of the California coast. When the fog is not a factor, the scenery is fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What lenses ?<br>

- mostly wide to normal lenses.<br>

However, if you want to take close up pictures on seals, birds and other widelife, long lenses will be needed.<br>

As Jerry says, fog lingers for good part of the day, frequently.</p>

<p>I did that trip two years ago with a 10-22, a 24-105 and a 70-200. I think the suggestions above are good. Most of my pictures are wide views, some all way open to 10mm; and a lot of medium-zoom pictures that compress seashore, bridges, etc. A couple of long shots with the 70-200, but I could have left it behind. And Jerry is right - the good and bad weather comes and goes - hourly.</p>

<p>We drove up from San Diego to San Francisco along the coast last summer (2010) and most of my shots were with the Canon 5D MkII and a 24-105 f/4L. That and a 300mm f/4L were all we used though we had an assortment of lenses with us.<br>

For your 60D, a 10-22 wide lens would probably be nice to have. For our full frame camera, we felt the 24mm was wide enough but next time, we'll be carrying a 70-300 or 100-400 for the few times we needed the reach.<br>

I would also suggest at least one fast prime, 24-28-35mm range, for foggy days and late evening shots. Even a 50mm f/1.8 might do.<br>

Beautiful trip. I live in Missouri but will be driving out to do it again soon. Have fun.<br>

Al Rohrer</p>

 

<p>We drove up from San Diego to San Francisco along the coast last summer (2010) and most of my shots were with the Canon 5D MkII and a 24-105 f/4L. That and a 300mm f/4L were all we used though we had an assortment of lenses with us. The image here was shot with the 24-105 at 60mm.<br /> For your 60D, a 10-22 wide lens would probably be nice to have. For our full frame camera, we felt the 24mm was wide enough but next time, we'll be carrying a 70-300 or 100-400 for the few times we needed the reach.<br /> I would also suggest at least one fast prime, 24-28-35mm range, for foggy days and late evening shots. Even a 50mm f/1.8 might do.<br /> Beautiful trip. I live in Missouri but will be driving out to do it again soon. Have fun.<br /> Al Rohrer</p><div></div>

<p>If you're happy with the kit lens, I wouldn't worry too much about any others. At the long end you're up to 200mm FF equivalent which frankly is all I want for landscapes on a FF camera. At the short end, you have enough to take a pretty vide landscape, and about the only thing you'mm miss is the ability to take extreme near/far views. If they're important, then yes you beed a wider lens, and similarly if you're intent on photographing birds or animals you'll need a longer lens. But for the vast majority of "landscape" use you'll be fine.</p>

<p>Pretty much agree with what David suggests. You wouldn't want for subject matter for wider lenses nor would longer lenses go unused if you wanted to have them along. Lots of opportunities for birds and marine mammals. The elephant seals (if your trip matches the migration cycles) are essentially roadside at Piedras Blancas (near San Simeon a bit north of Cambria. Wides are quite useful at Yosemite as well. Traveling from San Francisco to San Diego then into Yosemite takes you from the coastal redwood forests, to rocky coasts, to rolling ranch lands and oaks and grass lands, dry almost desert conditions ( and the deserts if desired) to massive High Sierra mountains with waterfalls, sequoias, etc., etc. It really depends on how intensively you want to pursue different subject matter or how relaxed and simple you want to make the trip.</p>

<p>I just did that drive but didn't shoot much. I imagine you want a long one and a very wide one.</p>

<p>I live near the coast and routinely photograph it on weekends. The 18-135mm lens you have should be fine. I would get a longer lens such as the 70-300mm as well. I would get a tripod and learn about stitching. The problem with wide angle lenses is it makes everything look small. The Golden Gate bridge at my web site</p>

<p>www.fanfotography.com</p>

<p>is stitched together from a series of shots taken at 70mm. Everything I took with a wide angle lens made the bridge look way too small. It simply did not match the visual impact of the stitched photo.</p>

<p>The longer zoom is useful as the coast has lots of cliffs and unless you can fly, often the only way to get closeups of some rock covered with seals is with a very long telephoto. There should be a photo of a seal attached to this message that was taken at 270mm setting. It was physically not possible to get really close and there were rangers around to make sure people did not try as the place was a sanctuary for the seals.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

<div></div>

<p>On the odd chance that you aren't totally taken up by photography, the Monterey area has plenty of non-photo opportunities as well. We stayed at one of the inns near Lovers Point Beach in Pacific Grove and much of the area is easily reached for good eateries, pleasant areas to walk along the beaches, Fisherman's Wharf is not nearly as frantic or crowded as the waterfront in San Francisco.</p>