Jump to content

Yellowstone and lens choices


Andrew Garrard

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi all. Apologies for my recent silence - busy busy. Like a bad relative, I'm back now I want something... Those with a long memory may recall that I switched to Nikon just as I was about to go on a tour of bits of geography around the US South-West. Well, I'm doing it again, this time dragging my wife along. Fortunately, I have a reasonable head start on the equipment this time.</p>

<p>I'm looking at a tour taking in various bits of Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley, etc. Unlike last time, I'm also hoping to incorporate Yosemite and - importantly for my lens set - Yellowstone. This is necessarily a relatively flying visit (the exact tour is TBD, but something like 8 days) - I'm not going to get much chance to camp out and shoot anything original, but I do want to come back with some respectable holiday snaps even if they're touristy.</p>

<p>I'm taking my D810 (whose dynamic range I expect to need), and my current plan involves my 14-24 and my 70-200 (which is a f/2.8 - I realise an f/4 would probably be more obvious, but it doesn't seem worth buying or hiring one when I have the f/2.8 already). While I'm tempted by the new(ish) Tamron 24-70 VC, I'm likely to make do with a little lens swapping and go with the 35mm and 50mm Sigma Art primes, since already own them, with some trepidation about getting sand in things during lens switches (I'll take my 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G, if I'm paranoid - though I've never really tested it optically on a D810 and don't have high hopes). Technically I have a Russian 35mm tilt-shift that I could try, too, depending on how much I want to risk my airline carry-on allowance by padding my bag. I'd hope to cope for most of the trip with my obvious lens collection, and if I don't take anything worth looking at, it'll be because of my lack of talent.</p>

<p>Yellowstone changes my plans and makes me worry the above set won't cope. I carried a 150-500 Sigma last time I did a tour like this, and it wasn't worth it for just a squirrel - but I gather Yellowstone has wildlife in it, and I might benefit from a bit more reach than 200mm.</p>

<p>My choices come down to the (pre-PF/VR) 300 f/4 I already own, likely paired with my TC-14E, or picking up a 200-500 f/5.6 - likely by trading in my 500 f/4 AI-P, which I'm really not using, because manual focus is too painful and a TC-16A doesn't really hold up on a D810 - plus 3kg, obviously. I'm hoping I'd mostly have daylight on my side, helping both the slower lenses. The 200-500 has, I gather, the optical edge and has some zoom flexibility, but it's appreciably bigger (and on the offchance I want f/4 at 300mm I obviously don't have it, except by abusing my 70-200 with the TC-14E). I do occasionally go birding, so it wouldn't just be for the trip, but I can't say how much more shooting I'd do with a more convenient 500mm option. I still have vague yearnings towards a 400 f/2.8 in the future, but I'm still saving, and it's not an option for this trip. I'm used to hand-holding my 200 f/2 (also not coming) and confirmed that the pre-FL 400mm was something I could hand-hold adequately, so I'm not scared of trying to manhandle the 200-500, and the VR ought to help a bit (though I'd take at least a monopod). I did used to use my 150-500 Sigma for candid photos, so I can't deny the merits of reach.</p>

<p>So, opinions, please. Is the 200-500 sufficiently better than the (older) 300mm + TC-14E that it's worth the weight and cost, appreciating how personal that trade-off is? Will the zoom range matter enough around Yellowstone, or will I likely have time to switch lenses/remove the TC? Will the difference between 420mm (300mm + TC) and 500mm matter? Should I save my money for the 400mm prime and live with what I've got for now?</p>

<p>Unrelated question, since at this point I'm only curious rather than shopping: is it me, or do recent sample photos suggest that the new Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC is appreciably better at managing LoCA than the Nikkor? It may be looming in my future if in-depth tests are good - the Nikkor is pleasantly sharp, but its tendency turn backgrounds green is frustrating. Just interested to know whether this is on the radar of other members...</p>

<p>Anyway, 200-500. Please advise. Thanks!<br>

-Andrew</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Andrew, I have been to all of those locations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a tour taking in various bits of Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can probably squeeze those into 8 days, but I wouldn't add Yellowstone unless you can extend the trip to a second week. Yellowstone plus the near-by Grand Teton deserve their own week. Yosemite is in farther west in California and is quite far from the rest of them.</p>

<p>Most of those are landscape photography destinations. The only park where you will see a lot of wildlife is Yellowstone, and to a much lesser degree Yosemite. If you do go to Yellowstone, I would add the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR. While I use that lens mostly hand held for birds, you may want to bring a tripod, which is somewhat important for landscape anyway.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Andrew, in Yellowstone, the Park Service enforces a "do not approach wildlife" policy that means you will need longer than 300mm for a lot of animal shots. More like 500 minimum for bears. There will be opportunities to be closer to wildlife but only from the confines of your car if traffic, bear jams, bison jams, etc permit. Alternatively, you may hike the trails away from the highways and intense visitor control by the rangers and have closer encounters with the animals, but practice common sense and carry bear spray. Spring and fall are best for wildlife as the animals move into lower elevations. Most of my animal photos, taken with a 70-200, are from Jackson Hole where the animals are on or alongside the roads in spring and fall. Yellowstone in mid summer, with the exception of bison, requires an exotic telephoto and/or good luck.</p>

<p> </p><div>00dwYp-563082584.jpg.f83a4d75dca072f3a60ddfe6d7f94ea0.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, Shun - I know you're a local, so I was hoping for your input! The tours I'm looking at are in the 8-12 day range (being ferried around by coach, although one of the options uses flights to get to Salt Lake City to save time); a fair bit of that time will be us being driven around, but I imagine we'll need the rest. I realise I could do better photographically by picking a location and driving there myself, but I don't get many chances to see pretty scenery (sorry fellow Bracknell residents, but it's not a scenic part of the UK) and there's something to be said for arriving relatively fresh. I'm still working out how much time we'll actually get in each location and whether it's pointless - the last time I did something like this I almost dislocated my knee getting into the bus on the first day, so I had hugely limited mobility. It sounds as though the longer tour is worth it, but some of the options waste time in shopping centres and chocolate factories that are of little interest to me.<br />

<br />

I'm a little nervous of tripod set-up time on a package tour, but I did plan to bring one. I'm currently a bit nervous because my normal travel tripod (a Velbon REXi L) currently allows one of its legs to swivel freely, which it's not supposed to. If I need to tighten something, no biggie; if it's broken, I'll have to seek out another option and eat mud on my recommendation. I've got a RRS TVC34L, but it's a big and expensive thing to cart around when I'm not actually bringing a big supertele with me. As you say, I'm expecting most places to be landscapy, with Yellowstone being the primary exception.<br />

<br />

Just confirming: a 200-500 is worthwhile over a 300 f/4 + TC-14? I could even trade in the 300mm, since its main advantage is portability for reach and it's not offering that much over the 70-200 - small is one thing, but once the 70-200 is in the bag as well the 300mm is still quite a lot to carry for what it offers. Zoom is potentially quite valuable - I still miss being able to zoom out to find a subject from my 150-500 days.<br />

<br />

John: Thank you. I think you're both telling me what I expected - if 300mm won't help much, and 300mm + a TC14 is compromised ("never buy a lens only to use it with a teleconverter"), I guess I have an autofocus 500m zoom in my future. It's been a while! I hope everyone doesn't decide this one is a bit iffy only after I bought it, like the old Sigma. :-) (I'd love to hike and do wildlife with a shorter lens, but on a package tour I'm sure it's going to be reach and luck.)<br />

<br />

Cheers for the input!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Regarding itinerary, 8 days would be barely sufficient to see Yellowstone alone. In summer, with road closures and traffic, traversing the park takes the better part of a day and you need time to get out of the car and take walks to thermal features, waterfalls, and viewpoints. Adding Grand Teton to the itinerary is doable - it's just a couple of hours south and IMHO, more scenic than Yellowstone. Glacier is a full day's drive to the north, and Bryce/Zion are a long day's drive to the south. Yosemite is a two day drive.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, perhaps those parks are more "local" to me than to you across-the-pond (Atlantic Ocean), but Yosemite is like a 3-hour, around 200-mile/300 km drive from my home. The other parks in Utah, Arizona, and Wyoming are more like one-day of travel for me. Flying to Salt Lake City makes sense. Keep in mind that the North Rim of the Grand Canyon is closed in the winter. Check conditions depending on when you'll be there. The South Rim is open year around.</p>

<p>The issue with traveling with a non-photo group is that they might not stop and wait for you to photograph when the light is at its best, typically early morning and later afternoon for landscape. Zion is a bit of an exception due to its landscape.</p>

<p>You can take a look at my article for photo.net based on my 1999 trip to Utah. Unfortunately, I haven't been back to Utah since then: http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/utah</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Edit: I need to type faster - I started this when only Shun's first reply was posted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley ... Yosemite and - importantly for my lens set - Yellowstone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In <strong>8</strong> days? No way - certainly not when driving and even a stretch when flying to Yellowstone and to Yosemite. Assuming you are flying into Las Vegas and that you are visiting both the South and North Rim of the Grand Canyon only, the driving for the South-West part alone are some 1000 miles (more than 17 hours or 2 full days of driving alone). Adding both Yosemite and Yellowstone extends this 3-fold.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I'm tempted by the new(ish) Tamron 24-70 VC, I'm likely to make do with a little lens swapping and go with the 35mm and 50mm Sigma Art primes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My wife and I went to Yellowstone (and the Grand Tetons) last year. She used a D300 with 11-16, 16-85, and AF-D 80-400; a quite compact and versatile kit that covered everything she wanted to do (and a second D300 would have come in handy on more than one occasion). I packed the D810 with 16-35 and 70-200/4 and the D7100 with the AF-S 80-400. I also packed the Sigma 24 and 35 - but ended up using the 16-35 for the interior shots I had planned on using them for. I - stupidly as it turned out - left the 24-85 at home (where I should have left the 24 and 35) - though a 50 would have done the job of filling the gap just as well (I don't own one though).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My choices come down to the (pre-PF/VR) 300 f/4 I already own, likely paired with my TC-14E, or picking up a 200-500 f/5.6 ... is the 200-500 sufficiently better than the (older) 300mm + TC-14E that it's worth the weight and cost</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More convenient but not what I would call sufficiently better (when pixel peeping the zoom might well edge out the prime/TC combo). 420mm on FX is probably sufficient for some wildlife shooting in Yellowstone - it all depends on how close you can get (or the wildlife (aka Bison, Elk and Moose) will be). For wolf and bear it likely won't be enough. Not sure I would haul a 200-500 along for the short visit that you have planned. With the 14-24, 35, 50, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4, you already have a fairly hefty bag; if you were to carry the 200-500 instead of the 300 you add another 2 lbs and probably need a larger bag too.<br /> <br /> Edit: fully agree with John Harper - Yellowstone and the Tetons easily fill 8 days. You would need to stay at least for some time directly in Yellowstone - otherwise the commute will take too long. We got luckily with a cabin about 1/2 hour south of the Yellowstone South entrance, putting both parks within easy reach.</p>

<p>Some shots from the trip are here: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/beachwalker2007/albums/72157658522479350">https://www.flickr.com/photos/beachwalker2007/albums/72157658522479350</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good luck Andrew. Wow, you get to view the world from behind someone's head....who design this ? My 28yrs in transportation keeps reminding me, this is certainly not the way to go....not for a photographer. Your decision.....</p>

<p>The 200-500 is fine....and you'll get and gain the flexibility. Nothing against the 300 +tc, but you can crank the ISO's and you can have this and go to 500mm....and even further if you put a 1.4 tc on it, but then, due to slower focus, I'd rely on manual focus. </p>

<p>Having said that, you might want to get up early to spot some elk, bison, etc. combined with orangy morning sky. Not having wheels, your access to more remote spots (for wildlife) will be quite limited. Sure, people do see a wolf or a bear, etc. in the open, but that's more of a rare glimpse.....and then you'd need something like 1000mm + :>).</p>

<p>Les</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dieter, I am sure Andrew appreciates your well-thought-out, thorough answer. :-)</p>

<p>A lot of the wildlife at Yellowstone are large mammals: bison, elk, bears .... As Dieter said, the 80-400mm AF-S VR should work well also. The 200-500mm is good, but it also depends on whether that is the right lens for your in the longer run, after the Yellowstone trip. The last time I went to Yellowstone (a long time ago, back in 1994), the longest lens I had was a 300mm/f4. Therefore, the 300mm/f4 + 1.4x TC should work as well. However, if you are not using a tripod, having VR would be a plus.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are flying (going light weight is a +) and for a week of shooting, you might try to limit your package to three lenses. Having a bag of glass is fine if you have the trunk of your vehicle to stage out of. Getting to the park areas involves travel between each one, and (I think) Monument Valley is now a spot you have to offer a fee to travel into. Years ago, you could just get off the highway and sort of wander around. If you have a Nikon 80-400mm lens, and a good wide-angle zoom, plus one Micro-Nikkor lens, you should be good to go.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I'm looking at a tour taking in various bits of Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley, etc. Unlike last time, I'm also hoping to incorporate Yosemite and - importantly for my lens set - Yellowstone. This is necessarily a relatively flying visit (the exact tour is TBD, but something like 8 days) -</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I live in South Dakota, one of those big "empty" states in the middle of the country just below the Canadian border. I go to Yellowstone about every two or three years as it's a day's drive from me. Some thoughts. I've met up with people from Europe out here a number of times now, and not one seemed to have ANY idea of the distances here. With the itinerary you posted the ONLY thing you're going to see is the inside of a car. Eight days? WAY, WAY too ambitious a list. You will mostly be wasting your time and not seeing anything. This isn't anything like trying to see Hebrides, Oben, and Edinburgh in eight days. I've been to all of the places you mention at least twice. My suggestion is to divide it as (1) Grand Canyon (2) southwest Utah (3) Yosemite (4) Yellowstone. Pick ONE of the four. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. You would see more by sitting home and watching a video from each of those places. One of the major factors you aren't taking into account is that even if you are flying between them, the travel time from just the airport to those remote places is going to eat up most of a day. By car, it's about two days between them. Honestly, you need to rethink this. I'm trying to help you out here. Your trip is the equivalent me wanting to see Western Europe in one week. My choice of the four places you mentioned? Either Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. Both are unique in the world. Keep in mind that Yellowstone is at 8,000 ft. elevation. If you're used to sea level, you won't much feel like hauling a 30 pound pack around.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div>00dwas-563084984.jpg.06714020d73e28f0bb97decc6ee9990c.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Forgot to mention lens strategy. I have a D800E and regularly do trips to these kinds of places. Keep it SIMPLE! I would take 14-24mm, Sigma 50mm, and my Nikon 80-400mm AFS. If you have the Nikon 200-500mm, take it instead. I have a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 but NEVER take it. It's too short to do much with, heavy, bulky. I take the Nikon 80-400mm AFS instead. What is your back up camera? You didn't mention it. Mine is the D7100, which also serves to photo wildlife. One other thing I always take two of is a polarizer. I would rather forget a lens than my polarizer in those places. Keep in mind those places are remote, and if you lose or need something, you will easily burn a day driving to a camera store to replace it. Bring spares of important. I would not take more than four lenses, and only one of those a long one.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andrew, I think that Kent has some good advice although I think that you could combine the Grand Canyon and Utah into one - you just wouldn't be able to get intimately involved in any place. It would be drive-through but at least you could see the highlights. ps. for me, your destinations would be a 3 month drive.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i wouldnt take more than three lenses. you're talking about a 14-24, a 70-200, and a longer lens, and the sigma 35 and 50? that's a lot to haul if you're doing any walking at all. also the 14-24 dosent take filters, so that could be problematic during midday. i would take a wide-angle, rent an 80-400 or a 200-500, and something like a 28-105 (which does 1:2 macro in trick mode) for the midrange.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ooops, perhaps I misunderstood the "tour" thing. Agree with Kent, quite a bit of time is needed to negotiate places in the West.... and there are always distractions. I think it would be wise to spend more time at fewer places vs doing overload.</p>

<p>I've spend 70 days in the SW back in 2014....and probably could have spend 70 more. Lots to see and do...and without even getting to Yellowstone or the coast.</p>

<p>I'd travel with 4-5 lenses...and yes, the 200-500 would be with me + 1.4TC. </p>

<p>Enjoy your trip.</p>

<p>Les</p><div>00dwcM-563088884.jpg.3fb399540ef798392746ae3eb4a08577.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Utah parks and the Grand Canyon are locations that I have shot on many occasions. I hate to be the bad guy here, but I can't imagine getting anything more than snapshots of the locations the coach will stop at. You will have no control over the time of day you get to various location or the amount of time spent at any particular location. My last trip to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon was planned two months in advance as to time of day at each of the half dozen spots I wanted to shoot from. I spent four days at the Canyon for just those shots. A trip like the one you are suggesting might be best taken with the camera in your phone. Capture the locations you want to come back to for serious photographs. Your description brought back memories from the late '60s when I spent a month in Yosemite with Ansel Adams. Ansel knew the park intimately and he and Virginia had a home there they spent the summer in. We went out every day for nearly the entire day. In that time Ansel exposed one sheet of film -- though he worked hard every single day on photographing the park. A lot of thought and planning and knowledge goes into shooting in these locations. It is hard for me to imagine accomplishing much of anything in the whirlwind sort of tour you describe -- other than a preliminary familiarization with the location for a future serious trip.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the input everyone - and apologies for the time-zone-induced pause.<br />

<br />

This trip is compromised in several ways: I do have a limited amount of time, and my wife is unlikely to be sympathetic to either an extremely long tour or to excessive hiking, however photogenic. Ironically, staying on the beaten track probably means I can carry more than I would if I expected to be walking far. I'm also making a trade-off: if I did my own driving I'd be able to pick my schedule and dawdle, but (showing some awareness of distance) I'd also be driving ten hours a day to get anywhere, unless I really stopped in one park for days, and I doubt I'd be up for much photography afterwards. It would also complicate my logistics appreciably. A coach (or similar) tour means that I'm limited in schedule, but it also means I'd arrive relatively fresh (if a little cramped) at each venue. There <i>are</i> tours that take in all the venues I'm interested in (mostly), but they do seem to have a fixation of wasting a day in shopping outlets, universities in the bay area, chocolate factories or Salt Lake City - none of which interest me, with the greatest respect to the CLDS.<br />

<br />

Limiting myself to the geography, I'm sure there's plenty to see in each place, but - especially with my wife in tow - I'm wary of a friend's feedback from his visit to Bryce: "We all stopped to take a photo, then looked at each other and realised we already had a hundred photos of a funny-looking orange rock." 'Spectacular' wears off, though I concede the merits of trying to fit in different times of the day, some weather flexibility, and waiting for the wildlife to turn up. Last time I did a brief tour it was with the promise I'd come back and spend more time once I'd decided which places appealed most; this time is going to have to be more of the same. I'm lucky that I have the possibility of going to individual places myself after conferences (when my company might have paid for the transatlantic flights), but getting my wife there too is expensive, so I think we're resigned to fitting in as much as we can. I know this means I'm highly unlikely to come back with Clearing Winter Storm, and I'm not there to shoot stock images - the best I can hope for is really <i>nice</i> holiday snaps and some future planning. For primarily a holiday, not a dedicated photo tour (I know, wrong place to suggest that!) that'll have to do me until I can come back for a dedicated photo tour.<br />

<br />

However, I do take on board that we should stretch things, even if it will only help a little. There are some coach tours that stretch to 12 days, but it's also coming to my attention that I might be better off either doing Yellowstone on its own, or doing Yellowstone <i>and</i> Yosemite separately (likely the longest one-day tour from SF I can find) and getting a shorter tour in the Las Vegas area, relying on air transport for optimisation. I hate logistics. I did consider delaying Yellowstone until next year (when I'll be in Vancouver for the same conference), having observed that Yellowstone is actually closer to Seattle than to San Fran - but we may be rushed enough in the Vancouver and Seattle area, from my previous visits.<br />

<br />

Backup camera... yes, that's been worrying me. Well, there's an RX100... Maybe I should hire a D7100 or similar. Hiring another D810 is going to be expensive for that duration, and the weight adds up. Sadly I ditched my "backup" D700 when I did my D800-D810 upgrade, and I doubt my current "Nikon backup" - an F5 - is going to be terribly useful. I wondered about buying something DX in a hurry if I had a failure, but there's something to be said for pixel density, too. And my wife might want to take snaps too.<br />

<br />

The problem with the 70-200 is that it's probably my most useful lens for everything else (alongside the 14-24). I'm attending a conference beforehand, and we're planning a day in San Diego wildlife park. I might have been talked out of the 50mm and (especially) 35mm primes, though - I'll have to give my 28-80 "plastic fantastic" a proper test. I wondered about the "take a macro" thought (thanks, Jerry) - that probably means my 90mm Tamron, which is much lighter than my 150mm Sigma. Polarisers were worrying me too - they're not really an option for the 14-24, they're silly money for the 200-500, so I'm either looking at the 70-200 or however I cover the mid-range.<br />

<br />

I'll bury myself in the travel logistics options and try to see how much actual park time I can spend in two weeks - but I think I've heard a fairly clear 200-500 recommendation, at least if Yellowstone remains on the table (and in the absence of something like an 80-400).</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I carefully read what you wrote and thought about it a little. The problem with these tours is they are mostly designed for the elderly and not for people wanting to really see that much. I'm wondering if you might end up stuck on a traveling nursing home? The tours I've seen are such that they stop for ten minutes somewhere, everyone piles out and takes a snap with their cell phone, and rush back onto the bus. By the time you even get a tripod set up, they'll all be back on the bus staring at you. You will have NO control over the single most important thing--the Light. These tour operators get paid to take bus loads of people to shopping malls and certain restaurants, so that's their priority.</p>

<p>I honestly think you'll be better off just spending the time in Yellowstone. It's one of the most fantastic places on earth (and I am pretty well traveled.) It has it all--mountain scenery, wildlife, and the exotic thermal features. Stay in the park if at all possible. The rooms are currently all booked, but if you call twice a day you should be able to snag cancellations. That's what we did last summer. After thinking about it, really these are all special places and need to be --felt-- as much as seen. I just don't see how you'd have a very enjoyable time rushing around for hundreds of miles, mostly seeing empty highway. You won't even be able to stop and photo anything you see that's interesting. That would be highly frustrating to me. I just don't see how you'd get any good photos at all under these conditions and would be best off just taking the RX100. The other advantage is you would be able to pick your own restaurants etc., rather than the one the tour operator is being paid to haul you to. There are some fantastic places to eat in Yellowstone, such as the Old Faithful Inn. Fantastic place, and you'll remember a meal there for the rest of your life. Eating at the Country Kitchen where the bus stops in Bozeman, not so much.</p>

<p>I'm going to add one more thing. I do understand the logic of having someone else drive. I've been to UK twice and did my own driving. However, it was very stressful since everyone there drives on the wrong side of the road! I nearly got killed once. It took both my wife and I thinking through every turn and every round-about. We did not drive in any of the bigger cities and took the trains or a taxi (I like trains anyway.) Driving around Yellowstone might be not that hard for you since traffic is slow, but it can be surprisingly heavy in places. Driving on the highways between the airport and Yellowstone is very fast (we drive 80-85mph here in the Western states), but traffic density is low outside of the cities. There are photo-oriented tours inside Yellowstone that would work for you. I know you are tempted to try one of those whirl wind tours, but my fear is the only thing you're going to see are the gift shops. National Geographic has a magazine out right now on just Yellowstone. See if you can have one sent to you. If you can't, I'll buy one and mail it to you. Yosemite is about 75% as nice as Yellowstone, but there is a LOT of mountain hiking there to see much, and the parts that are easy are very crowded. Yellowstone has easier access. I don't think you'd go wrong just seeing Yellowstone, the world's first national park.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div>00dwdv-563096684.jpg.89f6e639150db6a3af7fa8c7e9ba914e.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you, Kent. My dithering is now making me more disposed to try a coach tour to Yosemite from San Fran (we want to wander around SF on our own pace anyway unless there's really a tour that does scenic stuff <i>and</i> the computer history museum...), find a dedicated Yellowstone photo tour that's not too rushed, and - on the basis that it's all somewhat closer together - consider self-driving from Vegas to Antelope, Bryce, Zion, Monument, and the Grand Canyon - and maybe even up to Yellowstone, via Monument Valley and Arches (and Grand Teton). I'm not too scared of driving on highways, but I'd sooner stay out of the cities myself! Driving through red lights (even to turn right) still freaks me out... Anyway, careful planning may stop me from driving more than six hours a day, and being physically incapacitated before I get a camera out. I'd still be limiting my time in each park quite a lot, but with a bit more control. I'm getting more sympathetic towards travel agents.<br />

<br />

Anyway, I'm now looking at 4-5 days in Yellowstone, which might make it less wasteful, or at least let me hide my shame a little in this forum. Fingers crossed for accommodation. And thanks for the heads-up on the National Geographic - I've picked one up.<br />

<br />

Sorry to be so confused about all of this - all the input is appreciated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> primarily a holiday, not a dedicated photo tour</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's another reason i wouldn't overload the gear. it should be obvious by now that you're not going to get <em>everything</em> you could theoretically shoot if you had unlimited time and were in control of your own movements, and if there is limited time for photo opportunities, an overstuffed gear bag just adds more confusion. with a 14-24 + 70-200 + (80-400 or 200-500), you're really only missing the snapshot range, which can be handled with the RX100 (a fairly capable compact in and of itself). that's still a lot to carry but if you're mainly transporting the gear on a bus, it should be doable. i love the results from the Sigma 35, but i would leave it at home. ditto the 50. One thing to keep in mind is that with an 810 and 70-200, you will look like Shooter McPro compared to grandma with her iPhone or point and shoot. Whatever you do, don't compound things by getting a khaki photo vest like a NatGeo assignment shooter. Relax, have fun, and let the shots come to you. Don't overstress the photo thing, and it should work out fine. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Yosemite separately (likely the longest one-day tour from SF I can find)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Shun pointed out - about 200 miles one way. Or 3 hours driving without traffic delays - and I have taken as much as 7 hours for that drive when I picked the wrong day (weekend).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yellowstone is actually closer to Seattle than to San Fran</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not by much - you'll be driving for two days (14-16 hours) one way in either scenario. We drove Santa Barbara to Yellowstone last year - stopped near Salt Lake City for the night and arrived at Grand Teton National Park before noon the next day. 800 miles a day is the most I can do - and that means driving all day only stopping for gas.</p>

<p>Andrew, I just looked at one of those coach tours that hit all the spots you mention in 10 days (the 12-day tour includes Mount Rushmore - which is 1400 miles from SF). You'd be spending a whole day in the bus to see Yosemite Valley for 1 hour 20 minutes (probably longer because on almost any given day in summer it takes longer than that to drive around the valley). Antelope Canyon and Bryce Canyon in one day - with a total driving distance for the day of 579 miles - there's not going to be much time for anything but sitting in the bus. It has been said before but I say it again - distances here are huge - and the mileage doesn't really convey how long it takes. Convert it into hours - using 55 miles per hour (or 60 at best - despite the fact that a lot of driving is done a 75-85mph). Not even a full day at Yellowstone and Grand Tetons together?!?!</p>

<p>Andrew do yourself and your wife a favor and don't do the coach tour. Pick one destination and spend the entire time there. Kent's suggestion for Yellowstone/Grand Teton is a good one. It seems that you are going to start in San Diego - don't drive to Yellowstone - fly. If possible directly into Grand Teton National Park (yes, there is an airport inside the park). Or West Yellowstone. Cody, WY, is another option, you'll be entering the park from the East. Rent a car (preferably) or get on a tour in any of these places. As Kent pointed out - accommodation in the park is a bit tricky to secure nowadays.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>on the basis that it's all somewhat closer together - consider self-driving from Vegas to Antelope, Bryce, Zion, Monument, and the Grand Canyon - and maybe even up to Yellowstone, via Monument Valley and Arches (and Grand Teton)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not what I would call "close together" by any stretch - as already mentioned, consider mileage and driving times!<br /> Some 25 years ago, on what I thought at the time would be my only visit to the US, I drove LA - Phoenix - Grand Canyon - Lake Powell - Monument Valley - Arches - Canyonlands - Capitol Reef - Bryce - Zion - Las Vegas - Death Valley - Yosemite - LA in 10 days. A couple of years later I did Denver - Badlands - Wind Cave - Mt Rushmore - Devil's Tower - Grand Teton - Yellowstone - Glacier - Mt. Rainier - Mt. St Helens - Crater Lake - Sequoia - Yosemite - Death Valley - Zion - Bryce - Arches - Canyonlands - Rocky Mountain National Park in six weeks - which gave me at least a couple of days in each Park.</p>

<p>Distances in Yellowstone National Park are huge too - and traffic often comes to a standstill when there's wildlife around.</p>

<p>If you do decide to take a coach tour - check beforehand how much photo equipment you can have with you - I can't imagine that a large bag and a tripod is something you can stow accessibly inside the cabin. Quite frankly - for the little opportunity you have to do any shooting on a coach trip, I think you are overpacking. If you have your heart set on a 200-500, then that, the 14-24 and one other lens would be all I'd bring (and one current DX body).</p>

<p>Didn't see Andrew's latest post before I posted mine above:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyway, I'm now looking at 4-5 days in Yellowstone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Much more reasonable - and about the minimum I'd recommend. Accommodation: consider renting a camper? Saves you the hassle of driving back and forth (unless you are very lucky, you can pretty much forget having accommodations that match your travel itinerary).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dieter: Thank you again for the advice. There's a "14-hour" coach tour of Yosemite from San Fran which claims to spend seven hours in the park; that feels like my best bet, on the basis that driving there myself will leave me exhausted and likely lost. As a day trip I can at least ignore other baggage. I think you're persuading me that my self-driving plan is going to be worth the pain of sorting out the logistics rather than going by coach; it may also make the difference between bringing a RRS tripod and my Velbon-with-a-loose-leg. I'm sure it'll all be worth it when I'm there, anyway.<br />

<br />

For the record, so that you can all continue to despair about my optimism: I'm now looking at Yosemite from San Fran, then flying San Fran to Vegas. Then driving:<br />

Day 1: Vegas->GC West rim->Bright Angel (for sunset)<br />

Day 2: Horseshoe bend->Zion->Bryce<br />

Day 3: Antelope (hopefully around noon)->Monument->Moab<br />

Day 4: Arches/Canyonlands->Idaho Falls or similar<br />

Day 5: Grand Teton and into Yellowstone for the next few days.<br />

This may go hopelessly wrong once I attempt to sort the details.<br />

<br />

Interesting thought about the camper, although there's still a question of parking the thing. I'll check.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Andrew, in case I haven't been clear, there's nothing that could persuade me to take a coach tour. The issue with self driving is the distances and the time spent behind the wheel - I am fairly certain the the two trips I mentioned above are not something I would care to repeat today. Also take into account that some parks don't allow drive-in during the summer months (Yosemite and South Rim of the Grand Canyon).</p>

<p>Our trip last year from Santa Barbara to Yellowstone and back amounted to more than 3,000 miles of driving, about 1,100 each way and another 1,000 or so for the week driving around Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>14-24 + 70-200 + (80-400 or 200-500)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Consider renting the 80-400 here in the States (lensrental or borrowlenses (you can pick up in SF) - prices appear quite reasonable (80-400 and D7200 for 14 days at about $30 day (including insurance); or for the camera and 200-500 about $20/day. There's also the option to buy the lens you rented...). With the 80-400 in the bag, you can leave the 70-200 at home (and maybe pack the Tamron macro instead); if you choose the 200-500, you may want to bring that 70-200 along though.<br>

<br />Just saw the rest of your post </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Day 2: Horseshoe bend->Zion->Bryce<br /> Day 3: Antelope (hopefully around noon)->Monument->Moab<br /> Day 4: Arches/Canyonlands->Idaho Falls or similar</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've got that backwards: Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon are both near Page, AZ. Monument Valley is a ways off to the East (and you will be coming in from the "wrong" AZ side) - but you are well on your way to Moab by then (where Arches and Canyonlands are located). From there, you drive back West to Bryce first, Zion second. And I am at a loss how Idaho Falls snug in there - not aware of such a place anywhere near the others on the list.<br>

Bryce and Zion on the same day is ambitious - Bryce is located in "the middle of nowhere" and getting to and from takes time.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...