National Parks in the US: Which lens ??

[craig_gillette]

<p>The D700 and 24-70/2.8 and 20D and 70-200/2.8 are a good start and there is some convenience to having two different bodies/brands. By having the two lenses on two bodies, you won't be caught with "the wrong lens" in place.</p>

<p>With one full frame and one aps-c body (let alone different mounts), choosing additional lenses is a bit more difficult. If considering Canon wide - then you'd need to go wider than 16mm to gain any advantage over the 24mm on the ff Nikon. If looking to go longer, you'd need to go longer than 300/320mm on a Nikon lens to out reach the 70-200/2.8. However, you could consider a a 1.4 TC with the 70-200, which would be a 448mm equivalent (200 x 1.6 x 1.4 on a Canon?). If including Yellowstone, the times we were there a 70-200 might not make the longer shots but when the animals are at the roadside and walking across the road around the cars, it's long enough!</p>

<p>We could suggest all kinds of ways to spend lens money but the recommendation of a good tripod is probably as good or better than lens spending when it comes to results.</p>

[evphotography]

<p>Hey Nolio, it is hard to suggest lenses for someone else. Everybody has their own opinion on what is best based on what they like to shoot, only you know better then everybody else what lenses will fit your style of shooting. having a couple of lenses to cover anything from about 20-200mm should serve you fine. One suggestion I might make is if you are in the Seattle area and will be making it down toward Yellowstone and/or Southern Utah, that May-June is the perfect time to visit the Palouse in Washington. It is down toward the SE corner of the state by Idaho border. It isn't a NP, but is definitely worth a stop and couple of late evening and/or early morning shoots from Steptoe Butte. If you are not familiar with it, check it out. It is one of the little jewels that not a lot of photographers that are not from that area know about. I have a couple of shots from there on my portfolio and I know many others photographers on here do as well. That 70-200mm would be great lens to have in the Palouse. Have fun, all the places you mentioned are beautiful. I would try make and the most of the time you have on your trip and maybe pick up a couple of news letters from "Photographic America" website, he will tell you about the best locations/times and has news letters for all the areas you mentioned.</p>

[noli_tan]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

Many thanks for the helpful insight and tips. I'll look into these suggestions and places.<br>

For tripod, can you guys recommend ? Gitzo would be nice but a bit pricey from what i gather.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>The above is all good advice. One thing to remember is to use lenses capable of great sharpness at the apertures you are going to be shooting at. I shoot primarily 'street' and sharpness is often not the forte of my photos, often taken indoors or very low light - many at night or after sundown on city streets -- but landscape has different requirements.<br>

If you're planning on doing panoramics, you need an excellent quality tripod, and there are many suggestions above. You might consider one that will allow you to get VERY CLOSE to the ground, and still rotate the camera for a low angle panoramic, then stitch the results together in your favorite photo stitching program. <br>

I do not do such shooting, but I am familiar with one great photographer who has devoted his life's work to such shooting. He uses a normal to wide lens (whatever's handy and sharp enough really), shoots overlapping shots, stitches them together and make scenics that are really worthy of A. Adams. (really, and he's a terrific darkroom guy with 50 years or so darkroom experience, both digital and wet darkroom -- a true master technician, but unsung. His work is gallery worthy, but not in galleries because he does not know how to promote.)<br>

It is not the lens that makes the photo, (although the lens is important) but the eye. Of course you need appropriate focal length and aperture and good glass, but more importantly you need the 'eye'. <br>

I take few scenics and landscapes and post fewer still, and keep the important ones to myself to avoid confusion with what I am known for -- people shooting and street shooting.<br>

But the cardinal rule is don't worry so much about your equipment. Just make sure it works meets your specs, and know how to handle it, then let your eye (and imagination) roam. <br>

Don't be bound by what you see in photography books, guidebooks, travelogues or whatever. Those are nice, but they're all cliches. <br>

Make your own photos -- be original, as the top poster here has suggested. Don't just make 'records' but make originality and apply a little of your own 'vision' to the subject. <br>

You may not be able to go back home with the 200 millionth shot of Old Faithful erupting, but you may get a stunning shot of a bacterial mat at the edge of a geyser or hot pool that will make a terrific photo -- or . . . well, you get the idea.<br>

Take some 'original' shots. If you must take 'record' shots, take them - maybe your friends and neighbors expect them, but the ones in guidebooks often are the best of the best. You will find it hard to compete, because those shots are taken when weather, sun angle, temperature, and all other factors come into conjunction, and you will not have that luxury.<br>

As a substitute, find something that is distinct - that maybe only you can see, and thus your work will be a true reflection of 'you' and not a copy of some guidebook scenic or landscape.<br>

You know enough about equipment to make good choices, have plenty of able help from above, and I'd buy everything you don't have in the US (after inquiring to ensure it's available) to save money . . . all equipment is almost always more expensive overseas. <br>

On returning, if you declare it, it then it's 'used'. <br>

Ship the boxes home empty, separately. so they're not in your luggage, either, thus helping show that those cameras (around your neck with lenses attached and flash cards inside are indeed 'used' when the duty collector asks, and as used they're no longer worth full value.<br>

In the US if you order by Internet to another state, you do not pay sales tax generally which can approach 10%, so if you order from the major, reliable Internet retailers in NYC, but have a hotel in New Jersey and order by Internet from those New York retailers (credit card only, I think) with overnight delivery to your N.J. hotel, you might save a bundle just on sales tax.<br>

Bring your laptop, if you plan to do this, or use a major hotel business center, but be careful -- hotel computers can be expensive to use. You'll need the laptop for downloading anyway, unless you have a huge number of very large flash cards and a lot of discipline in shooting. <br>

Almost all US hotels and motels have wireless (or wired) Internet access - most free.<br>

Shipping need not be confined to an adjacent state for overnight delivery either - it can be nationwide. If you get a chance and stop in NYC, it is helpful to visit the major Internet retailers in person, however, but be watchful of Jewish holidays and Sabbath, as many stores owners observe those and thus their stores often are closed when you might not expect it otherwise.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

Good shooting to you.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[evphotography]

<p>For a tripod I would get the best one you can afford, don't scrimp on this. I would suggest a CF tripod since they are lighter and sturdier then aluminum, which comes in handy if you are hiking with it. There is nothing more important than a sturdy support. I personally prefer Gitzo, but there are couple of less expensive alternatives. I would check out the FEISOL CT-3371. You won't find them in stores but they sell them on EBay and have pretty much same specs as a series 3 Gitzo CF tripod. I have heard a lot of good things about them and they are about 45% cheaper than Gitzo. Another might me the Silk Pro 813 (with optional short column) so you can get it down close to the ground. They are even cheaper yet, but not as much support as series 3 Gitzo or the FEISOL I mentioned.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The 24-85/2.8-4 is actually older than the 24-85/3.5-4.5 - the latter is AF-S, the former isn't. Not sure what Nikon's reason was to discontinue the newer model and keep the older one in the program.</p>

[anish]

<p>Why don't we all quit obessing over gear and focus on taking pictures? Noli, your shooting style is your shooting style. Take whatever lenses you normally like to use and you'll be fine (along with a sturdy tripod, of course). Instead of worrying about whether or not your gear is sufficient, spend time researching the places you're visiting. What locations do you want to see and photograph? Study topo maps to get an idea of the direction of light at sunrise and sunset at those locations. If you want, study images taken by pros you admire who photograph these locations to get ideas/inspiration. Research weather patterns to see if storm cycles or other interesting phenomenon are common for the places/times you plan to visit. Try to previsualize some images of some of the subjects you hope to photograph - this is an excellent exercise. What you want is to come away with memorable, personal photographs, not just record shots. This is less about gear, and more about how involved you become with the place and the process. For a couple years, I only backpacked with a 24mm and 50mm primes. I never felt limited, because lenses are only tools. What's really taking the pictures is YOU. Your vision, your love for the place and your connection to the place will have the greatest impact on your images, not your gear.</p>

<p>Anish </p>

[crow0806]

<p>I have been shooting landscape photos (film) for 30+ years, 99% of which are mountains and deserts. My work horse lenses are a 35-70 and a 17-35. My 70-300 gets used maybe 5 or 6 times a year because I try to get as close to the subject as possible. Unless you have VR lenses, a tripod is a necessity for quality photos. Even a cheap one is better than none at all. Don't worry about it too much though. Just have fun and be prepared to be overwhelmed by the beauty of the parks.</p>

[bob_koester]

Hi,

 

In the 1970's I drove tour bus for four summers in Glacier NP. Used one lens, a 50mm, deemed by many to be too long. I would argue

that it is perfect. It created an intimacy to otherwise distant scenes that is lost on wider lenses.

 

Today we go to Utah twice a year. For walking the canyons, I've found a 35 mm perfect in the majority of cases. But sometimes you

know that a panoramic is the only thing that does justice to that part of the world.

 

Going to Glacier, Canyonlands, and Arches this year. I still shoot film. If I could only take one camera, I would take a Fuji GW690.

39mm equivalent in 35mm and Velvia. I'm scanning and printing our Fall trip and the prints are georgeous.

 

I also have a D300 and the 18-200 VR lens, which is great, but I can't get the depth in the printouts that I can with Medium Format, or

even with 35mm slides. But still, the pints are first class.

 

Don't forget lens speed. Evening shots in Glacier are wonderful, and canyons in Utah often call for fast lenses unless you are packing a

tripod, of course.

 

E-mail me if you are looking for some non-traditional shots in southern Utah or Glacier.

 

Have a great trip.

 

Bob

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Dieter, my guess is Nikon discontinued the newer 24-85 zoom due to sales reasons. Perhaps there just wasn't a large enough market to support the slower aperture despite improvements in AF.</p>

<p>Seems to me the 24-85 f/2.8-4 is one of many lenses due for an update with AF-S and ED glass but of course, the price will increase too. Even updated, it will probably be half the cost of the fantastic 24-70 so buyers will still have a decent budget option.</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You've got two out of the three baisc lenses already and should be able to cover your trip just fine. Adding a 12-24 f/4 or better yet the 14-24 2.8 Nikkor and maybe a teleconvertor would give you the three lenses you need to cover probably 90 percent of anything you'll every photograph except maybe extra long glass for sports or wildlife. But you need to decide whether you're a Canon shooter or a Nikon shooter. Make that decision before you buy anything else. You're already having to carry two bodies to accomodate two different lens mounts. One could be backing up the other if they were both the same, or you could get by with one and travel lighter.</p>

[whydangle]

<p>Hi Noli. I can't add anything that hasn't already been touched on regarding equipment. I have, however, traveled extensively in the western U.S. If you are flying in to the Seattle area, then Glacier National Park in Montana is a must. The possibilities for photography are great. You could exhaust all of your time exploring the many different locations within the park. I highly recommend traveling up the western side of the park along the Flathead River to Bowman Lake and Kintla Lake. If you are going to the Utah Parks, you simply cannot beat the Canyonlands near Moab. This would include Canyonlands Nat'l Park and Arches Nat'l Park. I would recommend these over the Grand Canyon for the diversity of photographic possibilities. Keep in mind, the parks in Washington state such as Rainier, North Cascades and Olympic during this time of year could be socked in with rainy weather. I really think you would benefit from visiting the less popular parks. Yellowstone is amazing, but I feel over-rated, as well as the Grand Canyon. Canyonlands and Arches are less crowded and the variety of photo opportunities is much greater. For some sample images of the Moab area, visit Harry Lichtman's portfolio on P.Net. He has some of the best! Have a great trip!</p>

[john_lai3]

<p>Get a 17-35mm + 50mm lens + D700 (if it arrives). That's all you need in general for landscape etc.</p>

 

[mark_poseley]

<p>Hi Noli:<br>

My vote is the 24 - 70 will be your most used lens.</p>

<p>Also, head north from the Hoh Rain Forest and spend some time here:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.media.mit.edu/~geek/lapush.html">http://web.media.mit.edu/~geek/lapush.html</a></p>

<p>An amazing coastline and some rather remarkable driftwood...</p>

[noli_tan]

Many thanks Mark for the suggestion.

Based on what i read on this forum, I think the 24-70 will be the lens to get.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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!).</em></p>

<p>I think this style of exaggerated, curved foreground in a landscape photo is such a cliché. It looks like a trick shot to me and has little to do with the visual impression I get when I am at the location. I would think it is a fine (fun) project but I wouldn't want to restrict myself to such a style.</p>

<p>BTW I like your work.</p>

[michael mccann]

<p>Keep in mind that Yellowstone, our nations oldest National Park is definitely not over-rated.</p>

[oleg_k1]

<p>I own 18-300 f3.5-5.6G ED VR. Is 18-300 going to work for low light photography such as in Redwood National Park, or should I consider one of these lenses instead: 14-24 f/2.8 , 17-55 f/2.8 or 35 f/1.4?</p>