Yellowstone and lens choices

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Andrew, I only have experience with the 16-85 on the D300 - where it is a superb lens and easily the best Nikon has to offer as a mid-range zoom that isn't f/2.8 (for both DX and FX). I have not tried the 16-85 on the D7100/D7200 but have recently acquired the 18-140 for use on the D7100. For what I do with it (walk-around) it is fine but I have not used it much as of now. I got both (the 16-85 and the 18-140) used at a huge discount over new - otherwise, I would not have picked either).</p>

<p>Allegedly, the 16-80 is better than anything else Nikon offers for DX - but the price is a big turn-off. At my local store, no one (but me) has so far asked to even see one much less purchased one!</p>

<p>For Antelope Canyon, you have the 14-24 on the D810 - so why not put the 24-70 on whatever DX body you are going to purchase/rent? You've go wide covered with FX and close-up with DX - the de facto gap of 24-35 isn't something I'd be worried about too much.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Andrew, I was just joking about delivering your camera at the Computer History Museum, which is very close to my office. I'll get glad to meet up, but if it involves delivering a camera, you want that shipped to your hotel in Anaheim where you will stay for several days such that if it arrives a day or two early or late than planned, you will still get it. For example, should you decide to skip the museum in the last minute, you don't want to cause a chain of consequences.</p>

<p>Just keep in mind that the likes of B&H wouldn't ship to hotels. I have never used the 16-80mm E DX AF-S VR lens but have heard good things about it. IMO, the D500 is a considerably better cameras than the D7200 for wildlife and action photography (and is priced accordingly).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, both. The 24-70 may have it, so long as I take competent wide shots. :-) Besides, the fact that I've only just worked out that the 16-80 and 16-85 are different lenses suggests that I probably shouldn't spend money hiring them.<br />

<br />

Shun: Pencil me in for Thursday 4th. I at least owe you a coffee for the amount of trouble I cause around here!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Easy, order D500 + 16-80mm kit lens from your favorite camera store in New York. Have them ship it to my address ahead of time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I volunteer as well - I even hand deliver it to Anaheim!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have actually done that before, for another member from Europe. We had met in person before in his previous visit to the US. It was in early 2008 when the Japanese yen was going way up against the US$ and Euro. He ordered a 24-70mm/f2.8 at the old, lower price and had an NY store shipped to me. Since it was a lens, there was no shutter actuation concerns. I checked that lens out thoroughly. When he finally came to the US a few months later on a scheduled trip, I re-shipped the lens to him. By then, the lens was a few hundred dollars more at that same store.</p>

<p>However, unless you know each other quite well, it is probably not a good idea to have this kind of transaction.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>There is a Samy's Camera not far from Anaheim in neighboring Santa Ana. They are at http://www.samys.com/ Speaking as a Californian we would like you to leave as much of your money as possible here. You will be able to see the need once you get out on our roads. They are in terrible condition and they say it costs more to repair them here than in any other state. Besides that Samy's is a fun place to go. They also have nice selection of used equipment. If you can't make to the one in Santa Ana there is another in San Francisco. You may also want to keep a list of the reservations you have made and the phone numbers to cancel those reservations once you realize the magnitude of what you are trying to achieve. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Well well! We did go over 100 posts here. That's quite an accomplishment. Now some thoughts. I don't think you will gain anything by buying a d500 rather than using the D7200. You aren't really concentrating on wildlife and the D7200 is very capable. It's also smaller and lighter, making it easier for your wife to handle. My wife hates using my d800e and will take our D5200 every time. Now for lens suggestions. For ultrawide on DX, you will not go wrong with a used Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It's an excellent lens! It can be found fairly cheap on ebay. If you think 18mm will be wide enough but still want fast, I highly recommend the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. It's very good, and is a common choice for those starting out in wedding photography. These are plentiful used on ebay and at a great price. There are at least two versions, the older one without HSM (Nikon equivalent AFS) & OS (Nikon equiv. VR,) and one with HSM & OS. These are compact, lightweight, and will certainly cost much less than half of a new Nikon 16-80mm.</p>

<p>The larger mammals in YNP are buffalo, elk, moose, bears, mule deer, antelope. They are used to people and generally move slowly. The smaller critters generally move faster (so they don't get et.) You will certainly see buffalo and elk, possibly see a bear or two and maybe a moose or coyote. I wouldn't waste time trying to photo a wolf. They are very elusive and semi-nocturnal. You could spend a week just to even see one half a mile away. There are antelope in the open spaces around the Gardiner entrance on the north end. You will almost certainly see antelope driving through Wyoming, but they will mostly be further from the road. It will be tempting to get out of your car and photo them, but the second they see your door open they will run off at 60 mph. Out of the park, they get shot at during hunting season. Another interesting tidbit for you. Antelope can run 60 mph. Their fastest predator, the wolf, can run about 40 mph. Why didn't antelope simply evolve to run 50 mph? During the last ice age there were cheetahs in North America, and the antelope evolved to outrun them, just as they did in Africa. Another little fact--antelope have black tongues.</p>

<p>Scuba diving in Lake Yellowstone. The lake sits at 7,000 ft. elevation and is filled with snow melt. The water is quite cold. It's also deep--42 to 120 meters deep. I'm not aware of anyone swimming in it, let alone diving.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>There is indeed scuba diving in Yellowstone Lake: <a href="https://www.nps.gov/submerged/Parks/YELL.html">https://www.nps.gov/submerged/Parks/YELL.html</a></p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>Just for the sake of anyone following, I have achieved accommodation everywhere (Yellowstone is the Lake Hotel, which is all that was available - photo tours seem to go from there, but I'll certainly make sure we dine at Old Faithful).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might keep trying for just one night at Old Faithful. It's not just its central location, it's one of the most unique hotels in the world. It's made entirely of logs--it's the largest log structure in the world! The architect, Robert Reamer, gathered interesting trees that had ornamental shapes and incorporated those into the actual structure. In the evening there is usually live music performers on the mezzanine, and the music floats throughout the huge lobby. It's the perfect place to sit and end your day. All of the grand hotels in the national parks are truly special, but this one is the crowning gem. Once inside, you are magically transported to another age. People end up cancelling reservations every day and if you try several times a day you will snag a room for at least one night. I think you will be stunned when you see it. I've not seen anything else quite like it in my own travels.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Kent: Cheers, I'll keep trying for the OF lodge. I'll certainly visit (and dine) even if we can't stay. The advice on wildlife is appreciated, and I had similar thoughts about the D7200 vs D500 - but since the latter is cheaper to hire than I thought, I'll consider it (and check with my wife). I'm still thinking about the DX wide-angle, if I don't decide the 24-70 will do; thanks for the advice there.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, my wife took a look at the diving options, but wasn't blown away by what there was to see, and how good the visibility was likely to see, given that she'd need to carry a load of stuff with her (even if she hired a dry suit). I guess we'll enjoy the lakes from the surface. (Which reminds me, must check I have a polariser... I doubt I have an 82mm one for the Tamron 24-70. I'm currently talking to retailers who might handle trade-ins.)<br />

<br />

I'm currently trying to sort flights. For some reason, there aren't many direct flights to the UK from Jackson (or anywhere nearer Yellowstone). I'm currently torn between getting to Jackson for a 3:20pm flight or driving straight to Salt Lake City for an 8pm flight. The latter gives us a bit more scenery, modulo driving through it for six hours, and might give us an extra hour in Yellowstone (although I'd not want to push it given likely traffic); I'd guess the internal flight will be less picky about how long we're at the airport, though. I don't really have much experience with US internal flights; I hope I don't have massive issues with my carry-on limit.<br />

<br />

John: I'll have a look in Samy's - and try not to pay attention to the exchange rate. (My 14-24 was bought in the US, for a reason.) Don't worry, though, the price for hotels in Yosemite and San Fran mean I'm leaving plenty of money in California. :-)<br />

<br />

And yes, long thread, thank you all for the much-appreciated advice. I'll try to do it some semblance of justice. My work place have just announced an internal photo competition with a "colour" category; sadly, it closes before I'll get back.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> there aren't many direct flights to the UK from Jackson (or anywhere nearer Yellowstone).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you may have to route through a hub like Chicago or Denver.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I discovered. :-) I've actually found an indirect flight from Salt Lake City leaving just before midnight that will still get me back to the UK on Sunday. Confirming, but nearly sorted. I've just been reamed out by my boss for how long it took for me to get the flights booked (among other things)...<br />

<br />

Oh, and it turns out my 500mm f/4 AI-P isn't worth very much as a trade-in. Unfortunate.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still thinking about the DX wide-angle, if I don't decide the 24-70 will do; thanks for the advice there.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A 24mm isn't really wide on DX. Would not be worth taking into a slot canyon.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Which reminds me, must check I have a polariser... </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'd rather forget a lens than a polarizer in those places.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I don't really have much experience with US internal flights; I hope I don't have massive issues with my carry-on limit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My only "rule" is to never put anything expensive that I want to keep into checked baggage.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>My work place have just announced an internal photo competition with a "colour" category; sadly, it closes before I'll get back.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

Can't you just email them an entry?

 

 

Kent in SD

 

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sadly the photo competition also closes before I <i>leave</i>. :-) Never mind, it'll have to be bluebells again...<br />

<br />

Worth taking something wider than 24mm to a slot canyon on DX? Okay, understood. I'll at least try to hire something. (Well, I have an 8mm fish-eye, but that might be a bit restrictive...) And yes, polarizer - though not for the 24-70, obviously.<br />

<br />

I have the same policy of not checking anything expensive (except sometimes a tripod, where I have no choice). Unfortunately, that leaves a D810, 14-24, 70-200, 24-70, 200-500, etc. plus my usual three laptops, and some airlines have been known to freak out (BA, for what it's worth, have reduced their "unlimited" carry-on limit to 23kg, which is still very useful; Quantas's 7kg limit has been a problem, especially when I had my 200 f/2 with me). I'll be loading up my wife (with the spare camera and lens) as much as I can and hoping that'll do it! I have a Think Tank Aiport Accelerator, which is within the size limits, but airlines have taken to putting the seat struts under the middle of seats, making it hard to hide the bag sometimes. Oh well, we'll see. Flights now booked - though they'd got £100 more expensive since yesterday (grr).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Worth taking something wider than 24mm to a slot canyon on DX?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure if Kent was aware that you are taking the D810 with the 14-24 already. What's the point on putting a 11-16 on the DX body - it just duplicates what you already have with you (unless your wife takes pictures too). You may want to do a google search on lens choices for Antelope Canyon. If I were to carry two bodies down there, I certainly would not duplicate the lens choice. Given the crowds down there, you might be happy with something longer unless you plan on having people in every shot you take. And if I were to take a DX ultrawide - then it would be the 11-20 and not the older 11-16.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>14-24, 70-200, 24-70,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly the lens collection I wouldn't want traveling with.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>usual three laptops</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of my business - by may I ask why you need three?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Dieter. My wife would be shooting too unless one of us has a camera failure, but I'd been considering the 16-80 (at least hired) so there's some flexibility at the wide end on that body. Of course, I could put the 14-24 on the DX body, but I'm guessing I might want the wideness on FX. If the consensus is that the 24-70 is going to leave the DX body a bit restricted in the canyon, I'll try to hire the 16-80. I hope I don't feel the need for something longer on the D810 - I've heard that lens changing in Antelope is extremely risky (though I could try inside a plastic bag...) Much as I'd love to mix and match the 8mm, 14-24 and 24-70 on the D810, I don't want to rely on it. I'll probably not go fully ultrawide on the DX body.</p>

<blockquote>Exactly the lens collection I wouldn't want traveling with.</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes. You may have noticed I'm a masochist from this thread. I'm well aware that the 70-200 f/4, in particular, would be more sensible (but I <i>have</i> the f/2.8, and may need aperture at the conference); likewise, the 16-35 f/4 may make more sense than the 14-24, but I already own the 14-24, and even if I wasn't throwing all my money at a holiday I can't really justify both. At least the Tamron 24-70 is lighter than the Nikkor. One of these days I should invest in a 24-120 f/4.</p>

<blockquote>None of my business - by may I ask why you need three?</blockquote>

<p>To make my life hell at air traffic security, obviously. Actually, I need a work laptop because I'm at the conference for work and need to run Windows so I can get at email through our VPN. I need to have a Linux laptop - which is at least light - because our IT department can't get their act together and make the Windows one dual-boot and so I can actually do useful work. I need my Mac because that has all my photography software on it, and I want to see what I've been photographing. (I'm planning to fill up an external drive or two during the trip.) Also I tend to need it for presentations, because my work laptop is locked down by security and it's a pain to get large files off it. This is my usual process on work trips; I've got quite good at getting through airport scanners quickly, except that people have a habit of not realising I actually need the four security trays that I've grabbed.<br />

<br />

Speaking of software, I see there's a new version of DxO out. Faster PRIME is much appreciated. Version 11 supports the 200-500 with a TC-14E (or will), but sadly only the mk3 version. That's... not cheap. I really hope I don't find myself wanting longer than 500mm - although that's another reason to take a crop body along. Must upgrade.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of software, I see there's a new version of DxO out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Darn it - more money to spend. Maybe I should abandon ACR altogether and get use to the clumsiness that is DxO software (similar to Lightroom) - as soon as I get the D500, ACR will be a thing of the past anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Think Tank Aiport Accelerator</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't get much bigger than yet - I doubt I have a single bag that would hold the gear you are bringing.</p>

<p>Re: lens choice for Antelope Canyon - here is someone who prefers to use the 24-105 over the 17-40: <a href="https://garyhartblog.com/photo-tips/antelope-canyon/">https://garyhartblog.com/photo-tips/antelope-canyon/</a><br>

24-70 here: <a href="http://www.donsmithblog.com/2015/03/25/a-survival-guide-to-photographing-upper-antelope-canyon/">http://www.donsmithblog.com/2015/03/25/a-survival-guide-to-photographing-upper-antelope-canyon/</a><br>

Maybe putting the 24-70 on the D810 and the 14-24 on the DX body is not such a bad idea after all...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ooh - thanks for the links, Dieter. (Especially if I've repaid your kindness by costing you money.) For what it's worth, my workflow these days is mostly DxO for lens corrections and sometimes PRIME, then into Photoshop for local edits. PRIME is spectacularly good at killing a laptop battery, though. I can't claim that DxO lacks its issues though; I wonder if they've allowed you to default the crop tool to anything other than the original aspect ratio yet? (My biggest annoyance is changing it to free-form for every crop, because I really don't care if something started life as 3:2.) Fortunately, DxO knows about the 200-500 and the Tamron!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I went to the Upper Antelope Canyon (and the Grand Canyon) in December 2001, just after Christmas: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/001p6c</p>

<p>That was before digital for me. I used the Nikon F5 with the 17-35mm/f2.8 zoom as well as the Contax 645 with a 45mm lens, which is roughly the equivalent of a 30mm for FX. I don't think you need to use a crazily wide lens inside Antelope, although having the flexibility is always a plus.</p>

<p>In December, it was freezing early in the morning at the Grand Canyon such that I had to warm up the car first before driving out for the 6am sunrise images. At the time we had just moved from the East Coast back to California the year before such that I was still very accustomed to the colder climate. You won't have that problem in the summer.</p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p> You won't have that problem in the summer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, looks like mornings are supposed to be around 34F (1.1C) in Yellowstone this week. :-) It's been pretty cool out here on the Northern Plains as well.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks again. I don't know why I'd decided an ultrawide was likely useful for Antelope (last time I was there, at the wrong time of day for any sun, a 28-200 was all I had, and I don't really remember what I did with it other than curse the darkness). I'm looking at a two-hour photo tour at roughly the right time of day (and trying to fit the lower canyon in beforehand); I hope that even if I'm using the 14-24 on the first run through (assuming cropping will be less painful than stitching) I may be able to switch outside the canyon (or in a bag) during "wandering time" afterwards. Now I think about it, I'm almost interested to see what a fish-eye will do in there, but I'd hope for details too. Now I just need to remember that (I think) Antelope/Page doesn't honour daylight saving time but Monument Valley does, otherwise my run between them is going to be cutting it even finer than planned!<br />

<br />

Dare I ask how Horseshoe bend is at dawn? I think I'll hit Page after dark, so I'll miss sunset, but getting up early is an option (until I decide it's going to kill me, anyway).</p>

[Two23]

<p>The obvious time to do a slot canyon would be at night. You could probably align some stars at the top, and at night you have total control over the light. I would just use a flashlight instead of setting up flash. I shoot at night a light--it's often easier than shooting in the day. Not sure if they could arrange a night shoot though. It's the obvious time to be there though. You'd have all night long to get your shots, and they'd be different from the five million shots taken in there this year.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Now I just need to remember that (I think) Antelope/Page doesn't honour daylight saving time but Monument Valley does</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As already mentioned, Arizona does not, but the Navajo Nation does.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Good thought, Kent - especially since I'm having some trouble finding a non-booked-up photo tour of Upper Antelope. I'll investigate; I have one last hope of a place, otherwise significant messing around is going to be required (possibly to get into Upper Antelope at all, never mind at a suitable time for sun shafts).</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I found this Netherlands based website while searching for usages of some if my photos. It nicely put together with itineraries for anyone planning a trip. Even without understanding the language (google translate helps) it will surely help plan a trip. http://www.nbbs.nl/reisaanbod/western-drive/?cat=426</p>