david_huff1

<p>And now the image.</p><div></div>

<p>Two weeks ago we visited Yosemite to see if we could successfully witness and photograph the "fire fall" phenomenon at Horsetail Fall. The first night looked promising, but cloud cover somewhere else across the valley hid the sunlight. The second day it was overcast all day and it was given very little chance to appear. We made the hike anyway (forgoing Half Dome at sunset) and from a vantage point from the other side of the river got this shot. The third night, some pink for 45 seconds and gone. This fleeting phenomenon is an amazing experience.</p>

<p>Hello Folks - Happy Holidays. Have been away for a while - here is Sand Harbor, Lake Tahoe at Sunset the other day.</p><div></div>

<p> If you want to photograph what man built about god, then Rome, Paris and Istanbul. If you want to photograph what god made for man, then the Western United States, travelling through the Grand Tetons (amazing chapel shot available there of Tetons through the alter window), Yellowstone, Southern Utah, Northern Arizona, Yosemite and ending in Big Sur.</p>

<p>Well, we are about to head up to Lake Tahoe for our annual holiday vacation, but there is no winter wonderland this year. I know some slopes are open, but I expect far less skiing and more to-doing. I have got Sand Harbor and Eagle Falls covered. I am looking for any ideas for photography location opportunities (nature/landscape) anywhere in the general area - will drive for photos. Thanks and happy holidays. </p>

<p>Clearly, the posters above have more experience than me. I own both lenses as well as 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II and a 7D. I shoot everything with all of them. In my view, the answer to your question is kind of omnibus - it depends upon the light. Early morning over a lake with some fog, the 500 with a 1.4x simply outperforms what I can do with my 300 with a 2x. I can't show you one osprey over another because I did not shoot it that way on the same day, but that is my view. That said, if hiking, I without question choose my 300 with converters over the 500, which is simply a beast. And, we have not even discussed those situations where the 300 in the twilight is enough and allows captures that the 500 would not. In sum, I guess I reach for my 300 more than my 500, but I am sure glad that I have both ... a pretzel of an answer.</p>

<p>Love the 200 f/2. Love a little less the 50 1.2 and a little less than that the 85 1.2. I choose these over the 100 f/2.8, 24 TS or the 135 f/2. No experience with the 14, 17 TS or 35. But again, clearly in my view, the 200 f/2 is the top of the heap. If price is part of the equation, than my view would change, but given that it wasn't, this is my trinity.</p>

<p>I love coaching youth football - so it is likely going to be an extensive subject matter for me the next few months. A shot from our first game victory this new season.<br>

1D Mark IV, 300 f/2.8L.</p><div></div>

<p>Travel heavy, but carry light. Take all of your gear. Once you are there and find your rhythm, then decide on what to carry day-to-day. I know I am supposed to use my feet to zoom, as in the old 35mm days, but sometimes I simply prefer to stay out of the shot's immediate area. If weight is the issue, ideally you would have the 24-105 and the 70-200 - both in f/4 - and then one of your wide primes. Should be entirely manageable. </p>

<p>Without a doubt: (1) purchase the wide angle f/2.8 lens; (2) take it, the 50 f/1.8 and the 70-300 on the trip; (3) bring a tripod. On this last point, don't carry it around during the day, but take it with you when you explore at night, especially, so especially, when in Paris. With regard to the 70-300, you might find that you also don't use it much when walking about these destinations, but you might; however, where you will look to use it is shooting while cruising.</p>

<p>Are you ready for some football?</p><div></div>

<p>I never sell a lens unless it is part of a trade-in for a new one. Some addictions are worth giving in to ....</p>

<p>I agree with most of the above, except I would urge you to spend at least 3 days in the Tetons. Sunrise at Schwabacher's Landing can be a miracle if the clouds are right. As you leave Moose Junction and pass the Mormon Row turnoff, keep heading up the highway. The wood sign is on the left, turn down the road (left) and head to the parking lot. From the lot, follow the trail to the right for 200 yards. You will know it when you see it. Mormon Row is great for sunrise too for both the barn and the sun sweeping down the Tetons as well as the wildlife. The hike or boat ride around Jenny Lake to the falls is worth it. Last, after you shoot the sunrise, drive the road back between Moose and Teton Village - turn left before the park gate at Moose. Drive slowly and you will see Moose out until about 10:30 a.m. in the ponds. As for lodging - stay in Teton Village, not Jackson, and you will have a far easier go at getting to the spots.</p>

<p>If you are uncomfortable borrowing the kit, which you definitely should do if you can, then at least borrow the 24-105. A tripod is a must. From your options, the ideal set up would be your brother's kit plus your 50mm and 70-300. (I would add the 50 for the low light option - if you are driving before dawn to catch the sunrise, you will see wildlife everywhere in the twilight and that lens should give you a nice boost.)<br>

In the Tetons, if you are going to shoot at sunrise, which is yet another must, do not miss sunrise at Schwabacher's Landing. Park and then take the trail about 200 yards to the right for some magic. Stay after the sunrise for an entirely different lighting of the same shots. Also, Mormon Row at sunrise is great too for both landscape and wildlife. After you are done shooting the sunrise, move up the highway a few miles to Cunningham's Cabin. The cabin itself is interesting with the backdrop, but what I find full of possibilities are the split rail fences that seem to run into the Tetons from this view. <br>

In Yellowstone, be sure to visit Lower Falls between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. to catch the rainbow at the base of the falls - it's there everyday. </p>

<p>A shot of one of my favorite subjects on just another extraordinary ordinary day in a park somewhere in the world. </p><div></div>

<p>And, to Lupo's point, DL - that is simply a fantastic composition and exposure. Well done.</p>

<p>And, most importantly, a tri-pod for the night shooting.</p>

<p>I didn't have the slightest bit of trouble shooting in Paris. That said, I am 6'1" and 250 lbs ... But, seriously, I was never in any situation whatsoever where I felt unsafe. I shot at night all along the Seine between the Eiffel and Notre Dame, along Blvd St. Germain, and as well as up in Montmartre. I did choose to take taxis as I moved as opposed to the metro as the night went on. There is a serious issue regarding pickpockets on the metros, especially at night.<br>

Thank you for the remarks. I wish I was going back as soon as you. Take all of your gear!</p>

<p>70-200 @ 200mm</p><div></div>

<p>24-70 again</p><div></div>

<p>24-70</p>

<p>The one I posted above is 70-200. I will post 3 - one from each lens. </p><div></div>

<p>John may well be right; however, I just returned from 7 days of shooting in Paris where I shot through the night until about 1:30 a.m. as well. I was curious about my lens choice afterwards, so I went back and looked at the data. Interestingly, at least for me, it broke down almost evenly - 33% 70-200, 33% 24-70, and 33% 16-35. I would certainly have regretted not carrying my 70-200. It was heavy but more than worth it given I am only in Paris every two years. Bring the lenses. (One of many with my 70-200 in Paris.)</p><div></div>

<p>Vulture outside of Heidelberg, Germany</p><div></div>

<p>I own both. On a hike I take the 24-105. For just about everything else, I reach for the 24-70, and universally so as Gregory says above, when I am shooting with my tripod. Both are great, however, so no right or wrong choice here really; unless, you need the speed ... and for some reason, I always do.</p>