What kit for Yellowstone/Grand Teton?

M

Matt.

Judge Dredd
Messages
1,048
Edit My Images
Yes
I am going on a US roadtrip in September and start off with a few days in Yellowstone (3x nights) and Grand Teton (1x night). I am primarily going to be shooting landscapes with my 40d and 17-40. My question is, i might hire a different lens from somewhere like www.LensRentals.com for the duration of this part of the roadtrip and would like to know what everyone suggests i get? This lens would be for wildlife as i have the landscapes covered. Do remember that wildlife will be secondary to landscapes for me.

Suggest away :D


Thanks
 
Possibly a Canon 100-400mm, good range and IS too whilst still being of a manageable size.
Other option is a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC, that would be nice for some closer in landscape stuff and still have the 400mm reach with the TC, would still AF ok at f/5.6.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Possibly a Canon 100-400mm, good range and IS too whilst still being of a manageable size.
Other option is a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC, that would be nice for some closer in landscape stuff and still have the 400mm reach with the TC, would still AF ok at f/5.6.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. The 100-400L is the obvious choice, but the 70-200 + 2x TC gives you more options (at a higher price).

Not to hijack the thread, but I'd be interested to find out how Lens Rentals deal with visitors to the USA. (Do they require security deposits, etc.?) I know I could just ask Roger [Cicala, their CEO] but it would be interesting to see how it's perceived by a customer.
 
The 70-200 isn't long enough to give enough difference from my standard kit (I will also have an 85 1.8). I agree that the 100-400 makes sense, but I have owned one before and it's ok, but nothing that special. The best voice would be the 500 I think, but I'm not sure I am fully up to lugging that around with no tripod to support it!
 
Oooh I went there a couple of years ago. I preferred Grand Teton to Yellowstone as I'm more for the alpine lakes and mountains, rather than pongy sulphur. I don't know much about the zoom kit, but I can give you some generic tips about the region.

September isn't the best month for wildlife, as they do migrate into the depths of the park during the summer season. You've got the bison throughout Yellowstone, and they'll be so close you won't need a zoom, but you probably won't see the wolves or bears. Watch out for people just literally stopping dead in the road because they've seen an animal, don't underestimate how long it will take to drive anywhere in the park.
 
How about the 400mm DO then or maybe the new 70-300L, not sure if its your cup of tea, but I use the 400mm L f/5.6 for wildlife
 
Yellowstone has some great wildlife and if you want to have a go, and as a rental, I'd look at 400 2.8 Prime,600mm Prime or the big daddy 800mm prime. For landscapes you have the the 17 - 40L, you need nothing more.
 
daugirdas said:
I don't think you have landscape covered. 17mm on crop will be not wide enough. I'd add 5D OR Tokina 11-16 to your kit.
Click to expand...

Agree, I took a sigma 10-20mm on a 20D some years ago on my visit to Yosemite. Glad I need, got some really nice shots
 
I was gagging for more width when I was in the Tetons. If you have access to a 10-20 that is correct for your sensor size then I'd take it.
 
The 17-40 is fine for this, I would like a 5dmk2 but that's not going to happen yet. Like I have said earlier, this isn't a trip for wildlife so I don't want anything to expensive or big! I think it's the 100-400 (I'm not a huge fan), or the 500.
 
Matt. said:
The 17-40 is fine for this, I would like a 5dmk2 but that's not going to happen yet. Like I have said earlier, this isn't a trip for wildlife so I don't want anything to expensive or big! I think it's the 100-400 (I'm not a huge fan), or the 500.
Click to expand...

Crikey. If a 500 isn't too expensive or too big then I dread to think what is!
 
lazer chikkin said:
Watch out for people just literally stopping dead in the road because they've seen an animal
Click to expand...

I stopped once on a fairly open plain area to take a picture of an unusual solitary tuft of purplish grass contrasting against the normal green, using my telephoto because I was too lazy to walk. When I'd finished and turned round there were three other cars parked behind mine, the occupants all straining to see what I'd spotted. They were a bit miffed when I pointed out my grass.
 
DucDuc said:
Yellowstone has some great wildlife and if you want to have a go, and as a rental, I'd look at 400 2.8 Prime,600mm Prime or the big daddy 800mm prime. For landscapes you have the the 17 - 40L, you need nothing more.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that's bad advice. Heavy lenses like that need practice to use, a serious tripod, and a serious tripod head. I wouldn't take one on a holiday of a lifetime, you could end up seriously disappointed. Far better to take a smaller and portable lens like a 300f4, or 100-400. Easy to use and get good results with.

Rgds
Jonathan
 
When I finally get out there the 10-22mm will be the first thing in the bag closely followed by a bear bell

Always reminds me of the saying
Q. "How do you tell the difference between a Brown bear and a Grizzly bear
A. Grizzly bear cack is full of bells
 
I spent most of my time singing to warn animals of my approach. My singing could scare 10 hungry grizzlies.

Weather wise, you can get some sharp heavy showers so have some waterproof camera carrying method.

This is some of the insanity when people spot bison (Hayden Valley,Yellowstone)

4038272242_b50e233f5e_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think i will go with the 100-400. I dont really like it, but it's cheap, and ok-ish quality, it's also light, and not too specialist. I would go with the 500, but i'm not carrying a massive tripod around, and i'm not convinced it's that handhold-able.

Now if only i could afford my 5dmk2 :D
 
Last edited:
Matt. said:
I would go with the 500, but i'm not carrying a massive tripod around, and i'm not convinced it's that handhold-able.
Click to expand...
I think that's about right. When people ask me about the difference in size between the 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 I always tell them that the 300 is hand-holdable, the 500 is portable but not really hand-holdable, and the other two should really come supplied with a sherpa.

Having said that, the 500 is fine on a monpod. This isn't Yellowstone (it's Richmond Park) but it is a 500 on a monpod. Although the light is beautiful, there isn't much of it - this was 1/250th at f/4, ISO 800 - but the lens copes very well.

36044_164966880195232_100000457633989_447048_5920797_n.jpg


And another thought: it's possible that LensRentals might have the new 500 Mk II by September. It's nearly 1kg lighter than the Mk I lens....
 
StewartR said:
And another thought: it's possible that LensRentals might have the new 500 Mk II by September. It's nearly 1kg lighter than the Mk I lens....
Click to expand...

That would make it not much heavier than the current 300 f2.8 IS (mk1), which is nothing short of amazing. Whether that (and presumably the latest 4 stop IS) is worth the immense premium over the old lens I don't know, but I'm sure some [rich] people will go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top