Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Kitting up for Yellowstone / S. Utah trip  (Read 6589 times)
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« on: June 21, 2007, 10:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

In August I'm taking the family on vacation from the UK to Yellowstone and southern Utah.  The kids are 12, 11 and 8 and not big hikers.  So it's primarily a family vacation but I also want to make sure it's worthwhile photographically - insofar as I can while looking after the family.

I have a Canon EOS 5D with 24-105mm L f4.0 USM and a Canon 100 mm macro lens.  I do my processing on a MacBook Pro 17" running Lightroom and PS2, which I'll be taking along too, along with the LaCie Rugged 160 GB as backup.

With any luck we'll be seeing wildlife, so I'm thinking I'll need more pulling power than 105mm.

What further kit should I consider?  I'm not a professional photographer but I can afford to make a reasonable investment in my kit, roughly at the standard of what I already own, by which I mean I probably wouldn't be interested in third-party lenses.
Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2007, 05:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With any luck we'll be seeing wildlife, so I'm thinking I'll need more pulling power than 105mm.

You'll love what a 300mm (or more) does for landscapes, let alone wildlife.  

IS is a must, unless you adore tripods.
Logged
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2007, 05:43:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You'll love what a 300mm (or more) does for landscapes, let alone wildlife. 

IS is a must, unless you adore tripods.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Funny you should say that.....  I had been thinking 70-200 mm but going off the idea.

So I'm wondering, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or (for the flexibility) 100-400mm EF f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
Logged

vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2007, 08:02:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny you should say that.....  I had been thinking 70-200 mm but going off the idea.

So I'm wondering, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or (for the flexibility) 100-400mm EF f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Plan on staying in the Jackson Hole, Teton National Park, area for a few days.  The mountains and lakes there are great for photography.  


Steve
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2007, 10:46:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny you should say that.....  I had been thinking 70-200 mm but going off the idea.

So I'm wondering, EF 300mm f/4L IS USM or (for the flexibility) 100-400mm EF f4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have a 70-200 Nikkor on a D200 and even with the crop frame, I'm frequently wishing for more reach.  The 5D is full-frame, right?  If you can afford it, the 100-400 would be a powerful tool.  I often find a long lens more useful for landscapes than a short one, but that's just me.
Logged
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2007, 02:42:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have a 70-200 Nikkor on a D200 and even with the crop frame, I'm frequently wishing for more reach.  The 5D is full-frame, right?  If you can afford it, the 100-400 would be a powerful tool.  I often find a long lens more useful for landscapes than a short one, but that's just me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Copy that!  I had a Nikkor 70-200 on my late lamented Nikon F3 back in the 80s.  Before I bought it, I thought it would be the Nirvana of reach, but in practice it wasn't.  So the Canon 100-400 looks like the front runner at the moment.  It has had mixed reviews but MR likes it and reading round, there are enough people who rate it to reassure me it's a worthwhile choice.

Bag-wise, I think I'd be able to get my kit into a Lowepro trecker 300 AW, so that's me done.  Thank you.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6795


« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2007, 04:05:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Copy that!  I had a Nikkor 70-200 on my late lamented Nikon F3 back in the 80s.  Before I bought it, I thought it would be the Nirvana of reach, but in practice it wasn't.  So the Canon 100-400 looks like the front runner at the moment.  It has had mixed reviews but MR likes it and reading round, there are enough people who rate it to reassure me it's a worthwhile choice.

Bag-wise, I think I'd be able to get my kit into a Lowepro trecker 300 AW, so that's me done.  Thank you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd go for the 100-400. It doesn't compare IQ-wise to Canon's big 400 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 but it's versatile, easy to travel with (since you come from UK). A 70-200 will be a bit short for wildlife.
Logged

Francois
Stuarte
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2007, 01:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd go for the 100-400. It doesn't compare IQ-wise to Canon's big 400 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 but it's versatile, easy to travel with (since you come from UK). A 70-200 will be a bit short for wildlife.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my local town (Bath) with five minutes to spare, I dropped into a camera shop and asked if they hired out lenses.  They don't.  So I asked if I could have a quick look at the 100-400 and the assistant said why not put it on your body and try it out.  So I did.  Two quick hand-held shots of a shop window across the street about 12 metres away and another one of a hanging sign about 30 metres away, all at 400mm and very ad hoc as I was in a hurry.  

I downloaded them into Lightroom later and even without sharpening found that I could zoom in and read all the print of a newspaper pinned in the window of the shop opposite!! (1/250,, f5.6, ISO 1000)  The shop front is rendered with beautiful punchy blue and white signage and water droplets (1/320, f6.3, ISO 1000) and the hanging sign is clean and contrasty (1/1000, f10, ISO 1000).

Even my wife was amazed.

So that decides it!
« Last Edit: June 24, 2007, 11:29:42 AM by Stuhar » Logged

Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2007, 02:10:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I just got back from Yellowstone.  The opportunities to shoot wildlife from on or near the road are simply amazing, but the more reach you have, the better.  Get the 100-400 and also be sure to get a beanbag for shooting from the car window or roof.  A tripod will also come in handy.  And try to get some practice in before you get out there.  Shooting at 400mm, often in dicey light, rewards good technique.

Will the 5D AF at f/8 or is it limited to f/5.6?  If the former then it might be worth getting a 1.4x extender also.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
« Last Edit: June 23, 2007, 02:12:09 PM by Nill Toulme » Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678


« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2007, 11:24:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
and also be sure to get a beanbag for shooting from the car window or roof.
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

really, Really, REALLY good advice.  The beanbag doesn't have to be big.  If you're airline weight conscious, you can have your wife make the bag and buy the beans on location.

Glad you sprung for the long zoom.  That tool will reward you forever.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad