Gear for trip to Yellowstone

I need help figuring out what to do.

A little background info…
Both my wife and I are into photography. I’m more into it than her, but only by a little. I’m more willing to set everything else aside to shoot and edit photos than she is. My passion is birds, but I love to shoot other stuff as well. My wife is into all the other stuff and not so much into birds.

We both are shooting Canon 40D bodies. I have a 100-400LIS that is my primary lens and I also have a 17-85. Her only lens is the 100mm Macro. You can take a look at what I do here: www.redtail.smugmug.com or www.redtail565.blogspot.com

Here is our problem. We need more lenses! I am saving for a 500 F4, but that will take me several years to get. We have been wanting to go to Yellowstone National Park for several years and next June we are going. We live in Ohio. We need to figure out what lenses to buy for the trip. We will no doubt try to shoot wildlife, but also landscapes and macro!
We do plan to get at least one more camera body. I think we will need another landscape lens and another telephoto, but not sure what else.
In a nutshell, we have the following gear:
All canon:
2 40D camera bodies
1 100-400 LIS
1 100mm Macro
1 17-85 IS
1 1.4 EF Extender II (Teleconverter)
1 original 18-55 kit lens (came with Rebel 300D)
2 tripods
1 spotting scope (Leica Televid 62)
2 pairs of Binoculars


We need to start acquiring gear now, so we have it. I’d put a budget at $2,000 maybe $3,000 at the most (but $2,000 would be better). We need to be able to share the equipment without fighting over it. :)

We have already booked 12 days in the park. We plan on having time to stop and shoot the roses.


Here is what we are considering:
Another 40D as back up

70-200 F4
Another 100-400 LIS
300F4 IS
400F5.6
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Filters?
<O:p
Thanks!!!
</O:pBruce</O:p

Bruce,
I think everyone who could help is in Yellowstone right now!:)
James

Bruce,

Just a thought, rent a 500mm lens for the trip. Certainly less expensive then buying it and you would still have funds left over for other items.

As Bob said, rent a 500. The other lenses you have will suffice, as you have the focal lengths covered.

I would get a 7D w/ vert grip or used 1D MIII. Upgrading to the new camera will make the biggest difference...much better AF, drive speed, image quality, etc.

Chas... still in Jasper

This is very interesting. Both my wife and I were just at Yellowstone about 4 weeks ago for 7 days and are very avid (recent) photographers.

We had the following
Canon 7D
Canon 550D
400L f5.6
100-400L IS f5.6
24-105L IS f/4
Tokina 11-17mm f2.8
Macro 60mm f2.8
18-55 is kit lens
55-250 is

We mainly used the first 4 lenses. There’s a good article that discusses the 4 main lenses needed for Nature Photography at http://juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/fo...hotography.htm . His opinion is you need a wide angle, a macro, long telephoto either zoom or prime and a mid-range zoom. With those 4 lenses you cover the spectrum fairly well. I think his recommended lenses on a Canon body were the
Sigma 8-16
Sigma 150 Macro
Canon 24-105
Canon 100-400

Both my wife and I remarked several times that it would have been great to have two bodies each since you are in such a “target rich environment” for photography.

Based on what you have and are considered I might suggest the following
400L f5.6
24-105L IS f/4
A wide angle Sigma 8-16 is very cost effective
70-200 F4

Save the money on the extra 100-400 and the 70-300 and get a pair of 7Ds or 1 7D and a 5D M2.With these lenses the person that used the 100-400 will have the range covered while the 400 5.6 person can use the 70-200 for shorter shots. Is that 15-85 to replace the 17-85? Seems like it would be duplicating. The wide angle will be great for some of the pools where you are very close and want to fit a big view in.

We stayed in the Canyon Campground and though that was a great location. You are right next to Canyon which will have great landscape shots, just up the road from Hayden valley which has a huge amount of wildlife and also not too far from the Lamar valley which also has a ton of Wildlife.

Most of the mornings, we would cruise up and down the Hayden valley for wildlife in the first few hours of the day. One morning we say a grizzly month and her 3 cubs. Bison are everywhere. We ended up seeing grizzly, black bear, elk, moose, bison wolf, coyote, mule deer, prong horn deer, big horn sheep and yellow-bellied marmots.

Birding was also very good. There should be Osprey nesting in Canyon that you can view along with too many others to mention. I suggest you ask each of the rangers you see about birding. Some are very knowledgeable and can give some real good insights. Others not so much.

I’ve post some of the best photos if you are interested at http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattle...18441467/show/
We had such a great time we will plan to go back in 2012. At that time we will have 2 bodies each and a lot more lenses.

Feel free to PM me for more specific questions.

Doug

p.s. I bought a little inverter for the car and it was super handy to keep things charged up while being out all day every day.

Bob,
Believe me I have though of this (renting a 500 F4), I've also thought of renting one for May when I do 90% of my bird shots for the year. The problem is it's $700 to rent a 500mm for the month. I'm saving for one that will take me at least 5 years maybe 10 to get. Renting one for a month will take most of these funds away. I just can't see spending that much money to rent one...

Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Glatzer

As Bob said, rent a 500. The other lenses you have will suffice, as you have the focal lengths covered.

I would get a 7D w/ vert grip or used 1D MIII. Upgrading to the new camera will make the biggest difference...much better AF, drive speed, image quality, etc.

Chas... still in Jasper

---

Chas, This is the first time I have ever seen a post where the recommendation is to get the camera over a lens? I could see the 1D MIII but do you really think a 7D is that much better than a 40D? This spring I shoot a 7D for the day. Great shoot, lots of birds, but the pictures were no better out of the 7D then out of my 40D. A 1D MIII will take my budget and then some.

Doug, Thanks for your insight! The reason I am thinking about a 15-85 is because there will be two of us and only one basic zoom (17-85). On past hikes, it has not worked very well for us to swap lenses when we both want to use the same one at the same time. Now maybe if we get a supper wide, we will not need a second zoom. This is going to be the same when we both need a long tele!

My wife only has one lens, a 100mm macro. I have two lens, 100-400 and 17-85. She is going to need a long lens. If there is wildlife out in front of us, we can not be trading off lenses. One big question I am faced with is which long lens to get her considering I have a 100-400. Will a 70-200 + 1.4 be enough? Maybe a 300F4+1.4 or the 400F5.6?

On the wide in, I'm seeing I will need a super wide. Ok. I can get one. Next I need to know if having a 8-16, and a 17-85 for two is going to be ok or not? Maybe I need another lens to complement that range, or maybe that will be plenty? I really can NOT afford a 500F4 (rent or buy).

The one camera body I would definately consider over another 40D is the 5DmII. I could see where having full frame would be nice.

Still would very much welcome more input.

You've got a pretty good kit right now, at least for Yellowstone. Save for the 500mm and possibly a second body. I just got back from an evening and morning in Rocky Mountain National Park, mainly shooting elk and a few scenics. I had the 500mm on the 7D and the 70-200mm f/4L IS on the 5D MkII (with and without the 1.4x TC-II, depending on circumstances). I only took a few shots with the 500mm because I was shooting large mammals. For scenics I used either the 70-200mm or my 24-105mm f/4L IS.

It's really a versatile kit. The high ISO performance of the 5D MkII yields amazing results in almost dark conditions at ISO 6400!!

To improve on your bird shots, which include some very nice shots, you'll want to move up to the 500mm f/4L IS. It's worth every penny and conversely, every penny that you spend on other stuff will delay the purchase that much further out. I'd suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS as a great constant aperture zoom that's wonderful for mammals and close in birds, but your 100-400mm is actually a better birding lens. The 70-200mm works quite well with the 1.4x TC-II, but the bit of reach you'd give up is critical for birds.

Here's another option. Ditch the macro and get the 70-200mm with a 25mm Extension Tube. It's a wonderful macro lens, giving you great working distance, sharp images and a more versatile piece of kit. With your 17-85, a 70-200mm and your 100-400mm you'd have a VERY versatile kit and you could start saving for the 500mm.

I guarantee that when you first get the 500mm and start shooting birds with it you'll feel like your "cheating." It's that much better than your 100-400mm. I had the 400mm 5.6L before I bought my 500mm. Once the 500mm arrived I never touched the 400mm except to box it up and send it to one of the nice participant here at BPN.

Back to Yellowstone, you can cover it with the kit you've got now. Adding a 70-200mm will give you better IQ in the middle range than you've got now with your 100-400mm, but it's not a blow-away type difference. You'll want a more current body when you get the 500mm, so you might think about where you want to schedule that purchase and then consider whether you really need a dedicated macro lens. You NEED a macro in your current lineup, but with a super high quality lens like the 70-200mm you could cover your macros quite well with extension tube(s).

Hi Bruce,
I don’t think I understood your original post fully. Based on the following priorities:
2 camera kits for diverse needs of Yellowstone
Budget $2-3K
Save for long term 500 f/4

I might suggest the following:
Used 100-400 f5.6 or used Sigma 50-500 non OS
15-85 or 24-105 (better if you plan to get FF camera)
Possibly a super wide if you got the 24-105 since the 15-85 is pretty wide already

This could give the following kits:
Kit1
40D
100-400 or Sigma 50/500
15-85 or 24-105
Possibly super wide

Kit 2
40D
100-400
17-85
Macro 100

I’d probably skip the extra 40D so you can save faster for the 500 f/4. Since your wife is so interested in photography too you’ll probably need to budget for a FF camera in the future for her so she also gets a nice upgrade when you get the 500 f/4 ;).

David, Thanks for the reply. I know your telling me the truth on the 500mm. I really need one, but I can't buy it until I have the money. I don't think I can ditch the macro. If you could see what my wife can do with that thing. Amazes me...really.

I have considered trying the 400f5.6 and using it until I can get the 500mm. These things keep their value so well. I wonder if it wouldn't be worth a try. I am considering the 70-200. I borrowed a friends over the summer for a week to shoot Dragonflies. I used a 20mm tube with it. At the end of the week I decided I liked the 100-400 with the tube better. However, it was very light weight and much easier to carry.

Bruce

Doug,

Looks like you understand pretty well. Thanks! Really I need a second set of lenses for my wife.

I guess the question is do I pretty much duplicate it with a second 100-400, and 15-85 or are there other choices that will complement each other. For the most part, we will both be shooting the same things.

I think the 50-500 is too heavy. Although I am sure we will take a lot of photos a short distance from the car, we will also want to hike some and carry the gear with us.

BTW, would you all consider it foolish to consider a S90 (canon p&s) for landscapes rather than another lens?

Bruce

Bruce, believe me, I know about saving for an paying for the 500mm. You just have to plan, save and wait.

As for the 400mm f/5.6, it's a wonderful lens, but you'll gain very little over your 100-400mm. I'd stand pat and continue to use your 100-400mm as a very versatile lens, covering everything from portrait, to tele, to macro (with the tubes). Still, if your wife really wants to shoot more birds, then this with you 100-400mm may make sense. It's so compact, light, fast AF, sharp IQ and all round nice that it's hard to forget; however, the lack of IS is a bit of a problem and it really doesn't work with a 1.4x TC unless the subject is still and/or you can MF.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS will also hold its value well, but I doubt you'd ever sell it once you bought it. However, in the context of one kit, I don't see you needing it, but to fill in a second kit for a second shooter, then it may have a place. With the 1.4x TC-II, it's very good for wildlife, large birds and close small birds. The IQ is excellent, so it works for portrait and medium landscape also on a full frame or a crop -sensor. When I'm out shooting with the 500mm on the tripod, this is lens I keep on my 5D MkII, hanging around my neck.

Bruce,

From what I seen and have been told by participants in the field... the 7D is much better at AF acquisition, has 8 frames per second, built in level, and more over the 40D. Additionally, the vert grip is of great benefit. Note- I have never owned a 40D.
Your current lenses covers much of the focal range needed for YNP, except on the longer side. Hence, my suggestion to rent the 500mm for the trip. As mentioned, the 70-200 f/4IS is lighter in weight, less expensive than the f/2.8, and is an outstanding performer in field. Used ID MIII are going for 1200/1300 dollars. I have a friend selling two if interested. Cameras are not like the old film days...some are more applicable than others for specific tasks. As far as duplicating lenses, I do not find this prudent or cost effective in the long run. I think it is better to work as a united team, with each member shooting a different perspective of the subject. For example..the 100-400 will offer close-up and environmental images, the 500 tighter head-shots, etc. If you do wish to duplicate lenses I would opt for another 100-400, as they are extremely versatile in field.

Feel free to give me a shout in the office if desired.

Best,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Bruce, believe me, I know about saving for an paying for the 500mm. You just have to plan, save and wait.

As for the 400mm f/5.6, it's a wonderful lens, but you'll gain very little over your 100-400mm. I'd stand pat and continue to use your 100-400mm as a very versatile lens, covering everything from portrait, to tele, to macro (with the tubes). Still, if your wife really wants to shoot more birds, then this with you 100-400mm may make sense. It's so compact, light, fast AF, sharp IQ and all round nice that it's hard to forget; however, the lack of IS is a bit of a problem and it really doesn't work with a 1.4x TC unless the subject is still and/or you can MF.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS will also hold its value well, but I doubt you'd ever sell it once you bought it. However, in the context of one kit, I don't see you needing it, but to fill in a second kit for a second shooter, then it may have a place. With the 1.4x TC-II, it's very good for wildlife, large birds and close small birds. The IQ is excellent, so it works for portrait and medium landscape also on a full frame or a crop -sensor. When I'm out shooting with the 500mm on the tripod, this is lens I keep on my 5D MkII, hanging around my neck.

---

Thanks David! My wife is interested in getting a longer lens for shooting butterflies and dragons. I think she needs to use my 100-400 a little and see how she likes it. A friend has a 70-200, that she might be able to try out in the field. I have a 1.4x to complement the 70-200.

I would like to get an f4 lens, so maybe the 70-200 would be a good idea?

Bruce

Chas,

Thanks for your input. Really good info and I got a lot of ideas running through my head. I do like the idea of trying to sharing the kits and just switching things out as we shoot. I just don't think we will have that 500mm by next summer. So, could we split the 100-400 and maybe the 70-200? I am also thinking about the 300f4. Nice lens for butterflies and dragons around here, and my fit as and extra lens while in Yellowstone.

Bruce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Miller

Thanks David! My wife is interested in getting a longer lens for shooting butterflies and dragons. I think she needs to use my 100-400 a little and see how she likes it. A friend has a 70-200, that she might be able to try out in the field. I have a 1.4x to complement the 70-200.

I would like to get an f4 lens, so maybe the 70-200 would be a good idea?

Bruce

---

Bruce,

Many of the top butterfly and dragonfly photog's use a 300 f/4 with extension tubes. The longer focal length affords better working distance, shallower DOF when necessary, and better subject isolation than shorter focal lengths. Additionally, the 300 f/4 is lighter for hand-holding w/ strobes. Tripods are more of a detriment when trying to properly align subjects with camera plane and backgrounds.

Chas

If you really want another 40D there are two for sale here....
I know Steve well..great guy!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...-vertical-grip

Best,

Chas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Miller

Thanks David! My wife is interested in getting a longer lens for shooting butterflies and dragons. I think she needs to use my 100-400 a little and see how she likes it. A friend has a 70-200, that she might be able to try out in the field. I have a 1.4x to complement the 70-200.

I would like to get an f4 lens, so maybe the 70-200 would be a good idea?

Bruce

---

Bruce,

The 70-200 f/4 does not focus very close, so is not great for close ups (need a lot of extension tubes).

To your original question, I agree with Chas, try a 7D. You mentioned you tried a 7D (I assume with your 100-400). The 100-400 is not sharp enough in my experience to produce sharp images with cameras with small pixels like the 7D, especially at 400 mm. For reference, I have 100-400, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 300 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS, 500 f/4 L IS. I have owned/used just about every camera in the lineup (except the 1DIII).

The 7D with its small pixels gives great resolution if the lens can deliver the detail. The fixed focal length L telephoto lenses can. Let's look at what different systems resolve (below smaller numbers are better):

angular size of one pixel = 206265 * pixel size in mm / focal length in mm

40D + 100-400 at 400 mm = 206265 * 0.0057/400 = 2.94 arc-seconds/pixel.

7D + 300 mm f/4 = 206265 * 0.0043/300 = 2.96 arc-seconds/pixel.

7D + 300mm + 1.4x TC = 206265 * 0.0043/420 = 2.11 arc-seconds/pixel

1DIII + 100-400 at 400 mm = 206265 * 0.0072/400 = 0.0037 arc-seconds/pixel.

The 7D with 300 mm f/4 essentially matches your current setup, and with a 1.4x TC beats it.

Thus, I would recommend 7D + 300 f/4. Also the 300 f/4 is great for closeups.

Note when you get a 500 f/4, plan on additional expenditure for a great carbon fiber tripod and gimball head. Another option is a 300 f/2.8 (down the road instead of a 500), which with a 7D and 2x TC gives 1.48 arc-seconds/pixel. Note that as the resolution goes below about 2 arc-seconds, system stability and atmospheric turbulence can become limiting factors to image sharpness.

Roger

Bruce,

Also, keep an eye out for people selling 500 f/4 used lenses. Some may be trading up to the new version and selling their old one.

Roger

Ok, I am thinking 300 f4 to allow both my wife and I to shoot larger mammals from a distance. Plus it is nice for Butterflies and Dragons. Something we did a lot of this past summer. My wife complained that I had an unfair advantage with the longer focal length ( on butterfiles and Dragons), so this would help that.

Now, I am really surprised no one has told me to get a 5D MII??? I think this would be a great camera for my wife who I think would really benefit from full frame.

Too bad money is an object! I could just get whatever I want!

I could also pick up 2 used 40D bodies for less than the cost of one 7D? I do think we really need at least one backup on a trip like this. My 40D broke two years ago when we were on a trip to Michigan. I shot the Point and Shoot the rest of the time. No way I would want that to happen in Yellowstone.

Roger, that is interesting Math! I really think a 300f4 would be a nice lens. Now even more so. One nice thing about Canon is they keep their value so well that an intermediate (300f4, 400f5.6) could be sold when i get to a point where I can get the 500mm. Also, I'm still years away from being able to even consider buying a 500!

Thanks again for everyones help!
Bruce

You're looking at spending half the cost of a used 500 if you're going to get another body and lens. Save your money and don't buy anything else until you get the 500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

1DIII + 100-400 at 400 mm = 206265 * 0.0072/400 = 0.0037 arc-seconds/pixel.

---

That should be 3.7 arc-seconds/pixel.

Roger