Lenses for north west USA national parks and Vancouver Islands

Erwin86 said:

Hi everyone!

This summer my girlfriend and I are going to do a road trip through the North West of the USA and Vancouver Island. We will be visiting Waterton Lakes NP (Canada), Glacier NP (USA), Yellowstone, Mount Rainier NP, Olympic NP and Vancouver Island.

I currently have an XT-3 with the XF18-55 kit lens and a XF 100-400 (I will take both with me). The last one will be very useful for my wildlife shots. Besides wildlife I will be mostly shooting landscapes (we hardly will visit any bigger cities). I prefer to use zooms on my travels, because they are a lot more versatile.

My question is, what lenses do I need to bring on this trip. We will be flying from Europe and travelling by car. Which means I don't have to travel really light, but I have to be able to take my camera bag as hand luggage on the plane.

I'm really thinking about getting a 10-24mm (which is on sale over here right now) to capture some sweeping landscapes. I think 18mm will just be too narrow for some places (I used 16mm a lot at my previous Nikon 16-85). But any advice on this for these NP's is very welcome.

My second question is if I need something between the focal range of 55mm and 100mm. I like to take landscape pictures in telephoto range as well, since you can capture the grandeur of the landscapes a lot better. I thought about getting a 18-135 as a more versatile lens, but reviews of that lens keep me from buying it. I won't expect prime IQ of it, but I'm just not sure if the IQ will match the 18-55 which I'm very pleased with.

I'm not really on a budget, but it's just a hobby for me, so I don't want to spend an awful lot of money or take a ton of lenses with me.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Click to expand...

Erwin86 said:

Thanks guys! You just gave me the final push I needed to get the 10-24! I definitely will take a tripod with me and I’m ordering one of the new screw-in type Nisi ND filters in a few days (most likely this one https://nisifilters.com.au/product/nisi-77mm-circular-nd-filter-kit/).

I will have to think about the 55-200 though. It’s of course a lot smaller than the 100-400, but I will definitely take the 100-400 with me for wildlife. So most of the 55-200 I already got covered. Plus I got my eyes on the new 16-80 which will be perfect to add to my kit as a replacement for the 18-55. With those three lenses I’m, despite the 80-100 range, fully covered from 10 to 400mm. So I’m really in doubt if I should spend my money on the 55-200.

Sadly the 16-80 won’t arrive in time for this trip.

Click to expand...

Erwin86 said:

Thanks guys! You just gave me the final push I needed to get the 10-24! I definitely will take a tripod with me and I’m ordering one of the new screw-in type Nisi ND filters in a few days (most likely this one https://nisifilters.com.au/product/nisi-77mm-circular-nd-filter-kit/).

I will have to think about the 55-200 though. It’s of course a lot smaller than the 100-400, but I will definitely take the 100-400 with me for wildlife. So most of the 55-200 I already got covered. Plus I got my eyes on the new 16-80 which will be perfect to add to my kit as a replacement for the 18-55. With those three lenses I’m, despite the 80-100 range, fully covered from 10 to 400mm. So I’m really in doubt if I should spend my money on the 55-200.

Sadly the 16-80 won’t arrive in time for this trip.

Click to expand...

grey pilgrim said:

The Pacific Northwest can be very rainy. Olympic national park is home to multiple temperate rainforests if you head to the western coastal section which I’d highly recommend.

Any way, you can expect rain at a number of the places you mentioned. You might want to consider a WR lens. I tend to shoot the WR primes, but I have taken the 18-135 to Alaska and been glad of it.

I really like using the 55-200 for landscape work. It’s the one zoom that goes with me all the time. It also does really well for tide pools.

Also, I would do something for closeups. Rainier and Olympic both have excellent wildflower opportunities depending on the time of the year as well as lots of varieties of mushrooms, insects, and invertebrates (slugs). Personally, I use the 60, but a quality diopter on the 55-200 works pretty well.

Also, expect to be light challenged in the forests. I’d think about something bright.

Have you thought about the 16-55? I don’t have it, but it’s f2.8 and WR. Personally, I’d consider it over the 10-24 and 18-55. 16 gets you plenty wide, or you could add the 14.

I really like the Laowa 9; it’s my go to uwa.

16-55, 55-200 (or 50-140?), 100-400, and the 14.

Doug

Click to expand...

grey pilgrim said:

The Pacific Northwest can be very rainy. Olympic national park is home to multiple temperate rainforests if you head to the western coastal section which I’d highly recommend.

Any way, you can expect rain at a number of the places you mentioned. You might want to consider a WR lens. I tend to shoot the WR primes, but I have taken the 18-135 to Alaska and been glad of it.

I really like using the 55-200 for landscape work. It’s the one zoom that goes with me all the time. It also does really well for tide pools.

Also, I would do something for closeups. Rainier and Olympic both have excellent wildflower opportunities depending on the time of the year as well as lots of varieties of mushrooms, insects, and invertebrates (slugs). Personally, I use the 60, but a quality diopter on the 55-200 works pretty well.

Also, expect to be light challenged in the forests. I’d think about something bright.

Have you thought about the 16-55? I don’t have it, but it’s f2.8 and WR. Personally, I’d consider it over the 10-24 and 18-55. 16 gets you plenty wide, or you could add the 14.

I really like the Laowa 9; it’s my go to uwa.

16-55, 55-200 (or 50-140?), 100-400, and the 14.

Doug

Click to expand...

Erwin86 said:

Hi everyone!

This summer my girlfriend and I are going to do a road trip through the North West of the USA and Vancouver Island. We will be visiting Waterton Lakes NP (Canada), Glacier NP (USA), Yellowstone, Mount Rainier NP, Olympic NP and Vancouver Island.

I currently have an XT-3 with the XF18-55 kit lens and a XF 100-400 (I will take both with me). The last one will be very useful for my wildlife shots. Besides wildlife I will be mostly shooting landscapes (we hardly will visit any bigger cities). I prefer to use zooms on my travels, because they are a lot more versatile.

My question is, what lenses do I need to bring on this trip. We will be flying from Europe and travelling by car. Which means I don't have to travel really light, but I have to be able to take my camera bag as hand luggage on the plane.

Click to expand...

Erwin86 said:

I'm really thinking about getting a 10-24mm (which is on sale over here right now) to capture some sweeping landscapes. I think 18mm will just be too narrow for some places (I used 16mm a lot at my previous Nikon 16-85). But any advice on this for these NP's is very welcome.

My second question is if I need something between the focal range of 55mm and 100mm. I like to take landscape pictures in telephoto range as well, since you can capture the grandeur of the landscapes a lot better. I thought about getting a 18-135 as a more versatile lens, but reviews of that lens keep me from buying it. I won't expect prime IQ of it, but I'm just not sure if the IQ will match the 18-55 which I'm very pleased with.

I'm not really on a budget, but it's just a hobby for me, so I don't want to spend an awful lot of money or take a ton of lenses with me.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Click to expand...

Clive99 said:

grey pilgrim said:

The Pacific Northwest can be very rainy. Olympic national park is home to multiple temperate rainforests if you head to the western coastal section which I’d highly recommend.

Any way, you can expect rain at a number of the places you mentioned. You might want to consider a WR lens. I tend to shoot the WR primes, but I have taken the 18-135 to Alaska and been glad of it.

I really like using the 55-200 for landscape work. It’s the one zoom that goes with me all the time. It also does really well for tide pools.

Also, I would do something for closeups. Rainier and Olympic both have excellent wildflower opportunities depending on the time of the year as well as lots of varieties of mushrooms, insects, and invertebrates (slugs). Personally, I use the 60, but a quality diopter on the 55-200 works pretty well.

Also, expect to be light challenged in the forests. I’d think about something bright.

Have you thought about the 16-55? I don’t have it, but it’s f2.8 and WR. Personally, I’d consider it over the 10-24 and 18-55. 16 gets you plenty wide, or you could add the 14.

I really like the Laowa 9; it’s my go to uwa.

16-55, 55-200 (or 50-140?), 100-400, and the 14.

Doug

Click to expand...

It's rainy in winter. Summers are VERY dry. Infact, wildfires have become a yearly occurance in BC because of the extreme dryness. I'd be far more concerned about smoke than rain in the summer.

Clive

Click to expand...

Meetmer said:

I’m heading to Yellowstone in July and I have the opposite problem, I own the 55-200 but not the 100-400. It’s so darned expensive, even on sale it’s $1400 and then a 1.4 TC is another $400. It’s nuts. I would be afraid it will be too heavy and I will be discouraged from carrying

Click to expand...

Montanawildlives said:

Erwin86 said:

Thanks guys! You just gave me the final push I needed to get the 10-24! I definitely will take a tripod with me and I’m ordering one of the new screw-in type Nisi ND filters in a few days (most likely this one https://nisifilters.com.au/product/nisi-77mm-circular-nd-filter-kit/).

I will have to think about the 55-200 though. It’s of course a lot smaller than the 100-400, but I will definitely take the 100-400 with me for wildlife. So most of the 55-200 I already got covered. Plus I got my eyes on the new 16-80 which will be perfect to add to my kit as a replacement for the 18-55. With those three lenses I’m, despite the 80-100 range, fully covered from 10 to 400mm. So I’m really in doubt if I should spend my money on the 55-200.

Sadly the 16-80 won’t arrive in time for this trip.

Click to expand...

It's true that you have much of the range of the 55 to 200 covered with your telephoto Zoom but there's a huge difference between carrying that around and slapping on the relatively Light 55 to 200 to go for a short hike. Also I would say that the 55 to 100 range is more valuable to you especially if you have the 10 to 24... having a gap from 24 all the way to 100 would be a bit of a problem.

You might want a mid-range prime as others have mentioned but I don't really think so, if you want to take a portrait the 55 to 200 mm wide open at 200mm will give you a much nicer background than for example the 35 wide open. At least I think so.

Click to expand...

grey pilgrim said:

The Pacific Northwest can be very rainy. Olympic national park is home to multiple temperate rainforests if you head to the western coastal section which I’d highly recommend.

Any way, you can expect rain at a number of the places you mentioned. You might want to consider a WR lens. I tend to shoot the WR primes, but I have taken the 18-135 to Alaska and been glad of it.

I really like using the 55-200 for landscape work. It’s the one zoom that goes with me all the time. It also does really well for tide pools.

Also, I would do something for closeups. Rainier and Olympic both have excellent wildflower opportunities depending on the time of the year as well as lots of varieties of mushrooms, insects, and invertebrates (slugs). Personally, I use the 60, but a quality diopter on the 55-200 works pretty well.

Also, expect to be light challenged in the forests. I’d think about something bright.

Have you thought about the 16-55? I don’t have it, but it’s f2.8 and WR. Personally, I’d consider it over the 10-24 and 18-55. 16 gets you plenty wide, or you could add the 14.

I really like the Laowa 9; it’s my go to uwa.

16-55, 55-200 (or 50-140?), 100-400, and the 14.

Doug

Click to expand...

Meetmer said:

I’m heading to Yellowstone in July and I have the opposite problem, I own the 55-200 but not the 100-400. It’s so darned expensive, even on sale it’s $1400 and then a 1.4 TC is another $400. It’s nuts. I would be afraid it will be too heavy and I will be discouraged from carrying

Click to expand...