Reading mode: Light Dark

What lenses for US trip

Go to last post
T

tomasith

Active member
Messages
72
Reaction score
29
Location
PL
Hi,

I am starting to think about what lenses to get for my planned September road trip across Arizona/Utah/Nevada/California. Plans to visit Arches, Zion, Grand Staircase, Grand Canyon, Antelope, Monument Valley, Las Vegas, Hoover Dam, Kings Canyon (or Sequoia National Park), Yosemite, maybe L.A. or San Fran if there's the time. Maybe you could also suggest something worth seeing more interesting than the listed, or whether to cross something out for another site (although it will only be 2 weeks or so, so may be overpacked as it is).

I got a collection of Sigma primes (24, 35, 50) and the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. I don't want to take the primes- not to joggle them around and for their weight/volume, also less versatility than a zoom.

I want to take the 70-200 for some tele shots (probably good to have in the mountains), possibly purchasing the 2x extender to extend its range even more at fairly low cost and space. Was thinking of definitely getting a used EF 24-70 F4 to cover most of the shots and go in pair with the 70-200. It's got IS and is OK from wide open (don't need 2.8 for landscapes anyway). But I'm not sure if 24 will be enough on the wide end. So started to consider a used EF 16-35 F4. But that'll make my bag substantially heavier, and I fear it may not be that useful to have its entire range. So the other option would be the RF 16mm which is cheap, lightweight, and to be used only when I REALLY need to go wider than 24, which I assume will not be that often? Also would be good to have something brighter for a few astro shots at night at the desert? Does the lens already have a profile in LR? I fear of having to correct the RAW files because of the heavy distortion.

I don't want to go into the pricy RF zooms (24-70 2.8 and the wider 16-35 or whatever it is) as I simply will not have use of them afterwards to justify their price. I like my primes and don't do lots of landscapes.
 
tomasith said:
Yep, EF-RF adapter, of course. Thanks for the clarification. Wonder why Canon decided the extenders won't work on the RF popular 70-200 zoom...

Does the AF slow down significantly? Does it start to "hunt" for focus? Guess either won't be a big problem in daylight.
Click to expand...
It slows down more with the 2X than with a 1.4X, but it's not bad at all. It was really only when I stacked two teleconverters, just to see what would happen, that I noticed the slowdown. If you are using your EF 70-200 with a 1.4X teleconverter, you won't notice it at all.
 
1. Yes, I think you have too much planned for a 2-week trip. I've done many of those locations. Many of those need 2.5 days+ to not be a blur plus you'll have to eat up a lot of time traveling too. Las Vegas, two full days and nights is perfect and you can see Hoover Dam on the way out or in (that's a few hours at best). If I were you I'd cut it down a bit.

2. I did the Moab, UT parks last summer. I packed the 16-35, 100-500, and 24-240. I carried the 24-240 the most because it's a light "jack of all trades." I rarely carried an extra lens. The 100-500 I brought for other parts of the trip where I hoped to see wildlife, and the 16-35 for sunset and astro, but it was too smokey from fires or cloudy so the astro never panned out. I point that out because you are traveling in Sept, which is also during "forest fire season" in the west coast and the wind carries the smoke hundreds of miles.
 
Last edited:
Would love if you shared the 24-240 images from that trip.

I'm a RAW shooter, like to tweak the files, and these lower end, more universal RF lenses rely heavily on in-body lens correction profiles. Did they all have their profiles in LR too (Adobe is kind of not toing the greatest job when it comes to be up to date with Canon correction profiles or colour profiles of cameras)? I don't want to use only SOC jpegs.
 
Small, weightless and sharp at f8.0 where I mostly shoot it. LR does have a correction profile for it that works pretty well. Here is a gallery I shot with it yesterday. RAW converted and processed in LR.

https://stephenlutz.smugmug.com/Arthur-K-Draut-Park/

Uncropped
Uncropped
 
Last edited:
tomasith said:
Hi,

I am starting to think about what lenses to get for my planned September road trip across Arizona/Utah/Nevada/California. Plans to visit Arches, Zion, Grand Staircase, Grand Canyon, Antelope, Monument Valley, Las Vegas, Hoover Dam, Kings Canyon (or Sequoia National Park), Yosemite, maybe L.A. or San Fran if there's the time. Maybe you could also suggest something worth seeing more interesting than the listed, or whether to cross something out for another site (although it will only be 2 weeks or so, so may be overpacked as it is).

I got a collection of Sigma primes (24, 35, 50) and the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. I don't want to take the primes- not to joggle them around and for their weight/volume, also less versatility than a zoom.

I want to take the 70-200 for some tele shots (probably good to have in the mountains), possibly purchasing the 2x extender to extend its range even more at fairly low cost and space. Was thinking of definitely getting a used EF 24-70 F4 to cover most of the shots and go in pair with the 70-200. It's got IS and is OK from wide open (don't need 2.8 for landscapes anyway). But I'm not sure if 24 will be enough on the wide end. So started to consider a used EF 16-35 F4. But that'll make my bag substantially heavier, and I fear it may not be that useful to have its entire range. So the other option would be the RF 16mm which is cheap, lightweight, and to be used only when I REALLY need to go wider than 24, which I assume will not be that often? Also would be good to have something brighter for a few astro shots at night at the desert? Does the lens already have a profile in LR? I fear of having to correct the RAW files because of the heavy distortion.
Click to expand...
I bought the RF 16mm just recently and really like it, as it's small, discreet (looks like a 50mm f/1.8), takes 43mm filters and stands comparison with the EF 16-35mm f/4. The zoom has a slightly cleaner image, absolute resolution is very similar, sometimes the bottom corners of a landscape can be sharper with the prime. What I don't have is Lightroom, as I was so unimpressed with a very early edition of PhotoShop Elements. I'm very pleased with DxO PhotoLab 5, which does have a good profile for the lens, though the field of view comes out looking more like a 14-15mm lens, and if I crop to 16:9 ratio it can look like a 13½mm lens cropped to 16:9. DPP4 gives exactly the same corrected field of view as the corrected 16-35mm f/4 at 16mm. The 16mm is not a good lens for astro if you pixel peek, as stars in the corners turn into little flying birds, though it's not as bad as the 35mm f/1.8.

The 16mm is great for slipping into a jacket pocket for the occasions when I want to emphasise perspective more than I can with a 24mm or when the 24mm end just isn't wide enough, whereas I have to make a deliberate decision to pack the 16-35mm.
tomasith said:
I don't want to go into the pricy RF zooms (24-70 2.8 and the wider 16-35 or whatever it is) as I simply will not have use of them afterwards to justify their price. I like my primes and don't do lots of landscapes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tomasith said:
Hi,

I am starting to think about what lenses to get for my planned September road trip across Arizona/Utah/Nevada/California. Plans to visit Arches, Zion, Grand Staircase, Grand Canyon, Antelope, Monument Valley, Las Vegas, Hoover Dam, Kings Canyon (or Sequoia National Park), Yosemite, maybe L.A. or San Fran if there's the time. Maybe you could also suggest something worth seeing more interesting than the listed, or whether to cross something out for another site (although it will only be 2 weeks or so, so may be overpacked as it is).

I got a collection of Sigma primes (24, 35, 50) and the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. I don't want to take the primes- not to joggle them around and for their weight/volume, also less versatility than a zoom.

I want to take the 70-200 for some tele shots (probably good to have in the mountains), possibly purchasing the 2x extender to extend its range even more at fairly low cost and space. Was thinking of definitely getting a used EF 24-70 F4 to cover most of the shots and go in pair with the 70-200. It's got IS and is OK from wide open (don't need 2.8 for landscapes anyway). But I'm not sure if 24 will be enough on the wide end. So started to consider a used EF 16-35 F4. But that'll make my bag substantially heavier, and I fear it may not be that useful to have its entire range. So the other option would be the RF 16mm which is cheap, lightweight, and to be used only when I REALLY need to go wider than 24, which I assume will not be that often? Also would be good to have something brighter for a few astro shots at night at the desert? Does the lens already have a profile in LR? I fear of having to correct the RAW files because of the heavy distortion.

I don't want to go into the pricy RF zooms (24-70 2.8 and the wider 16-35 or whatever it is) as I simply will not have use of them afterwards to justify their price. I like my primes and don't do lots of llandscapes.
Click to expand...
I dont have anything to add about the lenses, but as an ex forest service employee here on the Sierra National Forest, I would recommend Sequoia over Kings Canyon.

Additionally, you may want to skip that portion entirely during that time of year; September is still prime wildfire season so smoke density in the central valley will likely be fairly severe again this year with the horrible winter were having this year.

Be sure to check Calfire's website around the time of your trip for any major fires that could smoke out your visit, there are typically webcams for the areas that could give you an idea of what to expect. (During the last 2 fire seasons Yosemite valley was so socked in with smoke for weeks at a time you couldn't tell you were even there)
 
Thanks for the advice. Still very dry weather? What about Hoover Dam and the lake there? I read there are some water cuts in place?
 
tomasith said:
Thanks for the advice. Still very dry weather? What about Hoover Dam and the lake there? I read there are some water cuts in place?
Click to expand...
We had a solid start to the year, 170% above average snowfall at the time, but it hasn't rained in over a month. Were down to 68%. Its been over 85F in central and northern california this week, in the middle of winter.

Im a bit far from hoover, but last I heard the water is low there and has been for a few years.

Over all though, nothing surprising for us anymore. We expect bad winters and high fire activity in the summer.

Plus side, if you do travel near a major fire the calfire air attack is something to behold (and photograph!). Something about seeing tanker 944 (a boeing 747) fly overhead at 500 feet putting down fire retardant a mile long is indescribable. The smaller planes (DC-10s, C130s, and the helicopters) are neat too.
 
As great a view that might be, personally I'd prefer to stay out of harms way and enjoy the trip not having to run from fire :)

As an offtop: It's dry all around the world. Where I'm at, we had snow for maybe a week this winter (with no longer term perspective for any more, so I would guess that was it), and 30+ years when I was a kid, snow layed around for months. Level of water you see when you're at the lake is well below what it should be.
 
danielhenzphoto said:
I would go with the RF 16mm and the RF 24-240.

And the 50mm 1.8 for low light stuff.

Pretty light setup for travelling. Makes things easier weight and hassle of changing lenses.
Click to expand...
I agree, except that I would take the rf35mm for low light and not the 50mm.

As some one else wrote earlier, the list of places is far too long to do any justice to them. I would personally cut out Vegas altogether, and one is limited in the number of different shots one can take from the road of the Hoover Dam. In between there and LA there is a lot of unphotogenic sand!

Other than that I would say, take what gear you have and make a virtue of it. You dont want to be like a golfer who spends most of his time trying to decide which club to use to ace the shot!
 
Last edited:
"the R is so old and will not take decent photos"

That is just so wrong. the R takes great photos, it's the same sensor as the 5D4, with a better processor. Your lens collection is just fine, especially if you are used to it. I would say try the EF1.4x iii with your 70-200 rather than the 2x TC.

With the gear you have, you will have plenty of photographic coverage.
 
I live out here where you will be visiting. The exact lens models aren’t really that relevant. You’d want a nice standard zoom for the bulk of your photography. You’ll want a medium telephoto for compressed distant landscapes and details. And you’ll want an ultra wide for tight canyons, interesting landscape perspective and the huge sequoia forests.
As I said, the exact models aren’t that relevant. You’ll likely be at f8-11 most of the time. Just get whatever meets your weight and budget goals. L lenses are nice, but you’ll get great pics with just about anything at f8+

oh and take a polarizer if you’ll be shooting in the afternoon or early evening. Really helps with the skies.
 
Last edited:
Some friends of friends travelled from Germany

Decided to fit a lot in four days. Hey it is on one page in the atlas. Cali, Arizona, texas, utah, colo, nevada, yellowstone... and back to northern cali.

Remember, some of these states are as large as Poland.

Wide, regular, tele.

Wildlife and birds for me, so tele tele, or hela tele.

For your trip I would plan well, and enjoy. Best wishes
 
It's just a general list for now. I will sit down to a map to plan more detail (how much per day I can drive), book hotels etc- then I will roughly know how much I have to resign from...
 
To bring the best lenses you have, and tripod.

I bring F2.8 trinity at least on self-drive vacation.

Just throw the lens into the car, and even need not to turn off the camera and fold up the tripod, you are ready for photography anytime anywhere.

We don't carry the weight our own, the trolley at airport, car on the road do.

Only need to check the weight allowance for the cabin baggage.

For the trip by public transportation, the story is different and many suggestions are from them above.
 
Last edited:
70-200 and get a 24-105 F4 and call it good. If you really need to go wider just stick it in manual exposure and rattle off handheld panoramas. I am traveling in Europe at the moment and lugging my 16-35, 24-105 and a Nikkor 180mm adapted. Honestly speaking 99% of what I am shooting is covered by my 24-105. Different if I am on a dedicated photo mission, then I take everything. But sometimes too much gear becomes a drag and it all starts to be about gear.... Leaving vehicles unnatended, weight, check in hassles. I find you start thinking more about photo gear than just enjoying travel.

Right now I am on a train from Bavaria to Hungary with only my R6 and 24-105 EF. Just enough. I actually should have just brought my M4/3 gear, but couldn't bear to be without the R6 for so long! Kind of a mistake.
 
Will have to practice doing panoramas from a few shots, as I have not used feature before- well used it on a simple Fuji, but that was don in body and not always did the best job (artifacts visible). You just catch focus, turn to MF, and take a few overlapping shots and merge in PS? On the other hand, the RF16 is cheap and light, so would not hurt my pocket or back that much...

What about a longer tele for that part of the US? Don't know whether the 200+ range will be of such use to buy the extender on the 70-200, or this lens will do fine on its own. It if is just for a few shots with 200+ range, probably would pass.
 
If anyone could also help out on laws governing drone flights that would be appreciated. There are NFZ in the National Parks from what I already could read, but what about outside of parks? Do you have to register your drone, have a pilots license of some sort, register a flight, or you're free to do what you want?
 
tomasith said:
Hi,

I am starting to think about what lenses to get for my planned September road trip across Arizona/Utah/Nevada/California. Plans to visit Arches, Zion, Grand Staircase, Grand Canyon, Antelope, Monument Valley, Las Vegas, Hoover Dam, Kings Canyon (or Sequoia National Park), Yosemite, maybe L.A. or San Fran if there's the time. Maybe you could also suggest something worth seeing more interesting than the listed, or whether to cross something out for another site (although it will only be 2 weeks or so, so may be overpacked as it is).

I got a collection of Sigma primes (24, 35, 50) and the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. I don't want to take the primes- not to joggle them around and for their weight/volume, also less versatility than a zoom.

I want to take the 70-200 for some tele shots (probably good to have in the mountains), possibly purchasing the 2x extender to extend its range even more at fairly low cost and space. Was thinking of definitely getting a used EF 24-70 F4 to cover most of the shots and go in pair with the 70-200. It's got IS and is OK from wide open (don't need 2.8 for landscapes anyway). But I'm not sure if 24 will be enough on the wide end. So started to consider a used EF 16-35 F4. But that'll make my bag substantially heavier, and I fear it may not be that useful to have its entire range. So the other option would be the RF 16mm which is cheap, lightweight, and to be used only when I REALLY need to go wider than 24, which I assume will not be that often? Also would be good to have something brighter for a few astro shots at night at the desert? Does the lens already have a profile in LR? I fear of having to correct the RAW files because of the heavy distortion.

I don't want to go into the pricy RF zooms (24-70 2.8 and the wider 16-35 or whatever it is) as I simply will not have use of them afterwards to justify their price. I like my primes and don't do lots of landscapes.
Click to expand...
I would get the EF 24-70 F4 IS USM, the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0 IS USM and the RF 16mm f/2.8. The 24-70mm will do 80% or 90% of the pics, and by going with just the other two lenses you don't spend a whole lot of weight and money on the rest.
 
tomasith said:
If anyone could also help out on laws governing drone flights that would be appreciated. There are NFZ in the National Parks from what I already could read, but what about outside of parks? Do you have to register your drone, have a pilots license of some sort, register a flight, or you're free to do what you want?
Click to expand...
You need to register yourself (the pilot). $5 fee but no testing required. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) then gives you a FAA number to put on the drone. There is a pilot's license with testing required for people taking photos for contract or to make money.

The amateur hobbyist only needs to register.

Then only fly it within eyesight so you can see and avoid obstacles even though most idiots fly far out of range of them being able to see it or what is around it. Walk to be near your subject instead of flying far to get the shot.

If your drone is under 250 grams, you don't need anything. It is small enough then to not be a hazard according to the FAA. Like a kids toy or kite.



b1664418559e4fa1ac5db55ad8acc0d8.jpg.gif



--
"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top