Travel Photography - Lenses for Yellowstone and Grand Teton

I have a Canon T2i Rebel and we're visiting Yellowstone and Grand Teton for a few days. I would like to take some great photos of the wide vistas and the mountains, but I'd also like to capture some of the animals. I have these lenses:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

I was thinking about renting an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM lens and maybe a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

I don't want to carry all of it. Any ideas on what exactly I should take?

Thanks!

I have a Canon T2i Rebel and we're visiting Yellowstone and Grand Teton for a few days. I would like to take some great photos of the wide vistas and the mountains, but I'd also like to capture some of the animals. I have these lenses:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

I was thinking about renting an EF 400mm f/5.6L USM lens and maybe a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

I don't want to carry all of it. Any ideas on what exactly I should take?

Thanks!

If I could only take one lens, it would be the 10-22 mm. My second choice would be the 50 mm and third the 55-250. Alternatively, I might consider renting a 100-400 tele zoom.

Cheers,
T.

The only lens I'd drop out if you're renting the 400 and the 10-22 is the 18-55. Though you've extended your range, you haven't dropped much bulk. I'm agreeing with where Thalassa is heading:

Rent the 10-22
Bring your 50
Rent the 100-400

Besides the Canon 10-22, the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 8-16 are also good choices for the ultra-wide. If you can find them for renting.

For the tele, besides the 100-400, you may consider renting Canon's 70-200IS, either the f4 or f2.8II, along with a 1.4x extender. The 2.8IS II is super sharp, even with a 1.4 extender on (either Canon's II or III version), and will still give you f4 at 280mm. On a crop camera, that's already plenty long. Good enough for the bisons, bears and elks. If you are shotting birds, then your body probably isn't quick enough anyways. Only downside is the weight and bulk of this lens and extender. [The lens alone is 52.6oz, more than the 48oz 100-400.]

Then either your 18-55 or 50, or both since they are not that heavy or bulky.

Here are the pics I took there in 2009 with the 17-55/2.8, 70-200/4IS (some with Kenko's 1.4x extender) and Tokina 11-16. [I've since switched some of the lenses.]

http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/yellowstonemenu1009

I'm actually going in a couple weeks and here is my gear list -

7D w/ 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 2.8IS, 300 F4 IS and 1.4X II
M9-P w/ Summilux 35, Summicron 50

And this should barely fit in my Pelican 1510.

I just went to Yellowstone last weekend and got the most use out of my 24-105mm f4 and my 10-22mm. The 300mm + 1.4x TC which I use for birds also worked quite well for general wildlife in Yellowstone, though to be fair the bison could easily be photographed with the 24-105. These are all on crop-factor bodies (50D and 30D).

Although I wouldn't be fond of lugging it around, a 500mm or longer would be good if you're trying to get birds on Yellowstone Lake or one of the rivers; my effective-420mm combo wasn't quite up to that task other than to give me ID photos of the birds.

For the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, the 24-105 is fine; the 10-22 was a bit too wide for my tastes. Otherwise, the 10-22 works for many of the thermal features which I shot around 14mm on average.

Make sure to bring a circular polarizer so you can eliminate unwanted reflections in the various thermal pools and springs. Like an idiot, I forgot one of mine and got awfully tired of swapping out a shared one between the 10-22 and 24-105. If you're aiming to do mid-day shots of the deeper pools to really capture some of the blues and greens, a polarizer is an absolute necessity.

Loved the pictures. While I was in Grand Teton NP I found the very spot where Ansel Adams took his photograph of the Snake River. Naturally I took one too but alas it was terribly inferior. Two reasons: Adams was a much better photographer than I and the trees had grown during the intervening years and much of the symmetry/composition was lost. I show the two pictures to friends one after the other. Good for historical interest.

Loved the pictures. While I was in Grand Teton NP I found the very spot where Ansel Adams took his photograph of the Snake River. Naturally I took one too but alas it was terribly inferior. Two reasons: Adams was a much better photographer than I and the trees had grown during the intervening years and much of the symmetry/composition was lost. I show the two pictures to friends one after the other. Good for historical interest.

Care to share?

Here is a link to what I was able to take with the Sony NEX7 and the current generation (pending update) 18-200 wide-zoom.

I'm very pleased with the results - I have one more camera to test, but for now I'm somewhat settled on the NEX7

http://travel.webshots.com/album/583036133sJEnyP

I'm actually going in a couple weeks and here is my gear list -

7D w/ 10-22, 24-70, 70-200 2.8IS, 300 F4 IS and 1.4X II
M9-P w/ Summilux 35, Summicron 50

And this should barely fit in my Pelican 1510.


I always wanted to get the m9 but I'm not like to always manual focusing. I hope they make a new version with AF.

How is the 300? i got the 70-200 II 2.8 with the 2x extender but would like to have a super tele.

I hate changing lenses out of doors. Dust, dirt, water, pollen - it's all evil to a camera, and it all wants desperately to get in. So I bought a "superzoom" class walkaround lens, and I use it for just about everything, from family gatherings to vacation shooting. I've even used it to shoot a couple of weddings (as second shooter, of course - I'd want Canon L-series glass if I were primary shooter on a wedding).

When last I ventured out west and visited Grand Canyon NP, Red Rock Canyon NCA, and Nevada's Valley of Fire SP, my superzoom was a Sigma 18-125. I found myself chanting a mantra: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!" It was also, as a cheaper lens, a bit soft and had some barrel distortion.

My current lens is a Canon EF-S 18-200 IS (F3.5-5.6). This is a wonderful lens on my Canon 50D, and is well worth the $600 price tag. NOTE: $600 is a HUGE, HUGE, TITANIC amount of money to me, so I don't say that lightly. This is the most expensive lens I've ever bought, by nearly a factor of 3.

Using a superzoom as a walkaround lens has pros and cons:

PROS:

* Fewer missed shots due to changing lenses
* Less chance of crud, mud, or flood getting into your camera because you don't change lenses outdoors as often (or in my case, ever)
* Less weight to carry, since you have One Lens to Rule Them All
* Fewer filters to carry, since you only need them for one lens
(Note: Those last two are pretty important when you're hiking in wilderness areas like Yellowstone and Grand Teton)

CONS:

* Superzooms aren't L-glass; they're not as sharp or as bright, and tend to have more vignetting, barrel distortion, and chromatic abboration than primes or L-lenses
* Superzooms have variable aperture; they're not available as primes, thus are not as good in low light
* The EF-S 18-200 is not a USM lens (god knows why)


I'll leave you with this final thought - I have an EF-S 55-250 IS. I find that my EF-S 18-200 is superior to it in every way except the long focal length, but I find that the difference between 200mm and 250mm is negligible.

How is the 300? i got the 70-200 II 2.8 with the 2x extender but would like to have a super tele.

The 300 f4 is a good lens and until my 500 mk2 shipped today, was my primary telephoto lens (almost always with a 1.4x TC attached to it). It really depends what you want it for; the 400 f5.6 is a better lens for birds in flight (faster AF, primarily), for example, but the 300 f4 is a great lens in that price range; it's sharp, suffers from little distortion or aberration (though in harsh light some CA is unavoidable), and has a good minimum focusing distance (short enough to use as a quasi-macro lens for flowers and insects to good result).

Compared to the 70-200 f2.8 + 2x, I can't imagine it's that much better, though; you're talking only 20mm further reach and slightly better IQ at best.

Still, for birds, it's really not long enough even on a crop factor body and with a 1.4x TC attached. I finally saved enough to get the 500 f4 II and am really looking forward to putting it and its incredible MTF chart performance to work on some feathers in the immediate future.