4 weeks Trip around California

[HoneyBadger]

I live about an hour from Yosemite and about 2 from the California coast and I would definitely recommend a wider lens, preferably the 16-35. Since you are on a budget and want less weight, the 17-40 would also work out great for you. The wider lens will allow you to take pictures of the beautiful coast and also the mountains at Yosemite. Also, room can be scarce sometimes when taking pictures of giant sequoia trees so unless you want only half the tree in your shot, you need that wider lens. If you venture about an hour south of Yosemite, you can visit Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. They are not as impressive as Yosemite but they are home to the 4 largest trees by volume in the world. Lastly, if you plan to visit 4 or more National Parks or federal recreation lands you should invest in the $80 park pass which is good for a year and can be bought at any National Park entrance. Normal entrance fees are $20 per park and the park pass will also discount some park services. Enjoy!

 

[distant.star]

.
Given your equipment options and your travel restraints, I'd take the 24-105 and nothing else. Perhaps take the 40mm if you want to tighten up and lighten your burden some days. Here's my thinking:

1. I can't think of much that a 200mm is going to help with, given that you've already got 105mm reach. If you had a 100-400, for example, that would be different. The vistas out there can be vast (and that's an understatement.)

2. The "low light" lenses you mention are really eclipsed by the high-ISO capabilities of a camera like the 6D. Remember, when you'll be there, you have light 15 hours each day, and inside and at night you can just ramp up the ISO and keep the 24-105 clicking away. You've already got the focal lengths covered, and the low light is not relevant -- so leave the others at home.

3. I know people travel for different reasons, but I'm not spending my time in a foreign land sticking a lens deep into buttercups. Leave the 100 home. It's a fine lens, but again, the focal length is covered.

4. The UWA suggestions are great -- that's a way to get pictures you can get no other way. And that area does cry out for it. But it's not in your options. Make the most of your 24mm capability.

As for what to see when you're there, you can't see it all. You could move to northern CA today and in the rest of your life you wouldn't see everything worth seeing.

After San Francisco (and I'm presuming Napa Valley and wine country, etc.) go over to Sacramento, California's capital city. Then take Rt. 49 south through gold rush country. I used to live there. See the little towns like Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Murphys (and the beautiful Ironstone Winery), Sonora (where most of the American western movies have been filmed), and Columbia State Historic Park. By then you're close to Yosemite and can work your way through that tourist bloated wonder. If you're out after dark there, be ready for mosquitoes.

It's a visually amazing area. Enjoy!!

 

[kubelik]

it depends on whether you're taking the trip mostly to hike and spend time with your family, or mostly to photograph. if you're really set of maximizing your photographic opportunities, pretty much all of your lenses should fit very easily into a medium-to-large sized photo backpack. At worst, leave the 50 f/1.4 and 40 f/2.8 in the car while you go hiking, as I doubt you'll use them during daylight hours on a trail.

if your focus is mainly on hiking, I think you'd actually be in good shape with just the 24-105L on your 6D. with that, you can choose whether or not to bring a tripod, even, since you have the IS. I don't know what the wildlife in Yosemite is like, if it's as plentiful as it is in Yellowstone then perhaps you'll want to carry the 200 f/2.8 as well, at most.

 

[distant.star]

.
One thing I forgot.

Polarizing filter and an ND filter or two. Lots of light out there!!