lens choice for Yosemite

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
I will be making a short trip to Yosemite while on a business trip (3 days to spend there) and haven't visited before. I'd like to only take 2 lenses if possible and will do primarily landscape pics (5DSR body and tripod will come, of course). I'm not sure if I should take the 11-24 + the 70-200 II, or the 16-35 III plus the 70-200. Is the 16 wide enough? I can always take both and hike with only the one I think I need once I'm there. I like to shoot panos, which expands the FOV, but they aren't always as effective. Would appreciate advice.
 

mnclayshooter

I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
Oct 28, 2013
314
0
Minnesota, USA
Agree with prior response - ability to have filters is important unless you can set up and wait for lighting to be "just right" for a naked lens approach. Given your timeline, I doubt that's the case.


I hiked around Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain National Park somewhat recently and had the 16-35 on about 95% of the time. The 100-400 came out occasionally. I didn't own a copy of the 70-200 at that time, but I would have likely used it in lieu of the 100-400 then. The beauty for me was the ability to use a 77mm filter the whole time - I had either my ND 4 and CPL on almost all of the time.


11-24 is an awesome lens to be certain though. 16-35 is certainly a lot lighter and less bulbous/prone to exposed damage. Is that a factor?


Joe
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,346
3,678
120
takesome1 said:
Which one do your filters fit on.
I would go with it.
I wouldn't give a second thought to filters unless you felt the need to use a CPL, which has limited use on ultrawides and panos anyway. For everything else I'd bracket and blend.
 

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
99
Licking, Missouri
privatebydesign said:
takesome1 said:
Which one do your filters fit on.
I would go with it.
I wouldn't give a second thought to filters unless you felt the need to use a CPL, which has limited use on ultrawides and panos anyway. For everything else I'd bracket and blend.
That could work to.
I guess if we were using a camera with enough DR we wouldn't even have to blend. Just adjust.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
836
280
16mm was wide enough for me when I was there a few years ago. Further, I use my 16-35 very much in the 24-35mm range, and wouldn't give up that range for the possibility of going wider. If you need wider, you can make a panorama.

Yosemite is fantastic. Have a great trip!
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,346
3,678
120
takesome1 said:
privatebydesign said:
takesome1 said:
Which one do your filters fit on.
I would go with it.
I wouldn't give a second thought to filters unless you felt the need to use a CPL, which has limited use on ultrawides and panos anyway. For everything else I'd bracket and blend.
That could work to.
I guess if we were using a camera with enough DR we wouldn't even have to blend. Just adjust.
Depends what you consider enough and how much you might want to move any tones within the image. Certainly it isn't out of bounds to do three stop lifts to shadow areas in valley landscapes and nothing gives you better tonality than an optimally exposed image, which would suggest at least two exposures. Throw in the fact than mountain/valley landscapes practically never lend themselves to split filters it makes blending a technique capable of higher end results than many filter solutions.
 

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
Thanks for the replies.

Goes w/o saying that I will take my CPL filters for the 70-200 and 16-35. I haven't invested in a filter system for the 11-24. As noted by other posters, UWA + CPL leads to too strong a gradient in the sky. I will certainly shoot a lot of HDR which lets me capture a wider DR. My main question was whether I really needed the 117 degree horizontal FOV of the 11mm versus the 98 degree of the 16. I will be shooting panos, so the option of stitching multiple vertical frames means the 16 can cover a lot.

I'm leaning toward taking both, but trying to pick one for hiking.
 

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
mnclayshooter said:
Agree with prior response - ability to have filters is important unless you can set up and wait for lighting to be "just right" for a naked lens approach. Given your timeline, I doubt that's the case.


I hiked around Yellowstone and Rocky Mountain National Park somewhat recently and had the 16-35 on about 95% of the time. The 100-400 came out occasionally. I didn't own a copy of the 70-200 at that time, but I would have likely used it in lieu of the 100-400 then. The beauty for me was the ability to use a 77mm filter the whole time - I had either my ND 4 and CPL on almost all of the time.


11-24 is an awesome lens to be certain though. 16-35 is certainly a lot lighter and less bulbous/prone to exposed damage. Is that a factor?


Joe
Thanks Joe - good to hear that you didn't feel a need for wider than 16. I'm not too concerned about damaging the 11-24 (he says now), but the weight is a factor since I will be hiking with the camera and lens on my tripod over my shoulder. The 70-200 and the 11-24 are both bricks and even with a lot of padding on my tripod, I will be hurting by the end of each day. I'll be using the 16-35 2.8 III, so will need both 77 and 82 filters. I'm looking forward to an update to the 70-200 that decreases vignetting with filters. Even with an ultra thin B&W CPL, it is a real problem with the 70-200 2.8 II.
 

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
ethanz said:
I'd really think the 16 would be wide enough. There is plenty of room to walk around to get the shot you need.
thanks ethanz - I guess I was imagining scenarios like in this pic from a hike in Switzerland last fall. Without the 11 mm, I would have struggled to capture this scene. The lake at the bottom left is ~800' below our trail and I had no where to go to frame the shot with a 16mm (not being a goat).
 

Attachments

dadohead

EOS M50
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2011
34
3
I just got back from three weeks of hiking the Sawtooths, the Tetons and Yellowstone. I had an 11-24, a 24TSE and a 100-400. Yosemite is compact; take the 11-24; as you know, it will get you frames your 16-35 just won't get.
 

Attachments

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
Just finished the trip yesterday. I did take the 11-24 but carried it on 2 out of 4 hikes. It proved handy for pano's like this one from beside Nevada falls (stitched from 7 portrait orientation HDR images, @11mm, ISO 100, 5DSR). I only had my laptop to process this image, so I think it will be better when done on my home system with PS (used PTGui on this file and it didn't like an 11mm rectilinear lens). There was a lot of smoke in the valley - ergo the interesting sky.
 

Attachments

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
Great Shot Vern

The sun in the upper left corner is distorted. Is this due to the lens or the clouds?

Thanks for sharing.

scott

Vern said:
ethanz said:
I'd really think the 16 would be wide enough. There is plenty of room to walk around to get the shot you need.
thanks ethanz - I guess I was imagining scenarios like in this pic from a hike in Switzerland last fall. Without the 11 mm, I would have struggled to capture this scene. The lake at the bottom left is ~800' below our trail and I had no where to go to frame the shot with a 16mm (not being a goat).
 

Vern

EOS RP
Jun 11, 2013
419
135
scottkinfw said:
Great Shot Vern

The sun in the upper left corner is distorted. Is this due to the lens or the clouds?

Thanks for sharing.

scott

Vern said:
ethanz said:
I'd really think the 16 would be wide enough. There is plenty of room to walk around to get the shot you need.
thanks ethanz - I guess I was imagining scenarios like in this pic from a hike in Switzerland last fall. Without the 11 mm, I would have struggled to capture this scene. The lake at the bottom left is ~800' below our trail and I had no where to go to frame the shot with a 16mm (not being a goat).
The sun is distorted b/c it is in the corner of the frame and all UWA lenses will render a round object as oblate with this framing (I think).
 
Jan 16, 2014
1,323
261
www.kbvp.com
The range from 16 to 200mm should do it. I've taken the 300 at times, but rarely used it. I always over pack. LOL I only used the 24-105 one day and it was fine.(lots of hiking and climbing)
Glacier Point has a lot to offer and I spent half my time up there. Pack a small towel if you are going near the falls.

Yosemite Geology Hut, Half Dome, Nevada Falls by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Yosemite Half Dome sunset © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Yosemite Nevada falls © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Yosemite Falls / Yosemite National Park © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Wildcat Falls Yosemite National Park © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Yosemite Falls © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

If there is a moon, go for some night shoots.

Yosemite Falls Moonbow 24 May 2013 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

El Capitan by Moonlight / Yosemite © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

Pereids meteorite Over Moonlit Yosemite Half Dome © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr
 

mnclayshooter

I love shooting - clay pigeons and photos!
Oct 28, 2013
314
0
Minnesota, USA
Vern said:
Just finished the trip yesterday. I did take the 11-24 but carried it on 2 out of 4 hikes. It proved handy for pano's like this one from beside Nevada falls (stitched from 7 portrait orientation HDR images, @11mm, ISO 100, 5DSR). I only had my laptop to process this image, so I think it will be better when done on my home system with PS (used PTGui on this file and it didn't like an 11mm rectilinear lens). There was a lot of smoke in the valley - ergo the interesting sky.

Great to get follow-up from an OP's question! pretty rare on here, to be honest. Nice shot. Glad to hear you sorted it out and had success, despite all of our good-intention-ed input! 8)