[KatPal]

Ok, I must be getting addicted, but this is my third posted question of this past week. I have received amazing advice so far.
I am planning 15 or 12-24mm(still to purchase), I have 40mm DA, 100mm macro/tele(still to purchase), and I have 300mm DA since I am obsessed with critters.

What lenses would pack if you were to capture beauty of rocks/nature/snow in Zion and Bryce, as well as bighorn sheep and occasional critter, and then went to Salt lake city for skiing for 2 days and wanted to capture landscapes from up above and also skiers and chalets/villages, to later covert to tilt shift in Photoshop like so:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tilt+shift+ski&client=safari&rls=en&source=l...w=1346&bih=515

My ideal result of this trip will be: interesting images of hoodoos and canyons from above, and some canyons an narrows from inside/within narrows and shooting up into those amazing red colors. I thought 100macro/tele and 12-24 or 15mm(any advantage of one over another?) Also want to try fake tilt shift on hoodoos and hikers like this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tilt+shift+ski&client=safari&rls=en&source=l...t+bryce+canyon

What lenses for Utah parks? I am thinking all every day :-( 12-24/15 + 40 + 100 + 300 I know this is heavy but how do i get around all these varied image needs?

Interesting animals images are always my goal is 300 enough for this trip or should I rent 60-250 or 55-300 to be more versatile for general wildlife this time, since I can't have as much space to back up and away with too long a lens?

Interesting/cute and picturesque images of snow covered salt lake city area,mountains, valleys, and skiers having fun, not necessarily action, more like swiss postcard. Will try my hand at fake tilt shift when I return. Is 100 and 40 mm sufficient?

If you were going on a trip of your lifetime grossly overpriced due to holiday season, and wanted to make the most of it(this one includes NYE Vegas as well, but I'm not interested in city and people photos), to Utah's canyons and SLC, what lenses would you ideally have, and keep in mind one will have to swap lenses frequently as well as lug it around. Wwould 100mm macro/tele be enough for the whole trip gereral/far landscape/ppl/skiing and close animals or do i need to con sider the zoom of 55-300 or 60-250 as well? I can also rent one of the lenses for this trip. instead of buying all. Basically I will buy two lenses on Friday.

Last thing- I have a informant sling shoulder bag for my gear that fits camera+300mmDA +40mmDA+50mmAsahi. Of course now i need more bag with at least 2 new lenses, but also, honestly as versatile as shoulder bag is for quick action, for serious hiking, it is killing me. I need a camera backpack, any recommendations? I always wonder if they have a bag that i can flip to the front, as I am extremely paranoid about falling on my back while hiking downhill on rocks and smashing my backpack gear with my whole weight-any tips?


Thank you all for advice- especially the regulars, as they can see I am frantically planning this trip...also I am going with hubby, so freaking out about him hassling me when I want to stay just a little longer to tai the perfect shot.

[jatrax]

A good all around kit would be 12-24, 16-85 and 60-250. The 300mm would give you extra reach.

For wildlife in the national parks, in my experience, 300mm is too short. Rent the 150-450 if you are serious. If it was me I would either buy or rent the 150-450 plus the 1.4tc or maybe the Sigma 500mm.

Take the 100mm macro if you want but unless you are shooting bugs the 60-250 will suffice.

[Bonobo]

I was in Bryce and Zion this past July. I did 80% of my shooting with the DA* 16-50 (not on your list), the other 20% with the DA 15. Everything that wasn't a wide vista sort of landscape I handled with 50mm and under. The wildlife is all really habituated and bighorns frequently come up to the roadside. You'll hit 'traffic jams' where everyone is trying to get selfies with their phones, standing near the wildlife on the road. There are better shots to be had, but are you going to be sitting in one place long enough to get them? Or will you be hiking and trying to snap opportunistically?

Maybe instead of the 12-24, you opt for the faster, slightly more versatile walkaround zoom, since you have the 15 already and it's more than enough for landscapes. The 16-50 is good and for me the weather sealing was the clinching factor, but a Tamron 17-50 or sigma could be had relatively cheaply. Sometimes near the $200 mark. That matched with your 300 and 15 would cover a lot of ground, minimize lens swapping, and force you to consider each shooting opportunity/day with a level of intentionality. The newer 16-85, 18-135 are also options, as mentioned by Jatrax.

As for bags, maybe bring something smaller and only one/two lenses per outing? Personally, if you're really going for the hike, its better to preplan what shots you think you'll get and choose one lens for it all. I have a great Kata slingbag that is really comfortable, but it's a one/two lens max bag. Your description makes me think of the Mindshift Panorama bag that allows you to rotate the hip pack either front or back. They're expensive but actually more comfortable than you'd expect and top of the line quality. Other than that, I love my Lowepro backpacks especially, though they don't get used much. Too big. Great carry on and city walker but hiking I prefer to be less encumbered.

[frogoutofwater]

I'm somewhat obsessive about camera bags, and I'm always looking for one that delivers comfort, capacity, access and protection in a light enough and well-balanced package that suits my frame. (I'm a 5'7" woman with fairly broad shoulders - and a really bad back.) I find that a lot of the bags that people on this forum recommend are just way to heavy when loaded with gear, so I need to compromise a bit on protection in order to get the load down.

My two current favorites are:

The LowePro 200AW Photo Sport
Lowepro Photo Sport 200 AW Backpack (Black) LP36353 B&H Photo

The ClikElite Probody Sport
Probody Sport | | Clik Elite

I carry the LowePro when I have a larger amount of gear to carry, especially when I'm travelling and want to bring my Dell XPS Laptop 13 as carry-on (a thin laptop up to abotu 12" will fit in the water bladder). I took it to Borneo in 2014 and ti worked well on that trip, and I've used it for a number of other trips since then. It has a nice, padded hipbelt that lifts some of the weight off your back, and the back is moulded to feel comfortable and reduce stickiness when you sweat. The dedicated camera chamber is somewhat larger than the ClikElite Probody - probably would be a better choice if you plan to take a long lens with you. The way it opens, you slide the pack off one shoulder, twist it around and open it to take your camera out, which makes it a good bag if you're hiking but don't always have your camera in hand. The bag also has a built-in rain cover. You can attach a tripod with straps at the bottom. The front pocket with bungee cords is useful if you want to stuff something like a lightweight sweater into the bag. You can also fit some extra camera gear into the top compartment but there is no padding, so when I do this I usually put my lens (or flash) into a wrap or some kind of protective bag.

I like the ClikElite when I want to carry somewhat less gear with me and basically don't want to feel the bag on my back at all when I move. I find it a bit better organized inside, but to date it's been a somewhat harder bag to access while I'm in the field. I find that I have to take it off to access it. I'm more inclined to stuff important small things into my pockets (rocket blower, lens cap, etc) if I think I'll need them in the field. That said, I think it provides more padding for gear - and I find it feels very secure when I'm wearing it - so it's great when I want to bring some extra lens on an excursion - but don't really want to think about them while I'm on the move. It's also solid black and although it's a backpack, I feel like it blends in a little better in a city environment.

I don't recommend the sling version of the Lowepro - although it was easy to access, it was hard on my neck and didn't have enough storage.

I'm not much of a hiker, but I don't think it's a good idea to sling gear (or a bag) to your front when you're hiking downhill. That is likely to make you front/top-heavy, and increase the likelihood that you'll trip and fall forward. Not to mention the fact that having a bag at your front could obscure your ability to see where your feet are going.

You might consider getting something like a Cotton Carrier vest (BTW, not made of cotton) to hold your camera while you're hiking, while still carrying a small backpack on your back - if you wanted to have a camera at the ready but still have your hands free to help while you're hiking.

[CreationBear]

That sounds like a great adventure! I think I'd reinforce the good advice to go as light as possible (or make hubby carry the big pack, which is my wife's MO ) -- both for safety's sake and because, if you're like me, getting landscape shots involves both mobility and agility. I'd have you give as much thought to your choice of footwear (and hopefully trekking poles as well) as you do to your camera system load-out.


Otherwise, if you do happen to have a backpack that's dialed in already, a camera insert like those from F-stop
ICU - Product
might make for a neat system.

[dave2k]

I visited the Southwest this past summer and much of my focus (pun intended) was to get great photos of the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon and Zion Canyon. I also like taking pictures of living creatures so my interests are not unlike yours. I've been going on photo trips like this for at least five years. I've attempted to optimize my lenses over the same period. My current lenses of choice for such a trip would be:
Sigma 17-50
Sigma 10-20 f 3.5-4.5 or the Sigma 8-16
Sigma 50-150
Tamron 1.4x teleconverter

This group effectively covers 8 - 210 mm. I also own the Pentax 60-250 and 300. I find the Sigmas to be quite sharp and reasonably priced. As you can see, I prefer zooms for their flexibility. There are many places where you cannot zoom with your feet and I like to minimize lens swapping and cropping. I used to use wider zooms like the Pentax 55-300 but the picture quality was not quite satisfactory for enlargements. The vast majority of my shots are with the Sigma 17-50 which is my favorite lens and covers most of the shots I take. While the 60-250 and 300 are excellent lenses, the 300 is just not very versatile and both are rather heavy. I find I take a small number of shots with a focal length longer than 150 x 1.4 and I could not justify the weight for the number of shots. I use a program to analyze my shots by focal length after every trip so I know exactly what I use. I was very happy with my Tamrac 3375 backpack with a side opening that is accessible without taking the backpack all the way off. However, I recently decided I needed more of a tripod on my trips than my handy, large Gorilla Pod so I now have a Manfrotto travel backpack with a matching carbon fiber BeFree tripod. This backpack also allows gear access without taking the backpack off. After a couple of adventures with this pair I'm very satisfied. After tweaking my equipment every year I think this set-up is about perfect. I could see swapping the 50-150 out for the 60-250 if I ever think I'll take more shots with a longer focal length. Good luck on your pending adventure!

[WPRESTO]

Some parts of Zion get very "tight" especially if you head deep in, You're way down in a narrow valley with vertical cliffs soaring above. A super-wide would be a good choice - Sigma 10-20 (I would recommend the original version purchased used) or the 8-16 will be welcome. Another possibility is a Pentax 10-17. If you work in PS you can remove 90% or more of the fisheye distortion at the price of cropping off the corners, but I find in the majority of my f-e images there's nothing in the corners that adds significantly to the image. There's an incredible bargain price on the 10-17 @ B&H right now.
The couple times I've been to Bryce, Zion, Cedar Breaks etc. I never had an opportunity to photograph wildlife, Essentially all captured images were scenics.

[clawhammer]

Welcome to the beauty of the desert in the winter! I've spent a lot of time in Bryce/Zion/Arches, and my suggestion is this: one wide lens, one long lens, and if you absolutely have to, something in between. The more time you're switching lenses, the less you're shooting. Travel light, and force yourself to think of new shots with the same lens rather than switching lenses.

Bryce is kinda difficult to get a good wide expansive landscape shot—if the lighting's not absolutely awesome, it ends up just kinda being blah. If you're going to shoot wide angle, get up close to something and fill the foreground with it. Or try for intimate, tighter landscapes with your longer lens.

I second what wpresto said—I've been to Bryce and Zions many times and have never seen any large animals more exciting than a deer or antelope. Granted, I've never been trying to find them so maybe I'm in the wrong places at the wrong times, but it's not like Yellowstone where you can usually see a bear before you get to Old Faithful.

Also, it might not make sense, but remember, even in the desert the winter is cold. Ice on the canyon walls cold. That makes changing lenses that much more challenging. On the flip side, Weeping Rock in Zion in sub-freezing temperatures looks really cool. You're not getting into the Narrows, though, unless you're a) superman and b) have a really good dry suit. That water is cold.

Where are you staying in Salt Lake—are you in the city proper or are you at one of the resorts? Downtown can be fun with a wide-angle.

If you're going to be shooting while you're on the ski slopes, I'd almost say just bring your camera and the lens that's on it. This might be a good time for the 12-24 or a standard zoom.

Really the long and short of it is this: I think that if you take too many lenses you wast too much time switching between them or worrying if you've got the right lens on. Especially on a trip where time is a precious commodity, just bring a few and if you don't have the right lens for a particular shot, take a mental image and enjoy the awesomeness of the moment.

Welcome to Utah, and I hope we've got some snow for you when you come

[Canada_Rockies]

My park kit that I tried out this summer is just two lenses in a LowePro 100 AW. I used the DA 12-24 and the DA 55-300. I did use the M 400/5.6 with and without the AFA 1.7x rear convertor, but when I took that I left the rest in the trailer. For park walkabout, the two lens kit was just fine.

To put this in perspective: my kit with the film cameras was M 28/3.5, K 55/1.8 and M 135/3.5, so going from 24 to 55 wasn't that much of a bigger reach unfilled. That's probably why I found it OK.

[shuttles12000]

I was in Zion and Bryce in April.
Amazingly windy in the Zion canyon. Dust everywhere, so I recommend a WR lens. I have an 18-135. I'd have liked a bit wider and a bit longer, so I'd recommend 16-85 and 55-300 WR lenses for this reason alone.
I have a 8-16 Sigma which I thought I'd use in Bryce, but you end up with half Sky. Which is fine if you have an interesting Sky, but I had clear open skies almost everyday on my USA roadtrip. In the end, I used my 18-135 almost all the time. It's remarkably versatile, and critical sharpness at the edges is less an issue in Landscapes

[Oakland Rob]

I've spent a lot of time out there, and for wildlife I think you'll be OK with the 300mm. You will, of course, encounter a sheep way up on a ledge and not be able to get it. But if you rent a bigger lens, then you won't see one at all. And you won't get that critter five feet away cuz it's too close, or that quickly moving one cuz you couldn't get that big ole tele on a tripod fast enough. That's just how it goes, no?

If, OTOH, you were gonna actively hunt critters, like setting up in blind or something, then sure, get the much bigger lens. But if you are just hoping to encounter something hiking around, you want something you can deploy quickly and that is easy to carry.

I think wide angles are nice for shots where you are in dense cover, or up close to things like cliffs. But a lot of the landscapes out there are long views, and using a longer lens, and panorama stitching, is often more effective. A wide lens makes the distant cliffs too small in such cases. With the clear air and long views even a 300mm can make some nice landscape shots. But the wide angle really helps in slot canyons. And if fast, is great for night shots of stars. Plus points if you can use it as a macro as well.

[osv]

Interesting animals images are always my goal is 300 enough for this trip or should I rent 60-250 or 55-300 to be more versatile for general wildlife this time, since I can't have as much space to back up and away with too long a lens?

when i went to zion a couple of years ago, it was as a drive-thru afterthought, totally unprepared, because we had been camping on the north rim of the grand canyon, at tuweep/toroweap.

so as we drove into zion, we saw that they were playing the shuttle games on the main zion canyon scenic drive, even in november, so we just kept going on hwy 9, the zion mt. carmel hwy.

we rounded one of the tight turns, and there were some bighorn sheep on the side of a big wall, ignoring all the photographers... it looked doable for a crop fov 300mm setup? with good lighting also.

we parked further up the road, got out, and hiked into some small canyons, it was a neat experience... i bet that you could spend two weeks hiking around zion and still not see all of the secret spots.

Maps - Zion National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

[northcoastgreg]

I would not recommend taking the DA* 300. The odds that you'll run into wildlife that will be close enough for you to capture with the 300 and will be willing to hang-out long enough so you can swap lenses is pretty slim. Plus the DA* 300 is big and heavy, not always easy to carry around, and if you leave it anywhere you have to worry about it being stolen. If you must have a lens for wildlife, bring something like the DA 55-300. It's much lighter, and it can double as a telephoto landscape lens toward the wider end of the lens.

I may have a chance at spending a few days at Zion myself this winter. I don't own the DA 12-24 any more, so I'd probably take instead my DA 16-85 and a 10mm Rokinon. Or I could go all prime and take the 10mm, the 15 and 21 Limiteds, and a 28, 35, and 50 macro.