as a Forward, this summer I am going to spend a week with my dad in glacier national park during the first week of july.. I have one lens that I have already gotten rid of/traded. but I am looking into what my 2nd lens should be..
I have a canon 20d: currenty attached is and UWA siigma 10-20mm zoom.
what I am interested is what should my second lens be..??
I am thinking a sigma 24-70 F2.8 OR
a canon 28-135MM as a general purpose lens.
I am also thinking of complementing my 10-20mm lens with a 70-300mm F4-
5.6 or a 70-200mm F4 lens.
I really think the wide end would be nice for if I encounter animals I wish to photograph but 70mm is really narrow for indoor photos and leaves a huge gap from 20mm to 70mm which Im not sure of the tradeoffs and incentives
EDIT: if there is any confusion I have a 20d and a sigma 10-20mm lens at the moment.... what shold be used to supplement this combo? mid range general purpose, or a longer range lens ?
It really depends what your budget is, and what you want to take pictures of. A 70-200mm lens is a good all around lens. It is useful for landscapes, environmental portraits, etc. If you are planning on taking pictures of wildlife, then you probably need the longest lens you can afford. Other than a few small birds, squirrels or lizards, nothing will be close enough to get good isolated shots of with the 70-200. You can add a 1.4xTC and still AF with the 20D, but that's still not a very long lens for wildlife.
More details needed to make a good recommendation.
You'll want full coverage from ultrawide to tele. If you have any gaps, you'll kick yourself because there are shots everywhere of scenery and wildlife.
Then there are postcard shots everywhere for your WA. Back in 2003 there were fires tht turned everything blue and hazy. Hopefully you won't run into that. We could only get to the summit at Logan's Pass since the west side was closed.
Monkey Falls wrote:
It really depends what your budget is,
More details needed to make a good recommendation.
I have the 10-20mm lens and my budget can only allow 1 more lens to bring. so I can either get something that is in the mid range IE. the 28-135, 24-70. Or something that offers a bit more long range coverage IE, canon 70-300mm f4-5.6.
I just want to figure out what I will be more dissapointed in not having. I guess my main priority isn't really to take pictures of animals or anything from long distances like something you would see with a 4-500mm lens (can't afford those at all).
I think i just want something that will allow me to get pictures of the views and scenery and whatever I encounter while there. My thinking is that if I want to take pictures with people in them then 20mm can be workable so what I already have might be find to do that. while a mid range lens might be better for pictures with people in them, will I be dissapointed that I didn't have the range to get the best picture from something that's far away. previously my only lens for a long time was the canon 85mm prime so I'm used to having to stand back to get people in a shot.
I think saying getting pictures of animals in my first post wasn't exactly accurate. It would be nice to have the opportunity, but it's not a priority. I guess I am just looking for what you would rather be without. if you have a 10-20mm and you other option is in the range of 24-135 depending what i pick, or something with more range like the canon 70-300mm lens.
Also I'm not mainly looking at it as a photography trip but more of a chance to go hiking and experience the park. I'm not exactly looking for professional images so would it not be a bad choice to grab the canon 55-250mm lens. that way it has slightly wider range but also a bit Less long range to it.
There's a reason that you have a UWA now. If you are happy with that lens, it's an indicator that that is how you view your environment. In that light, I would choose something more midrange like the 28-135mm.
IMO, the trinity for going on a landscape shoot is a wide, mid, and long setup. For me on a FF that's the 17-40, 25-105, 70-200 +1.4tc. For a 1.6 crop body you have the wide covered and since you only have funding for one more the decission you have to make is how do you generally see ? Given you only have a wide angle it would appear you see wide.
There hasn't been indication of budget but I will tell you that in the long run you will spend less if you get "good glass" up front. Otherwise, you just keep respending as you realize what you have is no longer acceptable. If you can I would get either the 24-105 f4 IS or the 70-200 f4 IS.
If these are not in the cards, by a used 28-135 IS. It has its limitations in quality vs L-glass but will probably fit your current needs. If you stay in photography this will be one you eventually discard.
BTW: here is view of some of the sights you can expect to see
My own experience in Glacier suggests that your next lens be one of the 70-200s and probably a 1.4TC, if you can afford it. You don't mention a tripod, but it may be as important as a lens. By all means get a high-quality lens, whatever the focal length. Keep the hoods on. (And take a little knit hat along for yourself; it can make a huge difference in your comfort and even safety.)
The advantage of the longer lenses is not only the obvious one of shooting distant wildlife, but also that of compressing the landscape so that the color gradations in the lines of mountain ridges can provide a nice backdrop. Have fun!
l live near Glacier and have a geezer pass that gets me in free to National Parks. Lenses that get used the most there most on my crop body are my 10-22, 100mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 15-85. I carry a 1.4TC with me and sometimes use it with the 70-200.
Given your 20D, I'd suggest sticking with your 10-20 (as another poster mentioned, you have that lens for a reason). I actually wouldn't worry about the middle range, unless there's something in particular you want to shoot there. Your 20mm end of the zoom on a 20D is like a 35mm lens on FF (OK, 32mm, no biggie)-- a focal length I find useful to the vast majority of shooting in day-to-day situations. People, close scenes, tight spaces, you name it.
If you're interested in wildlife, go as long as you can. A 70 to 200 f/4 sounds great (if you can afford it). Perhaps consider a cheap 1.4 TC (non-Canon).
And if you are concerned about low-light and middle focal length-- and since you're on a budget-- try to find a nifty fifty (50 1.8) for $50 used. Great lens, would fill out your range... though I'd argue it's not necessary.
dhracer1067 wrote:
as a Forward, this summer I am going to spend a week with my dad in glacier national park during the first week of july.
As others have said you need wide and long. I personally rarely shoot mid-range, but that is me.
During the first week of July you will also need to add a snow plow to your kit --- a big, beefy, motorized one. More than 50% of the park was closed during the Independence Day holiday this year. There is a high chance that the main road will not be open, which will cut off your access to half the park.
Glacier is a much safer bet for Labor day, this year even during Labor day significant pieces of the park were not accessible to casual tourism.
Last year was an exceptional snow year for the Montana mountains. This year there's much less. Of course, there's still plenty of time for more to come along.
I went to Glacier NP a year or 2 ago with a 14mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm (on full frame). I didn't use the 50mm once, and used the other 3 lenses about equally. There were a few times where I wished I had a longer focal length, but I managed to get quite a few good shots with just those 3 primes.
You need to do an analysis that includes what you can reasonably expect, in addition to what would be optimal. If you want your pictures to record Glacier the way Ansel Adams would have done it, you are already pushing your luck. Your 20D all but rules that out. You mostly can't even come up with a 35mm-camera-facsimile of the Adams approach, because for a crop camera you can't get a wide-angle lens with shifts (the 17 TS-E might get you almost there, but focusing could be an issue with the 20D). And if you point your unshiftable wide zoom up at those mountain peaks, converging perspective is going to make them look small. You might get lucky with that zoom, and get just the right framing with the camera dead level, and the right light to go along with it, but that is not likely to be a productive way to work.
So your best choice might be to pick a lens that optimizes the pictures your crop camera can produce (the 70-200 has its points, an 85mm f/1.8 is extremely cost effective, a 24-70 zoom is versatile, and nobody ever goes far wrong buying the 135mm f/2). Any of those will add a lot to your Glacier experience. My advice is usually to buy the best lens you think will help. That would point to the 85 or the 135, unless you want to spring for an expensive Canon L zoom.
The Tamron thread on another forum really likes several lenses you might be
interested in...
18-270, the 70-300, the 28-300, the 24-135...
You might want to check these out for your price range...
PM me and I will get you the other forum so you can evaluate by looking
at the pictures posted...nice long thread too!
I think my budget is going to be around $500, so I could afford the 70-200 f4 (non is), which is what i'm leaning towards. As the poster above suggested I feel like 20mm is probably good enough zoom for things that are close, and that lens should cover the wide angle I really want at 10mm. I had an 85mm prime for a long time which I just got rid of to get the UWA zoom. I had a 70-200 before at one point before I sold it because I needed money, but I really like it and after being stuck with only an 85mm lens it seems like 70mm should be easy to deal with even if I would like something a little bit wider for something..
I'm not really going for super professional photos ie. ansel adams above. Just something to document the trip and what not.
i'm a nikon shooter, and haven't been to glacier, but when my wife and i hiked in the yosemite backcountry for five days i took my d300 and two lenses--a sigma 10-20 and a nikon 18-200vr. i used the 18-200 about 90% of the time, only took out the sigma on a few occasions there was a particularly broad landscape. the pix all came out great, since we had good light and i didn't have to 'push' the capabilities of the lens. there really isn't much wildlife in the yosemite backcountry so i did not miss a longer lens, but from what i hear glacier is a bit different. if you are likely to want to take pix of wildlife, as others have said, go as long as you can afford and as much as you can comfortably carry. have fun!
Go with the 24 -70 or similar. I was there this past summer and found myself using my 24 - 105L all the time (with a 5D)....most often at the wide angle end of the scale. There were a few times that we saw bears and I wished I had my 70 - 200 but then if you're close enough to get detail at 200mm then you're way too close period. I'd seriously go for quality optics over wider zoom focal range. The scenery is just outstanding and you'll want to capture it with the best lenses you can afford. You should also consider a good tripod...or at least a good monopod.
BTW, that's a trip of a lifetime. Finally, buy a can of bear spray. Costs $60. Can't bring it home and I hope you don't have to use it but you'll be very glad to have it during your visit. We accidentally came within 30 yards of a young grizzley. Photography was the last thing we were thinking of........
owentn wrote:
BTW, that's a trip of a lifetime. Finally, buy a can of bear spray. Costs $60. Can't bring it home and I hope you don't have to use it but you'll be very glad to have it during your visit. We accidentally came within 30 yards of a young grizzley. Photography was the last thing we were thinking of........
Yeah, definitely planning on the bear spray! I'm hoping I can come upon some safe animals(relative) though... But I hope it's not the trip of my life time, I'll only just be turning 22 in a bit less than a month.
If I want an L lens my only choice really is the 70-200mm F4L, unless there are other L's that can be had for $500 or under. The 24-105mm L I would get if I had another 400 bucks, but that's just not in the picture. I could maybe swing an off brand 24-70 if I sold my UWA zoom, but I had a sigma 24-60 F2.8 a while back and I never felt like 24mm was wide enough for what I wanted. I guess where I'm going isn't going to compare to any situation I have been in before though.
The canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 has popped into my mind though. Any thoughts on that as just keeping a single lens around and then possibly upgrading the 20D to like a 40-50D. That would give me the ability of having the wide angle which I absolutely want, a lot more in the middle, and with a much higher resolution on the 50D I could crop the image more than I could on my current body and make the 85mm seem a little bit longer.
I know that wouldn't really be optimal to just crop down to appear to have a longer lens but I doubt anything will get printed bigger than a regular 4x6, and most likely just sit in an album on my computer. At this point I think i'm just confusing myself about what I really want to do.
