I'm driving through northern Arizona 2nd week of July and staying at the South Rim hotel for a couple of days.

What lens and setup would be best, I'd like to get some nice sunrise and sunset shots? Here is my profile:

EOS 5D
EOS 5 - Film
Canon G9 P&S

Canon EF 16-35 II f/2.8L
Canon EF 35 f/1.4L
Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS
Canon EF 50 f/1.4
Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

Canon 580EX Speedlite
Canon 220EX Speedlite
Canon Angle Finder C
Canon TC80N3 Remote

Gitzo 1257 Tripod + Arca Swiss Z1 Ball Head
Gitzo GM2540 + Manfrotto MPA-1 Tilt/Swivel Head

When I was there I had my 10-22 on my 20D 90% of the time; on the next trip it was my 17-40L on my 5D 90% of the time. There are opportunities to put other lenses to use, but I think the majority of the time it would be the 16-35.

Taken with the 17-40L:

Any recommendations on filters? The 16-35 has a 82mm filter size.
I'm going to send my 16-35 off next week for calibration to Canon Irvine. I hope I can get it back by Monday July 7th before I leave the next day.


I was thinking of the 16-35 and 70-200 or 100-400 with tripod.

I used a polarizer for many of my Grand Canyon photos, but you have to watch out on the wide angle lenses because of uneven polarization in the sky. If you're lucky enough to have some clouds in the sky you can compose to avoid it.

If you aren't satisfied with the performance/calibration of your 16-35, you might consider just taking the 24-105, which I'm sure would work well for most shooting situations. You can't get the extreme wideangle perspectives with it, but 24 mm at the wide end should suffice. If you want wider you could always take a few frames and stitch later.

That's one thing I regret not getting into prior to my Grand Canyon trips -- panos. I'll be sure to do some next time, though.

I forgot to address the question of a telephoto lens. You seem to be considering lugging the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 along with you. Honestly, I wouldn't recommend it. I had the 70-200/4L with me, and the opportunities to use it at the Grand Canyon just didn't present themselves very often. Had it been the f/2.8 I would have regretted lugging it.

The 100-400 could be useful if you want photos of wildlife like Condors, but again I think the main draw is the Canyon itself, for which a 100-400 wouldn't be terribly useful.

My 24-105 is amazingly sharp, although not the fastest, its corners from 24-50 are the sharpest I've seen outside of primes. Is there any reason to take anything longer than 100 since I really won't be doing wildlife?

15mm fisheye, PP to defish later, that lens is the BEST & the sharpest, WA for MOST purposes. For anything else, 24-105 & 100-400.

rsg_1 wrote:
My 24-105 is amazingly sharp, although not the fastest, its corners from 24-50 are the sharpest I've seen outside of primes. Is there any reason to take anything longer than 100 since I really won't be doing wildlife?

We crossposted; I addressed the question of a tele zoom in my previous answer.

Mike, now you've done it. Forcing me to buy more lenses!

Thanks moondigger!

If you have time, and since the canyon doesn't move very much - for the ultimate in high resolution and quality - consider panoramics via stitching.

Use a long zoom, tripod, rotating shots and stitch them together with common software out there - achieving uber-resolution quite easily.

There is always the need for capturing everything in one shot - but for most landscapes, stitching panos is the way to go IMHO.

For what it's worth, I disagree about the 15 fish being the best wideangle choice. It's a nice lens, and it can produce some really nice images whether defished in post or not. But you're stuck with only one focal length, a 'special effect' look that can get old after the first dozen images, and the defishing process kills resolution at the pixel level. (i.e., Areas covered by a limited number of pixels are being expanded to fill bigger areas.)

A wide zoom like the 16-35 or 17-40 is the best wideangle choice, IMO.

Since I'm staying at the Yavpai Lodge for 2 nights, a 1/4 mile from the South Rim, I want to catch the sunsets and sunrises as it hits the canyon. Could I do good stitching if I use 105 on the 24-105 on my tripod?

Maybe all I need to take is the 24-105 and tripod.

105 mm might be a little long unless you want to stitch dozens of frames for a 100 - 200 megapixel image.

You can make great panos in the 30-60 megapixel range shooting 4-8 frames at 35-50 mm. If you've never done panos before, I'd suggest giving the free trial version of AutoPano Pro a try. If you don't have a panoramic tripod head, that would be the easiest software to use and best able to handle the inevitable parallax error.

I visited the Grand Canyon twice with my EOS-650 film body (some 15 years ago). I remember I used my 24/2.8 the most.

My vote goes for the 16-35 for its wide angle awesomeness, the 24-105 for its range and pano potential, and the 100-400 for detailed shots of the canyon walls. Bring those three with your tripod and you'll be all set.

Honestly, the guidebooks recommend normal focal lengths at the grand canyon and my experience agrees with this.

If you're going down into the canyon, then ultrawides can be interesting, but at the top, they will tend to minimize the awesome scale of the canyon. Telephotos often don't capture enough of the scene to convey the scale. So normal lenses tend to work out just right.

I would recommend that you use the 24-105 as your primary lens and keep to the 35mm and up focal lengths. As you say, that lens with a tripod will be very useful, probably all you'll want. I'm also not sure you'll find that you need a telephoto. I used mine only around camp to catch photos of stellar jays and kaibob squirrels on the North Rim. For that kind of stuff, the 100-400 would be most appropriate.

I was very happy with my shots from my last trip to the canyon and used mostly 35-60mm equivalent focal lengths.

rsg_1 wrote:
Mike, now you've done it. Forcing me to buy more lenses!

Thanks moondigger!

Sorry, I had to do it

My experience from both rims of the Canyon would say to include the 16-35 II and the 24-105 for sure. I personally would not send your 16-35 out hoping to get it back in time unless it has serious problems. You did not say what is wrong, but if it is a focus issue, you can likely live with hiding the problem in its depth of field, or using your angle finder for critical manual focus.

I personally would also want a longer lens, but it depends on what you like to do. I really enjoy reaching out and getting detail of canyon walls, and I did enjoy taking a lot of shots of the Condors soaring just off the edge of the South Rim. So if you can manage it, taking the 100-400 along would be nice.

You want a good tripod for the sunrise and sunset shots. And your cable release is a required option. I already mentioned your angle finder, and it can help you focus in dark conditions where your autofocus may not quite lock on. Not sure if you have any graduated neutral density filters, but they can be useful for sunrises and sun sets. If not, bracket over a wide exposure range and try post process combining. The deep canyon in front of you and the light sky above the rim present a very high contrast at sunrise, making it important to be prepared to handle it.

Panoramas are great to take if you get a chance. Without a pano head, it is best to level your tripod well, so be prepared with some form of level it your tripod does not have one built in. And remember manual focus and manual exposure, for consistent shots to look good all as one.

A good polarizer for your 24-105 is well worth the investment. Besides deepening blue sky, the color saturation of the canyon and its greenery can both be enhanced. Once you get past the actual sunrise, include the use of a polarizer, and experiment with seeing its effects through the viewfinder. Do not worry about a polarizer for your 16-35 II with its 82mm front threads, because most really wide shots suffer too much from the variation of the polarizer effects across the width of the frame.

Be very careful near the edge of the canyon, especially when it is not very light. You should have a good small flashlight in your photo bag to be very sure of your surroundings and movements, and it can be helpful to set up your gear in the early hours of the day. Even when it is light, it can be easy to get excited about photo opprotunities and forget you are 2 feet away from a 500 foot fall, so keep that in mind.

Be prepared for wind and rain for yourself and your photo gear. And do not give up on going out if the weather seems poor. You can get some really interesting and exciting shots in mixed weather, and it can add a lot of variety to what might have been just another canyon photo.

My 16-35 at 16 is soft on the left side and corners when wide open at f/2.8. It goes away after f/11.

Thanks for the filter advice and I pray we don't have too much rain for the couple of days I'm there.

rsg_1 wrote:
Any recommendations on filters? The 16-35 has a 82mm filter size.
I'm going to send my 16-35 off next week for calibration to Canon Irvine. I hope I can get it back by Monday July 7th before I leave the next day.


I would strongly advise against doing that, unless you're CPS. Turnaround time for me has been 2 weeks at best, more like 3 weeks, for lens repair / calibration. With the long weekend ahead I'd expect delays.

I have to send in my 1Ds3, 24-70 and 28-300 and I am waiting. I'll send in my 28-300 today because it's so out of whack as to be useless, but the rest still more or less works and I'll wait until after my vacation in July to send it in.

As for filters for the 16-35 - get a polarizer if you like that kind of stuff. I have a SinghRay, but use it very rarely as I am not a big fan of the look.

Ariel Bravy wrote:
My vote goes for the 16-35 for its wide angle awesomeness, the 24-105 for its range and pano potential, and the 100-400 for detailed shots of the canyon walls. Bring those three with your tripod and you'll be all set.

Ditto, although I would hesitate between the 70-200 and the 100-400, as my 70-200 is sharper. I'd definitely take a telezoom with me, even though others have advocated against it, for the simple reason of Moondigger's 2nd image: I usually prefer compressed landscapes above wide-angled ones.

Emile Gregoire wrote:
Ditto, although I would hesitate between the 70-200 and the 100-400, as my 70-200 is sharper. I'd definitely take a telezoom with me, even though others have advocated against it, for the simple reason of Moondigger's 2nd image: I usually prefer compressed landscapes above wide-angled ones.

Yeah, it felt kind of strange to advocate leaving his 70-200 home when one of my sample images was taken with a 70-200. However I can sort of justify it because mine's an f/4, and hence much lighter and a bit less bulky than his, which is f/2.8. Seems pointless to lug something like that and then only use it for ten or twenty frames out of a thousand.

Plus, the OP has coverage out to 105 mm with his 24-105; other than the 70-200, I had nothing with me longer than 50 mm.

I found a polarizer very helpful for cutting haze in the canyon. I also used my 70-200 to isolate different buttes and shadows when the sun was out.

I use mostly mid and long lenses there. IMO, you don't have to worry about foreground when shooting there, since it diminishes the impact of the canyon itself. You'll probably shoot most of your shots with the 24-105mm and 70-200mm.

Ariel Bravy wrote:
My vote goes for the 16-35 for its wide angle awesomeness, the 24-105 for its range and pano potential, and the 100-400 for detailed shots of the canyon walls. Bring those three with your tripod and you'll be all set.

From my experience, I'd definitely agree with this lens selection. During the last time I was at the South Rim I was surprised how much I used the 100-400. It was great to zoom in on the Colorado from those viewpoints where you could actually see the river.