Newbie question re: Equipment for Grinnell Glacier hike?

[ashley1245]

Hello everyone,
I have learned so much information from this valuable site! I am leaving for my first Glacier trip soon, and have some questions that I'll post here and in the general forum. I will be in the park Sept 2nd-5th. I have recently taken a photography class and am learning the basics. I have a Canon EOS (the basic model), a kit lens that is 18-55, a 55-200 Canon lens, and Tamron 200-500 lens. Which of these lenses should I bring with me on the Grinnell Glacier hike? More specifically, shall I pack my Tamron (it's a little heavy, so if it's not necessary, I won't bring it). Any suggestions?
Thanks so much,
Ashley

[Hockey Ref]

I'd bring the 18-55 and 55-200. That should cover you pretty well.

The 200-500 lens would be great for wildlife shots in such areas as Fishercap Lake where you might see moose or along the Many Glacier Road where you might see bears.

[calicotraveler]

It depends on how much weight you want to carry. I usually just bring the 18-55 and that works for most things. But there are times that I wished that I had my 55-200. I usually don't bring my 70-300 lens as that just doesn't get used that much and it adds extra weight. Maybe you can get a friend to carry your Tamron lens just in case you need it??

[MYK]

I realize it's a bit late for this thread but others may read it.

I believe one of the lenses mentioned is a Canon 55-250 (not 55-200). This is an excellent lens for the money. Because Canon did not attempt to bring it down to 17 or 18 and it's not all that fast f4 - f5.6 it's a good quality, extremely light lens.

My daughter took it to a baseball game and got great shots around second base and some in the outfield (from about 15 rows up behind the plate) with the lens wide open at full tele. I was very pleasantly surprised.

It probably isn't long enough for distant wildlife but at mid-distance it should be fine.

On another topic. Many people talk about going on a trip and needing a longer lens. It's the exact opposite. Unless you're shooting wildlife what you really need is wider and not longer for scenery.

When you return from a trip and review your photos you'll notice that in many cases they just don't show what you saw. That's because your eyes see wider than your lens does.

Just about the only non-wildlife time I wished I had a longer lens was when I was hiking at the bottom of Fisher Towers (Moab) and saw a climber just reaching the very top of the Corkscrew (Ancient Art) (see Youtube 'Citibank Accessories' commercial). Aside from that my 15-85 lens is great for travel. It's about 20% wider than most other travel lenses. Being sharp throughout doesn't hurt either.

[Hockey Ref]

Many people talk about going on a trip and needing a longer lens. It's the exact opposite. Unless you're shooting wildlife what you really need is wider and not longer for scenery.

When you return from a trip and review your photos you'll notice that in many cases they just don't show what you saw. That's because your eyes see wider than your lens does.

I agree completely with this. For every Glacier shot I take with my 75-300mm lens I take 100 or more with my 18-135mm.

[MYK]

In this vein, there's a free program ExposurePlot that you can download from:
www.download.com

You enter the camera and possibly the lenses (I don't remember that part) and it will analyze the images in a particular folder.

You can see the numbers for aperture, shutter speed, ISO and focal length.

[Marmotman]

It depends on how much weight you want to carry. I usually just bring the 18-55 and that works for most things. But there are times that I wished that I had my 55-200. I usually don't bring my 70-300 lens as that just doesn't get used that much and it adds extra weight. Maybe you can get a friend to carry your Tamron lens just in case you need it??

Do what my wife does. Last time we went to Swiftcurrent Lookout, we rested up on top. I pulled a sandwhich out of my daypack and found our Cannon 55-250 tucked in the bottom. Upon a stern look, my wife just smiled and said thank you.

[MYK]

At least the 55-250 is fairly small and light. What if it was a monster?