what is a good lens to take to Montana

[susie55]

I have a Canon T3i but may want to rent a wide angle lens...I presently have 2 kit lens

[Waddizzle]

I would also take along either the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, or the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. 

I've never used the 10-18mm, but the 10-22mm has very good image quality.  Do you have a good travel tripod?  Using a tripod for landscape shots allows you to be more creative.  For example, affording you the opportunity to take HDR shots.

[EDIT]  Using a tripod to level the camera for your wide angle shots makes shots look better, too.

[kvbarkley]

Besides the big sky, there is probably plenty of wildlife. You would probably want at least a EF 70-300, or even one of the newer third party 150-600's

[susie55]

Such as Tamaron...?  The only thing about that is the space and lugging on hikes ...

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

Do you anticipate taking many pictures of wildlife?  Unless, you plan out a trip for the express purpose of photographing wildlife, it is unlikely that you will capture many shots of wildlife by carrying a big lens in your bag, just in case.  You are more likely to scare off the wildlife because they may notice you long before you spot them.

The best wildlife shoots are carefully planned out in advance, taking advantage of knowledge about the particular wildlife that you wish to photograph.  For example, constructing a blind near a known area for birds to gather, and then occupying the blind before sunrise, and staying inside of it for hours at a time. 

If you have a camera kit 70-300mm lens, you may be disappointed by the image quality when you take critical photos, if you have not been already.  With an APS-C camera body, a 600mm maximum focal length would give you an equivalent 35mm focal length of 960mm.  Without some practice, it will be difficult to capture sharp pictures by handholding the camera with a lens at that focal length. 

Long zooms can be expensive, and quite heavy to carry.  They come with a learning curve, if you have never used one.  You would need to carry one in its' own bag, or you would need a large backpack to carry it with the rest of your gear.  You would definitely benefit from carrying a fairly robust tripod, in order to support the weight of super telephoto lens.  In the outdoors, wind can be a detrimental factor.  Wind can shake a light tripod, especially one weighed down with a heavy load.

If feel the need to carry a long zoom, I would recommend one of the 70-200mm lenses, and leave your camera kit 70-300mm zoom at home.  You can capture pretty good, casual wildlife photos without using a super-telephoto lens.  Your APS-C body can turn a 70-200mm lens into a 35mm equivalent of 112-320mm, which is close to the focal range of Canon's 100-400mm zooms. 

One of the two Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L lenses, either with or without IS, could be a good choice.  I would put a priority on traveling light, and less so on being prepared for every scenario.  Remember, you can always crop a photo taken with a quality lens, and still wind up with a good result.

[ebiggs1]

"I presently have 2 kit lens ..."

Which I assume one is the ef-s 18-55mm is II?  That is plenty wide for most of what you will likely need.  If you feel you do need a wider lens I suggest you buy a ef-s 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 is stm.  They are just under $300 bucks or so.

"... but may want to rent a wide angle lens"

The lens to rent would better be the telephoto. Either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm are equal in IQ and both are pretty light in weight for what they are and can do.  For wildlife I consider 300mm as the least focal length you should consider.

If your other kit lens is the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6, its focal length stops where it should start!  Birds for instance are quite small even at 300mm unless you are very close. 

I would recommend you get the super tele zoom first and practice with it for a bit before your trip.  It isn't hard to use, lot's of people just like you do it every day.  But a little practice wouldn't hurt either!  If I were you I would leave the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 at home.  IMHO, of course.

[ebiggs1]

Two examples of what I am trying to get across about a telephoto.  I maintain 300mm to be the least focal length you or anybody should consider.  Both of these shots were with the Sigma 150-600mm version but the Tamron does equally as good.

I have no prefference.

The red wing blackbird was at 600mm and I was about 25 feet away.  It is as it came from the camera/lens combo.  There is no enlargement or cropping to either photo.  The blue heron was at 500mm and I was about 40 feet away from it.

As you might ascertain, if you were using a 300mm, or smaller focal length, lens both of these birds would be very much smaller in the frame and require enlarging or cropping.  Both of these were taken with the S version of the Sigma 150-600mm which is a very heavy lens. I shot both hand held.  The Tamron and the C version of the Sigma lens  are very much lighter and easily hand holdable.  Either lens can be rented for a vacation.  It all depends on what you want.

[kvbarkley]

That is the issue.

Note that you can rent the lenses fairly economically, just for the trip. And if youtry it and like it you might be able to buy the copy you have.

[Waddizzle]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

That is the issue.

Note that you can rent the lenses fairly economically, just for the trip. And if youtry it and like it you might be able to buy the copy you have.

---

I think the idea of carrying along a big lens is good one, that is until you start to look at the logistics of doing so. 

How do you safely transport it to and from Montana?  Maybe, looking into a lens rental picked up in Montana is a pursuit worth investigating.  Using a big lens well requires a learning curve, which may take more time than the trip. 

How would you carry a super telephoto with you "into the field"?  Will you need to purchase a backpack just to haul it aorund?  How much added weight, and a burden, would a big lens be on a long hike?

How likely is it that you need a tripod, in order to use the big lens effectively?  If you're new to a big lens, it just might be mandatory that you carry along a robust tripod, just for the big lenses.

Personally, I think those 150-600mm lenses are good, but maybe a bit too much to someone new to super telephotos going on a cross country trip.  I think something smaller like the EF 100-400mm lenses, especially on an APS-C sensor body, could be a better choice.  They're much lighter, which makes it far easier to pack, carry, and maybe even handhold.

[kvbarkley]

I just assumed that the dictum that "nothing is photogenic if it is 50 ft from the car" 8^) applied here.

While a special case, when I was at Grand Tetons, There were a bunch of cars by the side of the road. We stopped out of curiousity and found a moose contendely grazing with about 100 people snapping photos.

In Yellowstone, we came across a herd of bison in the road one early morning. I already shared my image of the mountian goat just on the side of the road in Zion.

Admittedly, only the moose needed the 500 mm lens.

And for hiking I would just take the 70-300.