Which lenses to take to Tahoe and Yosemite?

[bags27]

Family trip (including infant grandson) with only a bit of independent flexibility. 3 days in each place. Notably, I'll be on the 4 hr "In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams" at Yosemite limited to 6 photographers.

Taking:
lots of Portra 400, FP4+ and Tri-X (being shipped there; I'll Fedex it back, so no airports)
yellow, orange, red, polarizing, and ND filters.
Peak Design Carbon tripod, 2 cable releases, extra battery, etc.

In my WANDRD PRVKE light, I can have my Mamiya 7 and 3, maybe 4, lenses.

I own the 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210 (all but the 50), plus the spotting scopes for the 43 and 150/210

1. I'm taking the 43mm for sure.

2. If it comes down to 65 vs. 80, not a huge difference. Which to take, given I'll have the 43? I think my 65 is a bit sharper than my 80, but sharpness isn't a problem with Mamiya.

3. The 210 f/8 is a bit weird (not rangefinder attached), must zone-focus, but good on a tripod. Will I want the reach? or is the 150 enough? (210 = ~ 105 full frame; 150 = ~75). But if I don't take the 150, I lose "walking around"/portraiture longer lens capability.

Obvious 3 lens combos:
43-80-210
43-80-150
43-65-150

possible 4 combo: 4 of the 5 of these? 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210

thanks!!

 

[madNbad]

The 43 may be the only lens you’ll use during the trip but just to be sure, my vote is for the 65 and the 150. Since you’re traveling with family, including an infant, time for photography may be limited. Keeping a minimum amount of gear will make it easier to stop, get out and photograph before moving on. Having the 150 on hand for any areas you may want to pick out a detail and the 65 will give you a little more room to work with than the 80 for general work where the expansiveness of the 43 may be a tad too much. Enjoy yourself and have a great trip.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I shoot with my Mamiya Universal I take a 65 for wide the 100 for normal and 150 for a short normal. Although I don't have a 250 for the Universal I have one for my Kowa 66, and find it is too long for most travel pictures.

 

[Bearman]

I'd travel light with the 43 & 80

 

[Richard Man]

I almost never take long lens landscape photos. Just not my vision, but yours maybe different. A couple years ago, I drove around the valley floor with 210/320/480mm with my 8x10, and 90% of the photos were with the 210. YMMV though

See if you can find this tree. Pretty easy to spot

 

[faberryman]

If you are going to take two bodies, three lenses, and a tripod, you might as well throw in a fourth lens.

 

[markjwyatt]

If you go three lenses, I would pick 43-80-150, but as you said the 65 is pretty close to the 80. Like others said, you may not find much need for the 150, but you might use it for family shots after your 4 hour trip (sounds like fun).

 

[McDiesel]

What negative size is this for? 645? 6x6? 6x7?

This is highly subjective of course, I am with @Bearman - two lenses tops. I take better photos when there's less choice. This creates focus & clarity. One camera one lens thing definitely works, 80% of images are usually taken with one primary lens. The other lens is a combination of having a backup, and for "secondary compositions" (for me it's usually an isolated subject with modest telephoto).

My most often used combination for 6x6 is 60mm and 150mm, especially for landscapes. For urban environments I would do 50mm and 100mm.

 

[AZD]

Talking 35mm here, so format conversion applies. I went to Yosemite the summer before last and took 24, 55, 105, and a 43-86 just to try it out. I used the 55 for nearly everything in the valley. The 24 was great on occasion because it’s hard to fit the whole valley into one frame. The 43mm end of the zoom was used once when 55 was too tight, otherwise it was regrettable dead weight. A 35mm prime would have been better but I don’t have one. Hardly used anything on the tele end, but that’s pretty typical for me. Mostly I use the 105 for its macro capabilities.

If I had to narrow it down I’d take a normal and my widest wide angle and call it good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Family trip (including infant grandson) with only a bit of independent flexibility. 3 days in each place. Notably, I'll be on the 4 hr "In the Footsteps of Ansel Adams" at Yosemite limited to 6 photographers.

Taking:
lots of Portra 400, FP4+ and Tri-X (being shipped there; I'll Fedex it back, so no airports)
yellow, orange, red, polarizing, and ND filters.
Peak Design Carbon tripod, 2 cable releases, extra battery, etc.

In my WANDRD PRVKE light, I can have my Mamiya 7 and 3, maybe 4, lenses.

I own the 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210 (all but the 50), plus the spotting scopes for the 43 and 150/210

1. I'm taking the 43mm for sure.

2. If it comes down to 65 vs. 80, not a huge difference. Which to take, given I'll have the 43? I think my 65 is a bit sharper than my 80, but sharpness isn't a problem with Mamiya.

3. The 210 f/8 is a bit weird (not rangefinder attached), must zone-focus, but good on a tripod. Will I want the reach? or is the 150 enough? (210 = ~ 105 full frame; 150 = ~75). But if I don't take the 150, I lose "walking around"/portraiture longer lens capability.

Obvious 3 lens combos:
43-80-210
43-80-150
43-65-150

possible 4 combo: 4 of the 5 of these? 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210

thanks!!

Obvious 3 lens combos:
43-80-210 <===== this
43-80-150
43-65-150

possible 4 combo: 4 of the 5 of these? 43, 65, 80, 150, and 210 <===== or that

Use the car to hold the lenses and pull out what you need at the moment.

 

[bags27]

I almost never take long lens landscape photos. Just not my vision, but yours maybe different. A couple years ago, I drove around the valley floor with 210/320/480mm with my 8x10, and 90% of the photos were with the 210. YMMV though

See if you can find this tree. Pretty easy to spot

That's a wonderful photo! Thanks for that.

 

[bags27]

Thanks all! I learned a lot and just got back from a long walk with my backpack full (tripod, camera, extra lenses, etc). I have a sense of how (un)enjoyable it would be to schlep so much. Often, I carry a Hasselblad and some film and filters, but this was way heavier.

PRVKE light allows me to take my laptop, and up to 4 lenses and a body, plus the tripod. Great for the airplane, terrible for touring. Will leave a lot of stuff in the AirBnBs.

1 camera with lens on the peak design capture and one lens in the bag, plus tripod and filters. That's all I'm walking with.
the 43 on the camera and likely the 80 in the bag.

The 65 for when I'm just hanging with others and it's one lens, no tripod and extra film in my pocket.
Maybe a long lens to stuff in just for the plane ride if I weaken at the last minute.

That's it and I'll only change my mind a dozen or so times before Wednesday!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The 43 may be the only lens you’ll use during the trip but just to be sure, my vote is for the 65 and the 150. Since you’re traveling with family, including an infant, time for photography may be limited. Keeping a minimum amount of gear will make it easier to stop, get out and photograph before moving on. Having the 150 on hand for any areas you may want to pick out a detail and the 65 will give you a little more room to work with than the 80 for general work where the expansiveness of the 43 may be a tad too much. Enjoy yourself and have a great trip.

dito

 

[cjbecker]

The less the better. I always come back with the best shots, when I take the least amount of gear. No need too worry about changing lenses depending on the image when you only have one lens. I solely travel with a normal lens now. Most recently a 4x5 speed graphic with a 150 5.6. Used for both tripod and candid shots.

 

[jvo]

The less the better. I always come back with the best shots, when I take the least amount of gear...

ditto.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Unless you are taking wildlife photographs, the telephoto lens may be the least used. I have never had a problem carrying every lens in the car, arrive at a location, walk around to look for subjects, only then take out the lens or lenses that you will actually use. I have never had a problem carrying many lenses in the car unlike some of the recent posters.

 

[halfaman]

According to my way of shooting the choice would be the 43mm and 80mm. Almost never use a long lens with landscapes, even there are people who love it.

 

[mtjade2007]

Just visited Yosemite last week and it was about my 40th visit to the park. You will want to have a shorter lens if you plan to shoot a lot in the valley. This is because the valley is narrow and the mountains and cliffs are tall around you. I use a Pentax 67-ii. My wide lens choice is a 55mm for Yosemite. But Lake Tahoe is a very different situation. Tahoe is wide wide open when facing the lake.

 

[Down Under]

My way won't be everyone's preferred way, but in 1979 and 1982 I travelled across North America four times in all and did all my photography, including Tahoe and Yosemite, with a Rollei TLR. One camera, one film format, one lens (well, technically two lenses, but you know), and little else.

In 2006 my partner and I went to Nepal for a mountain trek. I took the same Rollei and a Nikkormat with two lenses (50 and 135). SO had a Nikon with a 28, 35, 50 and 85. Took a dozen slide rolls of Everett and the related mountains with the 28. When we got the slides back, Everest was a small blip in the faraway distance, in many shots about the size of two grains of rice.

Therein lies a lesson. All posts in this thread have good useful information, but I reckon I agree best with mtjade2007 (#18). Keep it simple, but make sure you take the right lenses.

Oh, and bon voyage, OP!!

 

[destroya]

when in yosemite the only time I really use long lenses is when I want to get a tightly cropped shot of half dome ot other mountain peaks. you can use the 80 or 150 and crop depending on how large you plan to print. if you are not going to print then bring the wide lenses, crop when you need to and enjoy the simplicity of 2 or 3 lenses. if you are traveliong out of a car, then bring as many as you want. if you are going out of the valley up 120 to tuollume area then you want wide lenses, but a long lens does work well at olmsted point but again you can crop. when I hike with my mamiya 6 the 150 gets maybe 2-5 shots a trip out of 60+ shots. I would bring the 43-80-150

tahoe is great with just a 2 lens setup, a normal and wide lens. as someone mentioned its much wider than yosemite valley so a wide is perfect. the top of cave rock begs for a real wide lens. eagle falls trail a normal lens is perfect.

john

 

[Sirius Glass]

My way won't be everyone's preferred way, but in 1979 and 1982 I travelled across North America four times in all and did all my photography, including Tahoe and Yosemite, with a Rollei TLR. One camera, one film format, one lens (well, technically two lenses, but you know), and little else.

In 2006 my partner and I went to Nepal for a mountain trek. I took the same Rollei and a Nikkormat with two lenses (50 and 135). SO had a Nikon with a 28, 35, 50 and 85. Took a dozen slide rolls of Everett and the related mountains with the 28. When we got the slides back, Everest was a small blip in the faraway distance, in many shots about the size of two grains of rice.

Therein lies a lesson. All posts in this thread have good useful information, but I reckon I agree best with mtjade2007 (#18). Keep it simple, but make sure you take the right lenses.

Oh, and bon voyage, OP!!

My experience is that the wide and very wide angle lenses are mostly useful for nature when I am very close up to the subject, otherwise as you wisely noted all the interesting detail becomes microscopic.

 

[Oldwino]

I go to Tahoe a lot (live an hour away), and Yosemite sometimes (too crowded). I almost never use an ultra wide while in Tahoe. Normals and short Teles work best for me. Sometimes, a slight wide angle lens, too, like a 65mm for the Mamiya.
I would suspect the same applies for most of Yosemite, except for valley-wide shots, or maybe when hiking up Yosemite Falls.

 

[Dismayed]

You could travel as Ansel did.

 

[Vaughn]

I did not trust the mules nor my packing ability enough to take my 8x10 out to work with me...

 

[Huss]

I almost never take long lens landscape photos. Just not my vision, but yours maybe different. A couple years ago, I drove around the valley floor with 210/320/480mm with my 8x10, and 90% of the photos were with the 210. YMMV though

See if you can find this tree. Pretty easy to spot

Beautiful.