# 4 weeks Trip around California



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

Hello,

I am french and I am planning a trip to California in August this year with my wife and my one year's old daughter. 
I (will) own : a 6D with 24-105 (replacing my current 40D with 15-85) ; 100L ; 200L 2.8 ; 50 1.4 ; 40 2.8. 

We will stay one week in San Fransisco and rent a camping car 2 or 3 weeks to visit Yosemite Park, Grand Canyon, LasVegas and others to define.
I want to go light because i will have my daughter in a backpack and I can't have a dedicated photo bag. One lens will be mounted on the 6D and the other one will be at my belt in a lens bag. I also don't want to let expensive lenses in the camping car all the day ... 

I will take the 24 105, and i would like to add only one lens or two if the the second is small. 

So what would you take ? Low light ( 50 1.4 ), Tele (200) or Macro (100) ?

I know it's also a matter of taste but it could help to hear others opinions.

Sorry for my English and Thanks in advance.

Any advice about the trip is welcome.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 3, 2013)

i would take the 200, and the 40. The 200 because you will want some telephoto at some point. The 40 because it is so small and light is seems silly not to take it.


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 3, 2013)

Hi,

take the tele!!!

We visited San Francisco, Yosemite and Grand Canyon in May/June 2012. I brought my 5D2 together with my 17-40 4L and the 70-200 4L IS. 17mm on FF is really great for the Grand Canyon! Also the 200mm were used all the time. (There are a lot of squirrels in the national parks).

One tip for the camper (RV): Make a reservation for all national park camp grounds asap (in particular for Yosemity and Grand Canyon). The national parks are heavily booked throughout the whole season!


----------



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> i would take the 200, and the 40. The 200 because you will want some telephoto at some point. The 40 because it is so small and light is seems silly not to take it.



Thanks for your answer. I agree and I could buy an extension tube to "replace" my 100 macro.


----------



## RC (Jan 3, 2013)

Can you pick up or rent an ultra wide for the National Parks? (16-35 or 17-40). I think you would find that lens highly favorable in the parks--especially Yosemite.


----------



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

yablonsky said:


> Hi,
> 
> take the tele!!!
> 
> ...



I think you are right, the tele seems mandatory. 

Thanks for the tip about the RV, I will do that asap, I hope it's not too late.
Another question about the RV. Is there a lot of cities where you can't come in with ? How did you do in that case ? bus ?

Thanks a lot


----------



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

RC said:


> Can you pick up or rent an ultra wide for the National Parks? (16-35 or 17-40). I think you would find that lens highly favorable in the parks--especially Yosemite.



Yes because i didn't buy the 24-105 yet. I am willing to replace my 40D and 15-85 by a 6D and 24-105.

I had a 10-22 with the 40D in the past but I was not so happy with the results in terms of composition. I replaced it by the 15-85 which was wide enough for me. 

The 17-40 is interesting but I am afraid i will have the same feeling as the 10-22.

You really think that 24 is not wide enough ?


----------



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Bad news: the lenses you have are a complete mismatch for Yosemite, except for the 24-105.



Yosemite is just a part of the trip.


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 3, 2013)

jojolemerou said:


> I think you are right, the tele seems mandatory.
> 
> Thanks for the tip about the RV, I will do that asap, I hope it's not too late.
> Another question about the RV. Is there a lot of cities where you can't come in with ? How did you do in that case ? bus ?
> ...



Hi

in San Francisco we stayed at an RV site outside of the city (San Francisco RV and Camping Resort,
700 Palmetto Avenue, Pacifica).
We drove with our RV to the next BART station and took the train downtown.

Maybe you can find a site that is closer to the city.
Don't drive with your RV to downtown San Francisco!!!

In Vegas there is an RV park directly at the strip (KOA, 500 Circus Circus Drive).
From there you can go up and down the strip with the bus.

Generally speaking it is best to avoid big cities with an RV.


----------



## jojolemerou (Jan 3, 2013)

yablonsky said:


> jojolemerou said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are right, the tele seems mandatory.
> ...



Ok thanks for your good advices !

I see that you also have the 100 Macro. You didn't miss it during your trip ?


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 3, 2013)

jojolemerou said:


> Yes because i didn't buy the 24-105 yet. I am willing to replace my 40D and 15-85 by a 6D and 24-105.
> 
> I had a 10-22 with the 40D in the past but I was not so happy with the results in terms of composition. I replaced it by the 15-85 which was wide enough for me.
> 
> ...



Hi

even my 17-40 was not wide enough at one location: The goose necks. Here the San Juan River makes 3 bends of more than 180 degress. I couldn't get everything into one frame!

17 mm on FF are great. The landscape in the southwestern national parks is literally so wide,
that you definitely need an ultra wide angle lens.

Get the 17-40 together with the 6D. This is my recommendation.


----------



## RC (Jan 3, 2013)

jojolemerou said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > Can you pick up or rent an ultra wide for the National Parks? (16-35 or 17-40). I think you would find that lens highly favorable in the parks--especially Yosemite.
> ...



I survived the film era with 28mm being my widest. Then had the 15-85 for crop (24-136 FF). But now with 16-35 on a FF I am wowed and can see what I was missing. I think you can get by with the 24-105 if you have to but may struggle with composition, especially in Yosemite.


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 3, 2013)

jojolemerou said:


> Ok thanks for your good advices !
> 
> I see that you also have the 100 Macro. You didn't miss it during your trip ?




no, I didn't miss it. I didn't have it that time. I did the close-ups of butterflies and flowers with my other two lenses. This was no problem.


----------



## Cali_PH (Jan 3, 2013)

I live in California and visit Yosemite several times a year. I'd say I use the 24-105L & 17-40L the most, followed by my 70-200. You may not go beyond 24mm often, but it's useful at times. For example, the most heavily visited area is the valley, where you'll be at the foot of tall cliffs, probably shooting up, trying to include as much as possible (waterfalls, granite formations etc.). Many locations will force you to be closer, because of trees, cliffs, and other natural barriers; you can't simply back up a bit. There will also be wide vistas you'll probably want to shoot. Of course, you can attempt to merge shots together.

The roads are windy and a bit narrow through the mountains, so I'd highly suggest renting as small an RV as you can, especially if you're not used to driving a large vehicle. Plus you'll be in unfamiliar territory. 

From what I've read on TripAdvisor forums, a lot of visitors will visit the Big Sur/Monterey/Carmel area in between San Francisco and Yosemite. It's one of my personal favorite areas to visit, and I'd highly recommend it. Big Sur has stretch of highway along some very beautiful, dramatic coastline, some waterfalls (McWay Falls), beaches, etc. Carmel's 17-Mile drive is beautiful, Monterey has a lot of tourist things to do such as a great aquarium, and Point Lobos preserve is a beautiful spot with lots of amazing hikes.

I'm not sure what roads you'll be taking from Yosemite to Grand Canyon/Vegas, but consider leaving Yosemite by Tioga Road. There's lots of nice things to see on the way. Even if you don't get out and go for long hikes, there are still some great viewing spots right off the road. Also, after you exit Yosemite, you can stop at Mono Lake for a bit before heading south. If you're interested, there's also the old ghost town of Bodie a few miles north. 

There's supposed to be some other great stops along there south of Mono Lake but I've never headed that way myself.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 3, 2013)

I did not suggest lenses you do not have, but I too am a wide angle fan, and prefer something wider than 24mm to be at least with me. But that is a personal choice, make your own decisions. 

My current light weight walk around kit is the 24-105, 8-15 (told yo I liked wide), and the 300mm f4 IS.


----------



## vargyropoulos (Jan 3, 2013)

my family and I did a ery similar California trip last summer. I took all the lenses I owned at the time along with my film camera in a backpack... hiking up and down Yosemite.... with 3 kids.... rewarding in the end... but the journey was hard at times

the 24-105 on a FF camera will be your workhorse lens - 90% of your shots will be with this one
take the macro as you will see some nice flowers and insects
see if you can get a longer tele.... I recently got a 400mm for Christmas that would have brought in the deer closer than the 70-300 that I had at the time
... no need for 1.4 apperture... take the 40mm pancake lens since you have it


----------



## Txema (Jan 3, 2013)

Of the ones you have, I would definitely take the 200L. But I think you will brake the barrel of the 24-100 trying to go wider. I would buy the 16-35 or the 17-40. Just this trip will make them worthy. Order by internet at B&H and pick it up in SF fed-ex or ups. They are so much cheaper than here in Europe. For example, you can have the 17-40L for $699 (533€).


----------



## Niterider (Jan 3, 2013)

Good to hear you are visiting California! You definitely have chosen some of the best places to visit while you are here. Being a native to the area and traveled all the places you are looking to visit, I would recommend looking into a couple places. 

The first is Zion national park. If you are traveling down near the Grand Canyon it is a wonderful place to stop for a night or two. The second is passing through the city of Mammoth (or staying a night). Unfortunately, the city went bankrupt, but I have not heard of that effecting tourism. Usually in the summer, Mammoth ski resort opens their lift to the top of the mountain for hikers and sightseers alike. The top is around 11,000 feet high and an unbelievable sight. There is also the Lake Tahoe region, which is an amazing destination. 

I noticed you haven't mentioned anywhere along the coastline (except San Francisco, but that is way different from cities like Santa Barbra, Huntington Beach, San Diego, etc.) My favorite is Santa Barbra though. There is nothing like taking a break from constant traveling to just lay on the beach all day. 

As far as lenses go, I would bring a an ultra-wide in addition to the 24-105. I use a Rokinon 14mm, but a 16-35 or a 17-40 is a much more versatile option and the weather sealing helps keep all the dust and sand out of the lens.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 3, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Bad news: the lenses you have are a complete mismatch for Yosemite, except for the 24-105.



Couldn't disagree more... 

You'll do fine with your current kit. With that 40mm Pan it's almost like carrying no lens at all so I'd try and take them all. I lived within 20 minutes of Yosemite for years... anything can work there. Even PS so don't worry about an Ansel Adams kit and go have fun. A 17-40 or another UWA would be nice but you can stitch what you can't get in one frame.

If your heading this way soon... be prepared for snow in the Sierras. It can be difficult traveling. I'd try to hit up Monterey/Cannery Row... Carmel, Big Sur and maybe Santa Cruz since they would be close to the SF to the Valley route.


----------



## sanjosedave (Jan 3, 2013)

Suggested route:

San Francisco, San Jose, Monterey, Big Sur, San Jose, Yosemite, Mono Lake, Las Vegas, Ivins Utah, Page Arizona, Monument Valley, Moab

For Yosemite, I recommend Michael Frye's Yosemite app - you select the time of year, time of day, and it provides the best times to photograph popular locations. It also provides a sunrise/moonrise graph.

Also, suggested joining meetup.com's multiple photography groups in Northern California, joining is free, there you will receive a lot of detailed info about where to photograph.

BTW, you could spend a month in Northern California, or a month in Moab by themselves.


----------



## HoneyBadger (Jan 3, 2013)

I live about an hour from Yosemite and about 2 from the California coast and I would definitely recommend a wider lens, preferably the 16-35. Since you are on a budget and want less weight, the 17-40 would also work out great for you. The wider lens will allow you to take pictures of the beautiful coast and also the mountains at Yosemite. Also, room can be scarce sometimes when taking pictures of giant sequoia trees so unless you want only half the tree in your shot, you need that wider lens. If you venture about an hour south of Yosemite, you can visit Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. They are not as impressive as Yosemite but they are home to the 4 largest trees by volume in the world. Lastly, if you plan to visit 4 or more National Parks or federal recreation lands you should invest in the $80 park pass which is good for a year and can be bought at any National Park entrance. Normal entrance fees are $20 per park and the park pass will also discount some park services. Enjoy!


----------



## distant.star (Jan 3, 2013)

.
Given your equipment options and your travel restraints, I'd take the 24-105 and nothing else. Perhaps take the 40mm if you want to tighten up and lighten your burden some days. Here's my thinking:

1. I can't think of much that a 200mm is going to help with, given that you've already got 105mm reach. If you had a 100-400, for example, that would be different. The vistas out there can be vast (and that's an understatement.)

2. The "low light" lenses you mention are really eclipsed by the high-ISO capabilities of a camera like the 6D. Remember, when you'll be there, you have light 15 hours each day, and inside and at night you can just ramp up the ISO and keep the 24-105 clicking away. You've already got the focal lengths covered, and the low light is not relevant -- so leave the others at home.

3. I know people travel for different reasons, but I'm not spending my time in a foreign land sticking a lens deep into buttercups. Leave the 100 home. It's a fine lens, but again, the focal length is covered.

4. The UWA suggestions are great -- that's a way to get pictures you can get no other way. And that area does cry out for it. But it's not in your options. Make the most of your 24mm capability.

As for what to see when you're there, you can't see it all. You could move to northern CA today and in the rest of your life you wouldn't see everything worth seeing.

After San Francisco (and I'm presuming Napa Valley and wine country, etc.) go over to Sacramento, California's capital city. Then take Rt. 49 south through gold rush country. I used to live there. See the little towns like Sutter Creek, Jackson, Mokelumne Hill, San Andreas, Angels Camp, Murphys (and the beautiful Ironstone Winery), Sonora (where most of the American western movies have been filmed), and Columbia State Historic Park. By then you're close to Yosemite and can work your way through that tourist bloated wonder. If you're out after dark there, be ready for mosquitoes.

It's a visually amazing area. Enjoy!!


----------



## kubelik (Jan 3, 2013)

it depends on whether you're taking the trip mostly to hike and spend time with your family, or mostly to photograph. if you're really set of maximizing your photographic opportunities, pretty much all of your lenses should fit very easily into a medium-to-large sized photo backpack. At worst, leave the 50 f/1.4 and 40 f/2.8 in the car while you go hiking, as I doubt you'll use them during daylight hours on a trail.

if your focus is mainly on hiking, I think you'd actually be in good shape with just the 24-105L on your 6D. with that, you can choose whether or not to bring a tripod, even, since you have the IS. I don't know what the wildlife in Yosemite is like, if it's as plentiful as it is in Yellowstone then perhaps you'll want to carry the 200 f/2.8 as well, at most.


----------



## distant.star (Jan 3, 2013)

.
One thing I forgot.

Polarizing filter and an ND filter or two. Lots of light out there!!


----------

