# Lens Recomendation for Niagra Falls



## Realgeni (Jun 18, 2012)

Will be visiting Niagra falls soon, want some suggestions on which lens would be better with a Mark - III for some good shots.

Looking to rent.

Apprecite your suggestions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2012)

Well...it might, just might, be a good idea for you to tell us what lenses you already have, 'eh?


----------



## jasium (Jun 19, 2012)

Second the weathersealing suggestion-- there's plenty of blowing mist as you walk along the road 'atop' the falls, and if you ride the "Maid of the Mist" boat (on the actual water near the falls), it's a must. I was lucky -- I'd brought my 70-200L and rented a 1D4 for my trip. Even with the poncho, rain hat, glasses, etc I still came out looking like a drowned rat and squelched for the rest of the day. There's no way my 20D or kit lenses would have survived.

The 70-200 on a 1.3 crop was too tight for the panoramas-- I wanted maybe 24-70L or -105L, but with all the water, changing lenses was out of the question, and L or not I'd be dubious about anything but a prime or an internal zoom. You could maybe get away with some creative application of plastic wrap and electrical tape, but I'd check my insurance coverage first.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 19, 2012)

jasium said:


> Second the weathersealing suggestion-- there's plenty of blowing mist as you walk along the road 'atop' the falls, and if you ride the "Maid of the Mist" boat (on the actual water near the falls), it's a must. I was lucky -- I'd brought my 70-200L and rented a 1D4 for my trip. Even with the poncho, rain hat, glasses, etc I still came out looking like a drowned rat and squelched for the rest of the day. There's no way my 20D or kit lenses would have survived.


X3

We did the Behind the Falls, just getting to the entrance above he falls was a soaking experience.

I did not even get my SLR out of the bag because the conditions were so severe. I took some shots with the powershot and then tucked it back in under the rain poncho.

There are good venues from a distance, where a 100 or 135 may be useful.






Canon 40D 17-40 f4 (from a mist free distance)


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 19, 2012)

I do not have any wide angle lense.

I am looking to rent one for his trip. I am not planning to tak any shots with my 5DM-III when I am close to water. But would love to hear any about protection kit I can use to take shot closely.

But main goal will be to take some Panoramic shots to cover the full width. Will be on both US and Canada side.

I was thinking of renting EF 14mm f/2.8L wide angel lense.

Apprecite your input.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 19, 2012)

Hmmm. If you're renting why don't you just rent the 16-35L?


----------



## Jaszek (Jun 19, 2012)

If you have the 5D3, the 24-70 might be enough. I shot this from the railing by the falls, on the Canadian side, with a 7D with a 16-35, which is roughly 24mm @35mm equiv. And hopefully you are going to Canada. The views are so much better. Also, click the photos to find more shots. The lenses used should be in the EXIF. And I went on January 3rd, and it was freezing as hell. lol. And the shot above was from the Skylon tower. Costs $12 to get up there, and you get a nice view. It was empty when I got there so I was able to open up my tripod.





Horshe Falls by Jaszek PL, on Flickr


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 19, 2012)

Jaszek said:


> If you have the 5D3, the 24-70 might be enough.



Agree, the 14 is much too wide; you will need to be even closer to use it effectively.


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 19, 2012)

Jaszek said:


> If you have the 5D3, the 24-70 might be enough. I shot this from the railing by the falls, on the Canadian side, with a 7D with a 16-35, which is roughly 24mm @35mm equiv. And hopefully you are going to Canada. The views are so much better. Also, click the photos to find more shots. The lenses used should be in the EXIF. And I went on January 3rd, and it was freezing as hell. lol. And the shot above was from the Skylon tower. Costs $12 to get up there, and you get a nice view. It was empty when I got there so I was able to open up my tripod.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing shot.

What time did you take this shot?

Also what do you mena by "The lenses used should be in the EXIF"?


----------



## Jaszek (Jun 19, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> Amazing shot.
> 
> What time did you take this shot?
> 
> Also what do you mena by "The lenses used should be in the EXIF"?



Thanks.

That was taken around 9pm in January.

And I meant that when you go to my flickr to check the photos from Niagara, you can click the "Canon 7D" on the right and it will show you what lens and settings I used for that particular shot.


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 19, 2012)

Thank you.

Will 24 - 70 be sufficent for most of the shots or should I still plan for a wider lens?


----------



## Jaszek (Jun 19, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Will 24 - 70 be sufficent for most of the shots or should I still plan for a wider lens?


I dont think you will need to go wider, you can always get a few shots and stitch them together. But then again if the rental is cheap you might as well get both.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jun 19, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Will 24 - 70 be sufficent for most of the shots or should I still plan for a wider lens?



You should also get a ND1000 filter to get some smoothness into the motion of the waterfalls - better is to get several NDs like 400 & 1000 and GND 0.9 and/or 0.6 so you can adjust the smoothness level in the water motion ...


----------



## tntwit (Jun 19, 2012)

To give an idea of distance:

The pictures below were taken with a Fuji T300 Point and Shoot last week. I'm not sure how wide it is, but it was set at it's widest setting, so probably 24 to 35 mm. These shots were taken from the Maid of the Mist. The boat was in the middle of the river. If you were on shore, you would be twice as far away, so I think if any thing, 24-70 may be too short for some shots, but it will certainly be wide enough. I have a Rebel that I was not willing to take on the boat (and I'm glad I did not) but there was at least one person on there with a 60D with no protection.

If you've never been on it, the Maid of the Mist approaches the Horseshoe Falls and goes full throttle until the current keeps it from going any closer. They hold the position for a few minutes. Depending on wind, you will stay fairly dry approaching the falls, but when I was there, it changed very quickly as we approached. It was like standing in a massive rain storm. Just be prepared as the conditions change quick. Whatever you do use, don't forget the lens will get wet and mess up the photos, so be prepared to be able to wipe it off.

The boat rocks around a lot and there will probably be alot of people, so it really isn't the best photo place, as I think you may have stated above. The provided photos were of the American Falls and it was whatever I was able to see on a bright day on the EVF, handheld on a rocking boat with a mist coming now and again and peoples heads in the way. As you probably already know, your best shots will come on land.

You can also get some nice shots from the Cave of the Winds. It depends on the wind, but there are places you can take pictures and stay fairly dry, but you never know when the mist will come. However, you will pass through the Hurricane deck where you will want protection for your gear (good protection). They say the conditions vary, but when I was there it was more of an experience than actually something to see as the was was so intense you had to squint to see anything at all.

Make sure to take photos from the observation deck on the US side. Consider a trip to the Whirlpool State Park for a different perspective. You can hike down to the river, but the guide said it is very tricky and do not go in the water (it is illegal and you will be fined $3000 if you survive - they loose 2 people a month). There is also a cable car on the Canadian side that goes over the whirlpool as well as a jet boat (you won't want to take a camera here!).

As stated, the Canadian side has better views and better attractions. The tower is also very nice. They have a dining floor that rotates once an hour. I went in years ago and tried to time it for sunset.

Have fun!


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 19, 2012)

Very good suggestions.

Apprecite your input. I am plannign to take shots with a SLR only when I am on the land and probably will use a point and shot on the boat or where there are chances of gettign drenched.

Plannign to go both the sides of Niagra.


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 19, 2012)

I agree with wide, wide, wide.

Leave the telephoto lenses at home!

I'd go with a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM


----------



## tntwit (Jun 20, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I agree with wide, wide, wide.
> 
> Leave the telephoto lenses at home!
> 
> I'd go with a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM



I think wide wide wide is going to make the falls far far far away. I suppose it depends what you are after and for sure you will want if for some shots. I think a wide lens and a longer lens would be the way to go. I'm not familiar with it, but the 24-105 would seem like a perfect range if you wanted just one lens.

Check the website of Rolf Hicker, under the waterfalls link (I didn't know if I could provide a link). He has a photo of Niagara Falls. It was shot at 73mm on a 5D III. This will give you another idea of what lens length will give what perspective. This is shot from the Canadian side. Very nice shot, I might add.


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 20, 2012)

That was really a beautiful shot.

So this was taken with a 73 mm? Looks like it covered the entire Horseshoe


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 20, 2012)

tntwit said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with wide, wide, wide.
> ...



There are a whole bunch of pictures Niagra Falls at http://www.hickerphoto.com/photos/niagara-falls-pictures.htm

None seem to have the focal length or maybe I'm missing it.

I've been to Niagra Falls many times, and I'll tell you it's the big vistas that you want.

What lenses do you already have?


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 20, 2012)

I have the 28 - 105.

Lookign to rent some wide angel lneses for this.


----------



## TTMartin (Jun 20, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> I have the 28 - 105.
> 
> Lookign to rent some wide angel lneses for this.



I would think the 16-35 would be the perfect lens to pair with that.

You have from 16-105mm covered.


----------



## Realgeni (Jun 20, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I would think the 16-35 would be the perfect lens to pair with that.
> 
> You have from 16-105mm covered.



Agree with yoru suggestion


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2012)

Often, wide-wide-wide = boring-boring-boring. You stand in a spot with a great, wide vista, and you look around and are inspired. You take a shot with an ultrawide lens to try and capture that vista, and the resulting shot utterly fails to capture your feeling as you viewed the scene, and instead looks flat and uninteresting. 

Why? As tntwit stated, an ultrawide AoV renders even moderately distant subjects tiny and apparently more distant. For an ultrawide shot to have visual impact, you almost always need an interesting foreground element - and with a UWA lens, 'foreground' means within a few feet of the lens. Also, that subject needs to be something that works with the perspective distortion inherent in that situation (usually not a person, as most people don't find exaggeration of their nose/belly/hips to be very flattering). 

There's a good reason the shot you complemented was taken at a short tele focal length. Not trying to dissuade you from a UWA lens, just saying composing a successful shot with such a lens takes thought and practice - and might be difficult when the most common foreground element you'll run across is a guard rail.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Often, wide-wide-wide = boring-boring-boring. You stand in a spot with a great, wide vista, and you look around and are inspired. You take a shot with an ultrawide lens to try and capture that vista, and the resulting shot utterly fails to capture your feeling as you viewed the scene, and instead looks flat and uninteresting.
> 
> Why? As tntwit stated, an ultrawide AoV renders even moderately distant subjects tiny and apparently more distant. For an ultrawide shot to have visual impact, you almost always need an interesting foreground element - and with a UWA lens, 'foreground' means within a few feet of the lens. Also, that subject needs to be something that works with the perspective distortion inherent in that situation (usually not a person, as most people don't find exaggeration of their nose/belly/hips to be very flattering).
> 
> There's a good reason the shot you complemented was taken at a short tele focal length. Not trying to dissuade you from a UWA lens, just saying composing a successful shot with such a lens takes thought and practice - and might be difficult when the most common foreground element you'll run across is a guard rail.



+1. But a UWA lens would be a good choice for the Hurricane Deck/Cave of the Winds.


----------

