Arizona - New Mexico gear recommendations

[kash80]

Mods - Please move this post if this isn't the appropriate thread.

I'll be going to Arizona/New Mexico in early April, focusing on Grand Canyon, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley, Lake Powell and if time permits places around Sedona & Albuquerque. My widest lens is RF 24-105 f4L IS and longest is RF 100-500. Is it worth taking the 100-500 on this trip if my photography is mainly focused on landscape, canyons? If 100-500 isn't required, then I may rent something that is wider. I know that places like Antelope doesn't allow tripods, but is it recommended to still take one on the trip? And, for doing any astro-photography I read that the milkyway isn't visible at that time of the year.

 

[West Coast Birder]

I haven't been the places you have listed for photography. However, in my opinion, knowing what I do about them, I would leave the 100-500 at home and pick up a RF 14-35 F/4. Your 14-35 and 24-105 should cover everything you need. Others may chime in but I'll stand by my input!

 

[Capn Jack]

I've been to some of the places you mentioned last year.
The 100-500 is good for wildlife, and also for images of distant landscapes.
My images are here:

Southwest USA May 2024

Explore this photo album by Jack Silver on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

You can see what lenses I used.

 

[dxd]

I checked in Stellarium, Milky Way would be somewhat visible 3-5 in the morning (using Flagstaff and Sedona for location)

 

[joayne]

Having traveled to the areas, looking back at what I used for the trip, I would take the wide landscape lenses.
I did spend a day shooting birds, but being unfamiliar with the wildlife, the shots were mediocre.
I used my 24-105 and actually shot multiple panoramas to really get the feel of the "Wide Open Spaces"
It was my newest lens ...
I still rely on it for travel

 

[ShipleyNW]

I was in Sedona and the Grand Canyon 2 years ago ... today. There was snow up on the rim. That's the only time I've been out there shooting, so I'm not an expert by any means. Take this for what it's worth.

I took a 24-105 and a 70-300. Looking at my catalog, I kept 22 images from that trip and 19 of those were made with the 24-105, so the longer lens got very little productive use. While the focal lengths used in the 24-105 range were all over the place, quite a few were made at 24mm, so there might have been room to go wider.

Have you ever used an ultrawide? I find them very difficult to manage. Too much scenery to wrangle and the edge distortion needs to be accounted for if you have any kind of tilt to the lens. There's always something I missed at the scene that shows up in post. Sometimes I can fix it, a lot of times not. But that could just be me. My whole life, 24mm has been plenty wide.

Edit: I just noticed in the 'Similar Threads' section at the bottom of this page, there's a thread called 'Utah/Arizona Canyons etc.' You might look through there and see what gear folks who know what they're doing are using

 

[West Coast Birder]

14 is really wide. I found the 16-35 range to be quite useful for landscape but strangely, going from 16 to 14 is a big difference. I only have a Rokinon 14 but it rarely sees use. Most of the time, the 16-35 is more than sufficient. And the RF 14-35 should be even more versatile.

 

[Nature's Spectrum]

Inside ultrawide focal lengths a lot. You can certainly get some unique perspectives in that range. Having said that. I think the 24 would do you pretty well. I was limited to 24 on the wide end at one point, and not having shorter focal lengths killed me.

On my two trips west, neither to where you are headed, thank goodness was I took my 100-400 along. In my experience the distances are far greater than the eastern US. I later got a 70-200 f4, and that zoom has remained an integral part of my landscape kit since then. While I haven't been there, I would be afraid of not having a longer focal lengths killed than 105.

I just reread this post, auto type for the win smh.

 

[Patrick J]

I was in Utah in December, I just flipped through my pictures to check what lenses I used. I used all 3 - the 24-105, 16-35, and 100-400. If I was going to ditch one of them, probably would not take the 100-400. The wide angle can give you a more unique look in certain scenes than the 100-400, or 100-500 in your case. I think Antelope Canyon is a wide angle location.

Here is one example of the telephoto, shot at 280 mm.

Arches National Park

 

[West Coast Birder]

I never leave home without my 70-200 F/4. Having a tele is great for landscapes - it gives a unique feel and you can take a bunch of shots and stitch them in post to get fabulous panos. But if you had to choose between 100-500 and something shorter than 24mm, then I would choose the wide-angle. That's my only point. If you can take both, that's always the best answer!

 

[kash80]

I never leave home without my 70-200 F/4. Having a tele is great for landscapes - it gives a unique feel and you can take a bunch of shots and stitch them in post to get fabulous panos. But if you had to choose between 100-500 and something shorter than 24mm, then I would choose the wide-angle. That's my only point. If you can take both, that's always the best answer!

I know...if I could rent something wider and take all three, I would. But my SO will have something to say as well, nothing pleasant .

 

[Nature's Spectrum]

I know...if I could rent something wider and take all three, I would. But my SO will have something to say as well, nothing pleasant .

Forgiveness vs permission

 

[tony-s]

Mods - Please move this post if this isn't the appropriate thread.

I'll be going to Arizona/New Mexico in early April, focusing on Grand Canyon, Antelope Canyon, Monument Valley, Lake Powell and if time permits places around Sedona & Albuquerque. My widest lens is RF 24-105 f4L IS and longest is RF 100-500. Is it worth taking the 100-500 on this trip if my photography is mainly focused on landscape, canyons? If 100-500 isn't required, then I may rent something that is wider. I know that places like Antelope doesn't allow tripods, but is it recommended to still take one on the trip? And, for doing any astro-photography I read that the milkyway isn't visible at that time of the year.

Definitely need an ultra-wide angle, particularly for the slot canyons if you dare to enter them. If you can, take the 100-500; some of my favorite shots out here in the west have been with telephotos, including this one (5Dii/Sigma 150-500).

https://flic.kr/p/7D6The
Great Sand Dunes National Park, Colorado by Tony, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[West Coast Birder]

I know I recommended against the 100-500 (In my defense, I was working under the OP's boundary conditions that the UWA vs. the 100-500 is an either-or proposition), but after compelling arguments by so many of you, I think I am reconsidering.

OP, I think you need to convince your SO that this isn't one area for debate (I know, easier said than done but you are the one carrying the load and he/she shouldn't really complain). You need to carry both the UWA and the 100-500.

An intermediate telephoto zoom (70-200 or 100-400/500) is going to be very useful to compress the huge landscapes in the West. It ain't Virginia out here! And you can stitch multiple telephoto landscape shots to get incredible panos.

 

[kash80]

I know I recommended against the 100-500 (In my defense, I was working under the OP's boundary conditions that the UWA vs. the 100-500 is an either-or proposition), but after compelling arguments by so many of you, I think I am reconsidering.

OP, I think you need to convince your SO that this isn't one area for debate (I know, easier said than done but you are the one carrying the load and he/she shouldn't really complain). You need to carry both the UWA and the 100-500.

An intermediate telephoto zoom (70-200 or 100-400/500) is going to be very useful to compress the huge landscapes in the West. It ain't Virginia out here! And you can stitch multiple telephoto landscape shots to get incredible panos.

Yes, I plan to take the 100-500 . May end up renting the RF14-35

 

[West Coast Birder]

Yes, I plan to take the 100-500 . May end up renting the RF14-35

I have never used the RF 14-35, but its EF predecessor, the 16-35 is an absolutely amazing lens. You won't regret it. In fact, I would be surprised if you don't decide to buy one by the end of the trip.

 

[Nick5]

Kash.
For me, my go to Travel Two Lens Combo is the EF 16-35 f/4 L IS and the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II. Since my Thinktank International and Messenger 20 can hold additional lenses I bring more like the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the EF 100-400 if needed. The 24-70 always has me wanting more reach….. yes I need the EF 24-105 II…..
I love the reach of 200 for Architectural details while walking in European cities or landscapes in Yellowstone.
If Renting the RF 14-35 is an option, by all means add it to both your 24-105 AND the 100-500.