Considering winter Yellowstone trip ... camera equipment questions ...

[PhotoLover]

I'm pondering one of those Yellowstone winter trips where they take you around the northern part of the Park looking for wildlife.

What camera equipment would people suggest?

I'll definitely have a D500 + 500pf, 1.4 III teleconverter if needed.

I'll have a second body, a D7500 as well. I'm considering either my trusty Tamron 100-400, or a Nikon 70-200 (the latter can take the 1.4 teleconverter, the Tamron cannot).

Probably a tripod for the "let's hang out here and watch the wolves far away" situations.

I'll also have a short zoom for landscapes, but this question is about the telephotos.

I lean to taking the 100-400 rather than the 70-200. I've used it a lot, it's lighter, I and trust it pretty well, But obviously the 70-200 is faster and overall a better lens. But ... I like that 100-400 focal range for wildlife work, if we are snowshoeing for example.

Thoughts from those who have done this?

(And yes I'm spending time deciding on glove choices, layering ... it's cold there in the winter ....)

 

[Viathelens]

Hi. I'm also heading to Yellowstone, in a week. Luckily I'm going to miss the minus temps! At least I hope so. Just ordered a couple of different kinds of gloves (although I already have several kinds) and some heated socks. I've been to Yellowstone seven times, but mostly in May-June and once in Sept-Oct and once in March. From my experience a lot of the action can be far away but it can also be very close up, especially in winter. The animals will most likely be closer to the road as that is the easiest way to travel in the snow. I'd choose the 100-400 for one camera and the 500 for the other camera, although on the trip in March I had to grab my landscape camera-lens setup for shots of a fox right at the truck. It's always a guess. If the 70-200 is the 2.8 you might want to bring it along for early mornings, depends on how much gear you can carry along. It really all depends on what you might be doing, as you note "snowshoeing." I'm going to be riding in a truck in Larmar Valley so I can get warm! No snowshoeing for me. I'm taking two Z8's, a 100-400, a landscape lens (24-120) and the 600PF. Also a TC. That is my standard gear on wildlife trips and has served me well so far.

 

[AlanB313]

Here's hoping that both of you have great trips! And I'd love to see some of your photos when you return!

But I agree with @Viathelens, if you can take both the 100-400 and the 70-200, that would leave you with good choices. Winter weather can be challenging with cloudy skies, muted light if it's snowing, etc. F2.8 could be useful.

Have fun!

 

[lpphototx]

I did a winter trip to Yellowstone 2 years ago. The 500pf with TC and the 100-400 worked great for me. I had a 600 f4 with me; but given that many of the sightings are short and you're in and out of the vehicle a lot; the 500pf was my go to lens.

 

[Calson]

Two different situations with the FX D750 and the DX D500 cameras. With the D750 the 100-400mm will be fine but with the D500 it may provide too narrow a view angle with large animals. Plenty of light with sunlight reflecting off the snow so a fast lens is not really needed. This image was shot at ISO 200 with 80-400mm lens at 250mm at exposure of f/8 and 1/320s. There was heavy overcast at the time which is great for softening the light.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[PhotoLover]

Thanks for all the comments thus far, a couple of clarifications:

1. The 70-200 is Nikons 2.8 so yes it would my best low light choice of the options I have, and even with the 1.4 teleconverter it's a 4.0 lens. Though, I've only the one teleconverter and I definitely want it available with the 500 pf for far away things.
2. Both the cameras are DX -- the D500 and the D7500, the latter being the D500s lesser known little brother, not the FX 750. As an aside, although the D500 is the "pro" model and has theoreticaly better AF, a higher burst rate, etc versus the D7500, in practice I haven't found it markedly superior even with things like BIF and the 7500 is lighter and has the same image quality (if you mostly do landscapes it is the better choice). That said, my thinking was the D500 had the 500 pf attached and the D7500 the 100-400 or 70-200.
3. I've been to Yellowstone, albeit not in the winter and the bison, especially might be REALLY CLOSE. So I definitely need something other than the 500 pf on the D500. I will have a 16-80 short zoom that given a couple of minutes could throw on one of the cameras. And well, I have an iphone too.

I was trying to avoid taking both the 70-200 and the 100-400, to cut back on the weight and hassle both traveling and onsite. That said, if I only take one of them I'm confident I'll run into situations where I wish I had the other .... I have used the 100-400 enough to know that despite its limitations, it serves well as a general wildlife lens (enough reach, useful zoom range) and can handle things like BIF. I'd likely mostly be on the side of a road, but there is the possiblity of short hikes in which case I'd *probably* take just one camera with the 100-400 (though I will be testing a two camera carry rig).

I have practiced some (when cold enough) using gloves to run the cameras. But I suspect I'll be slower than usual to make adjustments.

 

[ricardo00]

Thanks for all the comments thus far, a couple of clarifications:

1. The 70-200 is Nikons 2.8 so yes it would my best low light choice of the options I have, and even with the 1.4 teleconverter it's a 4.0 lens. Though, I've only the one teleconverter and I definitely want it available with the 500 pf for far away things.
2. Both the cameras are DX -- the D500 and the D7500, the latter being the D500s lesser known little brother, not the FX 750. As an aside, although the D500 is the "pro" model and has theoreticaly better AF, a higher burst rate, etc versus the D7500, in practice I haven't found it markedly superior even with things like BIF and the 7500 is lighter and has the same image quality (if you mostly do landscapes it is the better choice). That said, my thinking was the D500 had the 500 pf attached and the D7500 the 100-400 or 70-200.
3. I've been to Yellowstone, albeit not in the winter and the bison, especially might be REALLY CLOSE. So I definitely need something other than the 500 pf on the D500. I will have a 16-80 short zoom that given a couple of minutes could throw on one of the cameras. And well, I have an iphone too.

I was trying to avoid taking both the 70-200 and the 100-400, to cut back on the weight and hassle both traveling and onsite. That said, if I only take one of them I'm confident I'll run into situations where I wish I had the other .... I have used the 100-400 enough to know that despite its limitations, it serves well as a general wildlife lens (enough reach, useful zoom range) and can handle things like BIF. I'd likely mostly be on the side of a road, but there is the possiblity of short hikes in which case I'd *probably* take just one camera with the 100-400 (though I will be testing a two camera carry rig).

I have practiced some (when cold enough) using gloves to run the cameras. But I suspect I'll be slower than usual to make adjustments.

There is no answer to your question, both the Tamron 100-400mm and 70-200mm have their merits. Yes the bison can be right next to your car but for me, the better picture is when they are not so close, out next to a geyser etc. I have been twice to Yellowstone in the winter, once I rented the 800mm f/5.6 and the other time just used the 500mm PF. Frankly I really enjoyed have the extra focal length of the 800mm (both times only had, like you, cropped cameras). The wolves and foxes and even coyotes and moose
are much more likely to be a bit far for a 500mm lens, but we didn't go hiking out into the snow. And then there are the smaller birds and pika where one wants the extra reach. Always shot from near the car. Definitely bring a tripod and a wider lens for scenic shots. Have a great time! I wish I had gotten it together to go this year with my 800mm PF lens.
PS. You can see the focal lengths of the photos I shot on my flickr albums if interested:

Yellowstone in winter

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Yellowstone in Oct. 2019

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[PhotoLover]

There is no answer to your question, both the Tamron 100-400mm and 70-200mm have their merits. Yes the bison can be right next to your car but for me, the better picture is when they are not so close, out next to a geyser etc. I have been twice to Yellowstone in the winter, once I rented the 800mm f/5.6 and the other time just used the 500mm PF. Frankly I really enjoyed have the extra focal length of the 800mm (both times only had, like you, cropped cameras). The wolves and foxes and even coyotes and moose
are much more likely to be a bit far for a 500mm lens, but we didn't go hiking out into the snow. And then there are the smaller birds and pika where one wants the extra reach. Always shot from near the car. Definitely bring a tripod and a wider lens for scenic shots. Have a great time! I wish I had gotten it together to go this year with my 800mm PF lens.
PS. You can see the focal lengths of the photos I shot on my flickr albums if interested:

Yellowstone in winter

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Yellowstone in Oct. 2019

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Truthfully I was looking more for verification than a definitive "take lens X." Though I like the 70-200, I'll probably stick with the 100-400. And trust to noise reduction software if I don't have much light. But with wildlife, you usually want more reach than less, and the 100-400 at 100 is relatively wide.

I've used the 1.4 enough with the 500, giving me 750 on a crop frame, to be confident with the IQ and unless it is really dark, the AF will be good enough with that combination for slow moving (compared to BIF) mammals (I don't love the 8.0 aperture, but that's what I've got). If it is really dark and things are very far away .... well I don't have the gear for that. My job is to minimize user error with the gear I have.

Will have tripod and landscape lens with me.

Thanks for the shots, they do indeed give me examples, as did Calson's shot, of some possible scenarios.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Photolover,

From my experience the one lens that you don’t bring will be the one that you wish that you did bring. I’d rather have the 70-200 available, 70-200 = 105-300, 100-400=150-600 (DX). My concern would be the 45 at the lower end might be too much at times. Your guide will probably give you some type of an agenda to help you plan. Enjoy Yellowstone in the winter.

 

[PhotoLover]

Photolover,

From my experience the one lens that you don’t bring will be the one that you wish that you did bring. I’d rather have the 70-200 available, 70-200 = 105-300, 100-400=150-600 (DX). My concern would be the 45 at the lower end might be too much at times. Your guide will probably give you some type of an agenda to help you plan. Enjoy Yellowstone in the winter.

That is my experience also. Last time I was birding near sunset the sunset was wonderful. I had a 500 pf and no other lens. The birding was so-so, the sunset great.

The guide suggestion is basically "go big."

My assumption is that with a zoom, I'm more likely to want the extra reach than I am the short end, though yeah at ranges where it works I'd rather have the 70-200. Generally ... generally ... you want the reach. The 105 at the short end of the 70-200 is basically 2x magnification. The 150 from the Tamron is 3x. My iphone is 1x . Again, given time I have a 16-80 I could slap on there.