HankR Loc: So. East Florida

Without considering star sky photos, I am considering either zoom Canon 24-70mm or 70-200mm? I’d rather not carry both due to weight plus full frame 5D Mark IV? I’m leaning towards the 24-70 to get a wider view. I assume I can walk to get closer shots? Thanks for your help.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I went into the park with a 24-105 and really never felt like I was restricted.

PoppieJ Loc: North Georgia

if you are only going for one day or a part of a day then take whichever lens you are most comfortable with and adapt. If you are going for an extended period take both lenses and if you see something that doesn't work with the lens that you are shooting with you can always go back with the other lens later

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It depends...
Will most shots be of vistas? I'd take the 24-70.
Chance you might want to zoom in and crop? The 70-200 will do that.
Since the range is split at 70, I myself would take both and grin and bear the weight as I did until I got a new lens.
I might want to shoot, lets say 70% wide and 30% long?

I originally had an 18-55 and a 55-250.
I bought an 18-200. It lives on my camera now.
Anything past 200? Oh well.
Do I miss the extra 50 on the 250?
I don't know, I accept and work with the limit of the 200.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I looked back through some of my photos to see what focal lengths I used, and most were well within 24-70. If rock formations are of primary interest to you, I recommend the Jumbo Rocks area. To the southeast of the parking are some really good things and they keep going. After looking around the park pretty thoroughly, this is where I came for sunrise and sunset.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-549132-1.html

(Download)


(Download)

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

My vote would be for the 24-70mm too. Somebody mentioned a 24-105mm lens, which really would be perfect for Joshua Tree. My 24-105mm is my default lens; mine is on a Sony full-frame mirrorless system.

However, this post brings up an other issue that is rampant on UHH:mixing up apples and oranges, meaning indiscriminately discussing full-frame and crop-sensor lenses. When discussing a full-frame system, recommending a 18-200mm APS-C lens is useless, if not misleading. In full-frame terms (which by tradition is the de facto baseline when discussing lenses), this would be a 27-300mm lens, and a 29-320mm lens if it is a Canon with an 1.6 crop factor.

If you look at it this way, 18mm on an APS-C lens actually is not very wide, certainly not wide enough for Jushua Tree, in my humble opinion. The difference in field of view between 24mm and 27mm or 29mm actually is quite significant. I fell for that fallacy myself when I purchased a crop-sensor Nikon D7100 a decade ago with a 18-140mm lens. I thought I had the basics covered, until I realized that 18mm (really 27mm) is not all that wide, not wide enough to be a useful all-in-one landscape lens. So I added a 10-20mm lens to my kit.

When discussing lenses, let's be more aware of the different fields of view lenses in APS-C and full-frame lenses offer.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yea, Mine is an APS-C, (The 18 is like a 28 for me, which is the widest I had for my SLRs.)
I just live with it - what I see is what I get. When shooting I never concern myself with the 1.6 factor at all, I just shoot for what I want/can compose in the viewfinder.
If I really want wider, I'll shoot two or more and stitch them, or use the pano function on my phone.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You should do very well with the 24-70. Zooming with your feet makes it wider or longer.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

I agree with that. When it is your lens, the numbers don't matter. You know your kit, and you know what each lens can and cannot do for you. Furthermore, some people like to shoot wide, others long.

My point is that we should be aware and more open about this when we are discussing lenses across systems here. We have to do that in order to discuss our experience with others. Your 18mm is my 28mm, so we have to declare what we are talking about.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

I’ve been there several times. The 24-70 will do it justice.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yea, that would probably help avoid some confusion.
(I simply think of the focal lengths relative to my camera. Most of the time I simply compose (using a zoom), it doesn't really matter what the focal length number may be, I go for the composition.)

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

My experience at Joshua was that you can get quite close to the trees so the 14-70 would be fine.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

There we go again--is this 14-70mm in a full-frame format, APS-C format, or micro four thirds??? As such, this is a completely useless comment. Is there also a typo involved?

PoppieJ Loc: North Georgia

Or maybe just a typo

JDefebaugh

I have photographed Joshua tree on 4 different trips. IMHO, if you are limiting yourself to one lens, as previously noted, a 24-105mm is ideal for a good balance of focal length and image quality. Your 24-70mm will likely cover about 75% of what most folks would like to capture, however, with such a dramatic, picturesque landscape as Joshua Tree, I am at a loss as to why any photographer wouldn’t choose to bear the extra weight of taking both lenses. It could be that the lens you don’t take would have rewarded you with an image of a lifetime.