Telephoto lens (Page 2): When I went to Yellowstone, I brought a compact camera with limited zoom range, and it was fine. Of course, I was interested in the thermal features, rather...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

ChiefEW wrote:

We are going on a 15 day National parks bus trip this year. Yellowstone, Arches, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc. I shoot with a Nikon D5300 camera. I have a Nikon 18-55, and a 55-200. I am looking at adding the 200-500. In addition I like to take pictures of birds and wildlife. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you.

When I went to Yellowstone, I brought a compact camera with limited zoom range, and it was fine. Of course, I was interested in the thermal features, rather than animals in the distance. One problem was the large number of "bus people" holding up their iPads - blocking the view - to take pictures.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Rick Fox wrote:

I suggest a Tamron 18-400. It does nothing perfectly, but it does everything (including birds) well... Plus, only one lens to carry on the bus.

This lens is probably the most praised camera gear on uhh. With the exception of the Nikon D850 DSLR.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

ChiefEW wrote:

We are going on a 15 day National parks bus trip this year. Yellowstone, Arches, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc. I shoot with a Nikon D5300 camera. I have a Nikon 18-55, and a 55-200. I am looking at adding the 200-500. In addition I like to take pictures of birds and wildlife. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you.

Good image quality and focal range but heavy and unwieldy when hand holding. Get a monopod with a pivot head too if you don't already have one. Your images will be sharper and you will feel better at the end of the day.

OllieFCR

The only real use for longer lenses on this trip would be for birds and wildlife. I would bring wider, cheaper, and lighter wide angle lenses and a tripod and concentrate on the dramatic scenery you will find. For a cropped sensor cover the 10-70 mm range. Bus trips are not the best as you want to be out for sunrise and sunset hours.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The 18-55 is a very good lens that will yield excellent images if you do your part. This particular lens will be invaluable for general photography.
The 200-500 f5.6 VR is an excellent optics from what I know and it should take care of most of the wildlife you will encounter during your trip to the National Parks.
I bet the 18-55 will see most use.

sathca Loc: Narragansett Rhode Island

Gene51 wrote:

If you need to get Nikon, then the 200-500 is a good bet. If you are open to getting something a little sharper, an extra 100mm of usable focal length* and with better dust and moisture sealing, configurable focus and stabilization parameters, has an Arca Swiss compatible lens foot, weighs quarter pound less and costs $100 less, then you might want to look at the Tamron 150-600 G2. I like it as much as my much heavier Sigma 150-600 Sport, which I also like as much as my Nikkor 600mmF4. The 200-500 isn't quite, in the same league, but I am being very critical, it is still a very good lens capable of taking great shots.

*by usable focal length I mean that it's not just a number - many lenses, including the 200-500, get a little soft at full zoom. Center performance on an MTF chart drops from a high of 2658 @ F5.6 at 300mm to 2143 @ F5.6 at 500mm - almost a 20% drop in center area sharpness. At 500mm and F8 it increases slightly to 2244.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

The Tamron does not - it is just as sharp at 600mm as it is at 500mm.

The reviewer in this article came to the same conclusion:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

I consider the Tamron to be every bit as sharp as the Sigma Sport, which in the 200-500 review provides an MTF figure of 2607 at F6.3 and high of 2711 at F8, both at 600mm. At it's best, beats the Nikon by 20%. I cannot put my finger on sharpness tests for the G2, but I did recently shoot with one and found no lack of sharpness at all, and I do recall reading that the sharpness was comparable and even a little sharper at shorter focal lengths.

Taking an 18-400 would leave me regretting not taking a better lens, and taking a bridge camera even more so. I shoot with a Sony RX10m4 which is about as good as it gets for a bridge, and though I am happy with the compromise of weight&size against image quality, they kind of trip you are taking would certainly warrant a better choice. Don't get me wrong - I love my Sony, but it is no Nikon D810 or even a D800, which is what I normally shoot with.

If you need to get Nikon, then the 200-500 is a go... (show quote)

I have the Nikon 200-500 and the Tamron 150-600 g2 and I have to agree with the poster and add one other important feature; the tamron focuses about twice as fast as the Nikon and for birds it makes a difference in the number of keepers! They’re both sharp on sunny days at the right distance but don’t be disappointed when the bird is fuzzy when it was 150-200ft away and it wasn’t the golden hour! ( smaller birds )

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

That's a pretty wonderful trip! The best camera set-up is the one you can carry without your back complaining and ruining it!

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I've been to all the parks on your tour. Your lens will be great except YNP. Wildlife at YNP may be a few feet or 100 yds or more. I shoot a D7100 with a 18-300 3.5-5.6 or a Tamron 150-600 G2. Landscape and thermal features your shorter lens will be fine. In summer when schools out all the parks can be a nightmare, to many people. Bear and Bison jams make traffic come to a standstill at YNP. Just take lots of photos and have fun.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ChiefEW wrote:

We are going on a 15 day National parks bus trip this year. Yellowstone, Arches, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc. I shoot with a Nikon D5300 camera. I have a Nikon 18-55, and a 55-200. I am looking at adding the 200-500. In addition I like to take pictures of birds and wildlife. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you.

The 200-500mm would be a great addition! You also might want a tripod, or at least a monopod, if you don't already have one. While you can hand hold the big telephoto for a short while, you probably won't want to do so for very lone.

For scenic shots you also might want a wider lens such as the relatively inexpensive Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm (check to be sure your camera is compatible with AF-P lenses, though).

If it were me, I'd want a quality circular polarizing filter (such as B+W MRC or F-Pro or the slim SXS-Pro) for the wide angle too. Maybe one to fit the 18-55, too (if it's a different size filter thread).

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I like to think about the kinds of photos I want before I put the lens on rather than looking for a lens to fit all the photos that are out there.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

ChiefEW wrote:

We are going on a 15 day National parks bus trip this year. Yellowstone, Arches, Mt Rushmore, Grand Canyon, etc. I shoot with a Nikon D5300 camera. I have a Nikon 18-55, and a 55-200. I am looking at adding the 200-500. In addition I like to take pictures of birds and wildlife. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you.

With the 200-500mm addition, which would be great, I assume you are also planning to bring a tripod. If you will be doing a lot of hiking, keep in mind the extra weight. Enjoy the trip.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

For landscapes, I recommend a a lens with wide angle focal lengths for landscapes. I have a Tamron 10-24mm and Nikon 16-80mm for general photography and landscapes. If you are serious about birding a lens with 100-400 focal length would be useful. I don't line wide range zooms - too many compromises. Have you considered a macro lens? I took a nice picture of elk in Yellowstone at about 60mm. jcboy3 and I are of like minds.

Bob Boner

The 200--500 would not overlap your other lenses, and gives you more length than several of the other recommendations. I go to Yellowstone every fall twice and Mt. Rushmore once, and my 600mm lens is probably my most used. If you are interested in photographing wildlife, I definitely recommend the 200--500 over the other suggestions.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

gvarner wrote:

I like to think about the kinds of photos I want before I put the lens on rather than looking for a lens to fit all the photos that are out there.

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

jcboy3 wrote:

I can't imagine using that lens much at all on your trip. I recommend an ultra-wide angle lens for these parks, instead.

A super wide would be nice to have but considering this is a limited access bus trip, they may not have the ability to find suitable locations for shots. A longer tele zoom would offer much more flexibility when shooting. Many people want a super wide lens, but remember that the subject matter is very small in the image unless you can position yourself otherwise.