via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I think you are talking about YELLOWSTONE. There are no bison, etc. in Yosemite. Easy to do, both have a "Y" and I do that, too, at times.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Sorry, I am wrong, I read the post too fast, yes, it was in Yellowstone. It's my fault!!
But the way, I would like to plan a trip to Yosemite in the future.

repleo Loc: Boston

I posted a question about the use of long lenses for landscapes a while back. I got some good recommendations, but Mike Jackson's reply was a real eye opener for me. I am reposting it here. Definitely worth checking out the links.

Mike Jackson Joined: Nov 10, 2015 Posts: 12 Loc: Jackson Hole, WY

Thanks for the links and comments about my site.

In my humble opinion, telephoto lenses are spectacular for landscapes. I especially like my Tamron 150-600mm G2 and Nikon 70-200mm lenses, though I own Nikon 24-70 mm and Nikon 14-24mm lenses. I seldom shoot the 14-24 for landscapes.

If so inclined, check out this post on my blog about the subject.

https://www.bestofthetetons.com/2017/04/24/telephoto-lenses-for-landscapes/

You might notice the shot of Hidden Falls on Cascade Creek in GTNP. I hauled my tripod and the Tamron 150-600mm lens up the mountain specifically for the shot which consisted of a bunch or horizontal captures stacked into a single vertical pano. That stitched digital file is huge--while shooting the same subject with a standard landscape lens would mean considerable cropping and loss of MPX data.

Additionally, check out this page:
https://www.bestofthetetons.com/2013/08/29/distance-and-scale-relationships-in-the-tetons-and-elsewhere/

Many people assume that getting close and using a short lens is a superior option, but in landscapes (especially with mountains as a backdrop) being close makes the mountains looks smaller. There's a slideshow on the page that illustrates the phenomenon.

There are times when you can't back up and there times you can't get close. They are instances when the correct lens can make the shot.

https://www.bestofthetetons.com/2014/05/20/panoramic-images-tips-for-getting-more-of-the-tetons-in-a-shot/

Shooting Data for Hidden Falls: NIKON D800, Tamron 150-600 mm f/5.0-6.3 at 150 mm, 1/15 Second at f/9, Manual Mode, -2 EV, ISO 64

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

You should definitely get to Yosemite. A beautiful park, but very different from Yellowstone. As a wildlife photographer I am in love with Yellowstone and would like to shoot there once or twice a year. So far, I've been three times. But, it's hard to beat the sheer beauty of the landscapes in Yosemite. Plan your trip!

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

The Deer 🦌 in the Valley are quite accustomed to humans. You can get much closer than what a 300mm will require.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

did Ansel do much macro or wildlife photography?

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Best answer

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I think your good. Buy the 200-500 when you get back.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Macro lenses are usually small and compact. Wouldn’t hurt to toss one into the bag. Pack lightly. A heavy load will stifle creativity.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

When it comes to landscapes and cityscapes, everyone has a personal choice. You may want a closeup view of a mountain, or a wide angle view of a range of mountains. I don't do a lot a landscapes photography, but I am intrigued with buildings, churches, museums, large hotels, cemeteries, and Parks. Usually, a focal range between 18-200mm will meet my needs on a crop sensor. My next lens will be a Nikon DX formatted 10-20mm. That will give me a FOV of 15-30mm. And the price for a new one is quite reasonable. I also own a Nikon 70-300mm. If you can afford the expensive lenses to serve your needs. I don't have a problem with that. They have their capabilities, that other lenses don't have. And are much sharper in IQ.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I really love my 70-300 Sony, it is their top glass and sharp, can close focus (I've never shot 1:1 for wildlife, always patterns, details etc.) and pull in distance, when used on my a6500, gives me a 450 equiv. and that is more than enough for most wildlife shots, when on my a7ii the 70 is close to normal, put the 35 2.8 Zeiss on the other and swap back and forth and I've got everything I need and don't need a camera bag, just two cameras, bandolier style.

ppage Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)

A 200-500 is NOT a mostly wide angle lens so no, don't bring it for that. Depends on what is really important to you. The wildlife there is excellent and the 200-500 is the lens to use for that. The 70-200 will be ideal for those isolating telephoto landscapes so bring that. Bring the 28 so you can go wide if you want also.
Don't lug the 200-500 around everywhere. Pick one day to do wildlife and go around with that.
The 70-200 will do the majority of other shots and your 28 will be good for some landscapes.
Yosemite is big. A lot of landmarks are quite far away and looking tiny in a lens too wide. That's where the 70-200 will really excel.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I always take 3 lenses as a minimum.
10-18mm, 24-105mm and 100-400mm.
Never fail to use all 3 no matter where I go.

ppage Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)

Now that's a great kit.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Thx
Not heavy yet very useable.
The 100-400mm also doubles as a near macro lens which is great.