wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Your 24-120, definitely, will not be enough. You will, IMO, need a minimum of 400mm.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

I would like to thank all of you who offered your opinions. I have decided to rent the long lens for this trip. Hopefully I will use it properly.

Dennis

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

If you plan any wildlife shots, even if it is just a few, you will want the 150-600. Otherwise, the 24-120 will do with some cropping.

Craig Rothgery Loc: Bradenton, Fla

Can't talk to the lens, but if you are over 62 years old get a Senior Pass.
One time charge of $80 for LIFE.
Every National Park in the US.

Enjoy!

williejoha

If you planning on shooting wildlife, definitely worth the money. JMTC
WJH

Ratelliott

I made the trip last October. Saw lots of wildlife; grizzlies, bison, elk, moose, big horn sheep, deer, etc. Almost without exception the wildlife required a longer lens. I was using my 100-400. With some cropping this got me shots that I was happy with. Most of the shooting is handheld. I would recommend a longer lens, which lens will depend on what you are comfortable shooting without a tripod.

kkayser

I would say the opposite. The experienced wildlife photographer knows how to get closer and can use the shorter lens. The inexperienced (me included) need as long a lens as they can carry. I use the Nikon 500 f/5.6 with 1.4 extender on a D850. I regularly shoot iso 3200. My tests have shown no decrease in quality shooting at 1/300th sec hand held.

DLewis Loc: Aurora, CO

I own a Canon R5 and a couple of my lenses are the Tamron 150-600mm G2 and an RF 800mm f11. Love them both and recommend them both. My Tamron is on Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist for sale, $850, as I'm trying to save for an RF 100-500mm. I've thoroughly enjoyed my Tamron and, although it's large, handholding has not been much of a concern.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

For renting while travelling one option would be lensrentals. Have them ship to your first destination and then drop off at post office near end of the trip.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

Yes, rent the 150-600 for the trip. As already mentioned, a tripod is useful as well or at least take a good monopod. The monopod can be good if you have a situation where you can quickly get out of the car, grab the camera and monopod and be ready to shoot an image that may be rapidly changing...like moving Bison or a bear moving across a hillside, etc.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

Dennis, is there any specific reason you are looking at the Tamron 150-600? If you are going to rent a long lens, I would suggest looking at one of the similar Nikon offerings, either the 200-500 or the 500 PF. I own both and they are both fine, but the lens that is practically glued to my D500 is the 500 PF. Superior IQ, and light enough to easily handhold.

I’ve told this story before, but I had borrowed this same Tamron lens for a bird walk one day. My wife was looking over my shoulder as I was processing my pictures. She didn’t particularly like what she was seeing, and actually told me that I needed to get a long prime! How many times does that happen?

Whichever you choose, have a great trip.

Gatorcoach Loc: New Jersey

A couple of questions for you first. You said you are driving so Teton and Yellowstone will not be a problem and I do not know about Glacier but some parks like Grand Canyon and Zion (and others) do not allow driving through and you are restricted to busses and hiking. Understand that the 150-600mm weighs over 5lbs and when on your camera is over 7lbs. That can be heavy schlepping up and down trails. Combine that with a tripod and any other lenses you want make for a weighty haul. Jumping in and out of a car makes it much easier but you need to take that under consideration.

I've been to a good number of national parks over the years and mostly used a 24-120mm and 70-300mm now pretty strictly use a 28-300mm. It meets practically all my needs and works for landscapes and just about all the animals I encounter. I had a 150-600 that I sold due to the weight and lack of use (and needing a tripod). My other wide angle, portrait, and 400mm lenses gather dust and only come out when specifically needed.

A suggestion, rent or borrow a 150-600mm and see if you like it and the weight is not an obstacle. Spend your time enjoying the beauty of the magnificent resources we have and not worry about futzing with your equipment.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

Thanks Craig. I am over 62 and I got mine back when it was $10.00 for life.

Dennis

ksmmike

I've been to that area a couple of times. If you plan on shooting wildlife, the better question might be, why spend all that time and money and sweat another $140 to get the best results? If you plan on shooting landscapes with wildlife in the images, then a shorter lens will suffice in my opinion.

Mike

gwilliams6

Yes rent the Tamron. The worst thing is needing that long lens and NOT having it. Some wildlife will require that focal length, as well as it can give you a new perspective on landscape photos. When I travel our National Parks I have everything covered from 17mm to 600mm, bringing my Sony 200-600mm along ,and I have gotten great shots with it.

If weight isn't the issue, then by all means it is worth the rental, you may never do this trip again, and certainly wont see these exact same photos again in the same light and conditions.

As a worldwide award winning pro photojournalist of over 48 years in the business and also a longtime Professor of Photography at a state university, I know the value of being prepared to get that once-in-a-lifetime shot .

Cheers and best to you.
https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3048747915213474