BobT wrote:
Is this even a practical idea? And if it is, what might you suggest as a 3 prime lens kit for such a trip; realizing that one wishes to capture most of what Y-Stone has to offer landscapes, to animals. Very interested in your comments on this. Thanks.
Well, I gotta ask... WHY?
Zooms today are so good that there's no reason not to use some of them.
"Back in the day", when zooms really sucked, I didn't use many of them. Mostly just carried and shot with primes. That was "full frame" (film) and I traveled with: 20 or 21mm, 24mm, 35mm, 85 or 90mm (macro/portrait), 135mm and 300mm, plus a 1.4X or 1.5X to use with the 135mm and 300mm (combos that gave me roughly equivalent of 200mm and 450mm). Six primes plus a teleconverter.
Today I take advantage of zooms wherever possible. When I first switched to Canon gear I got: 17-35mm, 100mm macro, 300mm and 500mm, along with a 1.4X. It wasn't long before I added 70-200mm and then 24-70, along with several primes. But due to their size and weight I never carried both the 300mm and 500mm at the same time. That just wasn't practical. When I was traveling by car and shooting wildlife, I'd pack both, but only get out and use one or the other. When I traveling by air, I usually only took the 300mm.
With
full frame, about the lightest kit I carry right now has 20mm, 24-70mm, 135mm and 300mm with 1.4X (used with both the 135 and 300). Sometimes when shooting only in good daylight I substitute a 28-135mm for the bigger 24-70 and 135mm lenses. Someplace like Yellowstone, I'd get and use 16-35/4 (for scenics), would want a macro such as a 90mm or 100mm, and a long prime lens such as 300/2.8 with 2X or 500mm w/1.4X. Or in good light conditions I'd instead use my 100-400mm, possibly with 1.4X.
With
APS-C crop-sensor camera about the minimum I usually take is 10-22mm, 28mm and 60mm macro portrait (both small and fastt), and either 70-200mm and 300mm prime w/1.4X
or 100-400mm zoom.
For me, just three lenses wouldn't be enough. I usually carry at least four.... And I see no reason to constrain myself unnecessarily by
not using some modern, high quality zooms.
EDIT: I just saw that you're a Canon shooter, like me, and that you're using an APS-C camera... my recommended lenses:
Canon EF-S 10-18mm STM IS or
EF-S 10-22mm USM... Scenic lenses. The 10-18mm is small, light and inexpensive (about $300 w/hood), a bit plasticky, uses 67mm filters... it's max aperture is f/4.5 at the wide end. The 10-22mm is a bit better "mid-grade" build quality, has a max aperture of f/3.5 at the wide end, and has USM focus, but does not have IS. It costs about $675 w/hood, uses 77mm filters. Both lenses have excellent image quality. Both are sold without hood, but make sure to get the correct one for either lens (Canon OEM hoods are a bit pricey, Vello clones are about half the price and probably work just as well). Make a point of getting a quality Circular Polarizer (such as B+W XS-Pro or F-Pro) for the wide/scenic lens, in particular.
Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Macro/Portrait ($525, hood incl.)... Up to 1:1 macro capable, internal focusing. Also has a stop larger aperture than most macro lenses, which makes it more "dual purpose" for portraiture. Not terribly fast focusing, but a versatile lens. An alternative is the
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM... which is a little faster focusing (still no speed demon), also is sharp, but a stop slower, and costs a bit less at $400 (plus $15 to $30 for a matched ET-67B hood). Both these have excellent image quality and are relatively compact to take on a trip. Personally I wouldn't want to be without a macro lens.... or at least a relatively close focusing non-macro and a set of macro extension tubes. I just see too many close-up/macro opportunities when out shooting... and it's nice when a macro lens can double as a portrait lens.
Personally I like to carry a
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, too. On a crop-sensor camera, it serves as a "fast, slightly wide normal" lens and is quite compact, even with it's matched lens hood. Costs $509, plus $16 to $22 for EW-63II lens hood. The
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM is an even faster (2/3 stop) alternative, about the same cost, but it's A LOT bigger and heavier.
An alternative to much of the above...
Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. This is a very high quality, high performance, versatile very wide to moderate telephoto lens that might substitute for all the above lenses (
if 15mm is wide enough... and
if you don't need larger aperture lenses for low light/shallow depth of field... and
if you have macro extension tubes to be able to boost it's 1:5 life size max magnification). Very high image quality, reasonable size and weight... Cost is rather high at $800 (plus $15 to $30 for separately sold EW-78E lens hood). But that price isn't so bad, if it replaces several other lenses.
And most certainly take your
Canon EF 100-400mm.... plus at least a monopod to use it on (for longer shooting sessions). Sure, it's a relatively large and heavy lens, but you'll want it. It's a quite powerful telephoto on a crop-sensor camera. Can't use a teleconverter on it, though, with your camera (no autofocus and a very dim viewfinder to try to focus manually). Leave the 55-250mm at home (or in the car, if you're driving).
Stop worrying about swapping lenses! That's just silly. The cameras and lenses are designed and intended for lens changes. In fact, if you were to go with "primes only", you'd find yourself doing much more frequent changes than you will with zooms. Now, I do use at least two cameras much of the time, sometimes three, which minimizes my need to change lenses... but that's just to be able to switch very rapidly between them (not out of any concerns about dust or whatever). A lot of the time I'm shooting sports and need to transition between lenses very rapidly, but I sometime do similar when out shooting active wildlife.