Lens rental, good or bad idea?

[jjknights]

I am about to embark on a trip to Jackson Hole, Wyoming and am considering renting a lens or two to use.


I have the Canon 7d with the 18-135mm IS EF-S lens.


I also have the cheap 70-300mm Canon Lens.


I have never rented any equipment before and was looking for any suggestions on possible places or things to look for.





Thanks


Jason

[Brendan7]

First, what are you interested in shooting?


Second, do you have a tripod?


If you do want to rent a lens, do it from lensrentals.com (that goes without saying)


brendan

[jjknights]

I will be going out with a guide to shoot wild life and some basic landscape photography. I do have a tripod, although not a very expensive one.


Thank you for your reply

[Brendan7]

no problem. The wildlife that one looks for in Wyoming is primarily very large, i.e Moose, Bear, Pronghorn, Mountain Goat, etc.


I would give you several suggestions:


EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM - Renting it for 10 days will cost about $70. This will cover landscape, wildlife, AND macro. It is a great do-it-all lens, and as long as you aren't shooting in very low light it would work fine. Weighs about 3 pounds, so you can handhold it. If you only want 1 lens, this is the one.





EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - This is one of the best affordable wildlife lenses. It won't cover landscape too well, but for wildlife it is undoubtedly better than the 28-300. Again, not a very low light lens. This will cover all the large mammals and even birds you will see. You will want another lens if you want to shoot landscapes constantly. Again, weighs about 3lbs and costs about $70 for a 10-day rental.





EF 300mm f/4L IS USM - Not a zoom, so not very versatile, but will offer far superior quality to the lenses above at its fixed focal length. For Wyoming, however, I personally would prefer the versatility of the 100-400. The 300 weighs about 2.5lbs and costs about $80 for a ten-day rental. Because of its aperture of f/4 it is more of a low-light lens than the two above.





EF 17-55mm F/2.8L IS USM - Great Landscape and general-purpose lens. You will love this lens. It is good in all respects and is cheap to rent. Very small and light. Great low-light lens that will cover all landscape and portrait photography you will run into.





EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM - Great general-purpose, slightly better built than the 17-55 and is more expensive. Again, a lens that everyone loves.





Well, those are some of my recommendations[H]


hope that helps


and enjoy wyoming!


brendan[;)]

[Daniel Browning]

I will be going out with a guide to shoot wild life and some basic landscape photography.


I suggest renting the 100-400. It's excellent for wildlife.

[clemmb]

If you do not have one you may also want to rent a tripod for that 100-400. Some rental places also have camera backpacks.


Mark

[Graydon]

I am about to embark on a trip to Jackson Hole, Wyoming and am considering renting a lens or two to use.


I have the Canon 7d with the 18-135mm IS EF-S lens.


I also have the cheap 70-300mm Canon Lens.


I have never rented any equipment before and was looking for any suggestions on possible places or things to look for.





Thanks


Jason









Barry at cameralensrental.com will take care of you, I have had great experiences with them in the past.


Others here have the lens suggestions covered pretty well. How about a flash? I would never travel without at least one flash and a diffuser or another light modifier.

[jjknights]

I think the 100-400 will fit the wild life pictures. As I mentioned I have the 18-135 EF-S 3.5-5.6IS lens already. I was thinking of renting the 10-22 3.5-4.5 lens.


I do have a flash, the 580 EX.


I have a monopod as well as a decent tripod (not carbon fiber).


Thank you for all of your input. I am leaving out on the 17th and staying till the 22nd.


I will post some pictures when I get back.





Jason

[richm]

Two good choices, I love both the 100-400 and the 10-22, and they should cover both ends of what you're missing.


Rich

[Aaron K]

I second the 100-400 + 10-22 recommendations. I've rented a 100-400, myself, locally, and it was fantastic (on the wish list...). The push/pull design took a bit of getting used to, and it was weeeeeird/hilarious mounted on my Rebel XT, but it produced great photos. A close friend has the 10-22 and loves it on his 1.6x bodies.

[peety3]

I'm a complete fan of lensrentals.com. Only time I've rented elsewhere was a last-minute rental here in San Antonio (can't believe they took full retail deposits on very used flashes) and a steal of a deal for a day rental from Glazer's in Seattle.


My high-level advice is to either rent lens you honestly think are high on your "buy" list so you know what to buy, and/or rent lenses you know won't make it up your list anytime soon when they make sense to try. I started out owning a 24-105, and in one shot rented the 16-35/2.8I, 70-200/2.8IS, 100-400, and 1.4x. I went in thinking the 16-35 and 70-200 were high on the buy list, and came out knowing the 70-200 was to be purchased ASAP (the 16-35 came nine months later). I wasn't impressed with the 100-400, but maybe I'm too much of a fast-lens snob (I admit it!!!).


When in Seattle last August, with our 16-35 needing a visit to Canon repair, I rented the 14/2.8. I could have rented the 16-35/2.8II just like what we owned, but for $5 more I got to try the 14. It's fantastic, but I can't justify it anytime soon (my fiance wants it though...). I also tried the 200/2IS - holy cow, what an amazing portrait and action lens. For a lens I thought I'd try once (for $45!!!), it could be #3 on my lens-to-buy list. (So much for a lens I thought wouldn't be on my list anytime soon...)

[Colin]

I wasn't impressed with the 100-400, but maybe I'm too much of a fast-lens snob (I admit it!!!).





The 100-400 doesn't get me excited, but it's very practical. Subjectively, I prefer the pictures I get with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS and my 400 f/5.6 better, but...


The 400mm is a prime without IS, and the 70-200 f/2.8 doesn't have nearly the same reach, and if you compare the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter to the 100-400 f4.5-5.6, the 100-400 performance in spectacular in comparison.


I mean, I understand where you're coming from. The 100-400 doesn't make me just ooze with joy when I use it, but I think it's very good, for what it is.


Now, if you can fill upa fullframe with a 24mm lens on some large game animals, that would be some interesting stuff. Perhaps idiotic, but interesting, I'd bet.


Hey, maybe Daniel would want to tag along with that f/1.4 mkII :)

[Daniel Browning]

Hey, maybe Daniel would want to tag along with that f/1.4 mkII :)


It will be a "once in a lifetime" shot, that's for sure. [;)]

[Fast Glass]

Hey, maybe Daniel would want to tag along with that f/1.4 mkII :)


It will be a "once in a lifetime" shot, that's for sure. /emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



As in dead! [:O]


Fortunately I had my 600mm when I took this shot.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_7570.TIF3-reduced.JPG


This picture is uncropped!


At any rate if your budget allows it would be great to rent the longest lens you could afford so you can capture those true"Once in a lifetime" shots, while still keeping your headscrewed on![:D]


John.

[scalesusa]

If your guide is a photographer, he will tell you what to bring, since he knows how close you will be able to get. Rent just what he suggests. I suspect that it might be a longer lens than you think.

[crosbyharbison]

I would go for the extremes:


50-500 sigma


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-50-500mm-f4-6.3-ex-hsm/for-canon ("http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-50-500mm-f4-6.3-ex-hsm/for-canon)


canon 10-22


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3.5-4.5/for-canon ("http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3.5-4.5/for-canon)





and might I suggest theGun and Barrel Steak &amp; Game House while your there (best tenderloin I've ever had).

[neuroanatomist]

Responding the the title of your post, for me I say, "bad idea" when it comes to lenses I know are on my list. For example, for an upcoming trip I want to take an EF-S 10-22mm lens. Renting it for a week from lensrentals.com, insured with shipping costs, comes to 10% of the purchase price of the lens. After doing sufficient research to know I want the lens, I'd rather just buy it and save the 10% - the trip becomes my 'excuse', as it were. On the other hand, I can certainly see renting an 'off-list' lens, such as a TS-E lens, just to try it.

[Jordan]

Good suggestions!


The 100-400 is a lens I've owned for a long time now and I LOVE it... it is a little slow for my taste, but oh well. I rented an EF 300mm f/4 L IS for the last two days and I have to say, I like it more! haha... with a 1.4x it's 420 f/5.6. Still... I think the 100-400 is the way to go. I'm sure none of this matters as you're already on your vacation.. haha! Here is a shot I took TODAY with the 300 f/4. Okay okay... I took at the Honolulu ZOO but oh well right?! No one has to know that!


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com