Antelope Canyon, AZ

Cuong

I plan to stop by the Antelope Canyon for a day on the way back from the Arches NP shootout next month. I've read various reports about the guided tours to the upper canyon. Some felt rushed while others indicated the tour was worthwhile. I'd like to hear our dgrinners' opinions and experience of this magical place, both upper and lower Antelope canyons, such as fees, crowd condition, equipment (lens, tripod, monopod, filter, plastic bag), time of day, etc...

Cuong

anwmn1

Cuong wrote:

I plan to stop by the Antelope Canyon for a day on the way back from the Arches NP shootout next month. I've read various reports about the guided tours to the upper canyon. Some felt rushed while others indicated the tour was worthwhile. I'd like to hear our dgrinners' opinions and experience of this magical place, both upper and lower Antelope canyons, such as fees, crowd condition, equipment (lens, tripod, monopod, filter, plastic bag), time of day, etc...

Cuong

I have been to Upper once and Lower twice. I will be hitting Lower Antelope again as part of my pre-shoot to Arches.

My experiences and thoughts

Upper Antelope- Pay for an extended tour- four hours or so. Overland Canyon Tours is a good company with photography guides. Since it will be October you will not have the same light tubes as in the height of summer but that could be good or bad. You will want to go midday when the sun is highest and most bright. Upper is the busier one because there are lots of guide companies and it is easy to navigate through the canyon. If I remember correctly the Upper Canyon tour through Overland was around $45 for around 4 hours and the group is limited because it is geared to photographers. Time includes travel from the office which includes 20 minutes or so of a drive up a wash in deep sand to get to the canyon entrance.

Lower Antelope- No guides needed. Entrance is across the highway from Upper Antelope. Pay a little extra for a photo pass - $20 just a few weeks ago- they will show you the entrance and you have up to 4 hours to explore the canyon which is about 1/3 mile long. Midday is best to get the different colors in the sandstone.


Gear (for both)-
Tripod over monopod- not even debatable.
Filters could help depending on the shooting you are trying to accomplish. There are extremes in the lighting from very dark to strong light from the sun.
If you are paranoid about your gear you might want to bring plastic bags and rubberbands because it can be dusty especially when guides start throwing sand in the air to make light tubes.

Crowd - October is the height of tourism in that part of the US because the weather is cooling but not yet too cold. I would almost guarantee Upper will be busier than Lower but as long as you are on a longer tour you will still be able to get shots without people because the tours work together on timing. Lower can be busy too and is a little harder to navigate so you may have to wait a while for people to get out of the frame.


No matter which one you choose you have some great scenery ahead of you.


Some links to pictures if you are interested-
http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/gallery/2307976_p5kxJ

http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/gallery/5718232_9uiPc#353262141_MxDTm

http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/gallery/3053073_eww3W#166260063_9iFnc

http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/gallery/3053670_sXdC5#166278187_H2Xnq

Cuong

Thanks, Aaron. That's a wealth of very useful info.

Cuong

Cuong

I've seen advice against changing lens while in the canyon. What would be an ideal lens with the Canon 30D? ultra-wide 10-22 or short zoom 17-55?

Cuong

anwmn1

Cuong wrote:

I've seen advice against changing lens while in the canyon. What would be an ideal lens the Canon 30D? ultra-wide 10-22 or short zoom 17-55?

Cuong

Sorry I didn't answer that before. That is a pretty tough call.

If you only have one body I would opt for the widest- so the 10-22. The 1st time I shot them I had a 14-54 and had many times I wished I could go wider. I had my 7-14 the second time and ran into issues sometimes of it being too wide. Luckily I had two bodies though and I had the 14-54 on the other.

There is so many ways you can shoot these canyons and really unlimited compositions. You will probably be fine with either one.

Is there one that is better in low light than the other?
One that is sharper than the other?

Cuong

anwmn1 wrote:

Sorry I didn't answer that before. That is a pretty tough call.

If you only have one body I would opt for the widest- so the 10-22. The 1st time I shot them I had a 14-54 and had many times I wished I could go wider. I had my 7-14 the second time and ran into issues sometimes of it being too wide. Luckily I had two bodies though and I had the 14-54 on the other.

There is so many ways you can shoot these canyons and really unlimited compositions. You will probably be fine with either one.

Is there one that is better in low light than the other?
One that is sharper than the other?

I have 2 bodies and both of those lenses so I have the range covered. I believe the 17-55 is better in low light. Thanks.

Cuong

kdog

I have both of those lenses, and if I was only going to bring one of them, it would be the 10-22. Aaron seems to have forgotten how frustrated he was that he couldn't get the super-wide angles that I was getting with my 10. Much of the canyons are in pretty tight quarters.

And BTW, I think this is one place where lens speed doesn't play a big factor. Except for possibly a few special effects shots, you're going to want to stop down for longer depths of field. Remember, shutter speeds are in the 10's of seconds down there. So it makes little difference whether your shutter speed is 20 seconds versus 30 seconds. Who cares.

Cheers,
-joel

anwmn1

kdog wrote:

I have both of those lenses, and if I was only going to bring one of them, it would be the 10-22. Aaron seems to have forgotten how frustrated he was that he couldn't get the super-wide angles that I was getting with my 10. Much of the canyons are in pretty tight quarters.

And BTW, I think this is one place where lens speed doesn't play a big factor. Except for possibly a few special effects shots, you're going to want to stop down for longer depths of field. Remember, shutter speeds are in the 10's of seconds down there. So it makes little difference whether your shutter speed is 20 seconds versus 30 seconds. Who cares.

Cheers,
-joel

That was Horseshoe Bend my friend.

And I got a little something for you in a few weeks..... Say hello to my little friend.... the 7-14.

Cuong

kdog wrote:

I have both of those lenses, and if I was only going to bring one of them, it would be the 10-22. Aaron seems to have forgotten how frustrated he was that he couldn't get the super-wide angles that I was getting with my 10. Much of the canyons are in pretty tight quarters.

And BTW, I think this is one place where lens speed doesn't play a big factor. Except for possibly a few special effects shots, you're going to want to stop down for longer depths of field. Remember, shutter speeds are in the 10's of seconds down there. So it makes little difference whether your shutter speed is 20 seconds versus 30 seconds. Who cares.

Cheers,
-joel

Since I can only handle 1 tripod at a time, do you think lugging around 2 bodies would be a waste of effort?

Cuong

anwmn1

Cuong wrote:

Since I can only handle 1 tripod at a time, do you think lugging around 2 bodies would be a waste of effort?

Cuong

Heck no.

Just have quick release plates on each body and have a small backpack or large fanny pack. Carry one of the bodies in the bag and then just swap entire systems when you want to shoot the other lens.

A large fanny pack with a shoulder strap is what I used in these canyons because I really did not need to carry much. The shoulder strap allowed me to sling the bag around to change bodies rather than having to take off a backpack or set a bag down.

All you really need in these canyons is your cameras, lenses, tripod, filters, cleaning stuff (dust on lens), a couple bottle of water or camelpack, and maybe a few snacks.

kdog

The question is whether it's worth carrying an extra body for the 22-55 range. It is a nice-to-have to be able to zoom into certain features. However, 55 is still kinda short for that. Something like a 24-105 70-200 or even the venerable 17-85 would be a much better call.

devbobo

Aaron,

If you were only doing one...would you do Upper or Lower Antelope Canyon ?

Perosnally, I'm liking that we don't need a guide for Lower, so we could take our time more.

Cheers,

David

anwmn1

devbobo wrote:

Aaron,

If you were only doing one...would you do Upper or Lower Antelope Canyon ?

Perosnally, I'm liking that we don't need a guide for Lower, so we could take our time more.

Cheers,

David

That is a really tough call because they are quite different.

Upper has the light tubes and is where I shot two of my best shots





I would be worried of the light though. When Kdog and I went to Page I had called ahead and asked for the best time of year and time of day to shoot. It was mid July and midday. I am sure there are still light tubes just not to the same degree. If you do Upper pay for a longer tour as I mentioned before. It will one give you more time (four hours went by pretty fast) & the guide will put you in the best spot at the best time. I would call Overland Canyon Tours and ask about the lighting in Upper right now. Ask for Charlie or Jackson (both accomplished photographers) and ask about the light conditions in Upper. They will give you an honest answer. Both of them are however booked during the week of and before the shootout. I tried to book them for a different location weeks ago.

Lower is more about the different colors, details in the sandstone, and abstract shapes. If you know what makes a light tube you could get them in lower but it would take some set up, patience, and timing.





I think it would really come down to a couple of things:

Do you want light tubes or colors & texture?

Do you want to be guided or be on your own?

If you have never been I don't think you would go wrong either way. They are both a must see.

Cuong

kdog wrote:

The question is whether it's worth carrying an extra body for the 22-55 range. It is a nice-to-have to be able to zoom into certain features. However, 55 is still kinda short for that. Something like a 24-105 70-200 or even the venerable 17-85 would be a much better call.

Both bodies have L-bracket so switching them wouldn't be an issue. So it'll be the 10-22 and 17-85 lenses (16-35mm and 27-136mm equiv).

Has anyone tried Canyon X with Overland Canyon Tours? Given the time constraint, I'd have to pass up Canyon X this time around. Maybe another time.

Cuong

anwmn1

Cuong wrote:

Both bodies have L-bracket so switching them wouldn't be an issue. So it'll be the 10-22 and 17-85 lenses (16-35mm and 27-136mm equiv).

Has anyone tried Canyon X with Overland Canyon Tours? Given the time constraint, I'd have to pass up Canyon X this time around. Maybe another time.

Cuong

Yeap did that one too.



It is actually 3 small canyons- similar but different. The benefit is very small group (6 people on photo tour- only 1 tour a day)- pro guide (Jackson or Charlie)- so you have the canyon almost to yourself and as much or as little instruction/assistance as you want.

Cuong

anwmn1 wrote:

Yeap did that one too.



It is actually 3 small canyons- similar but different. The benefit is very small group (6 people on photo tour- only 1 tour a day)- pro guide (Jackson or Charlie)- so you have the canyon almost to yourself and as much or as little instruction/assistance as you want.

That's awesome. The cost is certainly worth it.

Cuong

kdog

Canyon X
Jackson Bridges is awesome if you can get him. I'm sure Charlie is good too, but Jackson is really a special guy and probably won't be doing this too much longer as he's in his 70's. Here he is with Aaron's very pretty friend Sarah.