Which zoom lens for Antarctica?

Hi folks. It's our plan to visit Antarctica next season on an "expedition" trip with Lindblad/Nat'l Geographic (I feel so blessed to be able even to contemplate this), and I have a question about zoom lenses and length. I've posted a similar inquiry on the Photo Discussion board, but I also thought it would be helpful to get advice from you all as well. I suspect people who have actually been to Antarctica have wrestled with similar questions, and it would be great to know what did and didn't work for you in terms of the length of you DSLR zoom lenses.

I have a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens and a 12-24mm. Obviously, the short end isn't the issue. The question that I am pondering is whether to get a longer zoom than I have now, and, if so, which one.

I know that some of you will be tempted to say go really long, but the reality is that I am an older woman and there is only so much gear that I can travel with and carry around. I also think that I am very unlikely to be changing lenses while on land in Antarctica, and also that on those landings, the 200mm will quite possibly be sufficiently long. Am I wrong to think that?

My bigger concern is having sufficient length while we are at sea cruising and have the potential to see whales, birds, animals on the shore, etc. For those purposes, I am thinking that something longer than 200mm would be good to have.

I had initially thought about a "single lens" solution, for example, replacing my 18-200mm lens with Nikon's FX 28-300, which on my (DX) camera would effectively be about 42-450mm, but as a "walking around" lens on shore I am pretty certain I'd miss not having a lens wider than 42mm. (The 28-300 is also a good bit larger and heavier than the 18-200.)

I am now thinking that perhaps I should go to a "two lens" solution and get a 55-300mm lens or a 70-300mm (any other good options?), and use that when we are aboard ship cruising, and when the lack of a wide angle won't be as important (and also it would be more practical to change lenses if need be). I would use the 18-200mm on the landings and leave the longer lens aboard ship.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on these questions. Also, is there another "single lens" solution I'm missing? And if you think I should go the "two lens" route, I'd appreciate thoughts on what that second, longer lens should be (and perhaps with that option I might not be limited to 300mm).

Thanks in advance for any advice (and for reading this long post!). :)

The 200mm range will be fine for landings etc and animal portraiture from a distance. If you are interested in birds in flight - something up to 400m is best to capture an image where the bird doesn't resemble a dust mark over a wave :-)

Black-browed albatrosses and petrels happily fly quite close to the ship, making 200mm viable, but royal and wandering albatrosses are using a looong way off the stern in the wake of the ship. Whales occasionally come close out of curiousity, but again they are usually a fair way away.

It is really windy at times, particularly on the ship, so better to avoid changing lenses where possible. I now work with two bodies - FF has my landscape lens, crop has a 100-400mm lens, and that works well for me. YMMV!

I had a 17-200 and also a 100-400 on my Antarctica trip ... used the 17-200 most of the time on land, but it sure was great to have a longer lens for some real close-ups. From the ship, I ended up using the 17-200 most of the time as we were on a very small ship and were close to icebergs and such; the 100-400 however was my go to lens for birds in flight. Hopefully you can find a slightly slanted wall (on our ship the zodiac cranes) against which to lean. It makes angling a long lens for BIF photos so much easier. I used two camera bodies until a rogue wave killed one of them ... just another reason to have duplicate bodies that can use the same lenses. I recently bought a "Cotton Carrier" to carry my two DSLRs ... such a relief ... wish I had it back then.

One thing to consider ... you could take something like a Canon G12 or equivalent camera for your overall "scenery" camera and take an SLR with a lens that reaches 300. That would lighten the load a bit.

Thank you both for all the advice. I'm relieved that the 18-200mm should be fine for most things.

As for a 400mm lens... It sounds great, of course, but assuming that I don't take a lens with that reach (price and weight concerns), the question is whether it would be silly, given that I'll have the 18-200mm lens, to also take along a lens with a 300mm reach (e.g the 55-300 or 70-300). On my DX camera, that does give me a 450mm equivalent in the "film" world.... Not worth bringing?

Again, I really appeciate the advice; thanks!

We're leaving for Antartctica in just over a month's time and I'm taking an 18-250 as my 'base' lens for shots ashore and on board, and a 150-500 with a monopod for shots from the ship. That way I hope to cover all eventualities!

We're also taking a post-Antarctica trip to Iguazu Falls where both lenses should cover everything and be easier to change on-the-go (though fine spray may be an issue).

I also had two camera bodies (Pentax), and 3 lenses : a (good quality) 16-45 and a (medium quality) 70-300 for pictures from the ship, and during landings I usually took one body and a 18-200 from Tamron (also medium quality). It was very practical (200 is way enough for taking pictures of animals ashore), but I had some issues with quality of pictures taken with the 18-200, particularly purple fringes in areas of high color contrast (and when you take a picture of a black and white penguin against a rock and ice landscape, you get a lot of these contrasts).

If there is a next time (which I really hope), I will take a better quality lens for landings.

My wife got some great pictures with her high quality walk around Carl Zeiss 16-80 lens on land.

She used her 70-200 zoom on board mostly for whales and some icebergs. Many bergs were too close for zoom.

Since you will have a DSLR and I had P&S cameras, my advice may not be equivilant but it may help some. For my Antarctic trip, on the Nat Geo Explorer, I had two P&S cameras. A Panasonic FZ30 (12X, 35-400) and ZS3 ((12X, 25-300). I used the FZ30 for on land and it worked fine. You will want some wide angle on land to get in all the scenery. I used the small ZS3 for the zodiac cruises (could be kept in my pocket). I also used it for video. I had never taken video but now looking at some of the short video I took, I am very glad to have the video. While cruising along the shore and through the Lemaire Channel a wide angle would work real well. We were actually quite close to the shore. I do remember some people on zodiac cruises remarking that they couldn't get any close up pictures because they had the wrong lense on.

Julie

I pretty much make do with my 18-200 lens all the time. I did the same in Antarctica. I would recommend carrying more than one camera though....just in case. I had a D90 body and a D80 body for my daughter. One of the 18-200 lenses froze and would not retract. I was happy that I had the other lens to poach from my daughter!!

Since you will have a DSLR and I had P&S cameras, my advice may not be equivilant but it may help some. For my Antarctic trip, on the Nat Geo Explorer, I had two P&S cameras. A Panasonic FZ30 (12X, 35-400) and ZS3 ((12X, 25-300). I used the FZ30 for on land and it worked fine. You will want some wide angle on land to get in all the scenery. I used the small ZS3 for the zodiac cruises (could be kept in my pocket). I also used it for video. I had never taken video but now looking at some of the short video I took, I am very glad to have the video. While cruising along the shore and through the Lemaire Channel a wide angle would work real well. We were actually quite close to the shore. I do remember some people on zodiac cruises remarking that they couldn't get any close up pictures because they had the wrong lense on.

 

Julie

Interesting. I used my Lumix FZ28 (25-450) everywhere and my wife had her ZS3 for zodiacs and her Sony DSLR for everything else. I took short video clips with my Lumix and more with my Canon Vixia HV30 Camcorder. I am very happy with the results!

I pretty much make do with my 18-200 lens all the time. I did the same in Antarctica. I would recommend carrying more than one camera though....just in case. I had a D90 body and a D80 body for my daughter. One of the 18-200 lenses froze and would not retract. I was happy that I had the other lens to poach from my daughter!!

Thank you for this info. I still have a D50 body (the camera takes great pics, just has that slightly "obsolete" feel to it now.. ) with an 18-135mm lens; perhaps they will both make the trip. :)

And for all you P&S folks, I plan to have one along; another "just in case" and also something to easily pull out. (Although there are SO many point and shoots out there, I'm really at a loss...we do have a couple..)

I appreciate all the helpful info!