DSLR lens

All you photographers out there what do you consider the "must have" lens for an Alaskan trip???

check out the Photo discussion board. There are lots of threads on this exact subject.

As much zoom and as fast as you can afford.

As much zoom and as fast as you can afford.

Exactly

Although, most of the time I use my 18-270 to minimize the number of times I change lenses. This way I can take a wide angle of a glacier and if it starts to calve, I can move in quickly.

The only lens I used was my 75-300.

In 2010, my longest on our cruise was a 500/4IS on a 1.3x body. I felt it was long enough for the whale watching excursion we did, but probably a little weak for whale sightings aboard the ship. I wasn't willing to pay for or carry the 600/4 or 800/5.6. It was hard to handhold, though it got a fair amount of time on a gimbal head for whale viewing from the ship and during glacier viewing.

In 2012, my longest on our cruise was a 400/4IS DO with a 1.4x on a FF body. It wasn't great for eagles, but extremely easy to use due to its light weight and a lot of fun because of that.

In 2014, I finally got smart and bought a monopod. Duh...can't believe I waited so long for that. My longest lens on that cruise was the 200-400/4IS (which becomes a 280-560/5.6IS at the flip of a switch) on a FF body. It was great during whale watches but weak for eagles and some other wildlife while on various excursions. It was also marginal on our late evening whale watch out of Victoria; after a while I gave up on the extender and shot it exclusively as a 200-400, but still struggled with high ISOs.

For our quickie Alaska Sampler in two months, I'm planning to rent the 600/4 (with a 1.4x on a 1.6x body) and the new 100-400 on FF.

Love my Nikon 18-300mm.

As much zoom and as fast as you can afford.

Exactly

 

Although, most of the time I use my 18-270 to minimize the number of times I change lenses. This way I can take a wide angle of a glacier and if it starts to calve, I can move in quickly.

Love my Nikon 18-300mm.

Well, neither of those lenses are anything close to 'fast.' I prefer two lenses to span that huge focal length distance to keep it faster. Worth the extra weight for wildlife photos in Alaska.

Following this as I'm looking for the same advice. Looking to buy the Tamron 16-300 for my T4i. Seems to be a good balance and minimize lens changes.

Following this as I'm looking for the same advice. Looking to buy the Tamron 16-300 for my T4i. Seems to be a good balance and minimize lens changes.

I bought one and wish I hadn't. The quality of the pictures is a disappointment. Subsequently, I bought a Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. I took that lens on an African photo safari and am very happy with it. Lesson learned is stick to SP lenses in the Tamron line.

Here a a link to a gallery of Africa photos, many of which were taken with the Tamron 70-300

Sent using Tapatalk

A lot also depends on your body and what size prints you want.

IE if you had the newly announced Canon 5 series with 50mp and only wanted to print say 10X8 you can crop to billyo and get a good quality print, whereas if you've got 6mp and want to print poster prints you'll be lucky.

I bought one and wish I hadn't. The quality of the pictures is a disappointment. Subsequently, I bought a Tamron SP 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. I took that lens on an African photo safari and am very happy with it. Lesson learned is stick to SP lenses in the Tamron line.

 

Here a a link to a gallery of Africa photos, many of which were taken with the Tamron 70-300

 

 

Sent using Tapatalk

I heard the same comment from my sister. The sharpness and color of the Tamron lens are not close to Canon lenses she has. I was going to buy the Tamron 16-300mm, but changed my mind after seeing her pictures.

Btw, Mercruiser, love your Africa pictures. May I ask which tour did you take? I would love to go there in the future.

I heard the same comment from my sister. The sharpness and color of the Tamron lens are not close to Canon lenses she has. I was going to buy the Tamron 16-300mm, but changed my mind after seeing her pictures.

 

Btw, Mercruiser, love your Africa pictures. May I ask which tour did you take? I would love to go there in the future.

It's not Tamron v Canon no 16-300 is going to give great results, I am (unfortunately) old enough to remember when no self respecting photographer would use a zoom lens at all, then a 2x range was acceptable as quality improved now in all honesty anything over about 4x is, in my opinion, not yet good enough, when you go to 16-300 you are at almost 20x something just has to give.

I heard the same comment from my sister. The sharpness and color of the Tamron lens are not close to Canon lenses she has. I was going to buy the Tamron 16-300mm, but changed my mind after seeing her pictures.

 

Btw, Mercruiser, love your Africa pictures. May I ask which tour did you take? I would love to go there in the future.

The photos were taken in the Okavango Delta, Botswana; Victoria Falls; and the Sabi game reserve in South Africa. We stayed at four different lodges. I arranged this through a Cape Town travel agent.

On my last trip to Alaska, I rented a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM from lensrental dot com. Here is a picture I took of whales bubble net feeding from very far away while our boat was speeding towards the whales. This lens is a monster. It was fun renting it but its way too big and expensive for me to want to own it. Consider renting before spending big bucks on a lens. Personally, I like my Tamron SP 70 - 300 way better. Its much more practical for travel and takes wonderful pictures.

Link to original picture:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-v3zzr5v/0/O/i-v3zzr5v.jpg

For Alaska / Wilderness / Wildlife you can't have a lense too long or to fast

Superzooms while convenient and not too expensive can't rival the quality of image from a more specialized longer zoom 300 or 400 fast prime or 200-400or the newer Sigma/Tamron long tele superzooms. The reality is these lenses cause thousand if not ten's of thousands so most do with a superzoom that yield reasonable web quality pictures

If your vacation is to take pictures versus taking pictures of your vacation then what you select is going to be different. For the second most superzooms with 300mm or so will yield reasonable. If the form is what you want than hire a sherpa :D

As much zoom and as fast as you can afford.

Or rent.

DON

I heard the same comment from my sister. The sharpness and color of the Tamron lens are not close to Canon lenses she has. I was going to buy the Tamron 16-300mm, but changed my mind after seeing her pictures.

 

Btw, Mercruiser, love your Africa pictures. May I ask which tour did you take? I would love to go there in the future.

I love my tamron 16-300mm. I am happy with quality so far. It's so good to not have to change lens, canon do no have the exact equivalent and even if they did it would be way more $ so I am happy with what I have the amount of $ spent. It's also quite light weight which makes it ideal for travelling

Going to follow this. Just booked for 2016. I currently own a 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4IS and a 5D3 (plus the Holy Trinity of primes). I'm planning to get a 7D2 before the trip to get a 1.6x crop (the wife wants to get into the hobby as well, so 2 bodies would be nice) Looks like I may consider renting a 300 or 400 as I fall in the category of cruising for photography and not photographing my vacation. Particularly for this trip. Though we are going to celebrate our 10th anniversary, and celebrate I will. ;)

I only see people talking about long lenses. Are wide angles still good for landscapes there? I was assuming so. I saw myself with the 17-40 on the 5D and a long lens on the 7D. Thanks and happy cruising!

My wife loves her Tamron 18 x 270 lens. It's light weight and takes great pictures. She says does everything she expects from it and best of all, she doesn't have to miss a shot while changing lens. She uses a Nikon D3100 which she is also happy with.

Alaska is amazing! We plan to go back there again next summer.

Going to follow this. Just booked for 2016. I currently own a 17-40 and a 70-200 f/4IS and a 5D3 (plus the Holy Trinity of primes). I'm planning to get a 7D2 before the trip to get a 1.6x crop (the wife wants to get into the hobby as well, so 2 bodies would be nice) Looks like I may consider renting a 300 or 400 as I fall in the category of cruising for photography and not photographing my vacation. Particularly for this trip. Though we are going to celebrate our 10th anniversary, and celebrate I will. ;)

 

I only see people talking about long lenses. Are wide angles still good for landscapes there? I was assuming so. I saw myself with the 17-40 on the 5D and a long lens on the 7D. Thanks and happy cruising!

It's all about the spread. Last time, I had 200-400 "married" to a 1Dx, 24-70 "married" to a 1D3, and either a 70-200/4 or a Zeiss 15/2.8 on a 1Dx. That was an AWESOME combo, though I found the manual focus of the Zeiss to be a challenge while keeping the monopod and 200-400 in the crook of my left elbow (the MF ring would inevitably get bumped putting the camera down and back up again).

Example: Here's a shot I took of my wife using the 560/5.6 on FF: Interestingly, the very next shot to make our keepers list was a shot of me by my wife using the 14/2.8: So yes, range is beneficial.

My current plan for our next cruise is: for me, 600/4 on a 7D2 with a 1.4x, 100-400II on a 1Dx, 24-70/2.8 on a 1D3, and 14/2.8 or 16-35/2.8 to trade out with the 100-400. For her (she prefers lighter and less "stuff"), 100-400 on 1Dx, 24-105 on 5D3, and 11-24/4 to trade out with the 24-105.

It's all about the spread. Last time, I had 200-400 "married" to a 1Dx, 24-70 "married" to a 1D3, and either a 70-200/4 or a Zeiss 15/2.8 on a 1Dx. That was an AWESOME combo, though I found the manual focus of the Zeiss to be a challenge while keeping the monopod and 200-400 in the crook of my left elbow (the MF ring would inevitably get bumped putting the camera down and back up again).

 

Example: Here's a shot I took of my wife using the 560/5.6 on FF: Interestingly, the very next shot to make our keepers list was a shot of me by my wife using the 14/2.8: So yes, range is beneficial.

 

My current plan for our next cruise is: for me, 600/4 on a 7D2 with a 1.4x, 100-400II on a 1Dx, 24-70/2.8 on a 1D3, and 14/2.8 or 16-35/2.8 to trade out with the 100-400. For her (she prefers lighter and less "stuff"), 100-400 on 1Dx, 24-105 on 5D3, and 11-24/4 to trade out with the 24-105.

That's quite the collection you run with! Thanks for the tips.

It's all about the spread. Last time, I had 200-400 "married" to a 1Dx, 24-70 "married" to a 1D3, and either a 70-200/4 or a Zeiss 15/2.8 on a 1Dx. That was an AWESOME combo, though I found the manual focus of the Zeiss to be a challenge while keeping the monopod and 200-400 in the crook of my left elbow (the MF ring would inevitably get bumped putting the camera down and back up again).

 

Example: Here's a shot I took of my wife using the 560/5.6 on FF: Interestingly, the very next shot to make our keepers list was a shot of me by my wife using the 14/2.8: So yes, range is beneficial.

 

My current plan for our next cruise is: for me, 600/4 on a 7D2 with a 1.4x, 100-400II on a 1Dx, 24-70/2.8 on a 1D3, and 14/2.8 or 16-35/2.8 to trade out with the 100-400. For her (she prefers lighter and less "stuff"), 100-400 on 1Dx, 24-105 on 5D3, and 11-24/4 to trade out with the 24-105.

Your camera collection description reminds me of this guy. It's from an excellent article on photography travel tips by Ken Rockwell.

Your camera collection description reminds me of this guy. It's from an excellent article on photography travel tips by Ken Rockwell.

 

Ha! Peety3 is no doubt the anti Ken Rockwell.

"The more you're thinking about gear, the less you can think about the picture.

The less equipment I take, the better pictures I make.

The fewer lenses I bring, the better pictures I bring back.

The less crap I haul with me, the more good pictures I haul back at the end of the trip." - Ken Rockwell - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/simplicity.htm

For the record, I strive to be Ken, but secretly wish I was Peety3! :p

Your camera collection description reminds me of this guy. It's from an excellent article on photography travel tips by Ken Rockwell.

 

Ha! Funny stuff there. :) "For the record":

No backpack: 200-400 on a monopod. Lowepro vest (just to have some structured support) with a Lowepro belt. Black Rapid "Double" strap snapped into the vest (so it stays put). Lowepro Utility Case (old model) on the belt, right side, with lens caps, memory cards, and one spare battery. Water bottle holder on the belt. Lowepro Lens Exchange 200 lens-changer case on the belt, left side, with either the Zeiss 15/2.8 or the 70-200/4 (whichever one I wasn't using).

Not carrying too much stuff: EVERYTHING got used except the spare battery, but I'm not willing to go far from the ship without one. Oh, and I managed to stay out of the bottom of my memory card holder, but at least one day got more than 50% through my stash. Getting set up to shoot was simple: extend the monopod leg, done. :)

No polarizer for me: too much variation in shooting angles in Alaska to have time to align the PL correctly.

Midrange zoom: OK, you caught the Tater. My 24-70 got little use in Alaska, but it served me well regardless of whether I'd mounted the Z15 (because the gap from 15 to 200 is too big!) or the 70-200 (because having 24-x underneath 70-560 is a major factor). I probably could have used my 16-35 instead of the Z15 AND 24-70, but "the only camera I had left" (if I were to keep it mounted) was a 1.3x crop camera, so I'd be missing out. Instead, the 1.3x camera held the 24-70, and a FF camera would take the Z15 when appropriate.

Camera around the neck: nope, never happened. Two cameras hanging safely on my shoulders, one on a stick or carried on my shoulder.

Clean gear: I keep my gear clean so I don't get dirt inside bad places, and so I can notice damage before it's too late.

New DSLR: OK, some of my gear is the newest model...but some isn't. Some was rented; LensRentals.com doesn't rent "old" gear (with a few notable exceptions by popular demand).

Lens caps: cap for the 200-400 was in the stateroom. Caps for the others were in cases or vest pockets.

Great link, by the way!