camera lens

On a cruise to Alaska, what size telephoto lens do you use to take pictures, both from the ship and inside denali park.

You will want your longest ..and still practical to travel with..lens and a couple of mid range ones.

Often the wildlife is far enough away that you need a decent lens ..and editing software, to get a good shot.

We were on our Balcony one day and my husband spotted a bear through his binoculars along the shore. It was not much more than a spec. I ended up with some great shots of it once I got home and cropped.

Same in Denali, moose and bears in the distance, with a good lens made for beautiful photos.

Alaska is a shutterbugs heaven. You will LOVE it!

I basically use 2 lenses. My "walking around" lens is an 18-135mm. The slightly wider angle is great for large scale scenery shots, and the 135 is a great short range zoom that will handle most needs. I also took a 70-300mm zoom, which allowed me to get up close and personal with the glaciers and wildlife. Here are a couple of examples

The 18-135 lens:

Here are a few using the 70-300. The first pic is basically from the same distance as the picture above, just zoomed.

Finally, this is about a mid-zoom on the 300, which is the better quality of my two lenses

As Mike said, a 300 mm zoom is great. And to go past it, lens get pretty pricey and larger. 300mm is about as much as a non professional will be using.

Stunning photos sdmike!

I have a canon 3d

here's a general rule, if you're looking for action shots, you want a lower f-stop

so my 70-200 f2.8 IS L is what i use to try and get those eagle flying shots.

If it's a lazy bear from far away, you can most certainly get away with a 70-200 f4 or even a much more affordable 100-300 f4.5-5.6

for those grand scenary views, you're looking for the lower focal lengths

10-22mm for example. In those instances, the IS might be good if you have shakey hands or wish to take low lighting shots. Though from sdmike's pics it looks like there's plenty of natural light for the wide angle shots. In this case a lower fstop isn't as important.

The walk around lens is the one where you're just too lazy to change those lens because lens can get heavy, and you never know when the right moment might appear, in which case sdmike's suggestion of 18-135mm is a great compromise. Typically these are also the lens that come with those camera kits.

that is a very non scientific way of looking at things.

what i like to do, is find your favorite camera store and bring your camera and ask to see the various lens and just try them out. If you're not sure alot of camera shops allow you to rent the lens for 10-40$/day depending on the lens (some go as high as 120-200$/day but those are some uber 3-6k$ lenses)

I always have my 18-55mm,my 55-300mm zoom and a 30-70mm wide angle. I just got in a new 8mm fisheye that I will be truing on the next cruise. Should take some great shots off the balcony. :D

As buffetpantspls (love the name) says, the 18-135 lens is what they call a "kit lens". While they are good lenses, they're not great. I intentionally chose my camera "kit" (I shoot a Canon T2i) to include that lens because I loved having a lens in a similar range with my old non-digital Ricoh. The upside is that they're comparatively inexpensive, even including image stabilization. Don't get me wrong, they still can take wonderful pictures, but they tend to be less forgiving in fringe situations, like if you're shooting towards the sun, etc.

My 70-300 is better than "kit", but certainly no pro quality like the 70-200 f/2.8L lens that buffetpantspls uses. That's a $1,500 retail lens. I use something between the two, a f/4-5.6 USM IS lens that retails for about $650. I got mine used for $400 on eBay in perfect condition.

I would say that most novice shooters, including me, will be fine with mid-range USM lenses, or even kit lenses. The results compared to most point and shoots are amazing.

The experts always say "get the best lens you can afford", because it makes or breaks the results. True for sure, but find your own balance. The key here is having something that will give you a nice wide angle for scenery, and something else that will give you 250-300mm zoom. I found those were the only two lenses I used. I will say, however, that mitsugirly's fisheye pics of the Epic studio cabins were simply awesome :)

buffetpants - I was surprised at how well the 18-135 kit lens handle low light without a tripod. Granted, I've never shot an "L" lens, so maybe these are weak efforts. Still, for a novice (me) I was happy with the results.

This is at 80mm at f5.6. I was surprised it wasn't a jumble of giant pixels at ISO 3200 and 1/30 exposure

I like this one because not only is it dark, but the boat has two spotlights shining directly at me. I thought for sure my kit lens would have heart failure, but she did well. This is at f5.6 at 1/25 with ISO 1600.

sdmike's advice is good. Nice shots of Victoria, there, Mike.

I rocked my Nikon 55-200 mm lens the whole time in Alaska (twice). It was versatile enough to grab photos on the ship and long enough to zoom in and get some nature shots, while not being too big and bulky - although it's bulky enough.

buffetpants - I was surprised at how well the 18-135 kit lens handle low light without a tripod. Granted, I've never shot an "L" lens, so maybe these are weak efforts. Still, for a novice (me) I was happy with the results.

 

This is at 80mm at f5.6. I was surprised it wasn't a jumble of giant pixels at ISO 3200 and 1/30 exposure

It's amazing how far camera technology has progressed,

my canon is north of 12? years old and it only shoots up to 9MP and it doesnt have shaking correction nor the sensor cleaners built it yours and it was double teh price!!

if i had to take that same shot on my camera, I have to have an incredibly steady hand, a really powerful flash or have a really expensive low fstop lens with IS built in.

looks like i may have to switch to a "newer" old generation camera =)

It's amazing how far camera technology has progressed,

 

my canon is north of 12? years old and it only shoots up to 9MP and it doesnt have shaking correction nor the sensor cleaners built it yours and it was double teh price!!

 

if i had to take that same shot on my camera, I have to have an incredibly steady hand, a really powerful flash or have a really expensive low fstop lens with IS built in.

 

looks like i may have to switch to a "newer" old generation camera =)

I'm with you on that. I almost bought their basic T3 because it was probably better than cameras 3x its price from just a few years ago, and still better than anything I owned. I liked the bigger screen of the T2i and few other features, but there wasn't a whole lot of difference between a $300 body and an $800 body.

triptolemus - Great pictures. I especially love that first one with that princess ship emerging from the fog layer. I've seen it here before. Just awesome. I love the metallic look of the bow too. I'm sure it's just how the sun is reflecting off the water, but makes it look like a battleship :)

triptolemus - Great pictures. I especially love that first one with that princess ship emerging from the fog layer. I've seen it here before. Just awesome. I love the metallic look of the bow too. I'm sure it's just how the sun is reflecting off the water, but makes it look like a battleship :)

Thanks! Had that one printed...it's 20x30 framed up and hanging on my office wall at work AND home... It's my personal favorite from the whole set.

Thanks! Had that one printed...it's 20x30 framed up and hanging on my office wall at work AND home... It's my personal favorite from the whole set.

lol. I have the first one above on my office wall too :). It's also my facebook background

I also like this one with the moon. It was pretty tricky to get because the moon was so much brighter than the deck lights. I just noticed that it looks like there are "cocoon pods" in the pool. lol

I am not sure how long mine is... on my Iphone.

LOL!

Anyways, I know some folks are great photogs and get great pics in Alaska. We have some nice ones.... though not as good as some of you.

But, I have to just point out something we have observed, especially in Alaska. Some folks spend most the time staring at the wonderful scenery though a lens and miss out on the awe. Kind of sad in some cases. (not for anyone here of course)

I am not sure how long mine is... on my Iphone.

 

LOL!

 

Anyways, I know some folks are great photogs and get great pics in Alaska. We have some nice ones.... though not as good as some of you.

 

But, I have to just point out something we have observed, especially in Alaska. Some folks spend most the time staring at the wonderful scenery though a lens and miss out on the awe. Kind of sad in some cases. (not for anyone here of course)

There is CERTAINLY a balance to be managed. I made sure that I had plenty of eyeball time without the camera in my hands....otherwise the pictures are just pictures...not memories of the real thing. :)

On a cruise to Alaska, what size telephoto lens do you use to take pictures, both from the ship and inside denali park.

To each their own, I say. On our 2010 Alaska cruise, my wife and I had six lenses: EF-S 10-22, 16-35, 24-105IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 100 Macro, and 500/4IS. Oddly, I think the 16-35 stayed in the room almost the entire cruise. For our 2012 Alaska cruise, we took: 14/2.8, 16-35, 24-70/2.8, 24-105, 70-200/4IS, 100 Macro, and 400/4IS with 1.4x. Again, I think the 16-35 got minimal use.

The 400/4IS is expensive even to rent, but incredibly light (relatively speaking) and does rather well with a 1.4x on it. I really liked it, but I'm thinking of renting the 200-400/4IS (with built-in 1.4x) for our next cruise.

I use the Sigma 18-270mm 3.5 as my 'walk around'. Switch to a nifty-fifty 1.8 for low light use.

I haven't been on an AK cruise yet (June), but I just upgraded my DSLR to a newer model along with some new glass. Pentax in my case, though. After lots of research and conversations with other Pentaxians, I am getting an 18-135 for the same reasons you folks have listed. I am also considering rental of either 55-300 zoom or a *300 or 400 prime. The deciding factor in my upgrade is the desire for a weather sealed system for excursions - both body and lens. Plus a much newer sensor, image processing engine etc.

Tripod, monopod, etc will be as much a factor in good shots as your glass.

Jim

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Finally, this is about a mid-zoom on the 300, which is the better quality of my two lenses

 

Wow! This is a great shot. I might have to invest in a longer zoom before I go Canada/New England next year. There might be a bit of wildlife up there to capture.

I currently have an 18-135mm "kit lens" for my Canon 70D, but I'm far from a professional, and it's worked well for me so far. I also bought an inexpensive fisheye lense, a Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 and it was so much fun to shoot with that lens on the Allure.

I had a 200mm on a crop body, wished I had a 300mm in Denali.

Bodger

In 2010, I rented the 500/4. It was real nice on a 1.3x crop body, but heavy. Wish I had a monopod. Gimbal head tripod was great when there was room, but...

In 2012, I rented the 400/4 DO (Diffractive Optics) with a 1.4x TC. It was super-impressive on a FF body - super light, fast to focus, IS. I don't think I ever tried to use it on a tripod, just no need to do so.

For our next cruise, I've reserved both the 200-400/4 (with built-in 1.4x) and the 600/4 on a 1.4x, but think it's too much to handle. I tried the 200-400 on a trip to Whistler Canada, on a brand-new monopod, and it was sweet, but boy it's expensive.

I have been very pleased with my Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC.

It can be purchased right now for $349 after mail-in rebate.

EXIF info intact

Gettysburg 2013 048 by sharod1031, on Flickr

cardinal-1 by sharod1031, on Flickr

IMG_3107 by sharod1031, on Flickr

Uninteresting pic, I know. But this shows how well the VC works. Taken riding through Gettysburg Battlefield on the back of a Harley :D

Gettysburg 2013 025 by sharod1031, on Flickr

At the other end of the world, I had a similar decision to make in terms of lenses for Antarctica, with the added complication of serious carry on weight limits on a charter flight. Because we were going to be in a lot of windy and wet conditions where changing lenses would not be smart, and because I didn't want to get caught short or not wide enough, I finally decided on the Nikkor 18-300mm DX lens. I wouldn't take anything shorter than 300mm to Alaska. It would be great to have 400mm, but I think that's difficult for a lot of folks, for reasons stated by others above.

(photos by turtles06)

Oh, nice captures! As long as you can stabilize it, more reach is always desired when it comes to wildlife… I've got a consumer-grade 70-300 I use today, but seriously considering rental of a high-quality 300 prime for our Alaska trip. Nice thing is having the shake-reduction in-body vs in-lens, so I get it on *all* my glass even the old ones. :cool:

Jim