Lenses for Alaska

Between my Brother, husband and I we will have two camera bodies - both with 24-105 lenses. (I guess the camera-less person will have to be the one to look after my kids!)

In any case, we are going to rent a few lenses to share between the two bodies.

My concern is if there will be situations where we will want the same lens, or if the 24-105 will suffice for the second camera?

I was thinking of renting a 100-400 and a wide angle lens (not sure which one yet)

The situations where we might run into problems if the 24-125 isn't sufficient:

Glacier cruising - Prince William Sound, Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier. First of all, would you want a telephoto or a wide angle to shoot glaciers? Is the 24-125 lens enough, or should we think about renting a second wide angle or telephoto lens?

Driving down the Seward Highway and driving up to the Yukon. Again,is the 24-125 enough?

Thanks for any advice you can give me!

Are you using a crop body or full frame? On full frame, 24 should be wide enough.

In my mind, you're in a great situation to keep telephoto on one camera, and the wider angle on the other. I gave it consideration when we were thinking of an Alaska cruise. I can certainly image many situations where you would want a wide shot of the vista, but then telephoto of details and wildlife. Hopefully someone with actual Alaska experience will chime in.

On a crop body, If you want ultra wide, the Tokina 11-16 comes highly recommended. I own the Tamron 10-24. It was more affordable and I like the greater range on it, but if I was renting for just a week, I'd go with the Tokina. And then I'd get a telephoto zoom to at least 300mm or 400mm as you're planning. Though I'd consider the weight and bulk of the lens carefully.

Are you using a crop body or full frame? On full frame, 24 should be wide enough.

 

In my mind, you're in a great situation to keep telephoto on one camera, and the wider angle on the other. I gave it consideration when we were thinking of an Alaska cruise. I can certainly image many situations where you would want a wide shot of the vista, but then telephoto of details and wildlife. Hopefully someone with actual Alaska experience will chime in.

 

On a crop body, If you want ultra wide, the Tokina 11-16 comes highly recommended. I own the Tamron 10-24. It was more affordable and I like the greater range on it, but if I was renting for just a week, I'd go with the Tokina. And then I'd get a telephoto zoom to at least 300mm or 400mm as you're planning. Though I'd consider the weight and bulk of the lens carefully.

They are both full frame cameras.

Would the 24 be wide enough to take shots of the ship from the dock?

Do we even bother renting a wider lens?

I have a FF & will be taking the following :

16-35

24-70

100-400 (renting)

I have an 18-300 lens and am very happy with it and it would be perfect for Alaska too.

Keith

They are both full frame cameras.

 

Would the 24 be wide enough to take shots of the ship from the dock?

 

Do we even bother renting a wider lens?

24 on a ff is fairly wide. Wider than most crop-kit lenses. I don't shoot full frame, but I don't think you'd end up really needing to go wider-- at least not often. Ultra-wide shots are more a novelty, though I do play around with it, and I probably will bring a UWA to Bermuda. It does give you a different perspective.

Ff, UWA lens start around 12-14mm. For an even more unique interesting perspective, look at a fisheye lens.

But your 24mm will give you "normal looking" wide shots. Uwa always has a somewhat unnatural look, as if wider than the human eye.

I have a 60D, cropped camera. I took the 24-105, 100-400, and a 10-22 UWA with me last summer. The 24-105 covered most what I needed to shoot. 100-400 definitely had is uses and was very happy I had rented it for the trip. I did use the 10-22 UWA, but was surprised at how little I actually used it. There were times when having an UWA was great, but I probably could have gotten away without it.

Tim

For what it's worth. Lightroom tells me I took 2275 pictures on our Alaskan cruise last summer. It also tells me that I used my 24-105 lens for 87% of those. Kind of a very good all purpose lens. I only used my 100-400 on a whale watching trip. On cruises I am mostly a landscape and seascape shooter, and your shooting style may vary.

Any way the pictures are here.

Enjoy your cruise.

Larry

Depending on what you want to carry around...

I always carry at least two lenses. I adjust based on what I *think* I might see.

For most on board pictures and closer range stuff, I have a 17-50mm f2.8 that is awesome for about anything you want to take close range with enough adjustment to frame most things the way you want. The

Your 24-105mm should fill that role nicely, and allow for a bit of a zoom for nearby wildlife.

I would also want something to go out to the 300-400mm range for wildlife. I have a 300-600mm f5.6 lens that I use for serious zoom. I would likely NOT carry one this heavy on excursions. It weighs a ton. It will bring any wildlife in close from the boat though.

JM

I use a 18-55 IS or 10-20MM Lens for interior shots. For outdoors Alaska it is a Tamron 28-300 IS lens that can get fantastic photos of things near and far. Really nice for whale watching or Airplane Trips.

Thank you all for your opinions. You've given me a lot of things to think about when I plan out which lenses to rent. Good to know that our current lens will fill most of our needs.

It turns out that my brother wants to try a variety of lenses. (He's much more advanced that I am.) I just want to make sure that we are both covered on the excursions we'll be on together.

If wildlife like whales, eagles etc. are somethign you want than 100-400 is a must. I shot a 70-200 with 14 extender on a crop sensor and was wishing for much more, YMMV.

Between my Brother, husband and I we will have two camera bodies - both with 24-105 lenses. (I guess the camera-less person will have to be the one to look after my kids!)

 

In any case, we are going to rent a few lenses to share between the two bodies.

 

My concern is if there will be situations where we will want the same lens, or if the 24-105 will suffice for the second camera?

 

I was thinking of renting a 100-400 and a wide angle lens (not sure which one yet)

 

The situations where we might run into problems if the 24-125 isn't sufficient:

 

Glacier cruising - Prince William Sound, Glacier Bay and Hubbard Glacier. First of all, would you want a telephoto or a wide angle to shoot glaciers? Is the 24-125 lens enough, or should we think about renting a second wide angle or telephoto lens?

 

Driving down the Seward Highway and driving up to the Yukon. Again,is the 24-125 enough?

 

Thanks for any advice you can give me!

I have a Nikon D800 and these Nikon lenses:

14-24 f/2.8

24-70 f/2.8

28-300 f/3.5-5.6

50 f/1.4

70-200 f/2.8 VRII

400 f/2.8 (non-VR)

TC20E-III (2.0 teleconverter)

I would classify myself as an enthusiast (I take pictures just for fun and for my family's travel blog). I am going to Yellowstone in early August and cruising Alaska on the Sapphire Princess at the end of August. I'll be flying both times. The Yellowstone trip is primarily for picture taking and my wife will be going with me to Alaska.

In my opinion, if...

(1) your general photo technique is good

(2) you are traveling for fun, and

(3) your main purpose is NOT taking Nat Geo photographs (family and landscapes)

...then a good quality wide angle lens and a reasonable telephoto lens will be just fine (I'm assuming that these are auto-focus lenses of course). Remember that you'll have to hand-hold your camera AND whatever lens you put on it. I can hand-hold the 70-200 f/2.8 plus the teleconverter and get good sharp pictures, but not for too long. You'll want something that you can hand-hold steady for 8-10 shots at a time (especially if you're taking whale or wildlife photos). Otherwise you'll end up needing a monopod/tripod setup or a beanbag/fencepost scenario. The BEST advice I can give is to pay attention to your white balance, your light meter and your histograms. Shoot multiple exposures with different settings for the best results.

However, if...

(1) you're wanting to take whale watching or animal photos

(2) you want your pix to be razor sharp (showing every single eyelash of detail), or

(3) you're a pixel-peeker

...then I would recommend using fast glass (prime lenses) and taking your pictures off a monopod, tripod, or something solid (a beanbag/fencepost combination for example).

A lot of my consideration goes into how I'm traveling, why I'm going, and what I have to pack/carry with me otherwise. Since I'm traveling on my own to Yellowstone and since I'm primarily going to take pictures, I'll take pretty much everything except the 28-300 to Yellowstone (along with a VERY stout tripod for the 400mm). Since my wife is going to Alaska, I'll probably take everything BUT the 28-300 and the 400mm (that beast weighs 14 lbs by itself).

What'll I'll probably end up taking to Alaska is:

14-24 (scenery, landscape)

24-70 (general walk-around)

50 (low light situations)

70-200 (with teleconverter for whale watching/telephoto)

I have a dedicated hard-sided carry-on case for my equipment. I hope this helps. :)

I am quite a novice but trying to learn more.

I have a Canon Rebel XS so it has 1.6 crop factor.

We plan on doing our first Alaskan cruise next summer.

In terms of priority, landscape and glaciers first, wildlife second.

I currently own an 18-55 and 55-250, both cheap Canon lenses with IS.

I am thinking of renting a lens or two of better quality that will meet my needs more.

I am thinking of a wide range lens, something like a 10-22 for the landscape shots.

And then a 70-300 for wildlife. I would also then take my 18-55.

Am I on the right track or would it be overkill?

Any suggestions?

I am quite a novice but trying to learn more.

 

I have a Canon Rebel XS so it has 1.6 crop factor.

 

We plan on doing our first Alaskan cruise next summer.

 

In terms of priority, landscape and glaciers first, wildlife second.

 

I currently own an 18-55 and 55-250, both cheap Canon lenses with IS.

 

I am thinking of renting a lens or two of better quality that will meet my needs more.

 

I am thinking of a wide range lens, something like a 10-22 for the landscape shots.

 

And then a 70-300 for wildlife. I would also then take my 18-55.

 

Am I on the right track or would it be overkill?

 

Any suggestions?

We plan on bringing our 18-135, our macro lens and our new 70-300mm lens when we go this summer.

This is always such a dilemma. I have a sony a55, with a 1.5 crop factor. I will be taking my 18-250mm, a fisheye lens, a 2x tele-converter and then, I'm debating between a 500mm reflex lens, fixed f8 and a Minolta 100-400mm. While I can use the teleconverter with them, I lose autofocus and find it difficult to hold them steady enough to manually focus. Both are comparable in weight and sharpness, and the difference in length is not too noticeable. With the reflex lens, it can be difficult to find the subject - the zoom is easier for this. This weekend, I'll be checking to see if there's much difference comparing the 18-250mm + 2x converter vs. 500mm/100-400mm.

Anyway, back to the original question, what about renting a long lens and then also a 2x teleconverter?

For trips to Alaska my gear I bring is:

2 bodies

Tripod

Fisheye (for fun and it doesn't take up much room)

24mm 1.4L

70-200 2.8L

400mm 2.8L

2x extender which allows me to reach 800 with my 400mm if I need to

:)