Would you take this lens?

My parents and I are going on an Alaskan cruise, and photography is a big deal in my family. My dad (the expert) thinks we don’t need to take the 70-200 f2.8 lens. He thinks that reach will be more important, so he’s taking my Tamron 150-600. I think action shots of animals are more important (plus I have a crop sensor and the new Tamron 18-400) so I think we should take it. I also think “it’s better to have and not need, than need and not have”.

Would you take the extra heavy lens?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What opportunities do you expect for “action” shots of animals? Are you getting close with a bear watching excursion?

If you’re mostly talking whales and eagles during the day time... take reach. Certainly doesn’t hurt to take the 70-200/2.8 except that it is a lot of weight for something that might not be too useful.

Don't have anything longer, so in Alaska I always take my 70-200 f2.8, with a doubler. For anything longer I just crop in photoshop. I find it works well with the doubler when shooting from the deck and straight lens when on tours and/or getting closer to the action.

In Alaska it is my go to lens.

My parents and I are going on an Alaskan cruise, and photography is a big deal in my family. My dad (the expert) thinks we don’t need to take the 70-200 f2.8 lens. He thinks that reach will be more important, so he’s taking my Tamron 150-600. I think action shots of animals are more important (plus I have a crop sensor and the new Tamron 18-400) so I think we should take it. I also think “it’s better to have and not need, than need and not have”.

 

Would you take the extra heavy lens?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies for hijacking the thread.

We were in Icy Strait 11 days ago and my wife got some lovely Whale shots with her Sigma18-300 lens; me, less so, with my Nikon 18-140. Since returning, I have been swithering between the Tamron 18-400 and the Tamron (or Sigma) 150-600 lens for the next trip.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the practical advantages/dsadvantages. BTW, we docked in Seattle and I had a look at a Tamron 18-400 but then I thought of the damage I had already inflicted on my credit card during the cruise ... :D

Steve

My apologies for hijacking the thread.

 

We were in Icy Strait 11 days ago and my wife got some lovely Whale shots with her Sigma18-300 lens; me, less so, with my Nikon 18-140. Since returning, I have been swithering between the Tamron 18-400 and the Tamron (or Sigma) 150-600 lens for the next trip.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on the practical advantages/dsadvantages. BTW, we docked in Seattle and I had a look at a Tamron 18-400 but then I thought of the damage I had already inflicted on my credit card during the cruise ... :D

 

Steve

The Tamron 18-400 is significantly smaller than the Sigma and over two pounds lighter. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary has better image quality but costs $300-ish more. The Sigma 150-600 Sport is two pounds heavier than the Contemporaty, and inch longer, has significantly better IQ and costs $1000-ish more than the Tamron.

How often would you use it?

How much weight are you willing to carry if use is occasional?

What can you afford?

Have you considered renting?

I ask myself these questions a lot! I still haven't made up my mind between my two finalists in the telephoto contest. :)

Dave

Given I have(had - sold the 70-200) all of the above lenses..

It's going to depend on a couple of things - are you doing a land portion and if so how deep into Denali? What time of year? What excursions?

Honestly, except for Denali and maybe some good luck in glacier bay or with marine life, the 150-600 will be overkill. If you are going to Denali, especially on the deeper tour, then I would want it.

The 18-400 will serve you well in 95 percent of the scenarios you will encounter. The issues are a slight softness on the edges (just zoom out a tad and crop to avoid if applicable) and it's not the worlds best in really low light. Which is why I asked time of year, if you are going in midsummer and will have bright daylight pretty much till bed, its a non factor. If you were going in September where dusk shots were possible I might want something with a lower Fstop - either the 70-200 or actually I would want something with a wider angle, like my 18-105.

Realistically on excursions you are not going to have time to do a lot of lens swapping, I would (and do) have the 18-400 on at all times. I am not sure I would take my 150-600 unless I was doing deep into Denali (on ship, except in glacier bay, the ship movement was enough there was almost zero chance of getting a clear shot of anything I needed 600mm on a crop to see).

If I were to go to Alaska right now (with a stop in Denali) I would take

Tamron 18-400 possibly with a 1.4x converter

Sigma 18-105 Art

Sigma 35mm Art for low light

If I was doing more extensive trip inland I would add the 150-600.

The Tamron 18-400 is significantly smaller than the Sigma and over two pounds lighter. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary has better image quality but costs $300-ish more. The Sigma 150-600 Sport is two pounds heavier than the Contemporaty, and inch longer, has significantly better IQ and costs $1000-ish more than the Tamron.

 

How often would you use it?

How much weight are you willing to carry if use is occasional?

What can you afford?

Have you considered renting?

 

I ask myself these questions a lot! I still haven't made up my mind between my two finalists in the telephoto contest. :)

 

Dave

Thanks for all the questions, Dave :D

Frequency of use? Probably 2 sessions a year where it will be used for 300 shots each time (took just over 300 photos in 2 1/4 hours at Icy Strait) when trying to spot whales, eagles etc and capture them before they become another blank frame showing the whale had been ...

Weight carrying - if it's for Whale photos, whatever it takes to get the shots- the soreness wears off after a couple of days (Marchie1053 - sponsored by Voltarol :))

There is a question (usually asked by my wife) 'Do you want the lens or the cruise on which to use it?' which usually means that I have to grovel more before the purchase ... I have enough time to scrape the money together before our next trip. I'd be more worried about buying a Tamron 18-400 and then discovering that paying the (not inconsiderable) extra for a 150-600 lens would have been a much better proposition. I'm struggling to justify the cost of the Sigma Sport Lens (haven't dare mention it to Mrs Marchie ...) - it probably has too much 'Shiny Kit' Syndrome

Not sure about renting a lens in the UK, especially if it needs to be loaded on planes with cabin stewards ramming other passengers' bags on top to fit everything into overcrowded overhead lockers.

The killer question (based on the Whale Shots my took with her 18-300 Sigma lens), is whether the Tamron 18-400 will produce images big enough/good enough to show these magnificent creatures in all their glory from a distance of 300 feet or so?

Steve

Given I have(had - sold the 70-200) all of the above lenses..

 

 

It's going to depend on a couple of things - are you doing a land portion and if so how deep into Denali? What time of year? What excursions?

 

 

 

Honestly, except for Denali and maybe some good luck in glacier bay or with marine life, the 150-600 will be overkill. If you are going to Denali, especially on the deeper tour, then I would want it.

 

 

The 18-400 will serve you well in 95 percent of the scenarios you will encounter. The issues are a slight softness on the edges (just zoom out a tad and crop to avoid if applicable) and it's not the worlds best in really low light. Which is why I asked time of year, if you are going in midsummer and will have bright daylight pretty much till bed, its a non factor. If you were going in September where dusk shots were possible I might want something with a lower Fstop - either the 70-200 or actually I would want something with a wider angle, like my 18-105.

 

 

 

Realistically on excursions you are not going to have time to do a lot of lens swapping, I would (and do) have the 18-400 on at all times. I am not sure I would take my 150-600 unless I was doing deep into Denali (on ship, except in glacier bay, the ship movement was enough there was almost zero chance of getting a clear shot of anything I needed 600mm on a crop to see).

 

 

If I were to go to Alaska right now (with a stop in Denali) I would take

 

 

Tamron 18-400 possibly with a 1.4x converter

Sigma 18-105 Art

Sigma 35mm Art for low light

 

 

If I was doing more extensive trip inland I would add the 150-600.

We are not going to do much inland (Alaska wildlife center is about it, no Denali...this time!) so the 18-400 will most likely be my primary lens. I think the 70-200 will go in my camera bag for “if I need it”. But I won’t swap out a lot, so if it goes on once during a shore excursion, it’ll probably stay on for the whole excursion. I also have an 8-16mm wide lens and a 30mm f1.4. I have a Crop sensor camera, dad has a full frame.

Dad really thinks he wants the 150-600. I don’t think I’ll talk him out of that. :)

So I think I’m ok. We are going in July, so should be good light. I’m more thinking it would be good for fast, action shots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My apologies for hijacking the thread.

 

 

 

We were in Icy Strait 11 days ago and my wife got some lovely Whale shots with her Sigma18-300 lens; me, less so, with my Nikon 18-140. Since returning, I have been swithering between the Tamron 18-400 and the Tamron (or Sigma) 150-600 lens for the next trip.

 

 

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on the practical advantages/dsadvantages. BTW, we docked in Seattle and I had a look at a Tamron 18-400 but then I thought of the damage I had already inflicted on my credit card during the cruise ... :D

 

 

 

Steve

Totally ok with hijacking :)

I had both and I’m too weak to use the 150-600. The 18-400 is easy enough for me to use. I upgraded from the 18-300, and once I sell that lens, it’s only like a $300 difference for me. I may take the 150-600 on my next trip (Antarctica) because I’m going to have all my lenses there!! For me, the 18-400 is my walk around lens, and I only consider the bigger lenses on my bigger trips.

For what it’s worth, I’m a decent amateur. I can get good pictures, but half the time it’s luck. So I don’t notice the softness as much as some other people on the pictures. I’m also take pictures to put in scrapbooks, and I literally cut out what I want :)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disclaimer: we have a lot of lenses, and we're more than willing to rent for a cruise.

Given the choice between 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4 (i.e. half the weight), 70-300, or 100-400, it'd be 100-400 every time, hands down. The only exception would be if I were going to rent the 600, in which case I might switch to the 70-300 instead, but definitely not the 70-200/2.8 and only a slim chance I'd consider the 70-200/4. f/2.8 is nice, but IMHO you're never close enough to take advantage of it, and therefore reach trumps DoF.

That makes sense. If your bag feels too heavy, drop out the 70-200, but if you have room and it makes you comfortable - if nothing else I would always have a spare lens in case of accident.

I'll be honest, given what you describe I would probably rent the 24-105 ART I have or something like it instead of the 70-200. I'd rather have the overlap at the low end if I was going to carry the weight, but then again I sold my 70-200.

And I love my 150-600 but that is one HEAVY lens to lug around.

We are not going to do much inland (Alaska wildlife center is about it, no Denali...this time!) so the 18-400 will most likely be my primary lens. I think the 70-200 will go in my camera bag for “if I need it”. But I won’t swap out a lot, so if it goes on once during a shore excursion, it’ll probably stay on for the whole excursion. I also have an 8-16mm wide lens and a 30mm f1.4. I have a Crop sensor camera, dad has a full frame.

 

Dad really thinks he wants the 150-600. I don’t think I’ll talk him out of that. :)

 

So I think I’m ok. We are going in July, so should be good light. I’m more thinking it would be good for fast, action shots.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me, the 18-400 is the perfect travel lens for this scenario. It's not 100 percent pro quality, but most people don't need it to be. Especially on a crop sensor it gives amazing range, and while it has a few flaws on a price/value/size/weight basis, its hard to beat as a travel lens.

Totally ok with hijacking :)

 

I had both and I’m too weak to use the 150-600. The 18-400 is easy enough for me to use. I upgraded from the 18-300, and once I sell that lens, it’s only like a $300 difference for me. I may take the 150-600 on my next trip (Antarctica) because I’m going to have all my lenses there!! For me, the 18-400 is my walk around lens, and I only consider the bigger lenses on my bigger trips.

 

For what it’s worth, I’m a decent amateur. I can get good pictures, but half the time it’s luck. So I don’t notice the softness as much as some other people on the pictures. I’m also take pictures to put in scrapbooks, and I literally cut out what I want :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd take the 70-200 f/2.8 any day. It should focus faster and more reliable in low light which is important early mornings. Add a wide angle when you need it but keep the 70-200 on camera ready to use. It very usable whale watching. You can acquire you subject almost instantly. Using a 400 f/5.6 to f/8 lens you catch the splash on a breaching whale, it's too slow IMHO.

Just got back and use the 70-200 f/2.8 on a FF body 60% a 300 f/4 on a DX body 30% and a 14-24 5% 50mm 1.8 5%

Have fun,

framer

My apologies for hijacking the thread.

 

We were in Icy Strait 11 days ago and my wife got some lovely Whale shots with her Sigma18-300 lens; me, less so, with my Nikon 18-140. Since returning, I have been swithering between the Tamron 18-400 and the Tamron (or Sigma) 150-600 lens for the next trip.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on the practical advantages/dsadvantages. BTW, we docked in Seattle and I had a look at a Tamron 18-400 but then I thought of the damage I had already inflicted on my credit card during the cruise ... :D

 

Steve

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

I just got the Tamron 18-400 for our upcoming Alaska trip and love it. While this isn't a nature shot, I had just gotten the lens before Memorial Day and my sons had Scouting events. One of which was a mass flag retirement. [ATTACH]423523[/ATTACH]

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Forums mobile app

Thanks very much for the message and the picture. It looks as though the Tamron 18-400 will meet my needs very well! Now to grovel to Mrs Marchie ... ;)

A much higher quality lens with a better f-stop. I’d take it. But then I take pretty much everything.

A much higher quality lens with a better f-stop. I’d take it. But then I take pretty much everything.

That’s what I decided to do. Who needs clothes when I have camera lenses to take?

I do find it hilarious that my dad thinks that my lens (the 150-600) will fix all his problems and I think his lens (the 70-200) will fix mine!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My fortune cookie said: "better have a lens you don't use than curse that you needed a lens you do not have".

I just got back from a B2B on the Coral, so did not do the land tour portion. I took 9 different lens below is the list and percentage of shots with them. This from a total of 8900 shots.

Canon G7 Mark II power shot 8%

12-24 f/4 2%

24-70 f/2.8 34%

28-300 f3-5.6 8%

70-200 /f2.8 29%

105 f/2.8 1%

200-500 f/5.6 18%

15-30 f2.8 1%

This was my first time to Alaska so I took everything, I had 3 camera bodies plus the "point n shoot" which was used around the ship and was better for shooting out the window of the float planes. Was easier to hold and had less reflection in the windows. Yes I wore black and put on gloves. Now that I have "been there and done that" next time I would only take 2 bodies and 4 lens; 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 /f2.8 (with 1.4 tele-converter), 28-300 f/3-5.6 and the 200-500 /f/5.6 (which if I could I would trade for the 300mm PF f/4 and 1.7 teleconverter, much smaller and lighter to carry and will fit in my camera bag and not require "it's own bag" to carry it. I found that 98% of the shots taken with the 200-500 where max'ed out to 500). For the super wide angle shots I would take multiple pan shots and stitch them together in photoshop and leave the super wide telephotos home to make room for the 300mm and additional teleconverter in the bag.

If you can bring it, do, decide at the last minute if its appropriate for the day. Light is often bad, so that extra aperture might be needed. As a "do I really want to carry this?" photographer, my 70-200 f/2.8 stays in the bag a lot, but Alaska is one of the destinations you probably will want all of your potential options .

Sent from my SM-G960U using Forums mobile app

Dang, I'm sorry I stumbled across this thread. I'm on an Alaskan cruise next week and convinced myself to only take my Canon G10 point and shoot with a 32GB card (plus an extra); highest resolution will give me over 8k shots and I can always crop if the zoom is too short. I compared the zoom to my SLR and the G10 is similar to my 2 SLR lenses (18-55 & 75-300) so am I'm sacrificing quality for convenience?

Sent from my SM-T280 using Forums mobile app

Dang, I'm sorry I stumbled across this thread. I'm on an Alaskan cruise next week and convinced myself to only take my Canon G10 point and shoot with a 32GB card (plus an extra); highest resolution will give me over 8k shots and I can always crop if the zoom is too short. I compared the zoom to my SLR and the G10 is similar to my 2 SLR lenses (18-55 & 75-300) so am I'm sacrificing quality for convenience?

 

Sent from my SM-T280 using Forums mobile app

If you’re happy with the shots that you get from that, why not take something smaller? Zoom doesn’t always tell the whole story, but for years I traveled with a canon pocket sized camera. It was only later that I became a photographer that is willing to haul around the extra weight. And to be honest, as soon as the mirror less cameras get my favorite lens (18-300) I’ll dump this camera in a heartbeat.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dang, I'm sorry I stumbled across this thread. I'm on an Alaskan cruise next week and convinced myself to only take my Canon G10 point and shoot with a 32GB card (plus an extra); highest resolution will give me over 8k shots and I can always crop if the zoom is too short. I compared the zoom to my SLR and the G10 is similar to my 2 SLR lenses (18-55 & 75-300) so am I'm sacrificing quality for convenience?

 

Sent from my SM-T280 using Forums mobile app

We always take extended holidays, so I always travel with two 5 D's (II & III) and a Canon P&S. Personally, I would definitely take the SLR, as I find them easier to make adjustments, rather than working through the menu options of the G 9 & 10.

I keep the P&S in my pocket and use it on the bus or around the ship.

Enjoy Alaska and take lots of storage and batteries.

How about just buying a bridge camera ? Some have up to a 500 zoom.

Just ordered the Tamron 18-400 lens for my Nikon D5300 - my half of our Wedding Anniversary present (upgraded from 50% of a Chocolate Orange so not a bad result ...). Clincher was a £70 reduction in the price, so the cost was just about the same as I would have paid when I drooled over the lens last month in Seattle at the finish of our cruise. Lens should arrive on Tuesday, and, unusually for a Scottish July, the sun is still shining so should have plenty of chance to play ...<br>