Lens recommendation for Alaska trip

[gavavemom]

These boards have been so helpful in helping plan my July cruise to Alaska. Could use your help in terms of what lens to bring on the trip? Let me give you a little background in terms of what kind of excursions we will be doing: kayaking, Mendenhall glacier hike, Misty Float float plane, dog sledding, whale watching, Tundra Wilderness tour. Some of the activities we have planned are pretty strenous and scenery shots from planes etc.

 

Canon T1I

17-55mm

50mm prime

 

To capture wildlife, obviously what I have is not good enough. Would like to rent a lens for the trip. Any recommendations? Weight is an issue. Obviously, stabilization is key too. I don't own a monopod. Although I will be bringing a Tamron backpack with me on the trip, it may not always be feasible to carry all the equipment around all the time.

 

Is it useful to have a wide angle to shoot scenery?

 

Is it better to just bring one lens that can do it all?

 

Can you recommend something to protect the camera from rain?

 

Should I bring my flash?

 

I will also be bringing a P&S to have for quick, easy access.

 

Thanks for all the great advice!

[awboater]

The ideal setup is to at least cover the range of about 15mm (or 10mm in DX) at least up to 200mm.

 

This can be done in several ways; prime lenses, several telephotos, or a single "super-telephoto".

 

I am sure there will be some disagreement, but my take is that the prime lenses have the potential at least to provide the best images, followed by the zooms (but some zooms are just as good these days), and finally a single super-zoom lens. To me the super-zooms compromise too much, and end up having the least quality.

 

Less quality might not mean it's not acceptable, but you need to be aware of the limitations - if any.

 

On the other hand, you are lugging around a lot of stuff with the prime solution, and nearly as much as with the zooms. The single super-zoom of course for ship use is going to be the easiest to carry.

 

I don't like the super-zooms myself as I feel they are too much of a compromise, but others like them. They are not necessarily cheap, and it is my opinion that that money would be better spent on a higher-grade lens.

 

I guess what I am saying is I never felt you were getting the quality you were paying for with the super zooms.

 

But in photography, there is almost never a single correct way to do something vs another. And someone with $20K in photo gear can take bad photos, and another person only having a basic Point & Shoot could potentially take better photos.

 

It's not so much what gear you have, but what you do with it.

 

Personally I carry a 11-16mm super-wide angle, a 18-105mm "kit" lens, and a 70-300mm telephoto zoom. I just added a heavy 80-200mm telephoto monster of a lens, but I did not buy this lens for cruise photography, so I won't be taking that lens on cruises. The 70-300mm is an acceptable compromise to me due to it's lighter weight.

 

I also take a fisheye on occasion, but it's a pretty small lens.

 

My "kit" is about 12lbs (or 15lbs if I did take the heavy 80-200 zoom). That doesn't seem like much weight until you are carrying it for several hours.

[pierces]

To capture wildlife, obviously what I have is not good enough. Would like to rent a lens for the trip. Any recommendations? Weight is an issue. Obviously, stabilization is key too. I don't own a monopod.

 

If you decide to pack heavier, rent the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or if you can afford the weight, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM. Both are great lenses that will bring the wildlife to you. a 200mm lens might be ok, but I feel that the farther you are from something that can kill you, the better.:) The new all-in-ones are pretty good if you really need to pack light (see below).

 

A small, cheap monopod will not last as long as an expensive one but it will work just fine for that extra bit of support on a long shot. Get one.

 

Although I will be bringing a Tamron backpack with me on the trip, it may not always be feasible to carry all the equipment around all the time.

 

Pack for the day. I carry my equipment in a large Lowepro Fastpack 350 but carry a limited shore excursion kit in a much smaller Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW. If you're doing a wildlife or whale-watching tour, packthe big stuff. If it is a walkabout in Skagway, pack light and enjoy.

 

Is it useful to have a wide angle to shoot scenery?

 

I used my 28-75 about 90% of the time in Alaska. An ultra-wide can reduce majestic mountains to a line of bumps with a lot of sky. In town, a wide angle is useful but how you shoot is up to you.

 

Is it better to just bring one lens that can do it all?

 

The new Tamron 18-270 OS is pretty well reviewed and produces images good enough for almost any purpose. As a superzoom, it will never be as good as a collection of expensive lenses covering the same range but "good enough" is pretty darn good these days! A do-it-all lens is a good choice if you need to pack light.

 

Can you recommend something to protect the camera from rain?

 

I carry a package of the Op/Tech Rain Sleeves. I've had to use them a couple of times and they are great! I also have a dedicated raincover for my camera if I plan to be in harsh conditions but for travel, you can't beat the convenience of the rain sleeves.

 

Should I bring my flash?

 

Yes. You won't always be outdoors and even when you are, a fill flash pop can brighten up people or foliage on a rainy day.

 

I will also be bringing a P&S to have for quick, easy access.

 

A "dinner camera" is a must on a cruise. I carry one 24x7 (every day!)

 

 

Here are some images from our 2006 Alaska trip. We have been there four times and are planning to go again next year. It is a wonderful place!

 

Enjoy your trip.

 

Dave

[pilotdane]

I use the Vortex Storm Jacket and a Tenba rain cover which both run about $30-$60 depending on the model. Op/Tech makes an inexpensive/disposable rain sleeve that also works well though it's less durable. They are about $2 each.

 

All of these are basically tubes with elastic or velcro at the ends. One end goes around the lens hood while the other is open at the back of the camera so you can look through the viewfinder and see the display. Many models have a velcro slit in the bottom if you want to have your camera mounted on a tripod or if you want to stick your hand in the bottom to hold the camera. They are great not only for rain but also protect well against dust, blowing sand and salt spray.

 

As for lens choices my "go to" travel lens for animal photography is the Canon 100-400L. It's larger, heavier and more expensive than the consumer grade zoom lenses but yields superior photos and is water proof/resistant. My opintion is that you cannot have too long a lens for Alaskan wildlife. With any long telephoto lens a monopod or tripod are a big help since any camera movement is really exaggerated by long focal lengths making a clear picture more difficult. Also do not be afraid to crank up your ISO to 800 or 1600, even in the day, to get really fast shutter speeds.

 

A wide angle is helpful for scenery but quite often the scenery is quite far away so a normal (24-30mm) should be good enough. A wider 17 or 18mm would really capture the broad vistas but at such a wide angle the details tend to get quite small. For walking around in town I like the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It takes incredible L quality photos but is pricey and does not have the rugged construction of the L series Canon lenses.

 

I would not bring a flash unless you want to take a lot of shots inside the ship or do portraits of your friends. The pop-up flash on your camera can get you by for average use.

[chipmaster]

Flash with diffuser are great for around the ship, less useful outside

 

For wildlife the longest lens you got. Everything is big and far away in Alaska you either want to zoom in, or way out, 200mm at a minimum longer is always nicer!

 

Thus for scenics 18 is a minimum on the TI, 10-12mm is even nicer and also gets cool pictures inside the ship

 

Rainsleeves are good for having as it is known to be wet often in Alaska, and a good waterpoof case.

 

For action activities where the DSLR might be a worry I'd also have a good point and shoot in a pocket.

 

A monopod isn't a requirement, but very nice if you are shooting longer than 300mm and waiting for distant wildlife to pop out for just a few seconds or less.

 

These boards have been so helpful in helping plan my July cruise to Alaska. Could use your help in terms of what lens to bring on the trip? Let me give you a little background in terms of what kind of excursions we will be doing: kayaking, Mendenhall glacier hike, Misty Float float plane, dog sledding, whale watching, Tundra Wilderness tour. Some of the activities we have planned are pretty strenous and scenery shots from planes etc.

 

Canon T1I

17-55mm

50mm prime

 

To capture wildlife, obviously what I have is not good enough. Would like to rent a lens for the trip. Any recommendations? Weight is an issue. Obviously, stabilization is key too. I don't own a monopod. Although I will be bringing a Tamron backpack with me on the trip, it may not always be feasible to carry all the equipment around all the time.

 

Is it useful to have a wide angle to shoot scenery?

 

Is it better to just bring one lens that can do it all?

 

Can you recommend something to protect the camera from rain?

 

Should I bring my flash?

 

I will also be bringing a P&S to have for quick, easy access.

 

Thanks for all the great advice!

[awboater]

There is a real dilemma in this thread, and that is how much junk do you really need to take - and how to get it there.

 

I have always found - to my chagrin, that if you buy a bag big enough to take everything with you - it is too heavy to be comfortable.

 

pierces hit on the correct solution, I think - take a "day bag", along with a "transport bag".

 

I have been experimenting with this for awhile now, and have tried everything from the modular components (camera and each lens in it's own pouch), and stuffing them into a non-photo backpack, to taking a large backpack and a small camera bag to hold just one or two items.

 

My current iteration is a Think Tank Urban Disguise 40. I purposely went with a small bag precisely so that I could not overfill it. It is a shoulder bag type, but also has a nifty harness to convert it to a backpack.

 

With the UD 40, I can only get 15lbs of gear in the bag, which contrasts with the 25lbs I seem to put into a regular photo backpack (including laptop etc).

 

I have been field testing it, but the one thing I found is the harness doesn't have any padding, so after a couple of hours, it hurts to wear. Even with only 15lbs.

 

Fortunately, we have a commercial sewing machine at home, and I can make a couple of removable pads for the harness. That should help.

 

I am thinking at this point to put what I cannot fit into the UD 40 into modular pouches and into our carry-on wheeled backpack. Or another idea is to find a larger wheeled carry-on sized luggage and perhaps put the UD 40 inside it, along with the other gear in pouches.

 

At this point, this idea constitutes my 4th "best thing since sliced bread" idea for transporting my gear. My wife rolls her eyes whenever she hears that I think I can improve the situation. One thing for sure, I'll likely have a lot of photo bags on eBay soon!!!

[picsboy]

I second the idea of bringing a longer lens to Alaska! I brought the Canon 100-400mm lens (link to B&H Photo). You can rent it for a pretty reasonable price, too, like from lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com.

 

I would only use this lens for whale watching or wildlife excursions, so you really don't have to carry it around with you during the entire trip...just during those excursions.

 

I actually used the Canon 100-400mm lens outside when it was drizzly & rainy during my whale excursion. I was too lazy to protect it from the rain. However, being an "L" lens, it was well protected from the rain.

 

I also brought my external flash and used it a lot. I used it mainly throughout the interior of the ship and in my cabin. I also use it for fill flash outside, too.

[gavavemom]

I went ahead and reserved a Canon 100-400mm zoom for the trip (via lens rental.com). Now the question is should I upgrade my kit lens to either a 15-85mm or 17-85mm to cover some of the gap between 55-100 that my kit lens would be missing?

[pierces]

I went ahead and reserved a Canon 100-400mm zoom for the trip (via lens rental.com). Now the question is should I upgrade my kit lens to either a 15-85mm or 17-85mm to cover some of the gap between 55-100 that my kit lens would be missing?

 

If you feel you need to upgrade, upgrade for quality. There isn't much of a gap in your lineup and I've never missed a shot because of a 20mm difference in focal length between 50mm and 100mm (hint: zoom with your feet! :))

 

IMHO, spend the money on a really expensive excursion to where you can use the lenses that you have!

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[awboater]

I am not sure how much you would miss that gap. But at any rate, I'd agree with upgrading to a better lens. Kit lenses aren't always the fastest, so that is where I would put my money.

[picsboy]

Canon T1I

17-55mm

50mm prime

 

Now the question is should I upgrade my kit lens to either a 15-85mm or 17-85mm to cover some of the gap between 55-100 that my kit lens would be missing?

 

If I'm reading this right, you already have the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. This is already one of THE BEST walk-around lenses you can have on your camera. The pictures from this lens are sharp and outstanding. This lens is often compared to other L lenses from Canon.

 

Because of this, I'm not sure I'd call it a "kit lens". The "kit lens" is actually the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. There's actually a big difference in the image quality and build quality between these 2 lenses. Plus your 17-55mm lens has a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8. The kit lens, on the other hand, has a smaller variable maximum aperture.

 

I brought both the 17-55mm lens and the 100-400mm lens on my Alaskan cruise. I didn't notice much difference in missing out of the 55-100mm focal lengths. As mentioned above, I just "zoomed with my feet."

[gavavemom]

I do indeed have the 17-55mm f3.5-5.6. I wish I had the 2.8. The other option I was considering was purchasing the Tamron 18-270 since I actually don't "own" a zoom lens and can have that as a carryaround.

[bracket_mom]

I have a Nikon D40 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. I'm considering a Tamron 70-300mm lens for my trip to Alaska in July. Appreciate any comments if this lens will make a difference on a whale watching excursion. I'd love one that goes to 400-500 but that's not in the budget. I can justify buying the 70-300 for my son's sporting events, also.

[chipmaster]

The new Tamron 70-300 with VC and SWM is a good lens. IMHO the nikon 70-300 VR is a bit better.

 

Unlike on the wide side, a 100mm on the long side while longer isn't as huge a zoom as you think it is. If you got the budget a good lens for outdoors. The thing to remember if sports is outside in bright light okay, if played in cloudy or indoors any of the zooms might not be enough.

 

I have a Nikon D40 with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. I'm considering a Tamron 70-300mm lens for my trip to Alaska in July. Appreciate any comments if this lens will make a difference on a whale watching excursion. I'd love one that goes to 400-500 but that's not in the budget. I can justify buying the 70-300 for my son's sporting events, also.

[pilotdane]

I do indeed have the 17-55mm f3.5-5.6. I wish I had the 2.8...

 

I think you have the EF-S 18-55mm. The EF-S 17-55 is only available in f2.8 and it's a great upgrade if you can afford it. It's sort of funny if you can ever set the two next to each other. The 17-55 is considerably larger and almost the same size as the 24-105L. I bought my 17-55as factory remanufactured which saved about a hundred dollars and except for the white box I could not tell the lens was not brand new.

[gavavemom]

Pilotdane, you are indeed correct. I have the 18-55mm standard kit lens. Leaning more to replacing this with a 15-85mm walk around.

[gavavemom]

What about wide angle lenses? Should I go wider than 18mm? I am thinking for landscape shots it would be nice.

[awboater]

The Tokina 11-16mm lens is nice.

 

I have always said that photography is a 2x world. And anytime you go 2x in a focal length, it is significant enough to be worth your bother. Since 9mm is a 2x relationship to 18mm, 11mm will give you almost a 2x difference (or 1/2x if you want to look at it that way).

 

So in that regard, a 2x difference in view is enough to get a super-wide angle lens.

 

I initially bought mine for landscape shots, which does work well.

 

However I found another great use for it. A short time ago, I went to an auto show and took the 11-16mm with me as a whim, intending to use my 35mm prime.

 

But to my chagrin, the one thing I didn't count on at the auto show was people standing in front of me when I was attempting to take a photo. So by slapping my 11-16mm on, I was able to get real close up - within a couple of ft. (and with other people now behind me).

 

So I have found it useful as much in getting close up as I have for landscapes.

[gavavemom]

For shooting landscapes, will the kit lens suffice or should I pursue a lens rental for a super wide?

[pierces]

For shooting landscapes, will the kit lens suffice or should I pursue a lens rental for a super wide?

 

Super-wides have a place in landscapes, but usually where you want to highlight a foreground or are very close to a large feature. Using an ultra-wide on most landscapes reduces majestic mountains to a bumpy line on the horizon. Alaska is big! your kit lens will work fine. If you have the cash and want an ultra-wide, get it. You will find uses for it. If you are on a budget, don't worry about it.

 

The shot below was taken at 28mm equivalent:

 

This is a two-frame panorama taken at 42mm equivalent:

 

Enjoy your trip!

 

Dave

[gavavemom]

Thanks! Still contemplating either renting a super-wide or getting a better kit lens like a canon 15-85 specifically for this trip. What would be your pick?

[bdog01]

Thanks! Still contemplating either renting a super-wide or getting a better kit lens like a canon 15-85 specifically for this trip. What would be your pick?

 

I would recommend the Canon 10-22 EF-S F3.5-4.6 for a good wide angle lens. It is equivalent to 16-35 mm on your camera body. It also takes 77mm filters like the 100-400mm.