Alaska Lenses

[bronzey214]

Hey all,

I'm on the Grand Princess out of San Francisco in May. I've always been a Canon shooter - I had an HP Photosmart camera in high school that my mom accidentally broke so she bought me the Canon Digital Rebel as a graduation present. From there, I bought the 40D and shot for that for about 8 years until I moved to the 70D.

While I had the 70D, I decided to pick up the Sony RX100 IV for an "easily concealable" camera for things where a DSLR is unwieldy. After that, I took a trip to Niagara Falls and ended up spending more time switching lenses than enjoying the trip. That made me decide to sell everything Canon (which.... wasn't much) and buy the RX10 III.

I like both the RX100 and the RX10 but they're "utility" cameras. They take fine photos, but they don't challenge me as a photographer. So I started research and decided that I really liked the A7III

I went to a local Best Buy (with camera center - the only local Best Buy with the A7III) with a pocket full of cash and was able to play with basically every current camera on the market. If you guys have one of these Best Buys around, I highly recommend it. There's a little scene they set up for you to test out and they pretty much leave you alone if you want to just play.

After picking up the A7III.... I was underwhelmed. It felt like I was "pinching" my hands together to hold it and my knuckles were rubbing the lens. The crop camera Sony mirrorless were out of the question. I looked at the Nikons as well, but.... Canon was familiar to me. So I was deciding between the 80D, 7DM2, and 6DM2. The 7DM2 was nice, but I felt like going from something that shoots 4K to something that doesn't was a step back and the age bothered me too. The 6DM2 was nice, but the AF range within the sensor left a lot to be desired. I liked the 80D but I was concerned that the ease of buying EF-S lenses meant I had a lot of niche lenses. A fast prime, a wide-angle, a telephoto and a walkaround lens.

Then I saw the EOS R. I was tentative. But it felt right in my hand. The touchscreen ability to move the focus point felt natural too. Anyway - tested it for an hour, went home and looked at reviews, and my fiance ended up telling me she'd rather me spend more on something that will last a long time than spend less and not be happy. That's as much of a thumbs up as I would have gotten so I bought the EOS R on Amazon today (Sorry, Best Buy. Amazon was offering 10% back if you used your Prime card.)

So - I have the kit lens (the RF 24-105 f/4 L, which is my first L lens by the way) but I'm trying to figure out what I need short term for Alaska. I'm most likely just going to rent a decent telephoto since I don't have a long-term need for a super telephoto. But, is 24mm wide enough for Alaska? Should I get a faster lens for indoor shots? (The RF 35mm f/1.8 looks nice and is affordable). Is 300mm enough or should I push for 400mm? How fast of a lens would you think I'd need? This is my first full frame shooting experience, so I know it's a lot more forgiving to low light, but I don't even know if the f/4 is fast enough for inside the ship.

 

Thanks everyone for reading my novel and any help you can provide!

[Heidi13]

I use 5D Mk II & 5D Mk III bodies. In Alaska, I keep the 24-105 f/4 on one of the bodies and either the 70-200 f/2.8 or 16-35 f/2.8 on the other body. When shooting from the ship I use the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x doubler. If going ashore I normally take the 16-35 f/2.8.

 

Am aware the mirrorless bodies have a different lens mount, but not sure if they have an adapter to fit EF lenses. 

[GottaKnowWhen]

On 1/22/2019 at 8:41 PM, bronzey214 said:

Hey all,

I'm on the Grand Princess out of San Francisco in May. I've always been a Canon shooter - I had an HP Photosmart camera in high school that my mom accidentally broke so she bought me the Canon Digital Rebel as a graduation present. From there, I bought the 40D and shot for that for about 8 years until I moved to the 70D.

While I had the 70D, I decided to pick up the Sony RX100 IV for an "easily concealable" camera for things where a DSLR is unwieldy. After that, I took a trip to Niagara Falls and ended up spending more time switching lenses than enjoying the trip. That made me decide to sell everything Canon (which.... wasn't much) and buy the RX10 III.

I like both the RX100 and the RX10 but they're "utility" cameras. They take fine photos, but they don't challenge me as a photographer. So I started research and decided that I really liked the A7III

I went to a local Best Buy (with camera center - the only local Best Buy with the A7III) with a pocket full of cash and was able to play with basically every current camera on the market. If you guys have one of these Best Buys around, I highly recommend it. There's a little scene they set up for you to test out and they pretty much leave you alone if you want to just play.

After picking up the A7III.... I was underwhelmed. It felt like I was "pinching" my hands together to hold it and my knuckles were rubbing the lens. The crop camera Sony mirrorless were out of the question. I looked at the Nikons as well, but.... Canon was familiar to me. So I was deciding between the 80D, 7DM2, and 6DM2. The 7DM2 was nice, but I felt like going from something that shoots 4K to something that doesn't was a step back and the age bothered me too. The 6DM2 was nice, but the AF range within the sensor left a lot to be desired. I liked the 80D but I was concerned that the ease of buying EF-S lenses meant I had a lot of niche lenses. A fast prime, a wide-angle, a telephoto and a walkaround lens.

Then I saw the EOS R. I was tentative. But it felt right in my hand. The touchscreen ability to move the focus point felt natural too. Anyway - tested it for an hour, went home and looked at reviews, and my fiance ended up telling me she'd rather me spend more on something that will last a long time than spend less and not be happy. That's as much of a thumbs up as I would have gotten so I bought the EOS R on Amazon today (Sorry, Best Buy. Amazon was offering 10% back if you used your Prime card.)

So - I have the kit lens (the RF 24-105 f/4 L, which is my first L lens by the way) but I'm trying to figure out what I need short term for Alaska. I'm most likely just going to rent a decent telephoto since I don't have a long-term need for a super telephoto. But, is 24mm wide enough for Alaska? Should I get a faster lens for indoor shots? (The RF 35mm f/1.8 looks nice and is affordable). Is 300mm enough or should I push for 400mm? How fast of a lens would you think I'd need? This is my first full frame shooting experience, so I know it's a lot more forgiving to low light, but I don't even know if the f/4 is fast enough for inside the ship.

 

Thanks everyone for reading my novel and any help you can provide!

I since almost forever shoot Pentax and know basically nothing about any of the gear you mention. Reading between the lines, it seems that what you have now is a full frame with a full frame compatible lens. Here then is my Alaska full frame experience...

I had my 15-30/4.0 along. Hardly used it. Easier to handhold a quick panorama sequence with my 24-70/2.8 than to switch lenses. I had a 400/5.6 along. Never once even thought of using it onboard, and seldom onshore. It was useful in Denali with either a beanbag rest on the window frame or a tripod when out of the vehicle. My main lens was my 70-200/2.8 except when in e.g. Juneau and then the 24-70. When I go back I will take those two, maybe a 300mm. 

As far as lens speed for indoors, I seldom shoot wider than /5.6, even with my fast lenses. I let the ISO go up to 6400 or even 12,800 and have little trouble minimizing the effects in post processing. With your new camera, I would definitely do a few quick checks at home, but most newer top-end cameras do pretty well with noise.

 

Stan

[mskaufman]

I use the 60D and am happy with the 16-400 Tamron lens I use.  I was in the same place where I couldn't spend time changing lenses on a shore excursion.  This lens covers me about 95% of the time.  Last year on a Danube river cruise I didn't even bring another lens (although I have a bridge camera in the cabin for when I needed more focal length).

[havoc315]

You can adapt EF lenses without difficulty. 

Focal length will require you to consider the compromise between your desire to capture wildlife, price, quality and SIZE.

Anything over 300mm gets really heavy, really fast.

 

300mm (plus some cropping) is long enough for some basic consumer level wildlife shots. A whale watch boat that takes you pretty close to the whales... no problem with 300mm.  You want to capture the bald eagle soaring way overhead? That's where you start talking about 400mm... 500mm... 600mm.

 

 

[GottaKnowWhen]

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

You can adapt EF lenses without difficulty. 

Focal length will require you to consider the compromise between your desire to capture wildlife, price, quality and SIZE.

Anything over 300mm gets really heavy, really fast.

 

300mm (plus some cropping) is long enough for some basic consumer level wildlife shots. A whale watch boat that takes you pretty close to the whales... no problem with 300mm.  You want to capture the bald eagle soaring way overhead? That's where you start talking about 400mm... 500mm... 600mm.

 

 

But if an eagle appears and you don't have a longer lens available, you can always make do with a 24-70mm or similar...

 

 

[Loonbeam]

Not checking compatibility, if I were going to Alaska now (depending on itinerary), the one lens I would have to have is my Tamron 18-400.  It's just so versatile across so many scenarios.  Is it perfect?  Nope, but still one heck of a travel lens and reasonable to buy or rent.

 

If I had the capacity I would 2 body with my 150-600 for Denali and Talkeetna and my 12-18 for everything else.

 

 

[havoc315]

10 hours ago, Loonbeam said:

Not checking compatibility, if I were going to Alaska now (depending on itinerary), the one lens I would have to have is my Tamron 18-400.  It's just so versatile across so many scenarios.  Is it perfect?  Nope, but still one heck of a travel lens and reasonable to buy or rent.

 

If I had the capacity I would 2 body with my 150-600 for Denali and Talkeetna and my 12-18 for everything else.

 

 

OP is shooting full frame. The Tamron 18-400 is aps-c.

 

 

[Loonbeam]

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

OP is shooting full frame. The Tamron 18-400 is aps-c.

 

 

That's what I was afraid of...  You could use it still but would have to edit out a lot of vignetting. (Being a Nikon guy I don't know which Canons are FF offhand)

 

I'd still look for something in the 18-300/18-400 as a rental for a primary lens.

 

 

[cruzinladytoo]

Going in August.  Always been a Canon shooter and love Canon L glass.  I am taking 5dMK3 (full frame) and M50 (1.6 crop-with lens adapter) bodies for my EF lenses.  Taking my 8-15 for fun shots (thinking totem poles), 24-105 as my primary and carry around town lens and 70-200.  I plan on taking my 400 for use on the MK3 for shots from the ship (glacier closeups) on tripod, maybe wildlife if I take Denali tour.  

 

Son, who is a professional photographer, got R in November.  I played with it in December and it is a slightly larger version of my M50 with more bells and whistles-and full frame.  He loves it.  He has several reviews on You Tube comparing it to his 5dMK4, and lens comparisons using it too.  Check out RYN Photography on You Tube for those reviews.  

 

 

 

[havoc315]

2 hours ago, Loonbeam said:

That's what I was afraid of...  You could use it still but would have to edit out a lot of vignetting. (Being a Nikon guy I don't know which Canons are FF offhand)

 

I'd still look for something in the 18-300/18-400 as a rental for a primary lens.

Not that simple. Nikon DX lenses will mount on FF.  But Canon EF-S lenses typically do not mount on EF.

If they did mount.. it's not a matter of a little vignetting. It's so much vignetting as to leave the image nearly worthless. You'd have crop the image so much, that you would end up just with a low resolution image.

You would get more real reach by cropping a 250mm lens, than you would by using an aps-c 400mm lens.  

 

The Canon full frame equivalent is their 28-300... a monster of a lens.  It weighs 1.7 kg.  You are taking on a massive lens, and giving up a ton of image quality, and paying a ton of money, just to avoid changing lenses.

 

For most people who really just want to avoid changing lenses, I recommend a bridge camera like the Sony RX10iv. Cheaper, lighter, and the final image quality won't be too different.

 

So in comparison to the monster Canon 28-300... You could go with the 100-400ii.. much higher quality, longer reach, and actually slightly lighter than the Canon 28-300.

Or, if 300mm is enough, the Canon 70-300L is only about 1kg.... or the 70-300 DO is only 720 grams. 

Pair that with the Canon EF RF 24-105/4, which weighs 700 grams...

 

So combining the RF 24-105 and one of the 70-300 models.. gives you the same telephoto reach as the 28-300, at less weight (slightly less camera bag weight, and MUCH less camera weight), much higher quality and wider angle. 

Wide angle is critical for Alaska.. you'll capture more great vistas than wildlife.  Need to decide whether 24mm is wide enough or go even wider. 

[JPCruising]

I would take your 24-105 and rent the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II from some one like Lensrentals.com. With 2 lens you can cover 24 to 400mm. The 100-400 version II is very sharp and would serve you well.

[bronzey214]

Hi everyone. With new RF lenses right on the cusp of being released, I'm holding off purchasing anything until then.

Thanks for all of your feedback! (And the R is as good as you think it is)

[peety3]

I'm a freak when it comes to Alaska. My last trip was primarily 3 cameras and 4 lenses: 24-70/2.8 on a 5D3, 70-300L on a 1Dx, and 600/4 plus 1.4x TC III on a 5DsR, with a 14/2.8 II in a pouch on my belt for the occasional wide-angle shot. A 35/1.4 back in the room for low-light shots on the ship. (I would have used the 100-400 but my wife claimed that one...perhaps time for a second, though I also feel that next time I'll skip the 1.4x TC.)

 

I do want the EOS R, and it'll be our next camera (unless that purchase slips closer to the rumored "pro R").

 

I can't speak for experience, but the EOS R to EF adapter does have a white square, so presumably an EF-S lens would mount. No idea how it'd look though.

[bronzey214]

The EF-S lenses will work but crops the sensor to 11.6 megapixels.

[spthealien]

On 2/20/2019 at 2:51 PM, peety3 said:

I'm a freak when it comes to Alaska. My last trip was primarily 3 cameras and 4 lenses: 24-70/2.8 on a 5D3, 70-300L on a 1Dx, and 600/4 plus 1.4x TC III on a 5DsR, with a 14/2.8 II in a pouch on my belt for the occasional wide-angle shot. A 35/1.4 back in the room for low-light shots on the ship. (I would have used the 100-400 but my wife claimed that one...perhaps time for a second, though I also feel that next time I'll skip the 1.4x TC.)

 

I do want the EOS R, and it'll be our next camera (unless that purchase slips closer to the rumored "pro R").

 

I can't speak for experience, but the EOS R to EF adapter does have a white square, so presumably an EF-S lens would mount. No idea how it'd look though.

 

This is exactly the sort of stuff I would pack, myself...plus a drone, a tripod and filters. I am the king of packing a bunch of stuff. Thankfully my cameras are a little bit smaller than what I used to carry.

[kbnovak]

I'm a Nikon/Sony guy and on my AK cruise I took my D500 with 200-500 for wildlife, D750 with 24-120 and my a6000 with 16-50.

I found I wished I had brought my 14-24 because of the vastness of the landscape.

[peety3]

4 hours ago, kbnovak said:

I'm a Nikon/Sony guy and on my AK cruise I took my D500 with 200-500 for wildlife, D750 with 24-120 and my a6000 with 16-50.

I found I wished I had brought my 14-24 because of the vastness of the landscape.

I assume that's because the a6000 is APS-C, so the 16-50 performed like a 24-75 equivalent and left you without anything below 24mm. With all due respect, why did you bother with the a6000 and the equivalent of a 24-75 if you had another camera with a 24-120? I almost think you did that backwards: roll with the D750 and 14-24, a6000 with 16-50, and D500 with 200-500. (Or leave the a6000 home and bring both the 14-24 and 24-120 for the D750.)

 

[pierces]

11 hours ago, peety3 said:

I assume that's because the a6000 is APS-C, so the 16-50 performed like a 24-75 equivalent and left you without anything below 24mm. With all due respect, why did you bother with the a6000 and the equivalent of a 24-75 if you had another camera with a 24-120? I almost think you did that backwards: roll with the D750 and 14-24, a6000 with 16-50, and D500 with 200-500. (Or leave the a6000 home and bring both the 14-24 and 24-120 for the D750.)

 

 

Walkabout. The A6000 with the 16-50 will fit in a jacket pocket and weighs a third of the D750 with the 24-120 mounted. Sometimes you just don't want to shoot and play Sherpa at the same time.

 

🙂

 

Dave

[kbnovak]

12 hours ago, peety3 said:

I assume that's because the a6000 is APS-C, so the 16-50 performed like a 24-75 equivalent and left you without anything below 24mm. With all due respect, why did you bother with the a6000 and the equivalent of a 24-75 if you had another camera with a 24-120? I almost think you did that backwards: roll with the D750 and 14-24, a6000 with 16-50, and D500 with 200-500. (Or leave the a6000 home and bring both the 14-24 and 24-120 for the D750.)

 

The only time I had the Sony with me was when I was searching for wildlife with the 200-500.

My point being--regardless of what you take, 24 isn't wide enough for AK scenery.

[cruises42]

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 10:52 PM, Loonbeam said:

Not checking compatibility, if I were going to Alaska now (depending on itinerary), the one lens I would have to have is my Tamron 18-400.  It's just so versatile across so many scenarios.  Is it perfect?  Nope, but still one heck of a travel lens and reasonable to buy or rent.

 

If I had the capacity I would 2 body with my 150-600 for Denali and Talkeetna and my 12-18 for everything else.

 

 

I recently got the Tamron 18-400mm for my Nikon D3400. I still don't feel like it has enough zoom. Is there anything I can add to that lens to extend the zoom? I'm new with DSLR cameras.

[peety3]

11 minutes ago, cruises42 said:

I recently got the Tamron 18-400mm for my Nikon D3400. I still don't feel like it has enough zoom. Is there anything I can add to that lens to extend the zoom? I'm new with DSLR cameras.

Technically, the answer is yes. Personally, my advice is don't do it. With an 18-400, the aperture is so small that adding a "teleconverter" makes the aperture effectively smaller still, and that impacts your photography in several ways: your camera probably won't be able to auto-focus, the viewfinder will be darker, and the images will be blurrier and have more distortion than without it. It's also possible that because the lens goes out to 18mm, it won't work.

 

Here's a great piece on why: LensRentals Blog: Teleconverters 101

 

Essentially, I think you're better off sticking with just that lens and cropping in post.

[Loonbeam]

I was about to say the same. 

 

The 18-400 is a great utility lens.  You can pair it with the 150-600 but that's a LOT of extra weight (and $$$)

 

[peety3]

8 minutes ago, Loonbeam said:

I was about to say the same. 

 

The 18-400 is a great utility lens.  You can pair it with the 150-600 but that's a LOT of extra weight (and $$$)

 

I wouldn't do that pairing - the 18-400 is made to be an all-in-one - it's a compromise lens. If by chance you were going to roll with the 150-600, I'd pair it with an 18-105 or something else in that range (and IMHO there's no need to cover every millimeter - just shoot loose and crop later). But if cruises42 picked up the 18-400, I suspect they're committed to it for at least a little while.

[Loonbeam]

I have an 18-105 as well, as part of my kit, a sigma Art I use for city shooting, etc.   I was referring specifically to zoom.  If you really want the 600, the 150-600 is a good one, and if you want a general purpose lens I go with the 18-400 because its in play when you don't want the heavier lens around..