What lenses to bring to Alaska with my 50D?

[KIM448]

I am leaving for Alaska very soon and I am struggling with which of my many wonderful lenses to bring with my Canon 50D.

 

I am bringing my two "every day" lenses, but I am strugling with what if any or all primes to bring. They all are my favourites (for different reasons, weight, low light, wide, long, fast) but, I don't want to bring what is really unnessary and ultimately too heavy combined!

 

The lenses I have and are for sure coming ...

Canon 17-55 IS USM

Canon 70-300 IS USM

 

My primes are...

Canon 50 1.8 (more for fun and low light on the ship?)

 

Canon 85 1.8 (I love this lens, really light & think it might be great for bear viewing?)

 

Canon 135 2.0 (This one is very sharp and fast and great to use in low light with some ok reach, posibly for whales? however no IS)

 

We are starting our vacation on land and visiting Denali for 2 days (and going into the park via shuttle) going flightseeing out of Talkeetna and also Fairbanks for 2 days.

 

While on the cruise, we will be doing bear viewing in Anan creek out of Ketchikan and Whale Watching in Juneau, plus a Yukon bus & rail trip in Skagway.

 

From what I understand the Bears @ Anan Creek will be low light and very close to us 10-30 feet away. and from what I hear everything in Alaska might be low light. I like to shoot up close and I will also be taking alot of family photos with our kids who are going with us.

 

I would love to bring them all, but it makes the bag too heavy!

Decisions, Decisions.....Help?!?!

 

Another quick question...I need to get a polarizer for my 70-300 (already have one for the 17-55), I read somewhere that you can't use a circular polarizer on it. Is that true?

[pierces]

Based on your lens collection, I would take the two zooms. Changing lenses is a sure way to miss something and whales are seldom close enough for a 135mm lens. I have hauled dedicated 20mm and 100mm macro lenses on trips and used them exactly never. My opinion, but after 27 cruises, I'm starting to believe myself!:D

 

As for the polarizer, the only reason someone would say not to use one on a 75-300 is if the front element and filter mount rotates when it focuses or perhaps the two-stop loss of light could interfere with autofocus (most cameras have a hard time if the lens' maximum aperture is smaller then f/5.6). This is inconvenient since you have to adjust the polarizer after focusing or maybe focus manually, but there is no reason that a polarizer couldn't be used.

 

Dave

[TheRoff]

I certainly agree on the two zooms. Like you implied, I would add one of those nice fast primes (the wider the better IMHO) for use only on board and inside the logde in Alaska.

 

Larry

[pilotdane]

Of your lenses I like your choice of the two zooms and might take along the 135.

 

My 50D needs good glass to really make the 15mp work. I would sell your 50, 85 and 70-300 and buy a 70-200 f4L IS. The 70-200 f4L IS is small, light, sharp, affordable and easy to hand hold. It is a great traveling lens when you have to worry about size & weight but still want L quality photos. A quality 1.4 converter works great with it.

 

----

50 f1.8 is too long on the 50D for much interior work. I think your 17-55 is a better quality lens and much more flexible. How often will you actually use f1.8? If you had the f1.4 or f1.2 version I would start to consider but even then I don't think I would take it. Again you are well covered by the 17-55.

 

85 f1.8 You are already covered with the 70-300 and I don't think 85mm is long enough to use as a telephoto. Leave it at home.

 

135 f2 I can not beleive I would even consider leaving this behind. It's not small or light, but what a great lens. How about getting a nice 1.4x or 2x converter (if you have a steady hand).

[KIM448]

Thank you for your suggestions.

 

My 85 and 135 are primarily my "hockey lenses" that I use to shoot my childrens hockey in low light and I absolutly love them. Before I purchased them I did test the 70-200 F4 and F2.8 with IS.

 

I decided that the 70-200 F2.8 was way to heavy for me and the F4 was not going to cut it for hockey arenas, gyms and other indoor places with very poor light that I take photos in. Plus I really didn't like the white lens. I didn't want the attention it brings. Anyway I chose the 70-300 as an option once I covered my "indoor" needs with the primes. My new 50 is just for some fun with portraits.

 

So that being said I won't sell my primes and I will keep my 70-300 for a little while. It still takes great photos and is very light on the 50D.

 

135 F2.0 - as much as I love the shots it is really heavy and I think I will only take it, if I could/would use it for whale whatching. I don't think I would be that steady with a teleconveter. Especially on a moving boat, train, bus or plane that we will be on. Thoughts?

 

85 F1.8- I am thinking to take simply for the bear viewing, the bears will be very close 10-30 feet away. And my thoughts are that yes I could use the 70-300 however it will be very low light and I am not sure how the 70-300 will react (I havn't used it as much as my primes) I know the 85 will do great in quality and speed. As for the 135, it also will respond great, but might be too long.

 

Any more ideas's?

Thanks

[pilotdane]

It sounds like you are talking yourself into taking everything? Will you have a balcony? If so, lining your lenses up on the table can make lens changes pretty quick & easy.

 

I found animal subjects in Alaska to be rather annoying. They had no concern for the lens mounted on my camera. In one fijord the shores 1'200ft away was covered with seals then I happened to look down and see a mama bear and her cub swimming 100 feet from the ship. At a glacier park the bears were 20 feet away but then a eagle perched atop a tree 200 ft away. Very annoying. The animals really don't seem to understand that it takes time to change lenses. The scenery though will sit there all day long. Perfect country for some nice primes.

 

Much of this comes back to style. I like being quick & ready for anything so I go ahsore with one high quality zoom with IS. Generally it works but every time ashore there is at least one time when I say "I wish I had..." My father-in-law is totally different. He carries a large camera bag full of primes. Carefully moves around to set up for the shot. Waits for the clouds to get the sun just right... and gets spectacular shots. We both get great photographs but totally different styles.

---

You should be able to get good shots with any of your primes anywhere. Even the 135. Those big apertures and a little ISO will let you get some fast shutter speeds.

---

In the end you are going to get many, many great shots no matter what lenses you bring. Sure, after you get up there you might wish you had brought something else but you will still have a great vacation and get thousands of great shots.

[TheRoff]

It sounds like you are talking yourself into taking everything?

 

My wife accuses me of brining more camera equipment than clothes on a cruise............Bring all lens!:D

 

Larry

[pierces]

My wife accuses me of brining more camera equipment than clothes on a cruise............Bring all lens!:D

 

Larry

 

So....

 

 

:D

 

Dave

[nmg222]

 

85 F1.8- I am thinking to take simply for the bear viewing, the bears will be very close 10-30 feet away. And my thoughts are that yes I could use the 70-300 however it will be very low light and I am not sure how the 70-300 will react (I havn't used it as much as my primes) I know the 85 will do great in quality and speed. As for the 135, it also will respond great, but might be too long.

 

Any more ideas's?

Thanks

 

I'm also going to Anan Creek for the bear viewing. I have a Nikon D60 and am planning on bringing a 10-24, 18-55 and a 70-300. Which lens and setting would be ideal? Thanks.

[maxxjr]

 

Another quick question...I need to get a polarizer for my 70-300 (already have one for the 17-55), I read somewhere that you can't use a circular polarizer on it. Is that true?

 

On the polarizer, you can use one. The problem is that when you focus, the front of the lens rotates, so you will need to readjust the polarizer after you focus.

[pilotdane]

My wife accuses me of brining more camera equipment than clothes on a cruise............Bring all lens!:D

 

Larry

 

 

Don't feel bad. I did a "test pack" for a trip to Costa Rica later this summer and my camera equipment easily outweighed my weeks worth of clothes.

[TheRoff]

On the photog pic: LMAO! I used to work in Washington, DC and believe me, I have seen him, or at least his brother. :D

 

 

pilotdane; I can believe it. I saw the list of gear you planned in another post. Nice gear.

 

Larry

[KIM448]

That photo is great! I love it. I try to stay a lot simpler since I have 3 kids to lug around with me usually as well as my camera equip.

 

I am still trying to decide on which primes to bring, keep the ideas and suggestions coming...

 

In the meantime...I shoot my photos with the 50D with the highest Jpeg option. (Working towards RAW but not yet).

 

How much Memory (GB) do you think I should take for 13 days away in Alaska?

 

Thanks

[pierces]

That photo is great! I love it. I try to stay a lot simpler since I have 3 kids to lug around with me usually as well as my camera equip.

 

I am still trying to decide on which primes to bring, keep the ideas and suggestions coming...

 

In the meantime...I shoot my photos with the 50D with the highest Jpeg option. (Working towards RAW but not yet).

 

How much Memory (GB) do you think I should take for 13 days away in Alaska?

 

Thanks

 

Here's an article I did on the "how much memory" question. It has some other good info as well: http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/VivaLaResolution.htm

 

Dave

[nmg222]

I'm also going to Anan Creek for the bear viewing. I have a Nikon D60 and am planning on bringing a 10-24, 18-55 and a 70-300. Which lens and setting would be ideal? Thanks.

 

Li'l help. As the OP stated, the bears will be about 10-30 feet away, we will be on an observation platform above. I don't think I've ever quoted my own post before.

[KIM448]

Good article on Memory, I still don't know though....

 

Is a SanDisk (Exteme 3) 16GB and another 8GB enough?

I know it will probably allow me to store close to 3500 photos, but is that enough for Alaska????

 

Alaska is a whole different type of Vacation....

I need a ballpark of how many photos the photography lovers tend to take while in Alaska for 2 weeks?

[pierces]

Good article on Memory, I still don't know though....

 

Is a SanDisk (Exteme 3) 16GB and another 8GB enough?

I know it will probably allow me to store close to 3500 photos, but is that enough for Alaska????

 

Alaska is a whole different type of Vacation....

I need a ballpark of how many photos the photography lovers tend to take while in Alaska for 2 weeks?

 

When in doubt...buy more memory!

 

I pack 40 - 48 GB on a cruise and have never used all of it or regretted spending the extra few dollars for the peace of mind.

 

I shot about 2800 images on a 10-day to Alaska in 2006 and about 2500 were kept. I tend to compose carefully and try different exposures, angles, etc., so take that into account. A fellow on the same trip shot 5000+ and ended up with about 1000 keepers. Base your estimate on your shooting style.

 

Dave

[pilotdane]

I am a bit paranoid. I do not like to trust all my photos to one big memory card. I carry many, smaller cards and change them at least every day. That way your photos are spread over several cards. If your camera is lost or a memory card dies you have not lost all your photos.

 

As for how much memory. That is a very dangerous question and it depends on your style. My brother-in-law goes to Europe for 2 weeks and comes back with about 500 shots with a very high keeper rate. I go through the Panama Canal and I've taken 500 before breakfast. I'ts like ammo. You can never have enough. If the thought "do I have enough" enters your mind... you do not have enough. I keep throwing cards in my suitcase until I think "I'm crazy. I'll never need that much" and then I throw in another just to be safe.

[KIM448]

Ok.... I went out and got another 8GB so now I have two 8GB and one16GB card.

 

I really like the idea of keeping the photos all spread out over many cards, that makes sense.

 

If the cards go on sale again before I go I may pick up another 4GB or a couple of 2GB cards.

 

Still pondering my lenses, but I just found out I can rent a "Canon Extender EF 1.4X II" for two weeks for under $100. I was thinking this might work well with my 135 prime.

 

What do you think?

[TheRoff]

Kim,

 

Unless my math is way off that tele-extender is going to make your 135mm lens an f/4 189mm lens. IMHO that doesn't buy you anything considering you have the 70-300 zoom. Yes it is one stop faster but it doesn't seem worth the hassle of carrying it or the cost of renting it.

 

Larry

[Suzieb]

Li'l help. As the OP stated, the bears will be about 10-30 feet away, we will be on an observation platform above. I don't think I've ever quoted my own post before.

 

Okay I'll try to get back on track. I would do some tests on your lens. You say the bears will be from 10-30 ft., so go to a park and take your lens and measure out the distance and shot pictures and see what you get and see if it is what you want. I think your 18-55 and your 70-300 would be a good choice with the 18-55 on the camera and the other one for the just in case you can change it and get the long shot.

 

Good Luck and have fun

[pilotdane]

If the price of renting a extender approaches $100 I would think of buying it. If you like it you can keep it. If you do not want to keep it you can sell it and still come out ahead versus renting.

[KIM448]

Good point Larry...

"Unless my math is way off that tele-extender is going to make your 135mm lens an f/4 189mm lens. IMHO that doesn't buy you anything considering you have the 70-300 zoom. Yes it is one stop faster but it doesn't seem worth the hassle of carrying it or the cost of renting it."

 

Unless the 135 is going to take significantly better photos....Pilotdane?

 

"If the price of renting a extender approaches $100 I would think of buying it. If you like it you can keep it. If you do not want to keep it you can sell it and still come out ahead versus renting."

 

And if so I may consider purchasing it and selling it if I don't like it.

BTW it is $100 CAD to rent vs $450 CAD. is it still worth buying?

[nmg222]

Okay I'll try to get back on track. I would do some tests on your lens. You say the bears will be from 10-30 ft., so go to a park and take your lens and measure out the distance and shot pictures and see what you get and see if it is what you want. I think your 18-55 and your 70-300 would be a good choice with the 18-55 on the camera and the other one for the just in case you can change it and get the long shot.

 

Good Luck and have fun

 

Good idea. Thanks.

[jacquid]

OMG ! I am sooo glad I ran across this thread, I've been pondering these questions for my RCL cruise to Alaska in 2 weeks !!!! I have a Nikon D60 (newbie, just got it for my bday in feb but totally into to it now!!) and I rented a 70-200 f2.8 for the whale watching and the photo safari excursion in juneau and was planning on just going with the 17-55 kit lens for the rest of the time..will this be a good option ? or should I plan on just going with a 18-200 f3.5-5.6 to avoid having to change lenses ? I guess since I'm a newbie Im skeptical about changing lenses out in the "field". Im also doing the misty fjords in ketchican what lens would be good for that ??

 

BTW that pictures was hilarious !!!!!

 

Thanks again !!!