Lens for Alaska

My wife and I will be traveling to Alaska in about two weeks. We plan to do a drive around tour for about three weeks to essentially make a circle from Fairbanks down to Valdez, take a glaciers' and wildlife boat tour, ferry from Valdez to Whittier, check out the Kenai area to Homer and back, spend a couple of days in Seward. Then head back to Fairbanks, via Anchorage and points along that route, to join a 13-day cruise-tour to eventually end up in Vancouver, BC and on to Victoria before getting to Seattle. We need to travel on the light side, so seeking recommendations from those who have been to Alaska.

My primary camera is a 7D with a S-95 backup. My wife has a G10. We plan to take these three cameras. Not sure about which lens for the 7D. We do not specialize in any type of photo…will take a wide range such as people, things, wildlife, flowers, and scenery.

I have the following lens: EF 24-105 f/4.L IS, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, EF 400 f/5.6L non-IS "Slim Jim", and a Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 "Bigma".

Tentatively, I'm thinking about taking only the 24-105 and the 400. The Bigma is probably too heavy and I'm wavering about the 70-200.

Recommendations or comments?

Why travel light, if I may ask? Seems like you are driving or riding most of the time.

If you have to travel light, I would go 24-105 and Bigma. It's a huge gap from 105 ot 400 and I think you'd be at a disadvantage given where you will be.

24-105 and 70-200L but go buy a 1.4x TC. If anything you can turn around and sell it after the trip for little to no loss. That on the 7D will still give you a FOV of around 450mm at the long end which will be plenty imho. The others are overkill. Enjoy your trip!

There are some great opportunities for wide angle shots in Alaska. When I was there, zooming for wild life and wide angles for landscapes seemed to be my most important needs.

The only lens I'd consider not taking would be the 400 prime. For the abundant wildlife opportunities you're going to want as much reach as you can get, so take the 150-500. Also, 24mm isn't all that wide on a crop body so you might want to seriously consider purchasing or renting an ultra wide to take.

Take everything you can carry.

huntersdad wrote in post #12569846
Why travel light, if I may ask? Seems like you are driving or riding most of the time.

Was wondering this as well. I'm going to Africa and I'm "packing light" and I'm still bringing 3 lenses.. 24-70, 135, and 100-400.

I went to Alaska last summer. I wish I had a longer lens. I took the 70-200, 16-35, and my primes. I wish I had a longer lens or my 2X with me. I didn't buy a 2X until after my trip.

The 24-105 would be a good one if that's your widest lens. Plus it has macro which will help with the flowers. If I had the Bigma I would have taken it. If you are planning on taking any kind of wildlife pictures, especially whales from a cruise ship, you need the length. If you plan on going on one of the smaller tours that goes closer to the whales, you might not need the reach.

Alaska has a lot of wildlife to take pictures of, salmon, eagles,etc. I found myself wish I had the reach of a longer lens. I loved having the wide angle lens for the scenery. The mountain views are amazing.

If I had to do it over again, I would bring atleast a 400 (which for me would be the 70-200 with a 2x), the 16-35, and either my 50 or 85 for street shots. That's probably the lightest I would go. I found myself bringing a lot of stuff I did not need but I wanted to be prepared. I've learned my lesson when it comes to that. I think a range from wide to close up is the way to go.

I spent two years/spring to fall in alaska,
i had the 50D and 100-400, and the 70-200L,
I got alot of great shots with those two lenses,
from eagles to bears at alison pt,
and everything inbetween

take the longest and widest if yr taking only two lenses,
you dont want to get to close to the bears or moose,
but if your at alison point when the fish are running, the bears walk right by you,,,and i mean close, by you,,dont piss them off,,,

Did an Alaska land and sea cruise last May. ( caught a heatwave in Fairbanks, high of 80 both days there )
Took 5D 17-40 f4.0, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f4.0. and older flash.
Most of the photos in these two blog posts were taken with the 17-40.

I'd say the biggest problem photographically was timing. Of course the light is bad at high noon, but if that's when the train or
ship is there, then you have no choice. Several of the nice photos made on the ship were taken before 6am.

I got by just fine taking my older equipment and a limited choice of lenses.

Alaska Part 1

Alaska Part 2

From your gear

24 105 f 4
70 200 2.8 ( possible consideration 1.4 X TC )
BIGMA

For the wide end (possible purchase)
Tokina 11 16 2.8
or
Canon 17 40 f 4 or 17 55 2.8 your choice

Thanks to all for your help!

24-105 and 400 f/5.6L + monopod.

I spend summers in Alaska, mostly in the interior (N of the Alaska range and South of Brooks). I usually bring the kitchen sink, that is everything I own. This year I only took my GF-1 set up, and my 7D plus 24-105 and 100-400. I would say that so far I haven't missed the rest of my equipment.

If you want to travel relatively light and have the most versatility: the 24-105 and the Bigma. Wildlife is pretty abundant, but it's usually a fair distance away. It's nice to have the versatility of a zoom. I remember a time or two on the deck of a boat trying to catch some action that wasn't near my focal length. Switching lenses cost me getting a shot. A long zoom would have been the ticket then.

The 24-105 is a little bit on the long side, but the vistas are huge in Alaska, and therefore it should be wide enough in most cases.