alternatives to canon 100-400 for antarctica

have signed up for trip to antarctica this december. looking for something better than my current 70-300 f/4-5.6 for a telephoto for my 6d. Also probably taking 16-35 and 24-70. Several sites seem to recommend the 100-400 for antarctica. Any other options I should be considering?

thanks

Van

What about your current lens are you looking to improve on?


There is the 70-300mm L
One photographer on this site recommends and uses the 28-300mm L for his trips to Antarctica.
I recall the 28-300mm being a choice due to the hardships in swapping lenses in that environment.

looking for more range - from what I have read a little more than 300mm is optimal for antarctica. Also a little sharper lens. My 70-300 starts to get a bit soft after about 230-250.

the 28-300 is another option. As you mentioned, don't have to worry about swapping, but lose a little at both the wide and long ends. Its also a bit pricer than the 100-400

Van

I'd be considering another body as well as lens choice, consider the possibility of a failure as it's not as though you can pop along to the nearest B&H if something untoward happens...

iwm wrote in post #17002888
have signed up for trip to antarctica this december. looking for something better than my current 70-300 f/4-5.6 for a telephoto for my 6d. Also probably taking 16-35 and 24-70. Several sites seem to recommend the 100-400 for antarctica. Any other options I should be considering?

thanks

Van

Heya,

A weather sealed L makes sense to me. The 6D has minor weather sealing too. The 100-400 makes sense. It's compact enough yet 400mm. Grainted it's only 100mm more than your current 300mm lens. Not sure how much reach you'll want or need for your intended purposes. If you're shooting wildlife, the 400 for sure. If you're not shooting wildlife, then I wouldn't stress the telephoto so much, as Antarctica is all about sweeping landscapes where your wider angle lenses come into play.

I would take an inexpensive backup body too. Don't want to miss out on stuff just because of an accident or failure. I always have two bodies on me. Even if it's just a junk $180 XSi or something, it will still do better than a cellphone or P&S will with my lenses.

Very best,

You could consider the new Tamron 150-600mm (if they ever get it back in stock). It's got twice the range of your 70-300mm and is moisture resistant. I'd still get a Lens Coat for both it and my camera body for added protection. I completely agree with taking a second body, too.

Sigma makes a 120-400mm OS lens that is physically similar in size. There is also the Sigma 150-500mm OS and Tamron 150-600mm VC, but both are considerably larger lenses -- I would expect you want to keep the weight and size of your equipment down on such a trip.

I'll also throw my hat in on recommending a 2nd body. Not only does it give you a backup, but it will also allow you to keep both a telephoto and wider lens mounted at the same time, thereby greatly reducing the number of lens changes needed in a harsh environment and allowing you to be ready for almost any shooting situation. For these types of trips, I travel with a 5D3, 7D, 24-105L, 100-400L, 16-35L f/4 IS (just got it to replace the 17-40L), and 40mm pancake. The 100-400L stays mounted on the 7D all the time for wildlife, while the 16-35 and 24-105 alternate on the 5D3. The pancake is for a light weight faster walk around on the 5D3 -- it takes up almost zero space in the bag.

Scott M wrote in post #17004771
I'll also throw my hat in on recommending a 2nd body. Not only does it give you a backup, but it will also allow you to keep both a telephoto and wider lens mounted at the same time

Just go to a camera/lens rental company and rent a Canon 70D + 70-300L. Give yourself a few days before departure to AFMA this camera/lens combo. Leave the 70D and 70-300L permanently attached for the duration of your trip.

Since you are going to the Antarctica at the tail end of spring, there will be more than enough light for this slower lens; the sun never sets at this time of the year.

You don't need a lot of reach for Antarctica. The wildlife is tame and comes to you. A 70-200 of some description and a 1.4x extender will serve you well. I'd also recommend a second camera - but something pocketable like a m4/3 - so you can have both on you at all times. Lugging around 2 DSLRs is a pain at best and almost impossible in a zodiac. And get yourself a decent rain-cover for the SLR. I like the Think Tank Hydrophobia but there are lots of others.

Some of my Antarctica shots here: https://flic.kr/s/aHsj​PXf5uR

(I took a 300/2.8 but often ended up shooting it at f/4-5.6 to get depth of field because everything is so close).

Scott,

Impressive photos!!