Drag my 500mm on a Cruise in Alaska?

I'm taking a Cruise from Seward Alaska down to Vancouver. Really trying to figure out whether I'll actually use the 500mm on the trip. It wouldn't come on any excursions from the boat. I'll be bringing the 100-400mm for that. Does anyone know how close to wildlife I will get on the ship? I love the lens, but it would eat up a lot if not all of my carry on luggage.

Any suggestions?

Thanks.

It depends on a couple of things, The size of the ship is one. the large ships can't get as close to shore as the smaller ships is the first factor to consider, also allot of this depends on how close photographically you expect to get to wildlife on the shore. Wildlife is hit and miss on these cruises and there are times when a 600mm with a 2X TC won't get you close enough. If it were me I would leave the 500 home unless you planned to use it with teleconverters. I took a 7D Mark II with a 100-400 Mk II and a 1.4 Mk III TC and was pretty satisfied with that combo but there were a few times when I wished I had longer glass. Hope this helps.

I've been on two Alaskan cruises, and while I got a few shots of breaching whales at a distance, some Albatross, and a couple of eagles on shore and flying past the front of the ship, I don't think I'd bother with the 500. None of those shots were really "keepers" for me; it was more of a pastime. The good shots came from excursions, and your 100-400 Mk II should be perfect for that, and "good enough" for taking shots from the ship, especially with the 1.4X TC added.

If you refer to it as 'drag' my 500mm, just leave it at home.

We took one of the small boat cruises (75 people) in Alaska and I was able to get great photos using my 100-400 L mark i. But being a smaller boat we were able to get much closer to shore than one of the large cruise ships.

If the cruise line can take you out on a skiff to get closer to wildlife, then I'd leave the 500 at home.

At any rate enjoy the view. Most people haven't seen anything matching the awesome beauty of Alaska.

LV Moose wrote in post #17614248
I've been on two Alaskan cruises, and while I got a few shots of breaching whales at a distance, some Albatross, and a couple of eagles on shore and flying past the front of the ship, I don't think I'd bother with the 500. None of those shots were really "keepers" for me; it was more of a pastime. The good shots came from excursions, and your 100-400 Mk II should be perfect for that, and "good enough" for taking shots from the ship, especially with the 1.4X TC added.

I have been on two Alaskan cruises, too, including last summer, and I concur with Moose. While on board, there was very little to shoot with a telephoto lens. On last year's cruise, I think I used one only for a few close ups of the glaciers in Glacier Bay National Park. I used my 100-400L extensively on two whale watching excursions, though. As a veteran of 10 whale watching trips in Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Boston, I think a long prime would be too limiting for this activity, as the whales can get quite close to the boats (especially if it's a small boat) and you need to react fast. Also, you will want a more nimble lens, as you will be moving around the boat a lot trying to position yourself for the next whale surfacing. Hence, a quality zoom telephoto is ideal for this type of excursion. For other whale watching trips, I found that my 70-200 f/4 IS on a crop body was enough reach. In fact, for our next Hawaii trip I doubt that I will bring along the 100-400L II, and will just bring that smaller, lighter telephoto.

If you plan on a whale watching excursion, I would recommend bringing a monopod. I used one for the first time while whale watching last summer, and it was very useful. You need to be in position ready to shoot, as you will only have a couple of seconds when the whales surface. The monopod made it easier to keep the 100-400L in a ready shooting position without my arms getting tired. A tripod is too big and cumbersome to move around with and setup on a small boat.

Whale watching specific: We went on a small 14 passenger boat, I had a 150-600 on a full-frame, my wife had a 28-135 on a crop. She got better pictures of full breaches; my lens was too big and heavy to swing around quickly and frame. I got better images of surface feeding when I had a little more time to zoom and frame.

So, if you've got a co-shooter, having two different focal range lenses can work well.

note: We were both moving from one side of the boat to the other, as the situation dictated. For me, a monopod would have been a hindrance.

We were on a similar-sized boat in the excursion out of Juneau, Moose. I think we had 14 passengers, and it was billed as a photographers excursion. In reality, the pro photographer was giving only the most basic instructions (keep your shutter speed fast, etc.) and only one other passenger had a dSLR with a telephoto lens. So, in my case I was able to camp out on the bow of the boat and shoot to either side, as the situation dictated. My 100-400L was a little too tight a few times, too, as the humpbacks were bubble net feeding right next to our boat. It was a thrilling experience.

This was at 100mm on my 7D:

Scott M wrote in post #17614824
We were on a similar-sized boat in the excursion out of Juneau, Moose. I think we had 14 passengers, and it was billed as a photographers excursion. In reality, the pro photographer was giving only the most basic instructions (keep your shutter speed fast, etc.) and only one other passenger had a dSLR with a telephoto lens. So, in my case I was able to camp out on the bow of the boat and shoot to either side, as the situation dictated. My 100-400L was a little too tight a few times, too, as the humpbacks were bubble net feeding right next to our boat. It was a thrilling experience.

Might have taken the same tour
Juneau for us as well, spent most of the time in Stephen's Passage. Lots of bubble-net feeding going on, a few breaches. The guide explained everything very well, and had a microphone in the water so we could hear them. Excellent experience.

(I can't pull up your Smugmug images here at work)

Thanks for all the replies. I think the 500mm will stay home for this trip. We will be going on a whale watching excursion. So I'll bring the 100-400 and probably the 24-105 along for that. Then the only other lens I'll bring will probably be the Tokina 11-16mm.

LV Moose wrote in post #17614848
Might have taken the same tour
Juneau for us as well, spent most of the time in Stephen's Passage. Lots of bubble-net feeding going on, a few breaches. The guide explained everything very well, and had a microphone in the water so we could hear them. Excellent experience.

(I can't pull up your Smugmug images here at work)

Sounds like it was the same tour. We did not see any breaches, but this is the first time in 10 whale watching trips we had witnessed bubble-net feeding, and having it happen so close to our boat was an amazing experience. Even the guide and captain were getting very excited by the action. Here are a couple of shots that show how close we were -- these shots were not cropped at all.

Very nice, Scott! Some of mine are here: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17097148

Edit: Scott, I just noticed you commented on the above thread back when it was posted.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, Paxonator

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17614369
If you refer to it as 'drag' my 500mm, just leave it at home.

This says it all. Honestly, you may find your self dragging your 100-400L around Alaska. Alaska is an amazing place to take wildlife shots, if you're willing to devote a week to getting a single amazing keeper and not one you'll get from anywhere near a cruise ship. You won't be disappointed taking the 100-400 to take some solid shots from the cruise ship and from excursions. But National Geographic doesn't take a random photo midweek from a midship balcony. The 500 would be a mistake. The 100-400 is totally worth to bring, but at the same time, don't ruin your vacation trying to force shots to happen.