Alaska. a cruise. i am going on

ohh yes, another thought. I am going to be shooting from tours on boats a lot, so would it be a good idea to trade my nature trekker for the Dryzone 200 for the trip. my friend has it, and although i HATE the stupid zipper on that monstrocity the waterproofing might be important.

SYS wrote in post #3064162
Actually I was going to suggest that in my earlier message, but I didn't because I had only "overheard" that rather than having the solid facts as to exactly which cheaper set up can work with the Lee filters themselves. So someone else will have to confirm that for ya. You might want to call 2filters.com's 800 number and ask the person directly. They're very good at things like that. If the HiTech or Cokin Z set up works with Lee filters, then you might want to purchase the set up from 2filters.com and Lee filters directly from their Hollywood store.

okay well im looking at what i need to get, and looking at your thread. how does the adapter ring attach to the lens, i dont believe the sigma has front threads, is that an issue?
*edit* apparently you have to get a 82mm adapter and attach it to the lens cap holder. and the lens will vingette from 12-14mm (im not sure what crop that is refering to though). i wonder if its worth it on that lens.

Ohh also, are you happy with just the .9 soft, or should i get some other ones too.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #3064306
okay well im looking at what i need to get, and looking at your thread. how does the adapter ring attach to the lens, i dont believe the sigma has front threads, is that an issue?

Ohh also, are you happy with just the .9 soft, or should i get some other ones too.

Wow, Sigma lenses have no front threads? (I have NO experience with Sigma). Then how do Sigma owners use the lenses with ANY filters? Some sort of an adapter?

Anyway, the UWA adapter ring screws on to the lens. The holder then slides onto the ring, then the filter itself.

When I had no idea as to what strength filter I should get, I turned to Bryan Peterson's book, Understanding Exposure, where he's devoted one chapter on Filters. There he said that his favorite is the 3-stop (= .9). On top of his recommendation, the fact that I almost always live in and travel to very sunny areas, it made a sense to get the .9 filter. As for getting soft or hard depends on what your intended images are. Basically if you're involved in shooting uneven landscapes, then soft. If you shoot lots of landscape scenes that involve straight lines like horizon in sunset/sunrise, then hard. If you can afford to get both, then all the better. If you can also afford to get .6 and .9 (2-stop and 3-stop, respectively), then all the better, too.

SYS wrote in post #3064421
Wow, Sigma lenses have no front threads? (I have NO experience with Sigma). Then how do Sigma owners use the lenses with ANY filters? Some sort of an adapter?

Anyway, the UWA adapter ring screws on to the lens. The holder then slides onto the ring, then the filter itself.

When I had no idea as to what strength filter I should get, I turned to Bryan Peterson's book, Understanding Exposure, where he's devoted one chapter on Filters. There he said that his favorite is the 3-stop (= .9). On top of his recommendation, the fact that I almost always live in and travel to very sunny areas, it made a sense to get the .9 filter. As for getting soft or hard depends on what your intended images are. Basically if you're involved in shooting uneven landscapes, then soft. If you shoot lots of landscape scenes that involve straight lines like horizon in sunset/sunrise, then hard. If you can afford to get both, then all the better. If you can also afford to get .6 and .9 (2-stop and 3-stop, respectively), then all the better, too.

yea i might get a .9 soft and a .6 hard. The sigma 12-24 CANT have front threads because of how large the front element is. Since its designed for full frame its actually significantly larger than the 10-22.

Bring stuff for wet weather shooting, Alaska is a temporate rain forest. I believe Juno gets more rain than any wear else in North America. I went for 17 days last June. Bought a rain jacker for my camera, but was lucky and never had to use it.
The 100-400 will be good for whale watching as they surface at varing distances
Sunset and sunrise are only a couple of hours apart, I didn't see any nice ones. As it dosen't get very dark that time of year.
Bring all the gear you can. Go long & go wide. I wish I had my new 300 2.8L with me on my trip.

I'd love to go again, maybe next year.

Tapeman wrote in post #3064711
Bring stuff for wet weather shooting, Alaska is a temporate rain forest. I believe Juno gets more rain than any wear else in North America. I went for 17 days last June. Bought a rain jacker for my camera, but was lucky and never had to use it.
The 100-400 will be good for whale watching as they surface at varing distances
Sunset and sunrise are only a couple of hours apart, I didn't see any nice ones. As it dosen't get very dark that time of year.
Bring all the gear you can. Go long & go wide. I wish I had my new 300 2.8L with me on my trip.

I'd love to go again, maybe next year.

thanks for the personal experience. i forgot about the long days there for a minute.

You will want a polarizer for the 17-40 for sure. And a polarizer for the 300 2.8 could come in handy there on the ship shooting distant mountains, etc. Probably won't need 400 5.6. You will want the 2XTC for the 300 2.8

morehtml wrote in post #3065057
You will want a polarizer for the 17-40 for sure. And a polarizer for the 300 2.8 could come in handy there on the ship shooting distant mountains, etc. Probably won't need 400 5.6. You will want the 2XTC for the 300 2.8

Thanks Allen. I have a CP for my 17-40, and ill probably pick up the drop in for the 300 if i get enough cash together. The 2X is a must of course.

I'll be heading to Alaska next year. My plan for the cruise is the 24-105 f/4IS and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6IS. Nothing else. But I have been to Alaska before, and will go back several more times for the fishing. (My wife wants to go back to Hawaii, I'll take Alaska first) When we cruise I don't take many pictures on the boat, so I'm not too concerned about the uwa. But it doesn't take much room to pack.

If this may be the only time you get to Alaska (or one of a few times), there will definately be opportunity for long. 300 + TCs come to mind. As a general rule, nothing will be too long, and wide for mountainscapes. For me the 100-400 will be decent, with the versatility of the zoom for wandering around port.

-Ryan

PS - I'll be in the Keys next week for some Tarpon and Bonefish. I'm looking forward to that, will have the 100-400 with for when I am not fishing

rdricks wrote in post #3065806
I'll be heading to Alaska next year. My plan for the cruise is the 24-105 f/4IS and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6IS. Nothing else. But I have been to Alaska before, and will go back several more times for the fishing. (My wife wants to go back to Hawaii, I'll take Alaska first) When we cruise I don't take many pictures on the boat, so I'm not too concerned about the uwa. But it doesn't take much room to pack.

If this may be the only time you get to Alaska (or one of a few times), there will definately be opportunity for long. 300 + TCs come to mind. As a general rule, nothing will be too long, and wide for mountainscapes. For me the 100-400 will be decent, with the versatility of the zoom for wandering around port.

-Ryan

PS - I'll be in the Keys next week for some Tarpon and Bonefish. I'm looking forward to that, will have the 100-400 with for when I am not fishing

Thanks for the info Ryan. And best wishes on the fishing next week. Tight Lines,

Billginthekeys wrote in post #3065647
Thanks Allen. I have a CP for my 17-40, and ill probably pick up the drop in for the 300 if i get enough cash together. The 2X is a must of course.

When I was on the boat we passes a lot of mountains where the 300 was needed to get the close mountain view. a CP for the 300 would be the last thing I'd put in my bag but I had a few shots that deff needed it. The 17-40 you should just glue it on!

morehtml wrote in post #3065953
When I was on the boat we passes a lot of mountains where the 300 was needed to get the close mountain view. a CP for the 300 would be the last thing I'd put in my bag but I had a few shots that deff needed it. The 17-40 you should just glue it on!

haha thanks. My friend (tarpontim on here) also has the drop in CP so ill probably bum that off him too. I lent him my 400 5.6 for his trip to costa rica hes on right now, so he owes me .

SYS wrote in post #3063181
Also, I like the idea of replacing 70-200 and 400 prime with 100-400 (for whale watching and such)...

Yes that would be a good move I think, I have a friend who shoots that took a cruise to Alaska, and he wishes he had a 100-400 at the time. Esp. for getting whale shots, all the opportunities for bald eagle shots. He says they are once in a lifetime shots and you just want to get the shot when you don't have the opportunity to go back any time soon. Made sense to me.

Anyone else have filter opinions? (.6 vs .9, soft vs hard edge). id love to buy them all but I'd like to stick to one or two for this trip.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #3069244
Anyone else have filter opinions? (.6 vs .9, soft vs hard edge). id love to buy them all but I'd like to stick to one or two for this trip.

1.2 soft is overkill for anything from what I've experienced. I bought it last year with the mindset that I'd take dramatic sunsets with it. ...However, it's just too dark. I plan on getting a .9 or a .6 very soon.

As far as bags go, do you have the Nature Trekker AW? I wouldn't hesitate to use one of those in the rain, so long as it's not a torrential downpour.