Lenses for Alaska

Hey Gang,
Have a 70 - 200 2.8 IS and need another all purpose for Alaskan cruise in 3 weeks. Thinking about either the 24 - 70 2.8 L or the 28 - 105 L. thoughts? It'd fit o a 30D and hopefully use the same CP. My mm numbers might be off a bit.

How about the new Bigmos? [Sigma 150-500 OS] You'll have a lens with native 800mm angle of view with your 30D, and with 4-5 Stop in-lens stabilization to boot. Can't have enough reach for this kind of trip!

Hey, that's way too big. Forgot to mention that I have a 1.4 extender too. Distance seems covered. Need an all around lens for landscapes and family on ship. Also have 85 1.8 and the kit 18 - 55 (which now that I've tasted "L" can't put on my 30 D.

if it were me I would opt for the Bigmos too. Alaska is kinda big itself and for many of the things to take pics of there it is best to keep as far away as possible.

Something else to consider is the EX Sigma's are weather sealed. Aren't they? AK can be a harsh environment on any lens and the better the seals the better a chance the lens won't fail due to weather related probs.

No, distance is most certainly NOT covered by your 70-200 and 1.4X TC. You'll need at least 400 for Alaska, probably more.

brecklundin wrote in post #5855284
if it were me I would opt for the Bigmos too. Alaska is kinda big itself and for many of the things to take pics of there it is best to keep as far away as possible.

Something else to consider is the EX Sigma's are weather sealed. Aren't they? AK can be a harsh environment on any lens and the better the seals the better a chance the lens won't fail due to weather related probs.

That would be a negative, sir.

I think I would want at least the EF 100-400L IS or the EF 400L prime for Alaska. Also, don't forget the rental option, especially for the larger glass that might make or break a once in a lifetime trip (and the wallet).

Doing Alaska on a cruise means that you need to be cognizant of the weight of your gear. Not because the ship will sink under the weight of a few extra lenses but, because whenever you leave the ship - all the gear you will have is the gear you are able and willing to carry. You won't be able to go back and forth to the ship to grab that extra lens which you didn't want to carry when you left the ship.

This is a lot different from flying to Alaska, renting a vehicle and staying in lodges, hotels or motels. You can keep your gear in the trunk of your vehicle (I tend to rent vehicles with trunks because of the extra security factor) and are usually closer to the gear if you need it. Still, with airline weight restrictions, you can't go overboard with gear either.

The lenses which you will need really depend on where you are going and what you are going to do. If wildlife is a major part of your interests, you should have a lens of at least 400m on the long side. if you are going to take the trip to Denali, you could use a lens in excess of 400mm since much of the wildlife viewing in that area is done from long distances. However, few persons except professionals or truly devoted amateurs are willing to carry the long lenses and heavy tripods needed for Denali wildlife photography and these photographers don't go there on a tour.

If I were going to take a cruise to Alaska, I would prefer two cameras with two lenses: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. I would team these up with a good monopod and with a flash. These two lenses would suit me very well especially since I am not a great fan of ultra wide lenses for landscapes. However, if you like the wide stuff, throw in a 10-20mm Canon, 12-24mm Tokina or the Sigma equivalent. If you don't have a mid-range zoom with a wide side; then a three lens setup with the wide angle, a mid-range zoom in the area of 24-28mm to 70-75mm and the 100-400mm would do very well.

Of course, if you are not willing to lug two cameras, a single camera with the 17-55 and 100-400 lenses would even be a lighter outfit. However, this would mean changing lenses in the field and not having a spare camera if the one camera bites the dust. Remember: Murphy's Law of Photography states, "The probability of a camera's failure is in a direct relationship to the importance of your shooting and in an inverse relationship to the availability of backup equipment."

You can "rent" a lens like the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS from eBay! Simply buy a used one in good condition, pay for it with PayPal credit and then sell it on Ebay when you return from your trip. You will not have to make a payment until you have sold the lens and paid off the credit line.

You could of course, carry your 70-200mmm f/2.8L and a 1.4x TC which would bring you to 280mm. I would not, however, shoot on a once-in-a-lifetime trip using a 2x TC because I don't like the imagery a 2x provides.

I am in a flux as to what equipment I want to bring. I have settled on my 30D and 40D cameras with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses and 1.4x TC.

My dilemma is whether I should bring my D60 which has been converted to full time infrared. The problem with this camera is that it cannot use an EF-S lens such as the 17-55mm and I would need to bring a mid-range EF lens like the 17-40L or the 24-70L. In retrospect, I kind of wish I had an infrared P&S instead of the D60. This would make logistics a lot easier.

The extra D60 camera and lens would be quite a bit of extra weight. However, since I will just need to carry the gear through airline terminals and to and from my lodge or hotel rooms, I will probably bring the infrared camera and extra lens. I know that if I don't, I will see all sorts of uses for the camera that has been left at home. I will probably also throw in my 12-24mm Tokina for the same reason.

This is my tentative gear. The trip will be a combined fishing and photography adventure and the Nikon Coolpix is to throw in my fishing vest (with a waterproof plastic housing). I certainly don't want to take a dunk while wade fishing in an Alakan stream wearing a 30D or 40D plus lens or lenses.

Remember, i am not going to carry this on my back as I am shooting - the pack is just to transport my gear to Alaska and to store it when I am there. I would rather carry the gear there and not use it than not have it and need it.

I will also take a monopod and a tripod.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

LightRules wrote in post #5855410
That would be a negative, sir.

Oh, geeze, really? I thought the EX line was sealed. Dang it's been that way all day...thanks for letting me know.

Just dang...And I see the Bigmos is not an EX...where in the heck did I read all that?? Man, I really must need to either up the meds or take a vacation...

EDIT: I got it, when I was deciding on a camera I had the K20D from Pentax on the short list and it makes claims of weather proofing/resistance. But ironically it was the Canon L's that are more weather resistant then the Pentax lenses. Anyway, that was the source of my misinformation, sorry about that...rookie error of enthusiasm.

brecklundin wrote in post #5857094
Oh, geeze, really? I thought the EX line was sealed. Dang it's been that way all day...thanks for letting me know.

Just dang...And I see the Bigmos is not an EX...where in the heck did I read all that?? Man, I really must need to either up the meds or take a vacation...

It happens! At least he didn't call you out with a good'ole "That's a negative ghost rider!"

You need a very huge range for a place like Alaska... Better solutions for me are:

A. Bring a DC with wide angle to cover the 28-100 range ( 870IS x 2 batteries will do) + 30D + 70-200/2.8 L IS + a 1.4X TC

B. Bring a 30D + 28-300LIS or 100-400L IS + a 870IS x 2 batteries

C. 30D+ 17-55/2.8IS ( or 24-105/4L IS) + 70-200/2.8L IS + a 1.4TC-- you won't like it because you don't want to change lenses so often...

D. 2 DSLR and one with 17-55/2.8IS ( or the 24-105/4LIS) and one with the 70-200/2.8 +TC.

For me.. I will pick a good DC with wide angle capacity and a DSLR with a nice tele zoom...( I prefer 100-400 over 70-200 due to it's range and reach.. you will need that in Alaska.) This combination will be the most protable and it should take care of most of your need in the trip. Good luck! I just lug one camera with a good lens plus a small DC in my pocket... I can take good pictures and enjoy my day easily this way. Make sure you put a grip on to balance the DSLR and to double the battery life of your 30D ( do forget 30D doesn't have a very good battery life) if you can.

John_TX wrote in post #5857107
It happens! At least he didn't call you out with a good'ole "That's a negative ghost rider!"

hahahaha...the pattern is full huh? Hope I din't make ya spill coffee all over yourself...

You guys are NUTZ!

Fair comment on recommending all the lenses in the world BUT the dude has a nice and very expensive tele already. Yea yeah i know it may not be enough to get everything BUT hes going with his family and has a crappy general purpose lens..

he asks... "and need another all purpose for Alaskan cruise in 3 weeks. Thinking about either the 24 - 70 2.8 L or the 28 - 105 L. thoughts?"

So I would ALSO prefer - if buying one new lens - to upgrade your most used range - the general purpose range.

So your 2 lens choices are good ones - i would lean towards the 24-105 I think as I find it to be sharp wide open (unlike my 24-70 2.8) which i frequently stop down to 3.5 ish to sharpen it up and the IS is really really handy for beautiful evening and morning shots and for off the cuff family shots too Also that little bit extra on the long end - up to 105 (160mm+) is handy before needing to change over to your 70-200.

I find (as mentioned in numerous other threads) that the 24-70 really needs to be kept up to at least 1/80 most times to keep it really sharp. I find that letting other people shoot with this lens (wife, sis in law) to take shots of me with the kids and whatnot - gets poor results as they do not have good technique.

IS lets less skilled users grab your camera and still get really goood shots.

So theres some food for thought and as per usual in this line of thinking - consider too the 17-55 IS 2.8 EF-S Lens not an L but meant to be a nice one on the image quality.

Hope it helps. Hope you have a good trip. I did a whole new zealand trip with a 24-105, 17-40 and a 70-200 f4LIS on a 5D so max 200mm (unlike your 200x1.4x1.6 = 448mm) and it was an awesome super light kit.

Super-Nicko wrote in post #5857282
..You guys are NUTZ! ...

Oh, SURE, point out the obvious!!

brecklundin wrote in post #5857441
Oh, SURE, point out the obvious!!

But you are right, I did miss the part about "need a good general purpose lens"...

Same here, I thought he was looking for a tele.

Oh well, never fear, Captain Obvious is here!!!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'