Alaska lens choice

I'm planning a 2 week trip to Alaska next August/September and am pretty well set as far as which lenses I will taking (10-22, 17-55, 70-200IS/F4, and the 100-400L). I've been wondering lately though if I'd be better served getting the 2.8 version of the 70-200 due to the often overcast, rainy, and dreary weather encountered. Was also concerned that with both the 70-200/2.8 and the 100-400L that weight would become an issue. Would love to hear ideas, suggestions, or from anyone who has had experience in Alaska with either or both lenses.

That range of lenses look like they will be fine for Alaska. I have a 80-200 f/2.8L "magic drainpipe", but mostly I have been building an f/4 kit. The dreary conditions will be found along the coast, but you should find some consistent sun in the interior(Denali, Wrangells, Fairbanks, Brooks Range). I do wish for more speed at times, but increasing the ISO is always a consideration with todays cameras.

Weight is something that I never worry about. I worry about the best image quality. If weight starts to limit what you are doing, then it should be considered. I just deal with it...good gear is heavy. I move a little slower, hike a little shorter distance, and plan for the gear I'll take on a particular jaunt(I carry a Lowepro Vertex 300 with the kitchen sink in it, and a Tamrac sling pack with one body and one lens maybe two for hikes). The f/4 70-200 is a good compromise, many say it's sharper than the f/2.8 version, and it saves you weight. On a two week trip you'll be spending a lot of time on a bus(Denali), boat(Glacier Cruise), car(getting around the state) its easy to carry heavy gear that way.

Not sure how much use you'll get out of that focal length, actually, particularly out of a crop camera. You might be safe leaving the 70-200 range at home.

RikWriter wrote in post #6210111
Not sure how much use you'll get out of that focal length, actually, particularly out of a crop camera. You might be safe leaving the 70-200 range at home.

+1

Back from AK earlier this month. Used my 100-400 a LOT, even for some landscapes. Next was my 17-40, which was plenty wide on my 40d or 1d. I also carried 35, 50, 135 and 24-105. The 24-105 was good for walk around, but most of the time 17-40 was enough for that. The primes were fun, just to break up the routine, but I could have lived with out them. I brought 2 bags, one large to carry everything from lodge-to-lodge, and one small bag(TT Change-up) for walk-around.

Looking at your gear, I'd go with the 10-22, 17-55 and 100-400. If you've got one, take along a fast prime for indoor shots on the ship, lodges. Skip the 70-200 unless you really like that range.

Take a look if you like:
My Alaska Galleries


<edit> a shot of McKinley with my 100-400, over 40 miles away Hope you get to see it, its been a wet summer up there, and we were lucky to get a reasonably clear afternoon. Hopefully next year will be a better summer for your trip.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Great points by all...thanks!
Fantastic gallery John and love the shot of Denali. Suitable for framing for sure. I will not be taking a cruise (other then short boat tours after I get there) but will fly into Anchorage then rent a vehicle. The places I want to hit are Seward, Fairbanks, Denali, Homer, and various other towns on the Kenai Peninsula. I don't have a prime but thought the 17-55 would be ok for indoors? Really the only lens that I'm unsure of is the 70-200/f/4. Thought it might be good for walking around in some cases or in lower light situations when the 17-55 wasn't long enough. The dreary summer weather in Alaska this year is what got me thinking that trading for a 70-200/2.8 might be good insurance (but costly).

Don't forget a tripod. Traveling on your own you'll get opportunities I didn't. I brought one, but the cruise schedule(and the rain/fog) didn't give me a chance to do much setup. No control over duration at any given location, or time of day for photo ops. Should be different for you, so be sure to take one along.

The 17-55 should be fine for low-light shots, and be a great walk-around. I still don't see the 70-200 being very convenient. Its not wide enough and not long enough. But, everyone prefers different FL's, so better to bring it along than regret not having it. I wouldn't upgrade to the f/2.8. Even in the dreary weather we had, f/5.6 on my 100-400 was fast enough, and I rarely shot my 17-40 at f/4. If you have a burning desire to spend the money , I'd consider a fast prime. Pick a length, 50, 85, 135... It would give you something different to use on people, flowers, wildlife....., being a bit more creative(shallow DOF) vs a zoom.

P.S. Its too early to think about next years vacation. Trust me, I did it for the last year, its best to put it out of your mind for a while

John...I'm beginning to think you're right about the 70-200. I find it useful at times like when going to a golf tournament but in Alaska? Maybe not so much! I think I will take it along though just in case. I've never had a prime or really considered one outside of the 400L but will give that some thought as well. Was thinking monopod for convenience but you think a tripod would be better? I've also kicked around the idea of getting a second body. I know I should hold off in my planning but sometimes given the amount of area I want to cover it just seems overwhelming!

Yes, a tripod over mono any day. You'll see plenty of waterfalls, and you'll want to shoot them properly. As well as high DOF landscape shots. Something small and lightweight, for your landscape lenses, not a heavy 100-400 tripod. A remote release and ND / CPL filters will be handy for the same shots.

Just my opinion, but I took a tripod and barely used it, so what's my opinion worth I have no regrets taking it, and wish I had more opportunities to use it while we were there.

As for primes, try a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Find a used one if you can, they're not very pricey. Bring it as an only lens, walk through the park, family party, anything. Its a totally different way to shoot, and well worth experimenting.

I think the tripod is covered. I've got the Manfrotto 725B which should work well although I'll have to check see if it will support the 100-400. I also have plenty of rain gear and fleece on my checklist!

As John said above I spent time in Alaska this summer and the summer before, the only thing I tell people is take something wide, and really wide and take something long, Really long.

This year I took the 17-40, 70-200, and 100-400. the 70-200 Rarely if ever came out of the bag. I also wished I could have afforded the 150-500 sigma or 300-800 sigma(no one rents it though) but both at the time have been a little out of reach. 100-400 will give you some reach but I really feel that More would have been better.

Link for the sigma

JC4 wrote in post #6213362
Yes, a tripod over mono any day. You'll see plenty of waterfalls, and you'll want to shoot them properly. As well as high DOF landscape shots. Something small and lightweight, for your landscape lenses, not a heavy 100-400 tripod. A remote release and ND / CPL filters will be handy for the same shots.

Just my opinion, but I took a tripod and barely used it, so what's my opinion worth I have no regrets taking it, and wish I had more opportunities to use it while we were there.

As for primes, try a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Find a used one if you can, they're not very pricey. Bring it as an only lens, walk through the park, family party, anything. Its a totally different way to shoot, and well worth experimenting.

Took a look into the primes (50 & 85) and they've really piqued my interest. I don't really shoot any portraits but which would you recommend for flowers, landscapes, and other general stuff? Would one be better than the other for night time city shots? Either or both seems like a great addition for Alaska.

Strayz wrote in post #6220131
As John said above I spent time in Alaska this summer and the summer before, the only thing I tell people is take something wide, and really wide and take something long, Really long.

This year I took the 17-40, 70-200, and 100-400. the 70-200 Rarely if ever came out of the bag. I also wished I could have afforded the 150-500 sigma or 300-800 sigma(no one rents it though) but both at the time have been a little out of reach. 100-400 will give you some reach but I really feel that More would have been better.

Link for the sigma

After all the comments I've been wracking my little brain trying to think when I would use the 70-200 in AK and as good as that lens is I can't think of many situations where it would be necessary. I bought the 70-200 and the 100-400 together and the 70-200 has hardly been used. Might even give some real consideration to selling it. As far as going really long...I checked out rental fees for the 500mm and 600mm primes and they're both fairly pricey. If I was to go longer it would be most likely the 600mm but they want $585.00 for a 14 day rental and $770.00 for a 21 day! Renting the Sigma 150-500 might be an option but do you think it would be worth the cost and hassle for an extra 100MM? Also, were your trips by cruise ship or land based?

Size and weight are real factors on a trip like that. I think 400MM is fine, unless you really need to get the mouth of the whale......

On my last trip, I took a small bag, 16-35, 100-400, 15MM fisheye, 50MM f/1.2, and barely used the primes.

Get a level, a lightweight tripod, enjoy!

blackzzz wrote in post #6224145
Took a look into the primes (50 & 85) and they've really piqued my interest. I don't really shoot any portraits but which would you recommend for flowers, landscapes, and other general stuff? Would one be better than the other for night time city shots? Either or both seems like a great addition for Alaska.

I use my 50 more than my 85. FL is a personal thing. I haven't owned the 85 1.8, but by all accounts its a better lens than the 50 1.4. Sharper and faster AF. So, if you want the better lens, get the 85. Though I recommend going with your favorite FL. Since you're use to 'L's, ignore the build quality of whatever you get, remember its an experiment to see if you like shooting with primes. L's can come later

Long: Since you have the 100-400, I wouldn't do the Sigma 150-500. For ME, the extra 2" and 1 pound wasn't worth the 100mm gain. There are times in AK I would have liked 600 or 800mm, but not enough to want to carry the lens around. It depends if you're going for a vacation or photo expedition. Its a balance thing.

@JohnC - Nice Alaska gallery!