I'm I crazy for not taking a mid range zoom to Alaska?

Title says it all. I'm cruising to Alaska with family and am trying to get my kit in order.

Potential lenses to make the trip:
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro
Sigma 70-200 2.8 II
Canon 300 L f4 IS
1.4x teleconverter
Body is a 50d

I'm leaning towards taking the 11-16, Sigma 30, and Canon 300, + 1.4x converter. But that leaves a huge gap. Will I miss a walk around zoom? My normal walk around is the 30mm.

I'm debating buying a Tamron 17-50 or 24-105L. I was all set to buy the 24-105 but am having doubts. I haven't had much need for its particular range up till now. So once I get back it might sit in the bag for a long long time. So it could be a waste of money.

The more I read about Alaska the more I keep seeing "take an ultra wide for landscapes and long telephoto for wildlife"

Will the 30mm be enough to cover the "normal" focal range?

Thanks in advance.

How do you know that you will need a mid range zoom now? To be honest I have never really understood the "Gap" statement. unless you are going to be in situations where you can not move then I say you look like you have a great kit assembled.
I packed every lens I owned to Disney and really only used a UWA and my 30mm

I'm not a huge fan of the "gap" argument either but I'm a tad worried since 90% of my shooting is either macro, birding or wildlife. Which I almost always do in uncrowded areas (outside) were I can move freely. I really don't need a zoom for any of that.

However, I wonder if it's worth picking up a mid range zoom for family and group shots. I went to Chicago a few months back and although I didn't have any problems ( I went during the middle of the week for business) I could easily see the versatility a zoom offers in crowded (i.e. "touristy") areas.

For birding and wildlife, you will apreciate the 100-400L than the 300L. 70-200 on crop is less useful in those situations. I would bring two to three lenses if I were going to shoot landscape, wilife and birds in good light only:

Canon EF-S 15-85 IS (or a standard zoom with WA capacity such as Tammy 17-50) on XS for landscape, family, kids and portrait.
CAnon EF 100-400 L IS on 50D for landscape, wildlife, birding
If you think you may want to shoot some UWA, you have the best choice in you lineup already.

If packing heavy doesn't worry you then just bring it all plus pick up a kit 18-55 IS and an external flash for the group people shots - money better spent for that purpose than a 24-105 or something IMO.

If trying to pack a bit lighter then I'd also leave the 70-200 behind. I assume the 100mm plus sometimes with the 1.4x should cover you OK. For travel I'd also leave the 30mm behind, but I generally try and pack light - some people swear by having a fast prime with them.

nonick wrote in post #10233500
For birding and wildlife, you will apreciate the 100-400L than the 300L. 70-200 on crop is less useful in those situations. I would bring two to three lenses if I were going to shoot landscape, wilife and birds in good light only:

Canon EF-S 15-85 IS (or a standard zoom with WA capacity such as Tammy 17-50) on XS for landscape, family, kids and portrait.
CAnon EF 100-400 L IS on 50D for landscape, wildlife, birding
If you think you may want to shoot some UWA, you have the best choice in you lineup already.

Have you used many of these lenses you are recommending?

The 300mm is a great lens and I would have taken it over a dust pump anyday.

My 24-105 works great in Alaska. Along with a Hoya Pro1D and HD CPL, tripod of course, that is what I count on for getting images when traveling. Most all the landscapes below were done with the 24-105 in Alaska. Great lens. Just got back from Ketchikan last week in fact. Spent a week at a remote cabin 40 miles north of there by bushplane on POW island.

http://www.flickr.com …s/7215762245100​0035/show/

http://www.flickr.com …s/7215760529538​7576/show/

Thanks for sharing your pictures Dan, those are fantastic I'm really looking forward to this trip.

The 70-200 and 100 macro are out. I like to travel light and don't see much use for either of those lenses, unless someone talks me into taking them. Also forgot to mention I will be taking a circular polarizer and 430EX II flash.

The 30mm will be coming along for sure. It takes up almost no space in the bag and I figure a fast prime will come in handy in the darker areas of the cruise ship.

BKATX wrote in post #10232929
Title says it all. I'm cruising to Alaska with family and am trying to get my kit in order.

Potential lenses to make the trip:
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 30 1.4
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro
Sigma 70-200 2.8 II
Canon 300 L f4 IS
1.4x teleconverter
Body is a 50d

I'm leaning towards taking the 11-16, Sigma 30, and Canon 300, + 1.4x converter. But that leaves a huge gap. Will I miss a walk around zoom? My normal walk around is the 30mm.

I'm debating buying a Tamron 17-50 or 24-105L. I was all set to buy the 24-105 but am having doubts. I haven't had much need for its particular range up till now. So once I get back it might sit in the bag for a long long time. So it could be a waste of money.

The more I read about Alaska the more I keep seeing "take an ultra wide for landscapes and long telephoto for wildlife"

Will the 30mm be enough to cover the "normal" focal range?

Thanks in advance.

i went to alaska last year. i took a FF and 1.3 crop camera. my lenses were 16-35L II, 24-70L, 70-200L f4 IS and 100-400L.

both camera and all lenses were used alot....i shot everything from grizzly bears to landscapes.

if i were using a 1.6 crop and could choose only two lenses they would be the 17-55 IS and the 100-400L.

ed rader

I think UWA + Tele are a must. 30mm sigma is good for some family shots, or low light crops. 24-105 may help you for all in between. I was first afraid of its low light performance, but 24-105 + Sigma 30 are definitely a better combo, than 24-70. But, anyways, I think you could definitely use the 24-105. Range is excellent, it's super-sharp, and it can also sub for short telephoto on a crop.

You still have a lot of midrange covered-looks good to me.

midnight_rider wrote in post #10233553
Have you used many of these lenses you are recommending?

The 300mm is a great lens and I would have taken it over a dust pump anyday.

Have you been there? Shooting with the two lenses (on crop cameras) I recommend there will cover 95% of the shooting needs in an Alaska trip with family. Period. When you are in Alaska, range coverage is the first priority. Lens changing should be minimized. lens speed is not an issue as you will mostly shoot with good light outdoor.

I shot 5D 24-105 and 30D 100-400L. Range is close to 15-85 and 100-400 with crop sensor and I found them very useful to cover the needs in a landscape/ portrait/ family/ wildlife combined situation.

And don't be surprised. You will need 100-200 mid zoom range for some landscape shots.

I never own 300/4L but I owned 300/2.8 G on Alpha mount and I don't think this fixed FL is ideal for Alaska trip.

I don't think you're crazy. My ideal kit will be a 15-85, 300, and 1.4x. I hope to get the 15-85 before the sale ends this summer.

If you REALLY want the mid ranges covered why not pick up a used 55-250? Cheap, light, compact, and can produce some nice results in the right hands. You could sell it later too at no loss.

nonick wrote in post #10234461
Have you been there? Shooting with the two lenses (on crop cameras) I recommend there will cover 95% of the shooting needs in an Alaska trip with family. Period. When you are in Alaska, range coverage is the first priority. Lens changing should be minimized. lens speed is not an issue as you will mostly shoot with good light outdoor.

I shot 5D 24-105 and 30D 100-400L. Range is close to 15-85 and 100-400 with crop sensor and I found them very useful to cover the needs in a landscape/ portrait/ family/ wildlife combined situation.

And don't be surprised. You will need 100-200 mid zoom range for some landscape shots.

I never own 300/4L but I owned 300/2.8 G on Alpha mount and I don't think this fixed FL is ideal for Alaska trip.

Dude, I could go to Alaska with a rebel and a nifty fifty and get almost every shot want. Not wide enough? Shoot a pano. not long enough? get closer. want a macro? get some tubes. Everyone has different shooting styles and to be honest I think that the OP knows they may be wanting something in a " Mid range zoom"
1. There are no real " IN this state this is a Priority" rule. Being someone that would take a prime over a zoom any-day I say range is over rated.
2. Fast lenses have many uses. like Boken, subject isolation and creative purposes. not to mention that the cruise ship ( like Alaska) is not always perfectly lit.
3. Changing lenses is completely up to each person. I do not see any reason why this would change on a per state basis


With all that said I would never change my gear line up because of a trip. add a lens? yeah. Reconstruct.....? No
But then again I know my gear. I have purchased each lens for a specific reason and have learned the the lens. It took a while to get the gear that was right for me and I know it is the same for anyone else.
The OP has a very nice gear list and is truly only missing a mid range lens ( theoretically).
I personally do not have a mid range. I own a mid range. I have a UWA, a 50mm, a 70-200, a macro on a FF cam. without knowing me or how I shoot could you recommend me a lens for shooting in Georgia?

I just returned from a cruise to Alaska and brought a Tammy 17-50 and a Tokina 80-400, a setup that was initially a little frustrating, but I was able to figure out a good system (wasn't missing the 50-80mm). The only issue I had was walking around certain areas where the landscapes were beautiful in every direction so I constantly wanted to keep the Tammy on, but then my wife would yell that there was an eagle flying above so I'd quickly have to try and switch lenses and catch the eagle before he went into the trees. I eventually just started leaving the zoom on, and would switch to the Tammy for landscapes because they generally did not move as quickly. There were times I wish I had an 18-270 for convenience, but I think I would've sacrificed IQ.

Enjoy Alaska, it's absolutely incredible! If I can offer my .02 - be weary of some shore excursions, most places you can just walk around on your own and see an abundance of wildlife and beautiful landscapes.