Printable View
When my wife retires (hopefully next June) we plan on taking a trip to Alaska. What would be the minimum lens I would need in terms of length & speed? I currently shoot a Canon 60D with a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and a Tamaron SP70-300 f4-5.5. I am looking buy if the price is around $2000 or less much over that & I will probably try to rent.
All recommendations are welcome and thanks for your time.
David
What do you plan to photograph David and is it at the same time your wife retires, June?
it will probably be July or August and it might not be until 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski
I know part of it will be a cruise but we would also like to go to Denali and or some other inland excursions so hopefully bear and other wild life, so I would say wildlife and landscape.
David
David, Alaska can be all four seasons in one day. You could be lucky with the light, or it could go the other way.
Hauling a 500 could be good, but you need a steady hand or a good tripod, plus you need to think about transfer when on a plane. A friend hired one from B&H and had FedEx ship it to the destination, then picked it up after the trip. 100-400 would give you the flexibility, likewise 70-200 with an option of a bolt on 1.4MKIII. If it comes out, the 200-400 option would be good, but buying, well $15,000+ is out, renting who knows? It needs to be reasonably fast ie f/4 for change of weather/light. The 70-200 2.8 is fantastic, but heavier than the f/4 IS, 70-300 has good reviews, but all that have been suggested is covered with what you have, so perhaps the 500, plus a 1.4 converter to hire could be the viable option to give you the reach you may need?
The 60D is not a pro body so you may need to think of some Lenscoat/Aquatech cover to shield your camera & lens if you are out in the elements for a period of time?
Steve
Thanks for your input Steve. Is giving up the length worth the gain in speed going from the 70-300 f4-5.6 to the 70-200 f2.8? If I add a1.4TC then I only gain 1 stop on the long end.
I have time to think about this so it is not a real pressing issue yet.
David
David,
My personal choice, given what you have and the $2000 limit would be a 300 f/4 and a 1.4x TC (version II or III). I would wait a little and see if a newer version of the 300 comes out in a few months.
If I went on such a trip and needed to travel light, I would take 4 lenses (I do own all of these):
300 f/4 L IS
70-200 f/4 L IS
28-135 IS
24 f/1.4 L
1.4 and 2x TCs
The advantage of the 300 f/4 over zooms is it is sharper (even with 1.4x TC) and faster AF, especially with no TC over zooms.
Roger
For the money I think Roger is on the mark with lens choice...or another alternative for less money would be the well regarded Canon 400 f5.6, it is an excellent inflight lens with extra good quality of optics, stunning shots achievable, the minimum focus distance of around 15 feet can sometimes be problematic, but on larger subjects bigger than small birds it delivers outstanding image quality is, it's also lightweight to carry around. It will take a 1.4 x TC well but will not AF with a TC attached.
Another choice with a little more versatility for general needs would be Sigma 150 -500. The Sigma can produce very nice images both near and far, although maybe not as pro quality as the 300 f4 + TC combination. From what I have seen when used in the in the right hands the 150-500 Sigma can produce marvelous images particularly in good light, I think if I remember correctly one of the members on here, " Jack Breakfast "uses this lens to good to great results.
Phil,
The main reason I did not mention the 400 f/5.6 (an optically excellent lens) is because it does not have IS. I'm convinced IS is very often critically important to get the image (at least for me). I started with a sigma 150-500 then upgraded to a canon 100-400 due to the IS (my 150-500 is sharper than the 100-400; I still have both), then upgraded to the 300 f/4 for the sharpness with IS. Then I added a 500 f/4, then finally a 300 f/2.8.
Roger
Yes, but remember Phil, David is taking about Alaska!!! :bg3: He could strike lucky, there again, it could rain, it's too unpredictable I feel. :w3Quote:
150-500 Sigma can produce marvelous images particularly in good light
Hi David,
Alaska could be wet and dark, so i would go definitely for rain cover, i once drowned a pro body in heavy rain, took several days to recover.
Lens choice ? Thinking in compromises !
I personally would go for a rented 2,8 300 IS L II in combination with the new 1,4 and 2X converters. plus i would rent a second body , if one fails due to weather problems.
I personally would not go for the Canon 100 - 400 IS L, i own one and find it incredibly slow in AF tracking above 300 mm, plus it is very sensitive to fog inside the lens group, because of construction of this lens.
Do not forget a tripod !!!!!!
Good luck ; Andreas
In the lower range you already have some lenses, even if i do not know about their quality.
Well it looks like you will be renting to meet the $2k budget then David. The 300 2.8 is excellent, but remember, it's a fixed lens, what you see is what you get. Good call on a second body Andreas.
Thanks for all of the input. I think I will look at getting the 300l f4 and the 1.4TC then maybe later on selling my 70-300 and getting the 70-200L f2.8. I know a person that wanted to sell me the 70-200L f2.8 (non IS) with 1.4TC for $1100 but I don't know if he still has it or not, I will have to check.
David
Get the IS David IMHO.
@ Roger: per your suggestions as to what to take I was ready to buy the 70-200 f4 IS but then rented the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and shoot a high school football game indoors at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy and was impressed at the quality of shots I got with this lens. Do you have any experience with this lens and if so what is your thoughts on it? I can get it for about the same price as the 70-200 f4 IS. I will still get the TCs and maybe before going to Alaska I will still get the 300 f4 IS (or rent).
David
Hi David,Quote:
Originally Posted by David N Smith
I have no experience with the that Sigma lens (but I have won a national contest with a sigma zoom in the distant past, so I have nothing against Sigma). As long as your happy with the image quality, and the weight is OK, sounds like a great price to go for it. If you also want to do birds in flight, I would check the AF speed before deciding to purchase.
Roger
