Long Lens Choice For An Alaska Cruise

Soon to be first time Alaska cruisers here, leaving on 9 September. I currently have a hole in my lens collection which I need to fill before we leave. Body is a Canon 7D, so APS-C, and my daily driver is a Canon 24-105L lens. I also have a decent but not inspiring Siggy 10-20 4-5.6 for the wide shots, and I also have a decent 1.4X teleconverter I could use to lengthen the 24-105L. I am thinking about adding a big zoom for the trip, something that runs out to at least 400MM. In the past, I have owned a few Canon 70-200s and even the monster 100-400L, but sold them all due to non-use. Realistically, if I decide to bring a big lens, I would probably rent rather than buy.

What are your thoughts on the idea of bringing such a lens on an Alaskan trip, whether it's even worth it, and which of the better Canon lenses would be best. I say Canon because the lens rental place I plan to use only rents Canon. I don't think we'll be shooting that bald eagle from 2 miles away or focusing on a grizzly across the bay, I do tend to be more of a wide landscape kind of guy, though we may very well do some water-based excursions for whale or Orca watching. As to water, I am also a diver and have, among others, a small Canon point and shoot with a dedicated Ikelite housing so I could bring that on the boats and never worry about getting it wet. ;o)

Hope this makes sense, thanks in advance for any advice from all the Alaska vets on CC.

To me there are 2 questions.. One, are you doing Denali as part of a cruisetour? If so, then a longer is a must, something in the 400-600 range.

Other than that honestly I don't think I would have used one very much (I didn't have my Tamron back then). If I was going today I would probably take a landscape lens, my 24-105 Art and something like a tamron 16-300 with possibly a tele.

To me there are 2 questions.. One, are you doing Denali as part of a cruisetour? If so, then a longer is a must, something in the 400-600 range.

 

Other than that honestly I don't think I would have used one very much (I didn't have my Tamron back then). If I was going today I would probably take a landscape lens, my 24-105 Art and something like a tamron 16-300 with possibly a tele.

Nope, no cruisetours, just day trips from Juneau, Ketchikan and Skag, plus the cruise up Glacier Bay.

Then I would probably skip the long lens. Other than sea life, won't be of huge value, and sea life is a matter of luck. At most I would rent something in the 200-300 range that's not too bulky.

That said, if I am going rental there I am almost thinking rather than lenses I would go dual body, one with the wangle and one with the zoom....

Nope, no cruisetours, just day trips from Juneau, Ketchikan and Skag, plus the cruise up Glacier Bay.

It would have to be an off-brand 1.4x to have any hope of working on a 24-105, but I sure wouldn't do it. Rent the new-model 100-400, you'll love it. We rented it twice and then I bought it. We're headed to Alaska in September and I'm going with 14, 24-70, 100-400, and 600 with either a 1.4x or 2x TC. I suspect my wife is going with 16-35, 70-300, and possibly a 400DO with either a 1.4x or 2x TC.

APS-C size sensor, seriously consider the Canon 70-200 f/4 it smaller, lighter and perfect for whale watching and BIF. Add the 1.4 extender and you have = to a 420mm on the crop sensor.

framer

What Framer said....and since you have a 1.4 TC you can add that into the 70-200 for more reach when you need it but with the F4 version your AF will be really really slow.

A 1.4 extender will give you a f/5.6 which is within the acceptable limits for full use of your AF system. It will give you a small hit in accuracy but really only if you are shooting fast moving objects. Knowing what AF mode to be in depending on shooting conditions will give you great results.

framer

Thanks all. Seems the rental place I plan to use has a good selection of Canon L lenses and at a decent price. I'm torn between the monster 100-400 (they have both the original and the Gen II version) as well as the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 2.8. I've owned both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f4, and am leaning towards the 70-200 f4. The 100-400 is just too heavy for me these days, and I don't think I need the extra stop the 70-200 f2.8 would give, not to mention it's pretty heavy compared to the f4.

Since I suspect you wouldn't be doing much low light shooting, I think the f4 would work. The 100-400 in my book is a nice to have but of limited utility and not worth the weight tradeoff.

If you want to go with the 100-400 go with the newest model. They are lighter and supposed to be sharper.

If you want to go with the 100-400 go with the newest model. They are lighter and supposed to be sharper.

I would absolutely recommend the newest model 100-400, but it's not actually lighter. Weight went up by about 7 ounces in the new model, but the overall handling of the lens is well worth the increased weight. I rented the 100-400 old model twice and never felt it was anything special, but the new one is spectacular and performs well even on our 5DsR. I was able to shoot a rugby tournament by just parking my butt in one endzone and shooting players as they came towards me; if they were at the far end of the field, I'd just crop (a lot, if that's what it took) and go with it.