Going back and forth on lens choice for Alaska (Carnival) for a D750 and an N80?

(Copied from http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=53133884#post53133884 since that was in the Alaska forum, but it was suggested to post here instead)

For our trip coming up I'm planning on bringing my D750 and my N80 (the latter mostly for fun to try out film again, hopefully for some nice landscapes). I have a Nikon 28-80mm (the $50 Ken Rockwell special), 50mm, 60mm and a Tamron 70-300mm (the consumer version so it's pretty meh).

I've been reading a lot of reviews (and posted on reddit.com/r/photography) and it seems like zoom is all around a lot more useful, at least from the boat for both vistas and wildlife? The former I'm wanting to have a lot more (wildlife may be better enjoyed when I'm not trying to "get that shot"). For walking around at port carrying something like a Tamron 150-600 seems to be a lot of weight relative to how much I think I might use it? Thinking about taking my 50mm and putting it on the N80 and maybe using the 28-85mm on the D750 (or visa versa) for ports.

So I was thinking instead of going for a wide angle, like the Tokina 17-35 or 16-28. I read a few reports the former may not always work well with a D750. So I thought of a Nikon 20 though would prefer some multi-focal just for better framing. I also thought about the Nikon 24-120 or a Sigma 24-105 A (either of them probably used to keep the cost somewhat in check).

Unless I go with something like the old Nikon 20mm f/4 or a Sigma 17-35, I'm probably looking about only being able to buy 1 lens. So long story short, for landscapes, is a monster zoom still the best choice over a wide angle?

We will be doing the glacier and train excursions for an added bit of detail.

Given all that, any feedback for those that have been before?

I did Alaska last year and doing the Baltic in a few weeks. I think that you will find a wide angle more beneficial than a long zoom. I used the kit 18-70mm and 70-300mm in Alaska, and also carried a Panasonic bridge camera that has a 20-1200mm lens.

You might consider the used market which I have used to add gear at probably 1/3-1/2 the original cost. I was able to add some really nice big glass lenses this way. For the upcoming cruise I am taking an 11-18mm, 16-105mm, 35mm prime, and because I have it, the 70-300mm. But I will probably use the 11-18mm and the 16-105mm most of the time. I am adding a new Sony HX90V specifically for ports that seem to have a problem where DSLR cameras are pickpocket targets. I have been advised that they like to release - and relieve you of the lens!

It's at the very edge of my affordability but I was thinking about a used Tamrom 150-600 (first gen) if I wanted a monster zoom. We will have a balcony so I could certainly use it there and around the ship for vistas but I wouldn't see taking that to any ports (particularly since I've never owned a monster zoom and won't have much time to get used to it before the trip). I also think I'd use a wider angle more in normal shooting, yup.

Thinking about the Tokina 17-35. It's less expensive than the new Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 (I'm having trouble finding either used). At $450 new it has compromises but they seem less than the comparative large price difference between Nikon glass. The 16-28 isn't too much more and optically better but the lack of filters and bulbous front element makes me nervous. I had thought about the Nikon 24-120 too but I know it's hotly debated and since I have a 28-85, thinking the Tokina adds more range in the direction I wanted to go.

I'd love a wide and zoom but if I can only get one, I think wider is a better bet all around. It's been a tough decision (hence why I'm running around in circles :)

All told, wow, I haven't even though about thievery that's a really good point, thanks for that word of caution! Makes me think the Tokina is a bit less noticable there (certainly than a huge zoom) but I could take the 28-80 along. It's $50 so if I lost it, I'm not loosing much there.

I also have a D750 which I took on an Alaskan cruise + land tour several years ago. My go to travel lens is the Nikon 24-120 which I find to be a very good lens and has a good wide angle, but limited reach. Besides that lens I carried a Nikon 16-35 and a Nikon 70-300. All things considered, I ended up using the 70-300 a lot more than the wide angle zoom because of the wildlife. I was disappointed in the sharpness of my 70-300 and also wanted more reach.so I have since bought the 80-400 which seems to be a much better lens. The problem with the 80-400 is that it is a much bigger lens and if you have limited space to pack it, it takes up a lot of room. If I were going again to Alaska I would skip my wide angle zoom as I found the 24-120 to be wide enough in most cases and bring my 80-400. Bear in mind though, the 80-400 is a much more expensive lens than the 70-300 so I had to think long and hard before I bought it.

Ah thanks for the info! I definitely want to see wildlife but not sure about photographing it. Feeling like, given that I haven't done a lot of shooting recently, I might be more focused on taking photographs than just being in awe. My thought was landscapes would give me more time to compose and also are something I might want to hang up on the wall kinda thing. Plus I can experiment around with film more.

I've read teles can be good even for landscapes (so you can better frame things, say from the cruise ship itself) but yeah the heft of such a lens, relative to how much time I'll have to mess about with it before we cruise had me concerned. I do have a low end 70-300 I may take just to have a shot for the memories if I end up being in a place to use it.

I thought (hard) about the 24-120 but that 28-80 is almost hilariously fun to use because it's so dinky looking :) And if I break it, well, it was only $50. I miss out on some reach on both sides but I thought it might be a good walk around lens that's cheap. I have a 50mm prime I could slap on too for just walking around the port if I need faster/sharper glass.

I guess the question is, for landscapes would you still find the 24-120 and 70-400 a good useful combo?

It's at the very edge of my affordability but I was thinking about a used Tamrom 150-600 (first gen) if I wanted a monster zoom. We will have a balcony so I could certainly use it there and around the ship for vistas but I wouldn't see taking that to any ports (particularly since I've never owned a monster zoom and won't have much time to get used to it before the trip). I also think I'd use a wider angle more in normal shooting, yup.

 

Thinking about the Tokina 17-35. It's less expensive than the new Nikon 18-35 or 16-35 (I'm having trouble finding either used). At $450 new it has compromises but they seem less than the comparative large price difference between Nikon glass. The 16-28 isn't too much more and optically better but the lack of filters and bulbous front element makes me nervous. I had thought about the Nikon 24-120 too but I know it's hotly debated and since I have a 28-85, thinking the Tokina adds more range in the direction I wanted to go.

 

I'd love a wide and zoom but if I can only get one, I think wider is a better bet all around. It's been a tough decision (hence why I'm running around in circles :)

 

All told, wow, I haven't even though about thievery that's a really good point, thanks for that word of caution! Makes me think the Tokina is a bit less noticable there (certainly than a huge zoom) but I could take the 28-80 along. It's $50 so if I lost it, I'm not loosing much there.

If you look back through the threads for Alaska last year in this forum, you will find a thread on the Rokinon 14mm lens. There were som really spectacular samples posted. It is a manual lens and I was ready to take the plunge, but I found the 11-18mm zoom for the same money used. The plus was it has AF if I need it. The used camera dealer in Georgia has the Rokinon lens used in the Nikon mount right now.

Oooh actually that's a good point. I am kinda worried about needing to frame shots though (can't really move the cruise ship :) but in general I'm a fan of primes over zooms. Looks like it beats the Tokina (as it should being a prime) at least in center sharpness.

Ah thanks for the info! I definitely want to see wildlife but not sure about photographing it. Feeling like, given that I haven't done a lot of shooting recently, I might be more focused on taking photographs than just being in awe. My thought was landscapes would give me more time to compose and also are something I might want to hang up on the wall kinda thing. Plus I can experiment around with film more. I've read teles can be good even for landscapes (so you can better frame things, say from the cruise ship itself) but yeah the heft of such a lens, relative to how much time I'll have to mess about with it before we cruise had me concerned. I do have a low end 70-300 I may take just to have a shot for the memories if I end up being in a place to use it. I thought (hard) about the 24-120 but that 28-80 is almost hilariously fun to use because it's so dinky looking :) And if I break it, well, it was only $50. I miss out on some reach on both sides but I thought it might be a good walk around lens that's cheap. I have a 50mm prime I could slap on too for just walking around the port if I need faster/sharper glass. I guess the question is, for landscapes would you still find the 24-120 and 70-400 a good useful combo?

Good luck, whatever you bring I'm sure you'll get some great pictures.

Thanks! I'm sure I'll get some good photos. Whether they're what I'm wanting I guess we'll see!

I'm with you on the zoom though. I think if I had more time to decide along with more time to try and buy used as well as practice with it, I think that is the better choice. At this point my hope after this cruise I'll know more what to expect from Alaska for a future trip (if we go again I'll be definitely getting a tele). We generally do the Caribbean where my photo ops are with a GoPro under the water while scuba diving. Much different vacation coming up for us here but I'm looking forward to it (good photo opps or otherwise)!

Cover the range you want, and crop after the fact as needed. My "standard" Alaska kit (with a few rented pieces) for the last two and the next one Alaska cruise is 16-35, 100-400, and 600+1.4x (admittedly with three cameras so they're all at the ready). Though I might swap the 16-35 to 24-70 and carry a 14/2.8, to diminish that huge midrange gap to something more manageable.

(Copied from http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=53133884#post53133884 since that was in the Alaska forum, but it was suggested to post here instead)

 

For our trip coming up I'm planning on bringing my D750 and my N80 (the latter mostly for fun to try out film again, hopefully for some nice landscapes). I have a Nikon 28-80mm (the $50 Ken Rockwell special), 50mm, 60mm and a Tamron 70-300mm (the consumer version so it's pretty meh).

 

I've been reading a lot of reviews (and posted on reddit.com/r/photography) and it seems like zoom is all around a lot more useful, at least from the boat for both vistas and wildlife? The former I'm wanting to have a lot more (wildlife may be better enjoyed when I'm not trying to "get that shot"). For walking around at port carrying something like a Tamron 150-600 seems to be a lot of weight relative to how much I think I might use it? Thinking about taking my 50mm and putting it on the N80 and maybe using the 28-85mm on the D750 (or visa versa) for ports.

 

So I was thinking instead of going for a wide angle, like the Tokina 17-35 or 16-28. I read a few reports the former may not always work well with a D750. So I thought of a Nikon 20 though would prefer some multi-focal just for better framing. I also thought about the Nikon 24-120 or a Sigma 24-105 A (either of them probably used to keep the cost somewhat in check).

 

Unless I go with something like the old Nikon 20mm f/4 or a Sigma 17-35, I'm probably looking about only being able to buy 1 lens. So long story short, for landscapes, is a monster zoom still the best choice over a wide angle?

 

We will be doing the glacier and train excursions for an added bit of detail.

 

Given all that, any feedback for those that have been before?

For vistas...

Ultra wide on the D750...

Rent either the Sigma ART 12-24, or the Tamron 15-30, or Nikon 14-24.

If you would rather own without breaking the bank, then the Rokinon 14/2.8 or the Nikon 18-35g. (I actually own and use both).

Go ahead and pair the utlrawide with the 28-85, the 70-300.... 3 lenses, and you're in good shape.

Just got back to the real world (boo :P) and thought I would share my findings. I'm still going through the mountain of photos I took, both with my D750 and with my N80 film camera. I ended up buying a Tokina 17-35 over a zoom lens this time around since I knew I would want vistas more than wildlife. Though I also brought my consumer Tamron 70-300 which I used occasionally. We were blessed with the shinning sun at most of the ports and during the glacier so I was using basically all my lenses for it.

That said, the lens I used most was the 17-35 followed by my Nikon 60mm and my 28-80 and 70-300 somewhat sparingly (though when I needed them they were very useful). I used my 50mm prime in ports as well, though mostly on the N80 for a street photography look.

I am still going through the mountains of photos (literally I guess since I took a lot of photos of mountains) but the 17-35 was just glorious for some of the bigger scenic vistas. For what I wanted, I think it was the right choice over a zoom for my case. However, if I go back, I definitely want to invest in a better zoom. It would have been nice, say, for the cascades/waterfalls at the glacier and would have been more useful for the whale watching. My zoom got the job done marginally so something like a used Tamron 150-600 might be something I'd consider for the next trip up.

I think that leaves the 'which lens is best' a bit open-ended since I think it really comes down to what folks want to shoot. I wanted water, mountains, and sunsets at a more grand scale. I think overall a zoom would be more versatile for most folks. I did get caught empty handed on the small bit of wildlife we did see without a good zoom and missed out on some better framed/more detailed landscape shots.

What I did get though was pretty spectacular for me, despite running into cloudy weather for sunsets. The water at times was like glass in places and made for some gorgeous shots!

JI ended up buying a Tokina 17-35 over a zoom lens this time around since I knew I would want vistas more than wildlife.

 

...but the 17-35 was just glorious for some of the bigger scenic vistas. For what I wanted, I think it was the right choice over a zoom for my case. However, if I go back, I definitely want to invest in a better zoom. It would have been nice, say, for the cascades/waterfalls at the glacier and would have been more useful for the whale watching. My zoom got the job done marginally so something like a used Tamron 150-600 might be something I'd consider for the next trip up.

 

I think that leaves the 'which lens is best' a bit open-ended since I think it really comes down to what folks want to shoot. I wanted water, mountains, and sunsets at a more grand scale. I think overall a zoom would be more versatile for most folks. I did get caught empty handed on the small bit of wildlife we did see without a good zoom and missed out on some better framed/more detailed landscape shots.

A little terminology help for you, as I see a common misuse of "zoom" here: zoom does not mean long focal length (i.e. 150mm, 300mm, 600mm). It merely means the ability to change focal lengths within one lens - your 17-35 is a zoom lens, whereas your 50mm lens is not (it's known as a prime lens). A 150-600 would be a zoom telephoto (or some might call it a zoom supertelephoto), whereas your 17-35 is a wide-angle zoom. Likewise, "good"/"better" zoom merely refers to quality; "higher zoom range" means 5x, 10x, or 15x zoom ranges (often called superzooms because of their broad range).

Yeah sorry I'm aware but was just lazy :) The 17-35 and 28-80 are both technically zooms, agreed. I was referring to telephoto/super-zooms largely. Those were what were recommended to me most (and having now been there I can see why) and, in fact, I almost bought a used 150-600mm. I would have ended up with great images with one (probably of both landscapes and wildlife) but glad I went with the 17-35 this trip.