Choice of telephoto lenses for Alaska - Both cruise and land

I have a Nikon D750 and presently have both 28-300mm and 18-35mm Nikor lenses for it.

I really would like to only take two lenses with me (that's what fits in my camera bag). I'm concerned that the 300mm reach will be insufficient for nature photography, both off the ship and on excursions. We'll be in Denali before going on board ship.

Would the Nikor 80-400mm be a better choice to take, or the Tamron 15-600mm or the Sigma 150-600mm? Basically, is 300mm enough reach? Is 400 preferable? Is 600 overkill?

Obviously all expensive lenses which I don't own, but we do have other trips planned where I could see them getting use.

I have a Nikon D750 and presently have both 28-300mm and 18-35mm Nikor lenses for it.

 

I really would like to only take two lenses with me (that's what fits in my camera bag). I'm concerned that the 300mm reach will be insufficient for nature photography, both off the ship and on excursions. We'll be in Denali before going on board ship.

 

Would the Nikor 80-400mm be a better choice to take, or the Tamron 15-600mm or the Sigma 150-600mm? Basically, is 300mm enough reach? Is 400 preferable? Is 600 overkill?

 

Obviously all expensive lenses which I don't own, but we do have other trips planned where I could see them getting use.

We used a Nikon 80-400mm and it was sufficient, but there are several shots I would have preferred a 600mm. Especially when we were in Denali. The brown bears were just not close enough.

I can recommend renting a lens instead of buying, unless you need something that large on a regular basis. I couldn't justify the cost. I was able to rent it for under $250 for 3 weeks! Much cheaper than buying. I rented from Lens Giant in Michigan.

Linda

I second the lens rental route. If you haven't tried it, take some shots at 300 in DX mode, that would make it equivilent to a 450. You will have fewer pixels but you still may be able to get satisfactory results, although this is certainly in the eye of the beholder. Good shooting.

I highly recommend the Nikon compatible sigma -150-600. Read reviews. We have taken on safari

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Don't overlook the Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 AFS it's a solid lens. My main lens in AK was been the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR2

Have fun It looks like I'll miss AK this year.

framer

The issue with the 28-300 is chromatic aberration (can be corrected of course) at maximum zoom. That said, if I was to go to Alaska today, my kit would be...

Nikon D500 with my 24-105 sigma art for on ship use and scenic cruising, as well as my 12-18 for glacier bay etc. If I was going to Denali, my Tamron 150-600 would be carried as well.

I would also two body it, probably with my D7000, maybe even three body my Sony a6000 as a walkaround pocket camera.

Alaska offers so many shooting conditions its one I tend to overgear for.

All of that said, this was taken in 2009 with a D40 I think and a basic 18-255:

And this was taken with the same lens:

So if you want to limit kit to a single body, I would go with the lens with the most range.

I'm concerned about the extra weight of the Sigma 150-600mm lens. A 6lb lens certainly qualifies as a beast, and I don't plan on bringing a tripod or monopod.

The 80-400mm Nikon is no featherweight, but I believe it's two pounds lighter.

Nice photos, Loonbeam.

The Tamron is a beast, but I shoot handheld with it often at the local preserve. The VR is really good. But it IS heavy. Normally I would leave it at home but for Alaska I would probably take it.

That said, a 400mm, esp on a crop sensor would probably be more than sufficient, maybe rent a 1.4 tele...

If you rent, you can have it shipped to the starting hotel and then have the last hotel ship it back (you won't need a 600 on the ship unless you get REALLY lucky on a far marine sighting.)

The Tamron is a beast, but I shoot handheld with it often at the local preserve. The VR is really good. But it IS heavy. Normally I would leave it at home but for Alaska I would probably take it.

 

That said, a 400mm, esp on a crop sensor would probably be more than sufficient, maybe rent a 1.4 tele...

 

If you rent, you can have it shipped to the starting hotel and then have the last hotel ship it back (you won't need a 600 on the ship unless you get REALLY lucky on a far marine sighting.)

I went to Alaska last year and rented a 150-600. Can't remember if I got the Tamron or Sigma but I think it was the Tamron. I really liked this lens, especially when we were out whale watching. I shoot on a D750 which is a full frame sensor. It was a bit unwieldy for handheld but only because I had it in a rain jacket. Boy am I glad I had the rain jacket as it would have gotten soaked.

The new Nikkor 80-400 AFS G is a fine lens for travel. Weighs about the same as the Nikkor 70-200 AFS f/2.8. The issue is its priced as a pro lens but built as a consumer lens, IMHO. For 1/2 the money you can get the latest 200-500mm f/5.6 VR Nikkor. You want reach, a real Nikkor vs off brand, can be repaired by Nikon with their warrantee. The 200-500 has the latest VR tech rated at 4.5 stops.

Either will do a nice job, flip a coin.

framer

P.S. Been to AK three times and have yet to see a Bear. Tons of other wildlife and eagles.

I'd look at the new Sigma 100-400. Price and weight are very reasonable. Testing shows fantastic image quality.

Aperture is a bit slower than the other long zoom models, but should be fine for outdoor daylight photos.

Consider the Sigma 50-500. I primarily shoot wildlife in Alaska and it’s become my walk around lens, although a bit heavy. I use it on the D750. Fantastic range and the quality is very good. A friend just got the Nikon 150-600 and loves it.