Alaska 300mm 2.8 vs 70-200 2.8 and TC?

Our first Alaska cruise is coming up in July and I keep debating do I take my 300 2.8 and bear the wrath of DW asking why?????? or will I be reasonable happy with my 70-200 2.8 and the TC 1.4. All of the gear is Canon and the current models. Thoughts of those of you who have been? We are doing a photo safari in Juneau...

Our first Alaska cruise is coming up in July and I keep debating do I take my 300 2.8 and bear the wrath of DW asking why?????? or will I be reasonable happy with my 70-200 2.8 and the TC 1.4. All of the gear is Canon and the current models. Thoughts of those of you who have been? We are doing a photo safari in Juneau...

I have done the Photo Safari in Juneau and I was quite happy with just my 40-150 Olympus zoom. On the whale watching leg, getting a picture with 300mm on a rocking boat is impossible. On the land portion, you want the wide angle to capture Mendenhall Glacier and for some interesting plant photographs.

I was worried about my 300mm being to long enough for the wildlife so I rented a super tele that would take me 6 years to save for and I was so happy, it cost me alittle over $100 for the week. I now do every time I go somewhere special.

John

I owned the 400 2.8 for years but sold it last year when I retired. After 46 years of hauling gear I am trying to go lighter. The 1D Mark IVs are gone, replaced with a 5D Mark III. I can hand hold the 300, even with the 1.4 in place but my gut says leave it home or better yet sell it before we go and be happy with the zoom and 1.4.

Our first Alaska cruise is coming up in July and I keep debating do I take my 300 2.8 and bear the wrath of DW asking why?????? or will I be reasonable happy with my 70-200 2.8 and the TC 1.4. All of the gear is Canon and the current models. Thoughts of those of you who have been? We are doing a photo safari in Juneau...

Personally, both those lenses would be too big for me to travel with. For Alaska, I took my Nikon 300/4 fp, with teleconverters, and it's a rather compact lens.

I think you'll likely find the 70-200 with converter to be good enough. Yes, you lose some IQ and a stop of aperture. But most of your telephoto shooting won't exactly be low light on a cruise. F4 should be fine. And the IQ should still be decent enough.

Though, if I were in your shoes, I'd consider renting the Canon 100-400. Get even more range, in a similar sized lens.

Shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 at f/5.6 - 1/640s - ISO100 with the whale a legal distance from the boat. Had to crop some but it came out ok.

I'd vote for the lesser mass of the zoom or Havoc's suggestion to rent the 100-400.

Dave

I have found the 70-200 2.8 IS Series II with the 1.4 TC Series III works very well. The IQ improvement over earlier combos is dramatic so that is not an issue. The 100-400 is a variable aperture ending at 5.6 and that is too slow for what I am use to dealing with.

Pierces, Thanks for the image. That confirms I can live with the combo. I do love the 300 but since I am no longer working it does not make sense to me to keep it and drag it along. I have always used the combo on other cruises but Alaska seems more nature/wildlife oriented. Cropping 5D Mark III images is fine, files are big enough to work with half a frame when I need to do it.

So, anyone want to buy a very nice 300? It needs a new home.

On our last Alaska cruise, I took a 100-400II and a 600 with 1.4x on a monopod. By choosing the right whale watch vendor, the boat was stable enough to shoot the 600 with the monopod most of the time, though there's something to be said for a 100-400's ability to acquire the target zoomed out, then zoom in.

Next Alaska cruise? I might rent the 600 again, or I might put the 5DsR on the 100-400 and just crop. If it was a 70-200&1.4x or 300/2.8, I'd probably go 70-200, but not if it was a 2x.

I truly think that if I talked about bringing a 600 on a vacation it would get ugly fast...DW has put with traveling with all kinds of gear for 46 years....If this was a working vacation then the 400 or 600 would be in order. I agree, I have never seen a 2x TC that was any good. I had the series 1 and series 2, neither was all that sharp.

My 300 2.8 is my go to lens (with my 5d mark III), so I can't imagine going anywhere without it where I I want to take sports, scenic or long distance shots. I took it to Alaska, Africa, and New Zealand and a bazillion kids sports events.

Sometimes it stayed behind if we want hiking or similar. And some of the time DH or one of three DS helped me carry my camera bag in between shots. But they understand my (amateur) passion and love the pics I get so I don't get much complaint. And it has sparked love for photography with my kids which I love.

Personally I think if it's your favorite lens take it. If you don't want to deal with the size, then find your alternative you like.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My camera bag is often weighted down with DW "extra stuff". Water, inhaler, passport etc.. she hates carrying a big bag on vacation. As a professional the 400 2.8 was my own go to lens for field sports. Even though I own the 300 as well I found the 70-200 with the TC worked better as my second body, third body had a 16-35mm....for that play that came into my face.

Alaska needs big, you will always find way to need more reach. You've used a "CANON"(400 2.8) of a lens. I'd take both, I'd bet you end up with that 300 being used with that 1.4 extender. The 200-70 is also a great carry around for most stuff in port.

Trust me take them both.

Plus add a good Ultra Wide lens

framer

It is all a moot point now, someone made an offer I could not refuse for the 300 so it ships out on Monday to a new home. If I was going to work on this trip, yes the long glass would be with me but I am officially retired now and the idea of keeping all of that money sitting on the shelf just in case..well it did not add up and renting one for the trip would be a pain for since we will be gone for 7 weeks total and I don't want to deal with shipping it back to the rental house after Alaska. Thanks everyone for your input. It helps me see both sides.

Our first Alaska cruise is coming up in July and I keep debating do I take my 300 2.8 and bear the wrath of DW asking why?????? or will I be reasonable happy with my 70-200 2.8 and the TC 1.4. All of the gear is Canon and the current models. Thoughts of those of you who have been? We are doing a photo safari in Juneau...

It sounds like it's a fixed 300 (not a zoom), are you going to be taking more than one body? If you are taking more than one body I would say take the 300, otherwise I would just go with the 70-200. I think you would miss too many shots while changing lenses. The photo safari has a lot of action going on and there are just a lot of times you can't changes lens in time for it. I had a 18-135 (I also had a 18-55 along) on one body and a 55-300 on another and that worked ok (and real well in Denali).

Thanks rmalbers. I agree that the zoom is more versatile and pairing the 70-200 IS series II with the 1.4 TC Series III the IQ loss is minimal. It was bad with the original TC, fairly passable with the Series II but this combination seems to work well. The other two lenses are the 16-35 2.8 and the 24-105 F4 IS. It should work and since I sold the 300 the other day it has to work...lol. My next issue is finding wall space to hang stuff.

I carry an Olympus 140-600 and an iPhone. In 6 trips to Ak I haven't missed much. My experience may be anecdotal but stuff is either close or far away. Take the 300 and an iPhone.

I've been trying to make up my about gear for an upcoming trip, and I've decided to leave the 1DX and big glass in the safe.

Last year, I took the very capable Olympus E-M1 and a couple lenses including the awesome 40-150. Overall it was fantastic. It was a bit short at times to be sure and it does a terrible job with things like birds in flight, but this was a vacation so it was acceptable. My wife really wants me to make it simple and not carry a bunch of stuff. There are others trips more photo focused where I can take anything and everything.

The option of the 70-200 II with the tele (v2 or 3) will give you a lot of flexibility.

This time, I will scale down a bit. Probably take the Oly and a couple primes. A 17, 25, 45 and 75...all 4 collectively smaller and lighter than a 70-200 and super capable. If I hit the lottery I will simplify it even more and carry a Leica Q (only).

Some things are better enjoyed with the ones we love the most and not through the viewfinder only to sit on a hard drive somewhere

I prefer to keep it all in one system. My brain can only remember where to send my fingers on one body type. Before I retired I always had my working cameras as the same make and model. I did keep some older ones for remotes but the ones in my hands had to match. The 300 is on its way to a new home so my bag for this trip will have the 5D Mark III and the 16-35, 24-105IS ( for most stuff) and the 70-200 IS and the TC 1.4. Somewhere I will stick in the grip for the 5D so I have it for quick moving nature days. I will have passed the big 70 by the time we sail and lightening my load is important now.Thanks again for all of the input and advice.

I prefer to keep it all in one system. My brain can only remember where to send my fingers on one body type. Before I retired I always had my working cameras as the same make and model. I did keep some older ones for remotes but the ones in my hands had to match. The 300 is on its way to a new home so my bag for this trip will have the 5D Mark III and the 16-35, 24-105IS ( for most stuff) and the 70-200 IS and the TC 1.4. Somewhere I will stick in the grip for the 5D so I have it for quick moving nature days. I will have passed the big 70 by the time we sail and lightening my load is important now.Thanks again for all of the input and advice.

I hear you Gene. I am not one who can carry multiple systems and be efficient. I usually carry 2x 1Dxxx bodies that have the same batteries, handling, etc at a minimum. Prefer two identical as well.

Don't know if you have it, and it will be a trade-off but have you thought about the 70-200 f/4? It's super sharp and so much lighter than the 2.8. I've used that for some SE Asia travels and never been disappointed.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing about the photo tour you are taking. I might have to change my game plan! (Just keep telling myself...must resist. Must stay light. Shoulders will thank you. Experience will still be incredible....repeat, repeat)

I prefer the 70-200 2.8 mostly because I know it and I have owned almost every version of it since the original Magic Drain Pipe 80-200 2.8 that came out in 1989 or so. I got the IS Series II maybe 3 years ago and I love it so no changing especially since I now plan on using the TC more and more with it. I never bought into the 1Dx. They announced about a year after I got two Mark IV bodies and at that time I was pushing 65 and the thought of dropping $15K for two bodies meant a commitment to work another 5-7 years for me.. The Mark IVs did all I needed. Now the 5D III does all that I need.

The photo safari is out of Juneau. I forget who runs it but when I tried to book it though them they said I had to book it through Celebrity. The cost is about $200 per person includes a glacier hike and the whale watch on their boat devoted to this type of stuff. They are small and only take 12 people. Since we are not doing any flying--DW won't and I don't want to if they wont take the doors off for me-- this is out big splurge.

I prefer the 70-200 2.8 mostly because I know it and I have owned almost every version of it since the original Magic Drain Pipe 80-200 2.8 that came out in 1989 or so. I got the IS Series II maybe 3 years ago and I love it so no changing especially since I now plan on using the TC more and more with it. I never bought into the 1Dx. They announced about a year after I got two Mark IV bodies and at that time I was pushing 65 and the thought of dropping $15K for two bodies meant a commitment to work another 5-7 years for me.. The Mark IVs did all I needed. Now the 5D III does all that I need.

 

The photo safari is out of Juneau. I forget who runs it but when I tried to book it though them they said I had to book it through Celebrity. The cost is about $200 per person includes a glacier hike and the whale watch on their boat devoted to this type of stuff. They are small and only take 12 people. Since we are not doing any flying--DW won't and I don't want to if they wont take the doors off for me-- this is out big splurge.

All good points of course. I've had all the 70-200's as well, but only broke down for the 1DX not too long ago. Found too good a of deal to pass on one with very, very low usage. Still lots of great life left in it, but I couldn't justify spending on a new pair. Most of what I'm doing now is volunteer stuff for organizations like Special Olympics.

We are booked on a NCL trip. I will poke around a bit more and see what I can find. We were going to book on the Celebrity Solstice for a southbound trip from Seward. Maybe next time we try that one.

Cheers

I prefer the 70-200 2.8 mostly because I know it and I have owned almost every version of it since the original Magic Drain Pipe 80-200 2.8 that came out in 1989 or so. I got the IS Series II maybe 3 years ago and I love it so no changing especially since I now plan on using the TC more and more with it. I never bought into the 1Dx. They announced about a year after I got two Mark IV bodies and at that time I was pushing 65 and the thought of dropping $15K for two bodies meant a commitment to work another 5-7 years for me.. The Mark IVs did all I needed. Now the 5D III does all that I need.

 

The photo safari is out of Juneau. I forget who runs it but when I tried to book it though them they said I had to book it through Celebrity. The cost is about $200 per person includes a glacier hike and the whale watch on their boat devoted to this type of stuff. They are small and only take 12 people. Since we are not doing any flying--DW won't and I don't want to if they wont take the doors off for me-- this is out big splurge.

I jumped on the 1Dx bandwagon once I finally tried it, though I had the 1D3 so I was a generation behind you. And honestly, a lot of it was finally getting out of APS-H turmoil (crop but not crop, wide but not wide). Interestingly, I used to be totally addicted to the 1-series' ability to remap the big wheel to be ISO, as it really enables a run-and-gun style in Av. Now that I've added a 5DsR, I'm slowing down a lot (and changing ISO a lot less, partially due to the camera, partially due to studio lights) and not missing that feature as much as I expected. There's something to be said for advanced AF (the 1Dx really blows away the 1D3, and probably the 1D4) and matching dual CF slots. But alas, the 5D3 is a decent unit too.

Looks like you're doing the photo safari with Gastineau Guiding. You'll definitely love it; we've done it three times. We've had Captain Jen on the boat twice (don't remember who we had in 2010), and our guides were Cam Byrnes in 2010 and Molly in 2015 (don't remember who we had in 2014). Molly is young, bubbly, but extremely good for all aspects of the tour. Molly and Jen should remember us as the couple from Seattle where the husband always had a big lens and the wife was always giddy beyond belief when the whales showed up, if you get either of them.

Interestingly, I started with the 70-200/2.8 IS (v1) in '07, then my wife got a f/4 IS version (she hates the weight), which in turn drove me to add an f/4 non-IS for times when I don't need 2.8 or IS. Lately though, I just don't reach for it very often at all...I'm doing more lit portrait work (and loving it), and have added a nice variety of primes for that work.

Yes, the tour company is Gastineau Guiding Company but when contacted them they referred me to Celebrity. It sounds like a great tour.

The 1D Mk 3 was a terrible camera from everything I read. By and large the AF never worked well and when you make your living shooting sports the AF better work. I skipped that one all together, almost switched back to Nikon during that time. I started with the 3.3MP D30, moved to the 1D, 1D Mk II and then the 1D Mark IV. I have also used 3 versions of the 5D for my vacation camera. When retirement time was here I spent some time at WPPI looking at a lot of different bodies both Canon and Sony and settled on the 5D III with a grip. It is cost effective for me, the grip comes off when I don't need it so the weight is less and my set of L series zooms gives me the coverage and IQ that I want. With the 1Dx Mark II coming out we are now seeing lots of 1Dx's for sale at reasonable prices but I just don't want the weight. Most of what I shoot now is slow moving landscapes and a cute 20 month old who moves so fast even a 1dx Mk II and a 200 2 would be too slow..... When I look back at the images I made with older cameras including the early Canon/Nikon/AP/Kodak beasts I just shake my head and wonder how I did it. 2FPS, grain that looked like a sandstorm beyond ISO 800, bodies that were so heavy that my hands hurt at the end of the day. Made me want to go back to the original Nikon F that I started with in the mid 60s. Now that was a great camera.

You know, I heard about a lot of problems with the 1D MK 3 too, but I had a pair of them and I guess I was lucky. I really liked that body, and really had nothing to complain about. I was glad to step to the MK 4 though because it was a huge improvement to me. I ended up with a MK4 / 1DSIII combo that met the needs. I've added the 1DX now...reluctantly because I can't really justify it from a business perspective, but the enjoyment factor and capabilities are over the top.

By the way, I am looking to sell the very capable and wonderful 1DS MK 3 full-frame unit if anyone is interested.

I went through a similar evolution. I'm a bit younger, so my start in the 60's was with grandpa's Polaroid or a little Brownie. When I got more serious I had some medium format stuff I loved but settled in on Pentax for the longest time. The great LX and MX bodies were capable of anything I threw at them. I still have 1 of each! Has some great Contax that I wish I would have kept...didn't realize the mistake I made getting rid of that. My reluctant digital entry was a short exposure to the Kodak/Nikon beast, but first bought in with the 10D and it evolution through that.

You are right though...looking back at that, it is nothing short of incredible where the technology is today.

And by the way Gene, thank you for the years of great images. I've always enjoyed seeing your work and appreciate the influence you have had in the industry. I'm mostly a part-time hack and can't thank you and other industry veterans enough for your work. You've seen a lot of the years and I'd love to sit down over a beer for some stories sometime!

For most the 70-200 would be fine but it sounds as though you’ve been doing this for a while. 200 is too short for Alaska, even with an extender.. Dave got a good fluke shot there with it but most of the time whales won’t be at 100 yards, they will be much further away. I think you’ll be disappointed with it once you get home and need to crop, crop, crop.