Lensess for Alaska

[peety3]

Thanks everyone, for the comments and tips. I am using a Canon 6D and I typically shoot in manual, but that is with environments I'm familiar with. I have read that it can be tricky to get the blues of the glaciers right so u wanted to check the techniques. I will probably use aperture priority mode for starters, check those shots and switch to manual to fine tune it a bit.

 

For lenses, I'll have a 17-40, 24-105, and a 100-400L II. And a 50 f/1.4. I have an older crop sensor Canon 20D that still works great. I might let my daughter use that one so we can swap out bodies and get more pull from the longer lens.

 

A monopod seem to be highly recommended from most reading I've done. Never used one as I like shooting handheld, but I assume the 100-400 is going to tire me out after holding it a while. So it seems a good idea but I'm sure I'll need a tilt head. I'm going on a 6-person whale watching trip so I know the boat (although it's a catamaran and "supposed" to be more stable) will rock us a bit.

Your blue problem will be better solved by close attention to white balance, etc. I'd definitely recommend a monopod for the 100-400. I just shot a 500-person 5k run on Saturday with it, and really regret not bringing my monopod with me (I left it in the car, choosing to take the battery strobe instead...got that one backwards.).

[GUT2407]

I had great success last year renting the Canon 200-400/4IS, which becomes a 280-560/5.6 at the flip of a switch. I kept it on a monopod, which worked wonders towards being able to keep the lens up and ready. I did also have two other cameras ready to go, one with a 24-70/2.8, and the other with either a 15/2.8 or 70-200/4, depending on the environment.

I did lots of eagle/whale following with all of the lenses, no trouble.

 

 

That is a sweet lens and the built in 1.4 extender is a big plus.

[GUT2407]

Thanks everyone, for the comments and tips. I am using a Canon 6D and I typically shoot in manual, but that is with environments I'm familiar with. I have read that it can be tricky to get the blues of the glaciers right so u wanted to check the techniques. I will probably use aperture priority mode for starters, check those shots and switch to manual to fine tune it a bit.

 

For lenses, I'll have a 17-40, 24-105, and a 100-400L II. And a 50 f/1.4. I have an older crop sensor Canon 20D that still works great. I might let my daughter use that one so we can swap out bodies and get more pull from the longer lens.

 

A monopod seem to be highly recommended from most reading I've done. Never used one as I like shooting handheld, but I assume the 100-400 is going to tire me out after holding it a while. So it seems a good idea but I'm sure I'll need a tilt head. I'm going on a 6-person whale watching trip so I know the boat (although it's a catamaran and "supposed" to be more stable) will rock us a bit.

 

In my opinion a monopod is a must have.

 

One hint that I was taught a looooooooooong time ago use a long wide strap on your camera, then put your foot in the stap to add some extra stabilisation to the pod. Can really help.

[ghcstr]

Your blue problem will be better solved by close attention to white balance, etc. I'd definitely recommend a monopod for the 100-400. I just shot a 500-person 5k run on Saturday with it, and really regret not bringing my monopod with me (I left it in the car, choosing to take the battery strobe instead...got that one backwards.).

 

 

Thanks, I'm certainly looking forward to the trip! Looking at different pods, it looks like the Oben CTM-2500 is decently priced. I'm going through some reviews to see what I end up with.

[peety3]

Has anyone used the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II? I'm considering renting it but was curious if it is too bulky/heavy to walk around with in Alaska and on the ship.

This was a GREAT lens. I ended up with some minor changes to my "lens plan" at the last minute, as a friend wanted to borrow a walkaround lens. I was a nice guy and let him use my 24-70/2.8, so I ended up with:

 

600/4 II + 1.4x TC III on a 1Dx

100-400II on a 1Dx

16-35/2.8II on a 1D3

14/2.8II - I'd occasionally take the 1Dx off the 100-400 and put the 14 on for wide stuff.

 

We did a "small boat" (capacity 148) excursion out to Misty Fjords and back, and the 100-400 was a REALLY nice range for a lot of stuff, and caught a lot less wind than the 600's hood (scoop?).

[ghcstr]

This was a GREAT lens. I ended up with some minor changes to my "lens plan" at the last minute, as a friend wanted to borrow a walkaround lens. I was a nice guy and let him use my 24-70/2.8, so I ended up with:

 

600/4 II + 1.4x TC III on a 1Dx

100-400II on a 1Dx

16-35/2.8II on a 1D3

14/2.8II - I'd occasionally take the 1Dx off the 100-400 and put the 14 on for wide stuff.

 

We did a "small boat" (capacity 148) excursion out to Misty Fjords and back, and the 100-400 was a REALLY nice range for a lot of stuff, and caught a lot less wind than the 600's hood (scoop?).

 

 

Thanks for the feedback, it's always good to hear from someone who has actually used it. I have the lens arriving next Monday to give me a few days to play with it prior to the cruise.

 

I'm taking a 6D with:

 

100-400L IS USM II

24-105L

17-40L

50/1.4

 

I think that covers about every focal length I have access to. For the whale watching I'm planning on the 100-400 primarily with the 24-105 as the 2nd.

 

My daughter is bringing a 20D so I'm curious to see how the crop sensor works with the 100-400.

 

If the vistas are as grand and sweeping as they look, I imagine the 17-40 will be good for the landscapes too.

[peety3]

I'm taking a 6D with:

 

100-400L IS USM II

24-105L

17-40L

50/1.4

 

I think that covers about every focal length I have access to. For the whale watching I'm planning on the 100-400 primarily with the 24-105 as the 2nd.

 

If the vistas are as grand and sweeping as they look, I imagine the 17-40 will be good for the landscapes too.

So...I have to be honest here. I'd originally figured my wife would go with a 5D3 and the 24-105L, and a 1Dx and the 100-400. We rented the 100-400 a few weeks ago for some charity event photography, and she decided the 1Dx/100-400 was too heavy for her. Plan B became the 70-300L (overpriced, but decent enough range/performance/weight compromise), and then I decided to rent her a 7D2 to make up for what I consider to be serious weaknesses in the 7D original. I think she was happy with it, but we both noticed that the 1Dx/100-400 was vastly superior at AI Servo than the 7D2/70-300L while shooting humpback whale spray while at sea. I'd bet the 100-400 will be a nice range on crop, but the 20D will come up massively short on AF for that lens and you may decide you're better off multitasking on the 6D.

 

I should also talk about the wide end of the spectrum. A little history first: back in 2008, I rented the 14/2.8 and my wife decided she REALLY liked it. In 2013 during rebate season, I bought her the 14/2.8II as an anniversary present, and it's allowed our '08-vintage 16-35/2.8II to become "my" wide-angle lens. I originally figured she'd have the 14 for this cruise and I'd have the 16-35...then Canon announced the 11-24/4. I rented that for our cruise as well. My wife doesn't get nearly as orgasmic about gear as I do, so she didn't really mess with the 11-24 whatsoever until we were on our excursion and we were in/at Misty Fjords. I guess she decided she couldn't get wide enough with her 24-105, so she decided to switch to the 11-24. Her next words to me were: "we can sell the 14/2.8"...so if by chance you have the budget, you may want to look at the 11-24 for Alaska. :) I really enjoyed shooting with the 11-24 as well, including lots of fun artsy stuff around the ship. The 17-40 will serve you well, and I suspect the 11-24 would cost more to rent than the 100-400, but it was extremely impressive and a lot of fun to shoot with. I doubt we'd sell the 14, but the 16-35 is a mild possibility, and I at least could sell our EF-S 10-22 in a heartbeat now.

[Miss Dot]

This was a GREAT lens. I ended up with some minor changes to my "lens plan" at the last minute, as a friend wanted to borrow a walkaround lens. I was a nice guy and let him use my 24-70/2.8, so I ended up with:

 

600/4 II + 1.4x TC III on a 1Dx

100-400II on a 1Dx

16-35/2.8II on a 1D3

14/2.8II - I'd occasionally take the 1Dx off the 100-400 and put the 14 on for wide stuff.

 

We did a "small boat" (capacity 148) excursion out to Misty Fjords and back, and the 100-400 was a REALLY nice range for a lot of stuff, and caught a lot less wind than the 600's hood (scoop?).

 

 

Have you posted any photos from your cruise? I'd live to see some!

[ghcstr]

So...I have to be honest here. I'd originally figured my wife would go with a 5D3 and the 24-105L, and a 1Dx and the 100-400. We rented the 100-400 a few weeks ago for some charity event photography, and she decided the 1Dx/100-400 was too heavy for her. Plan B became the 70-300L (overpriced, but decent enough range/performance/weight compromise), and then I decided to rent her a 7D2 to make up for what I consider to be serious weaknesses in the 7D original. I think she was happy with it, but we both noticed that the 1Dx/100-400 was vastly superior at AI Servo than the 7D2/70-300L while shooting humpback whale spray while at sea. I'd bet the 100-400 will be a nice range on crop, but the 20D will come up massively short on AF for that lens and you may decide you're better off multitasking on the 6D.

 

I should also talk about the wide end of the spectrum. A little history first: back in 2008, I rented the 14/2.8 and my wife decided she REALLY liked it. In 2013 during rebate season, I bought her the 14/2.8II as an anniversary present, and it's allowed our '08-vintage 16-35/2.8II to become "my" wide-angle lens. I originally figured she'd have the 14 for this cruise and I'd have the 16-35...then Canon announced the 11-24/4. I rented that for our cruise as well. My wife doesn't get nearly as orgasmic about gear as I do, so she didn't really mess with the 11-24 whatsoever until we were on our excursion and we were in/at Misty Fjords. I guess she decided she couldn't get wide enough with her 24-105, so she decided to switch to the 11-24. Her next words to me were: "we can sell the 14/2.8"...so if by chance you have the budget, you may want to look at the 11-24 for Alaska. :) I really enjoyed shooting with the 11-24 as well, including lots of fun artsy stuff around the ship. The 17-40 will serve you well, and I suspect the 11-24 would cost more to rent than the 100-400, but it was extremely impressive and a lot of fun to shoot with. I doubt we'd sell the 14, but the 16-35 is a mild possibility, and I at least could sell our EF-S 10-22 in a heartbeat now.

 

 

That 11-24 looks really nice but I think it'll have to wait for next time. When I was in the Norwegian Fjords, I couldn't get wide enough -- I have a feeling this trip will be more of the same!

 

As for the 20D, we're going to play (I mean "test") with it all next week to see if we can swing it. Otherwise I'll just swap out lenses as needed. Hopefully not in the middle of a breach or something! [emoji16] Pretty sure I'll be happy leaving the 100-400 on during the whale watch. Besides I don't really feel like getting sea-sprayed during a lens swap!

[GUT2407]

Thanks for the feedback, it's always good to hear from someone who has actually used it. I have the lens arriving next Monday to give me a few days to play with it prior to the cruise.

 

I'm taking a 6D with:

 

100-400L IS USM II

24-105L

17-40L

50/1.4

 

I think that covers about every focal length I have access to. For the whale watching I'm planning on the 100-400 primarily with the 24-105 as the 2nd.

 

My daughter is bringing a 20D so I'm curious to see how the crop sensor works with the 100-400.

 

If the vistas are as grand and sweeping as they look, I imagine the 17-40 will be good for the landscapes too.

 

 

Sounds like a pretty good kit and the 20D will work a bit like a 260-640

[GUT2407]

So...I have to be honest here. I'd originally figured my wife would go with a 5D3 and the 24-105L, and a 1Dx and the 100-400. We rented the 100-400 a few weeks ago for some charity event photography, and she decided the 1Dx/100-400 was too heavy for her. Plan B became the 70-300L (overpriced, but decent enough range/performance/weight compromise), and then I decided to rent her a 7D2 to make up for what I consider to be serious weaknesses in the 7D original. I think she was happy with it, but we both noticed that the 1Dx/100-400 was vastly superior at AI Servo than the 7D2/70-300L while shooting humpback whale spray while at sea. I'd bet the 100-400 will be a nice range on crop, but the 20D will come up massively short on AF for that lens and you may decide you're better off multitasking on the 6D.

 

I should also talk about the wide end of the spectrum. A little history first: back in 2008, I rented the 14/2.8 and my wife decided she REALLY liked it. In 2013 during rebate season, I bought her the 14/2.8II as an anniversary present, and it's allowed our '08-vintage 16-35/2.8II to become "my" wide-angle lens. I originally figured she'd have the 14 for this cruise and I'd have the 16-35...then Canon announced the 11-24/4. I rented that for our cruise as well. My wife doesn't get nearly as orgasmic about gear as I do, so she didn't really mess with the 11-24 whatsoever until we were on our excursion and we were in/at Misty Fjords. I guess she decided she couldn't get wide enough with her 24-105, so she decided to switch to the 11-24. Her next words to me were: "we can sell the 14/2.8"...so if by chance you have the budget, you may want to look at the 11-24 for Alaska. :) I really enjoyed shooting with the 11-24 as well, including lots of fun artsy stuff around the ship. The 17-40 will serve you well, and I suspect the 11-24 would cost more to rent than the 100-400, but it was extremely impressive and a lot of fun to shoot with. I doubt we'd sell the 14, but the 16-35 is a mild possibility, and I at least could sell our EF-S 10-22 in a heartbeat now.

 

 

That 11-24 is one sweet lens, I've a mate who does a lot of Canon's ad shoots and gets to use a lot of gear before it is even released and the only word I can think of is SWEET

[Miss Dot]

fwiw, bears, eagles, and whales really dont move all that fast and at the range you are going to be spotting them, I think a 300mm or 400mm lens will be doable. I personally like the idea of a fixed lens because usually when I pack a zoom to shoot wildlife, its all the way zoomed in most of the time anyway. Prime lenses seem to be lighter than equivalent zoom lenses (most say better picture quality too because they are optimized for one focal length). Sure, whales can come up close to the boat (and thus too close for your 400mm lens), but I think in that case, its better to experience it by putting the camera down (seeing a bear that close is better experienced by slowly backing away!).

 

I also recommend looking into renting.

 

Good luck! Bring back some great captures!

 

Just wanted to say your photos are amazing!!! Ikirumata

[peety3]

Pretty sure I'll be happy leaving the 100-400 on during the whale watch. Besides I don't really feel like getting sea-sprayed during a lens swap!

Honestly, during whale watching you may find the 100-400 too tight on crop. I felt a lot of desire last year to switch back&forth between 200-400 on FF and 70-200 on FF.

 

And for the person who asked, I don't have pictures ready yet. I did a time-lapse off our aft balcony for (almost) the whole cruise, and iMovie has been chewing on the 5,138 images for ~36 hours now and thinks it has another 6 hours to go (which at this rate will probably be 12-18...). Until it finishes, I don't want to launch Lightroom for fear that smoke and flames will emerge from the CPU. :)

[wmjivey]

The last time we were whale watching I was using a 70-400 and a whale surface right by the boat my best whale pictures with it's tale cut off. Wish I had another camera with a shorter lens

[Miss Dot]

Honestly, during whale watching you may find the 100-400 too tight on crop. I felt a lot of desire last year to switch back&forth between 200-400 on FF and 70-200 on FF.

 

And for the person who asked, I don't have pictures ready yet. I did a time-lapse off our aft balcony for (almost) the whole cruise, and iMovie has been chewing on the 5,138 images for ~36 hours now and thinks it has another 6 hours to go (which at this rate will probably be 12-18...). Until it finishes, I don't want to launch Lightroom for fear that smoke and flames will emerge from the CPU. :)

 

Thanks Peety, bet you have some awesome images

[milamber]

Lots of advice on taking massive lenses, but based on my own experience, which is longer than I would like.....whilst there might just be the odd occasion where a 300/400mm lens could be useful, there will be plenty more times when you absolutely regret carrying something that heavy. It will be useless for snapshots if the opportunity presents itself as you won't be able to use it without a tripod and, as others have mentioned, the magnification will work against you in any form of boat or ship. If you are going on an organised bear watching trip where you will be in a hide or stationary for a period then maybe, just maybe worth renting one, but I doubt it.

 

Also the zoom will be so great that there is a huge risk of missing something that is too close, especially with the whales.

 

For most occasions your 55-210mm will be absolutely fine. Couple that with something wider and you have most bases covered.

 

Personally I'd take two camera bodies. One with the zoom and the other with a smaller zoom or wider prime. No messing about changing lenses - just pick up whichever one is likely to be be best for where you are.

 

I took this last year with a Fuji X100 which has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent. There is no doubt that it would have been sharper with a longer zoom, but there is absolutely no way that I would have reacted quickly enough if I had been messing about changing lenses or had something 300/400mm in length on the camera at the time.

 

http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp15/chriseast/Whale/whale1_zpsd0miv85c.jpg

 

Also don't spend the whole time behind the camera. It's great to get a decent photo, but you miss out on a lot spending the whole time trying to get 'the shot'.

Edited May 6, 2015 by milamber

[havoc315]

Lots of advice on taking massive lenses, but based on my own experience, which is longer than I would like.....whilst there might just be the odd occasion where a 300/400mm lens could be useful, there will be plenty more times when you absolutely regret carrying something that heavy. It will be useless for snapshots if the opportunity presents itself as you won't be able to use it without a tripod and, as others have mentioned, the magnification will work against you in any form of boat or ship. If you are going on an organised bear watching trip where you will be in a hide or stationary for a period then maybe, just maybe worth renting one, but I doubt it.

 

Also the zoom will be so great that there is a huge risk of missing something that is too close, especially with the whales.

 

For most occasions your 55-210mm will be absolutely fine. Couple that with something wider and you have most bases covered.

 

Personally I'd take two camera bodies. One with the zoom and the other with a smaller zoom or wider prime. No messing about changing lenses - just pick up whichever one is likely to be be best for where you are.

 

I took this last year with a Fuji X100 which has a fixed 23mm lens, 35mm equivalent. There is no doubt that it would have been sharper with a longer zoom, but there is absolutely no way that I would have reacted quickly enough if I had been messing about changing lenses or had something 300/400mm in length on the camera at the time.

 

http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp15/chriseast/Whale/whale1_zpsd0miv85c.jpg

 

Also don't spend the whole time behind the camera. It's great to get a decent photo, but you miss out on a lot spending the whole time trying to get 'the shot'.

 

Some good advice there, for some shooters.... One size does not fit all.

 

If you have never carried anything bigger than a iPhone camera, you probably shouldn't suddenly strap on 10 lbs of gear. If you've never been more than a casual photographer, then you probably shouldn't spend every waking moment trying to get the perfect shot in Alaska.

 

So I would suggest you think carefully about the weight of whatever one plans to bring and carry. Consider your comfort or discomfort carrying it, and whether it will add or subtract from the vacation.

 

Personally, I'm a photo enthusiast. For me, looking through the lens actually helps me take in the experience to a greater degree, because I'm really looking for and appreciating fine details. I'm constantly scouting the scene for a great shot, I'm taking note of whether the sky is interesting, I'm noting how the foreground and background play off each other, etc. So I want my camera with me, most of the time. (Though putting it aside at times so as not to drive my family totally crazy).

On the other hand, an inexperienced photographer... while you are trying to juggle a lens, or figure out if your aperture is set correctly, you may be missing the actual experience. So you need to decide on the balance that's right for you.

 

Getting back to the weight... I'd suggest not going much heavier than you typically carry for vacation. A long telephoto is often overrated by people, but it IS helpful for wildlife. I haven't done Alaska yet, but I have a trip upcoming.

I'm very used to a "medium sized" kit from a dSLR perspective. Many people look at my kit as if it is massive. I often carry the Nikon D750 with 70-200/4 lens, which is close to 4 lbs. Sometimes I put on an external flash, and I've also used it with a teleconverter. That can push it to 4.. 4 1/2 pounds. For many people, that would be a heavy excess load to have to carry for hours at a time. (Plus, I would also have my camera bag, which would be another 5-7 lbs, so a total of over 10 lbs with me). Truthfully, I'm fairly comfortable with it, but it does push my own limit a bit. If I'm using the D750 + 70-200/4 for more than an hour or 2 at a time, I start to get a crick in my neck and back. So I feel that already put me at my maximum.

 

I knew I wanted to go longer than 200 for Alaska though. A 70-300 would go a little further, but still not far enough for me. And the image quality would also be a little less.

 

I considered renting/buying the Nikon 80-400 or Tamron 150-600. D750 + 80-400 combination is over 5 lbs. With the Tamron 150-600, it would be over 6 lbs!

 

Luckily for me, Nikon came out with a new option right in time. A new 300/4 prime that is actually light-weight (relatively speaking.) So my total D750+300/4 combination is 3.5 lbs. Actually slightly less than my D750+70-200/4. Then I can add a 1.4 teleconverter (turning it into a 420mm/5.6 lens) for a total weight of 4 lbs. At the edge of my comfort zone. Or I can add a 2x converter (turning it into 600/8) for a total weight of just a bit over 4 lbs. (Starting to push my comfort zone, but not totally breaking it).

 

Now, doing something like a whale watch... since it isn't zoom, I'll need to figure out the best focal length to give me the highest proportion of shots (likely will do 420/5.6.. but I'll have the 2x in the bag to switch if I'm still much too far). I'll also have an RX100 for wide shots.

 

Point is... make a plan in advance, carefully considering the weight and range. Consider what you're used to carrying, and what options exist within that weight range.

[robjan245]

I went to Alaska last August and took my bridge camera (Panasonic FZ-200). Most of my long shots were taken at 400mm or longer. A smaller zoom would work with some heavy cropping.

[GUT2407]

I went to Alaska last August and took my bridge camera (Panasonic FZ-200). Most of my long shots were taken at 400mm or longer. A smaller zoom would work with some heavy cropping.

 

 

That's where higher pixel counts come into their own.

[janmcn]

Having been on 4, soon to be 5, AK cruises as well as a 3-week driving trip through AK, I found that on cruises, the "wildlife" opportunities were few and far between. Wide-angle lenses were needed for the most part. If you go into Denali for a day, you MIGHT see wildlife that MIGHT require a long lens, but after doing a 3-day trip into it, I came away with only a couple of shots that needed my 300 mm or longer.

Your wildlife (IMO) will be mostly eagles and whales, and often those will be near enough that medium range lenses will get them fine.

I agree that the weight of bringing big lenses is probably not needed unless you are doing private tours that are going somewhere where you will see bears, moose, etc.

I do recommend two cameras "just in case." I'll bring a 24-105 on full frame (Canon 5D3) and the 70-300 on 7D2 at most. Or...might have the Panasonic FZ200 instead of the 5D3 for landscapes (it's a perfect landscape camera and a good backup camera with less weight.)

If you want to see bears (grizzly), you will need to take a flight-seeing plane to a bear-viewing area. (Otherwise, quite hit-or-miss....have seen them on the Juneau excursion that goes to Taku River Lodge and also one out of Ketchikan that just was lucky...but in both cases they were little black bears and were quite close.)

Every trip to AK is different though...:D

[sabesh]

Is anything longer than 105mm (full frame) necessary for an Alaskan cruise? Not really interested in wildlife. However, I do plan on visiting the Mendenhall glacier in Juneau and take the White Pass / Yukon route rail ride in Skagway. Thx.

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

[havoc315]

Is anything longer than 105mm (full frame) necessary for an Alaskan cruise? Not really interested in wildlife. However, I do plan on visiting the Mendenhall glacier in Juneau and take the White Pass / Yukon route rail ride in Skagway. Thx.

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

"Necessary" depends on the shots you want to capture. Personally, aside from sports and wildlife, I never find anything longer than around 100mm to be "necessary." Sometimes I shoot portraits at 150-200mm, but I could certainly live with 100mm for even those.

[milamber]

Is anything longer than 105mm (full frame) necessary for an Alaskan cruise? Not really interested in wildlife. However, I do plan on visiting the Mendenhall glacier in Juneau and take the White Pass / Yukon route rail ride in Skagway. Thx.

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

Personally I would have thought 105mm too long for most occasions and not long enough if you specifically want to do wildlife. If it's a zoom with a 105mm equivalent top end then that's a different matter. I did a fortnight in Alaska with a fixed 35mm FF equivalent lens and 99% of the time it was perfect. Just the odd portrait and wildlife shot where something longer would have been helpful. There is always cropping though.

[sabesh]

"Necessary" depends on the shots you want to capture. Personally, aside from sports and wildlife, I never find anything longer than around 100mm to be "necessary." Sometimes I shoot portraits at 150-200mm, but I could certainly live with 100mm for even those.

 

 

Personally I would have thought 105mm too long for most occasions and not long enough if you specifically want to do wildlife. If it's a zoom with a 105mm equivalent top end then that's a different matter. I did a fortnight in Alaska with a fixed 35mm FF equivalent lens and 99% of the time it was perfect. Just the odd portrait and wildlife shot where something longer would have been helpful. There is always cropping though.

 

I want to shoot landscapes and a few tourist attractions. I plan to travel with 2 small bodies with image stabilized zooms. Sony A6000 + 16-70/4 (APS-C, 24-105 equivalent) and Sony A7S + 16-35/4 (full frame). I'm guessing that this should do the trick. I'll also be taking a fast aperture prime for occasional portraits. The entire kit fits in a small shoulder bag.

 

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

Edited May 8, 2015 by sabesh

[peety3]

A mild teaser from our cruise last week: I put together a time-lapse off the aft end of the ship from start to finish (minus the ~3 hours when the memory card was full and I didn't realize it). One shot per minute (camera in aperture priority at f/11 and ISO 400, with safety shift enabled, so the shutter speed slows down as the light goes away, and if needed the aperture opens up), sped up to 10 frames per second. Even with the camera creating small JPEGs (though high quality), the 5,138 stills that went into this totaled just under 10GB: