Best Lens for DSLR for Alaska

[chirurgeon]

Adapting another thread, if you have a DSLR and wanted a new lens to make your Alaska shots the best you can make them, what lens would you get.  I already have a zoom and the 18/135 kit lens. How much wider would you go?

[TheOldBear]

Previous discussions for Alaska have neglected wide angle lenses in favor of some more extreme telephoto options.

A wide angle lens [24 to 35 mm 'full frame' equivalent] might be useful for interior [on ship and on land] pictures and for stitching panorama shots. Many photographers will use a modest wide angle lens for their 'walking around' lens.

 

Your 18mm kit lens likely is similar to the angle of view of a full frame 28mm [or my MFT kit zoom14-42mm] lens. A prime [fixed focal length] lens might be much more compact, and be brighter [f/1.8] instead of a kit zoom at f/3.5 or so.

 

For SLR mounts, you may find that the size/weight/price increases radically for prime lenses wider than 24mm - very few of them will be optimized for smaller than full frame coverage. 

[chirurgeon]

I do have a 50mm 1.4. I was looking for landscape shots, possible from onboard.

[mskaufman]

I bought a Tamron 18 - 400.  Not that heavy, fairly compact and I rarely change lenses.

[don't-use-real-name]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 7:00 PM, mskaufman said:

I bought a Tamron 18 - 400.  Not that heavy, fairly compact and I rarely change lenses.

Good idea not having to carry a bag full of lens - and - at the moment of that photo opt you have

the wrong lens and struggle to change missing the target.

The 18-400 certainly will cover all the bases - beware of the Pinocchio principle when the 400 is extended

banging into things - LOL !

[Hezu]

6 hours ago, don't-use-real-name said:

Good idea not having to carry a bag full of lens - and - at the moment of that photo opt you have

the wrong lens and struggle to change missing the target.

The 18-400 certainly will cover all the bases - beware of the Pinocchio principle when the 400 is extended

banging into things - LOL !

Although the wide focal length coverage is a good thing, these super zooms obviously have to make some compromises to archive the wide zoom range. The main caveat is obviously apertures: with this Tamron the max apertures are f/3.5-f/6.3, which are especially in the tele end on the slow side and thus the useability of the lens in low light conditions suffers. Complex optical formulas needed for this sort of lens might be also more prone to give distortions, but of course image editing can fix some of these. It also varies how easily you actually spot such imperfections and how much these bother you, for many people the memories recorded in the photos are more important than the high technical quality of the photos.

Personally, I would probably take multiple shorter zooms or primes instead of a superzoom lens, but then there are obvious downsides: more weight and if carrying just one camera body, lens changes could mean that you have wrong lens at wrong time and thus miss some photo opportunities.

[TheOldBear]

I recently acquired an Olympus OMD M1 mark 2 and its companion superzoom travel lens - 12-200 f/3.5 to f/6.3.

 

Like the Tamron, it is relatively slow at the long end, and Pinnochio zooms to twice its length when zoomed to the long end. [makes me miss the internal zoom of my old FZ-50]

On the other hand, it is weather sealed, so rain and mild splashes should not bother the combo.

[masterdrago]

18-200 or the better optically 28-300 Nikkors. I've heard good stuff about the 18-400 Tamron but read the reviews.

[getting older slowly]

I think it does depend on what photos you are hoping to catch.....

 

Telephoto for wildlife  200-300 range   

 

pana landscapes if stitching 35-50 & tripod I find idea

but hand held 9-18  is good

 

I find a tend to use my 9-18 a lot on landscapes..... but that is me 

 

Don 

[framer]

On 10/22/2020 at 3:08 PM, TheOldBear said:

Previous discussions for Alaska have neglected wide angle lenses in favor of some more extreme telephoto options.

A wide angle lens [24 to 35 mm 'full frame' equivalent] might be useful for interior [on ship and on land] pictures and for stitching panorama shots. Many photographers will use a modest wide angle lens for their 'walking around' lens.

 

Your 18mm kit lens likely is similar to the angle of view of a full frame 28mm [or my MFT kit zoom14-42mm] lens. A prime [fixed focal length] lens might be much more compact, and be brighter [f/1.8] instead of a kit zoom at f/3.5 or so.

 

For SLR mounts, you may find that the size/weight/price increases radically for prime lenses wider than 24mm - very few of them will be optimized for smaller than full frame coverage. 

 

A 14-24mm lives on my FF body when used on ship.  24mm seems about perfect.  A 24-70 could also be a great choice. 

 

I'm planning to be back in AK 2021, fingers crossed.

 

framer

[strickerj]

I've got a Sony a7 iii with the 24-105 mm f4.0 lens. It's great for landscapes and moderate close-ups, and I'm thinking for wildlife in Alaska, I'll rent the 100-400 since I don't plan to need it much (if ever) beyond this trip. To the OP, if you're just shooting landscapes, you certainly don't need a longer telephoto than you have. At the wide end, 18 is probably wide enough even for a APS-C (28 mm equivalent for 35 mm full frame). There certainly are lenses in the 12-24 mm range if you're interested but I don't care for the fisheye look that starts to show below around 24.

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

Going wider than 24mm creates potential problems and you must know what you are doing. Though I know what I'm doing I prefer not to go wider than 16mm into the fisheye category. Why do you think so many manufactures start their walk around lens at 24mm? Because it is the starting place where one doesn't deal with potential distortion issues.

[peety3]

Very late to the party, but I usually do my excursions with a 14/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 100-400, and 600 with a 1.4x. And yes, I did still feel the need to crop some of my shots with the 840mm equivalent bad boy. You've got to decide what you want to carry...

[Heidi13]

With full-frame sensors, I use:

• 70-200/2.8, normally the go to lens in Alaska, and also have a 2x when required 
• 24-105/4
• 16-35/2.8

 

[framer]

Guess it doesn't matter anymore... 2nd cruise cancelled for us...

 

framer

 

 

[Moviela]

I shoot with Nikon DX lenses on a cruise and find that the 10~20mm zoom and a 40mm micro lens are the only ones I use. The zoom is most useful on the ship, and the 40mm prime does landscapes with better contrast and sharpness than using a zoom. The 40mm is also well suited to capture the flora with close-up details and a pleasant bokeh. 

 

Enjoy your time in Alaska, it really is a wonderful place.  

[jjwarrin]

Good morning!  I'm new to the Cruise critic forum.  I was searching about lenses for Alaskan Cruises and I found this conversation.

 

We're heading out to an Alaskan cruise on Friday through Holland America and this thread has been so helpful!  I plan on taking my EF 70-200 f/2.8 ii, with 2x extender like many have said.  The only is I have to use the EF to RF adapter with it. It's going to be long.  I also plan to take my 16-35mm f2.8 iii.

 

The last one I'm debating on it whether to bring the the RF 28-70mm f2 or the EF 24-105mm f4 ii.  The 28-70mm is such a nice lens, but it is heavier.  I'm gaining some flexibility with the 24-105.  Any thoughts on if I'm giving up to much from an image quality perspective?

 

Thanks for your insight in advance!

Edited June 7, 2022 by jjwarrin

[jjwarrin]

On 2/24/2021 at 1:19 PM, Heidi13 said:

With full-frame sensors, I use:

• 70-200/2.8, normally the go to lens in Alaska, and also have a 2x when required 
• 24-105/4
• 16-35/2.8

 

Hello!  My wife and I are heading to Alaska in 3 days and I'm trying to figure out what lenses to take.  Your kit looks very similar to what I was thinking.  The only difference that I was considering was to take the RF 28-70 f2 instead of the 24-105 f4.  What do you think about?  How did these three lenses work for you?  Take care!

[Heidi13]

28 minutes ago, jjwarrin said:

Hello!  My wife and I are heading to Alaska in 3 days and I'm trying to figure out what lenses to take.  Your kit looks very similar to what I was thinking.  The only difference that I was considering was to take the RF 28-70 f2 instead of the 24-105 f4.  What do you think about?  How did these three lenses work for you?  Take care!

 

Always wanted the 28-70, either the f2 or f2.8, but never got around to purchasing one of them. I tend to keep the 24-105 on 1 body and determine whether I'll more likely need the 70-200 or 16-35 on the other.

 

This has worked well for me. My thoughts are - the 16-35 with f2.8 is a great lens for close-ups and in Alaska, during the summer, I haven't found a need for more light. Personally, I would probably base it on saving a little bit of weight and bulk and stay with the 24-105, but that's also what I'm used to working with.

 

Enjoy Alaska.

[strickerj]

I haven't thought of this thread in a while... We finally got to go on our Alaska cruise a couple weeks ago (Eurodam roundtrip from Seattle). Due to time and financial constraints, I ended up not renting the 100-400 mm lens as I originally planned, but my 24-105 was good enough most of the time.

[jjwarrin]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

Always wanted the 28-70, either the f2 or f2.8, but never got around to purchasing one of them. I tend to keep the 24-105 on 1 body and determine whether I'll more likely need the 70-200 or 16-35 on the other.

 

This has worked well for me. My thoughts are - the 16-35 with f2.8 is a great lens for close-ups and in Alaska, during the summer, I haven't found a need for more light. Personally, I would probably base it on saving a little bit of weight and bulk and stay with the 24-105, but that's also what I'm used to working with.

 

Enjoy Alaska.

Thanks so much for the feedback!  It really helps, especially since I've never made the trip.  I love carrying my best lenses, but I could definitely leave the RF28-70mm and use the adapter for every lens that I bring.  That was another consideration in my thought process was to have at least one RF and the rest EF, which really doesn't matter.  Thanks again!

[jjwarrin]

25 minutes ago, strickerj said:

I haven't thought of this thread in a while... We finally got to go on our Alaska cruise a couple weeks ago (Eurodam roundtrip from Seattle). Due to time and financial constraints, I ended up not renting the 100-400 mm lens as I originally planned, but my 24-105 was good enough most of the time.

Thanks for sharing your experience with the EF24-105mm!  I still plan on taking the 16-35 and my 70-200, with the 2x extender.  We're actually traveling on the Eurodam!  How was the ship and Holland American in general?

[Jamiedro]

Canon 70-200 F2

[strickerj]

2 hours ago, jjwarrin said:

Thanks for sharing your experience with the EF24-105mm!  I still plan on taking the 16-35 and my 70-200, with the 2x extender.  We're actually traveling on the Eurodam!  How was the ship and Holland American in general?

I thought it was great. We decided on this itinerary to avoid the restrictions on flying into Canada. (We changed our booking in February since we didn't know they'd be relaxed.) The seas were rough the first full day (outside Vancouver Island) and the second to last day (between Queen Charlotte islands and Vancouver Island). For the most part, everything was on schedule (unlike Crown Princess, which departed half an hour before us).

 

Regarding the camera, we did have a decent pair of binoculars (Nikon 10x42 ProStaff 3S) to scope points of interest far away, then we zoomed in as much as possible with the camera and can enlarge and crop them on the PC later if desired. I didn't really miss having a longer telephoto. (My wife does, but too far and the motion of the ship causes blur, so it's a tradeoff.)

[strickerj]

6 hours ago, jjwarrin said:

Thanks for sharing your experience with the EF24-105mm!  I still plan on taking the 16-35 and my 70-200, with the 2x extender.  We're actually traveling on the Eurodam!  How was the ship and Holland American in general?

Just realized I didn't answer the last part - I really enjoyed HAL. Food was good, the wraparound promenade and the artwork in the common areas were nice touches, and I enjoyed the sedate atmosphere. The BBC presentation on the Main Stage and Billboard Onboard were fun. BB King lounge and the casino were too small and crowded, so we didn't stay long there.

 

Crew was friendly and generally attentive, though you could tell most weren't experienced. Tendering to shore in Sitka took an hour and a half, which delayed the start of our shore excursion. (Hence my comment "for the most part, everything was on schedule" - this was the one exception.)