Lense selection for Alaska??? Flash??

[denneym1]

We are taking our first trip to Alaska in a few weeks, and I am in a quandry about which lenses to take for my Nikon F4. I have quite a few to choose from but don't want to pack more than I need. Plus I am trying to get my digital camcorder and digital camera both into my photo backpack as well.

 

So, my questions are, what focal lengths am I most likely to need? I am thinking of taking a 28-85 AF zoom and either a 70-200 or 70-300 AF zoom. Would you recommend the 200 or 300? Will I need anything longer, like a 500mm mirror? And will I need flash or is just extra weight? I know the majority of the shooting will be outside, but there are places we are going (Red Onion, Alaskan Brewing Co., etc.) inside.

MD

[zackiedawg]

I'd bring the big boy lens...if you didn't, you'd miss it! On an Alaska cruise, you will have lots of moments when the ship is cruising along the passages alongside cliff faces and in fjords...and you will see eagles, bears, mountain goats, seals, whales, and various other wildlife that you will really want to zoom in on and capture. Sitting with your 28-85, you'll be quite disappointed to get a landscape shot with a tiny dot in it, telling everyone at home that the dot is a bear...you swear!

 

My strategy...bring the big lenses, for use on the ship. I'd consider a 500mm if you've got one...if not the 70-300 will at least get you by. Let those lenses be the ones that stay in the cabin, sit on your balcony with you, or head out on deck on an at-sea day trhough the fjords mounted on a tripod and at the ready.

 

When heading into town, mount the 28-85 on the camera, and bring a tiny bag along with some film and the flash (assuming you have a reasonably compact one)...you will probably want it for the interior shots, as some of the bars up there have alot of atmosphere inside worth capturing. If you have a reasonably small and light bag, maybe bring along one good wide prime - F1.4. The 28-85 will handle most city shots, closeups, vacation shots, landscapes, etc. You don't often need the big zooms when walking around - but depending on the tours you decide on, may want to bring the 70-300 along on the Skagway train or similar tours.

 

It is a pain to carry the heavy bag of all those big lenses - but if you keep them primarily on the ship, you really only have to contend with carrying the big bag twice...once on the ship and once off. The rest of the time, carry a smaller travel bag with just the essential lens for that job and leave the rest in the cabin.

[denneym1]

Thanks. That is kind of what I figured. I have a Tamrac backpack to carry stuff in, but its getting crammed and heavy. I do plan on leaving some stuff on the ship. I hate to take everything but the kitchen sink, but I am afraid I'm going to regret it if I don't.

MD

[tekman26]

We did the Alaska cruise 2 years ago and would suggest to you to bring the big lens that you have. I used pretty much my whole cruise my 70-300 lens but if you have something bigger would bring it to get the close upp shots that you might miss if you dont have it.

[denneym1]

Thanks. I am packing a 28mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.8, a 28-80 zoom, a 70-300 zoom, and a 500mm mirror lens. I might not carry them all the time, but at least I can use the 500mm from the ship. I figure carrying the two zooms should cover most other things. I have a 2x teleconverter I can use in a pinch too, although I lose AF, matrix metering, and can only use manual or aperture priority with it. And I haven't ever tried it with the 500mm mirror lens, probably should do that before we go. My photo backpack weighs nearly 20 pounds right now.

[zackiedawg]

Though I would never dare to try to compare the overall quality or minute differences in feel, atmosphere, or warmth compared to film...

 

I do have to say that I am very happy to have joined the digital revolution!

 

I have 2 SLRs...including a hefty pile of lenses. I started dabbling with digital cameras 6 years ago, when they were no more than toys (1MP!). They were fun, but couldn't do 1/10th of what film could. I've had digital cameras ever since, in growing capabilities and becoming much more respectable tools for photography...though most of the one-box solutions still couldn't compete with film SLRs and their selection of lenses and higher enlargement capability.

 

Then DSLRs came along, and I strongly considered them. But I decided to pass - sure, having a digital body that can be used with my existing lenses was a neat idea...but I guess since I had been shooting with digital cameras for years now, I've come to think of them as a convenience as well as a photographic tool...enough so that I am willing to forego some ultimate capability to maximize portability and convenience. DSLRs are superior tools to most any point-and-shoot based digital, but offer few portability conveniences over my film SLRs, and would often result in the same quandary you are facing right now - bringing a backpack of lenses!

 

Instead, I am enjoying the excellent capabilities of some of the newer all-in-one boxes that really have improved in leaps and bounds. My 3-year-old Zeiss-lensed F2.0 36mm-190mm 5 megapixel zoom has been a most excellent camera, and I still use it and get gorgeous 8x10 prints from it. It offers manual controls similar to a DSLR/SLR, except with a fixed lens barrel for portability and weather sealing. But I did want to add to my arsenal one of the newest mega-zoom cameras.

 

After some shopping around, I settled on the Sony DSC-H5. It is a 7.2MP digital camera, with a 12x optical (36mm to 432mm) F2.8-3.7 Carl Zeiss lens, image-stabilized, with most of the camera controls I wanted (manual or auto focus, aperature and shutter priority, manual, program with program shift, white balance adjustment, spot, center, or multi-point metering, center or multi focus with flexible spot focus, a usable ISO range of 80-400 without noise, and capability for ISO800 and 1000 with some noise and grain, more suitable for smaller prints or computer display. It also has a whopping 3" LCD on back, with very high resolution of 230,000 pixels, as well as an electronic viewfinder. With a high quality 1.7x telephoto extender (no light loss at all!) I can pull the optical zoom to 735mm at full 7.2MP resolution. If I bring the camera down to 5MP, I can push it to 857mm, and at 3MP I can get 1100mm optically - no digital zooming or pixel binning.

 

Of course, an SLR is still the better tool for pure photography, when measured at expert levels. And still a DSLR with a great lens will easily better the noise control, focus speed, accuracy of focus in low light, burst mode, and more.

 

The difference for me is that I only have to spend $440, and I get a 7.2MP camera body, an F2.8 36mm lens, an F3.7 432mm lens, and every lens in between...and I can carry all of this around my neck, in a small wrist bag, or pack it in with the luggage. I can also shoot thousands of pictures on a tiny card the size of my thumbnail, edit them to my heart's content, delete what I want and print what I want, and use 3 sets of 2 rechargeable AA batteries to keep it going endlessly day and night.

 

There are other super-zooms out there...all are great. I just wanted to replay my experience with this one. And only because I can relate to the lugging of lenses and backpacks of supplies (flash, flash batteries, film, camera batteries, lenses, extenders, filters, wipes, etc.). I haven't given up on film...I still like sometimes getting back to the purity of it, even though it is a process...and it does make you work a little more at getting it right, which can be rewarding. But digital can take alot of the pain out of trips, and with today's crop of manually-controllable, super-zoom digital compacts, the photos that I print at up to 20x30 in my house are indistinguishable from my film prints 90% of the time!

[denneym1]

I will be taking a Canon digital and a Canon digital camcorder as well. Digital certainly has made a tremendous amount of progress, and my little Canon S2IS takes really nice pics at 5 MP, has a 12x optical zoom, and weighs a fraction of what my Nikon does. It is tempting, from a weight and convenience standpoint, to just take the digitals and leave the 35mm at home, but I am pretty sure I will regret it if I do.

[smnornes]

definitely take the 500! I used my 70-300 the majority of the time in Alaska but wished I had the 500 at times. I use a very convenient Lowepro backpack to carry my gear and absolutely love it. I can take the extras with me (flash, etc) without it being in my way. I can even fit my camcorder in there if I move things around a bit.

Alaska pics are breathtaking no matter what you shoot! :D I've got a few Alaska travelogues on my site if you care to peek...www.shellistravel.com. Have a fabulous trip!

[AKMISTY1]

You may have already come and gone to Alaska, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents seeing how I live here and all. Definitely take the 300mm. I use that almost exclusively here in southeast. My 500mm is a short tamron with mirrors. It requires a great deal of light. In Southeast it is overcast and raining alot. Most of my pics on those kind of days are super grainy with the 500. I've upgraded to a digital slr, and of course the 500 isn't compatible with it.:( Enjoy your cruise!

[denneym1]

I decided on a 24-120mm, a 70-300mm, and a 500mm mirror. I am taking quite a bit of 400 speed film as I do realize I might not always have sunshine to shoot in. Hopefully this selection will cover about anything I need. I will find out in just a couple days. I'll post some pics when we get back.

Thanks for the help and info!

Mike

[tinkerme1]

We just returned from Alaska, and I took my 70-200 with an EF 1.4 Extender....still didn't do the distance I wanted, but I'm learning.

 

Take the biggest one you have and get an extender, if necessary. I did find that the overcast days were more difficult to shoot, although I got some great whale shots. Thank goodness!

 

Have a great cruise and enjoy the photography. My favorite time was taking pictures on the White Pass Railroad in Skagway.:D