Telephoto used to photograph whales?

[mountainhouse]

I'm not really much of a wildlife photographer, but I do want to photograph whales. I'm torn. I have a 70-200 f/4 Canon. However, if I need to, I could rent a 70-300mm reasonably. The 70-200 is so sharp - I really like it. But worry that it's not enough.

[Budget Queen]

The problem with the 300 mm lens, is the narrower field of view. You will have to be RIGHT on the whale for a photo, which is not easy. Have you whale watched prior?? Tracking and predicting is a skill. :) You will not have any time, for much of a zoom action. You might want to see how the lens works for you prior. IF you are slower than with your own lens, it may not be the best option. Overall, you can expect- ONE great photo out of a "hundred". With digital, it's a fantastic option, take all you can get and delete the missed shots.

[mountainhouse]

Thanks for the ideas. Really appreciate it. Unfortunately, I'm new to whale watching. Will do my best. At least memory is cheap, so I recently doubled my capacity. :D Sounds like it might be better to go with the sharper lens and crop when I get home. Thanks again.

[mountainhouse]

What are the chances that the whale will come very close to the boat? Just wondering if I should be ready with a wide angle. By the way, we'll be doing the whale watching with G-wind.

[tommui987]

I'm not really much of a wildlife photographer, but I do want to photograph whales. I'm torn. I have a 70-200 f/4 Canon. However, if I need to, I could rent a 70-300mm reasonably. The 70-200 is so sharp - I really like it. But worry that it's not enough.

 

I assume your camera has a motor drive or capability of taking a bunch of shots by just pressing the button. Rely on depth of field and fire away!

[mountainhouse]

I assume your camera has a motor drive or capability of taking a bunch of shots by just pressing the button. Rely on depth of field and fire away!

 

I'm shooting with a Canon 30d, so was figuring to shoot at high speed, with the autofocus set to continuous. Thanks.

[PopPop3]

You might also consider the Canon 1.4x teleconverter, which will give you added "reach" at relatively low cost.

 

The quality of your good zoom will remain b/c this teleconverter is optically very good. The only thing: You'll lose a stop of speed, meaning your f/4 will become a f/5.6.

 

That might affect your exposures, but you can always compensate by cranking your ISO up a notch.

 

As for me, I'm taking a Canon 100-400L and hope to get some good whale pics using it on my 40D. At 6.5 fps, the law of averages says that I'll come back with something......

 

Good shooting!

[Photo Andy]

Dear MountainHouse

 

Went to Alaska 20 Sept 2008 with RCI from Vancouver up to Sitka, Hubbard Glacier and Mendenhall glacier with other stops in between - quite an excellent holiday - in fact would do again. Your question re photography is interesting - I to had problems knowing which lenses to take! I did not find many articles on the net but what was stated " get the biggest lense as posssible and you wear goretex for the rain and the camera lense combo wears a storm jacket( bought on the net - just measure your lense and camera to find the correct sizing). I am a keen amateur but is lucky enough to have a Nikon D2x and purchaesd a Nikon 300mm F2.8. I also took a 70-200 and 17-35 zoom. The most used lense was the 300mm. I took 72 gig of memory i.e. 36 2gig Sandisk memeory cards. I did see a young couple using a Nikon camera with ?x converter and 70-200 zoom - I did not speak to see his results. You need to dress warmly especially your fingers as the cold gets everywhere. I also had a goretex rain coat and shoes. Lowe pro rucksac was used( computrekker aw). I was able to photograph on deck in the rain with the storm jacket on the camera but when a memory card was filled my wife was in the dry - dried the front element of the lense and changed the memory card, then I continued shooting. The D2x and 300mm was heavy but I practiced during the summer to get my arms fit, used to walking with the camera lense combo and used to photographing local animals to approximate animals in Alaska. Light in Alaska was poor F2.8, 1/1000 sec 800 asa as needed to hold the combo staedy - did use the VR facility on the lense. So beware using F5.6 lense as you may shoot at such low shutter speeds that blur is a destroyer of pictures. Shooting whales was ok (Humpbacks) as they arch back before diving and you then get a memorable shot. In fact my screen saver is a humpback diving. Need fast shutter speeds as you hand hold the camera etc as the deck vibrates if you think of using a monopod etc.

Thats about it but if you want more post specific questions, I will try and answer. Have a great time, it is a fabulous area.

Derek

[mountainhouse]

Thank you both for the info.

 

I won't have much fast glass with me, Andy, so I hope it works out okay. I afraid my back no longer supports traveling with fast lenses. Are any of your photos online. I would really like to see them. Thanks again!

 

Oh, and also, WELCOME to Cruise Critic, Andy!

[Photo Andy]

Dear Mountainhouse

 

attached is a jpeg of a humpback diving near Mendenhall prior to us visting the glacier - the glacial retreat is quite amazing who said climate change is a recent event!

Photo Andy

[WalleyeLJ]

Thank you both for the info.

 

I won't have much fast glass with me, Andy, so I hope it works out okay. I afraid my back no longer supports traveling with fast lenses. Are any of your photos online. I would really like to see them. Thanks again!

 

Oh, and also, WELCOME to Cruise Critic, Andy!

 

Mountainhouse,

 

I have a Canon XTi and a 50D. I'm going to cheat and keep my 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron on the XTi and work my 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 100-400mmL that I'm renting for the trip on my 50D.

 

I have the 70-300 IS (the one in the $549 range, not the DO at $1,000), and I have to tell you - I shoot NASCAR photos and you cannot tell the difference between the shots I took with the 70-200mmL and the 70-300mm IS. Granted, I am shooting in bright light for the most part, on colorful objects, but I've used the 70-300 for a number of other photography situations and it is a TERRIFIC lens. I only rented the 100-400mm L because I wanted the extra 100mm for wildlife - even though I've got 15MP to play with on the 50D, I didn't want to have any "I COULD have been closer" regrets since I may never get back to Alaska again. :)

 

The 70-300 IS will rent for much cheaper and is a lot lighter than my 70-200mm. The 1.4x converter will get you close to that range, but the IS is really nice to have. The newer 70-300mm has two IS settings (the first edition only had one which stabilized in both directions), the second which allows you to track and pan objects like birds, planes, and race cars while keeping vertical movement in check. IMHO, the 70-300mm IS sounds like a sweet spot between gaining zoom range yet keeping the glass on the lighter side. Good luck - I'm setting sail 2 weeks from tomorrow - I can't wait!!!

 

L.J.

[mountainhouse]

Great photo, Andy. Tnx.

 

LJ - now you've got me thinking about renting the 70-300mm again. :)

[jacquid]

This thread is a God send..I am sailing on the RCL to Alaska in early June and am planning on doing a photography safari and had rented a 18-200 (3.5-5.6) lens w VR for my Nikon D60. Question is will this be a good choice for taking pictures of whales..bears etc etc. I know that it is a versitale lens for everything but am just afraid that at 200mm it might be limited in the sharpness and capability of producing that amazing shot. So would it be better to opt for a 70-200mm w 2.8 throughout the range ? I know Im sacrificing versatility and the comfort of not having to change lenses but I really want good shots !

 

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated !!!!!

[cruiseej]

This thread is a God send..I am sailing on the RCL to Alaska in early June and am planning on doing a photography safari and had rented a 18-200 (3.5-5.6) lens w VR for my Nikon D60. Question is will this be a good choice for taking pictures of whales..bears etc etc. I know that it is a versitale lens for everything but am just afraid that at 200mm it might be limited in the sharpness and capability of producing that amazing shot. So would it be better to opt for a 70-200mm w 2.8 throughout the range ? I know Im sacrificing versatility and the comfort of not having to change lenses but I really want good shots !

 

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated !!!!!

 

The faster f/2.8 lens is a plus -- but beware that it's a much bigger and much heavier lens. The 18-200 weighs about 20 ounces, while the 70-200 weighs 52 ounces. Those extra 2 pounds can make a significant difference; if you're not used to lugging and holding and working with a heavy lens, you might want to think twice about switching to the faster lens. Can you get to a photo store to "try one on" to see if you think it will be a problem for you?

 

If you're committed to carrying only one lens, I'd definitely stay with the one you have. The 70-200, which is functionally a 105-300 on your D60, doesn't give you enough flexibility at the wide end. sure, you want those bear or whale photos if you have the opportunity -- but if you can't pull back to capture a wider angle shot than 105mm, I would find that very limiting in a place with as much great scenery as Alaska.

 

I could borrow one of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (at no cost) for my upcoming Alaska trip, but as much as I'd welcome the extra couple f-stops of light, I've decided I don't want to deal with that big a lens. The 18-200 is my everyday lens, and last year I added a 70-300 to my bag. I also carry a 12-24 wide angle lens and a flash. (My body is currently a D70, although I'm itching to pull the trigger on replacing it with a D90.)

 

-- Eric

[509eagle]

I could borrow one of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (at no cost) for my upcoming Alaska trip, but as much as I'd welcome the extra couple f-stops of light, I've decided I don't want to deal with that big a lens. The 18-200 is my everyday lens, and last year I added a 70-300 to my bag. I also carry a 12-24 wide angle lens and a flash. (My body is currently a D70, although I'm itching to pull the trigger on replacing it with a D90.)

 

-- Eric

 

I am in the same postion. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 non VR, but its big and heavy, opted to just buy a 70-300 VR, no where near as fast, but its all a trade off.

 

I have a D70, and like you wanted the D90. Twice the megapixels and that big LCD. Was talking to my wife, she says "if you want it, get it". She didnt have to say it twice.

 

I got the kit lens 18-105 VR, so now have 2 VR lenses for AK.

[KIM448]

I have the 70-300IS as well, and I love it! Definitly take/rent it.

It is one of my lightest lens on my canon 50D with great quality photos and I am picky.

The other lenses I will bring are my canon 17-55.

 

Those will be my primary everyday lenses.

 

I am struggling with which primes to bring. I will be doing bear viewing in Anan creek and whale watching and the bears forsure will be low light and from what I hear everything in Alaska might be low light.

 

So my 85 1.8 prime is coming forsure (it will be great for the bears since they will be 10-20feet away and I like shooting in close) and I need to decide if the 50 1.8 is next in the bag or 135 2.0?

 

The 50 will most likely win for being on the cruise ship, in low light photos, unless you think that the 135 (on a crop body) might be helpful for whale watching or anything else?

 

I would love to bring them all, but it makes the bag too heavy! Decisions, Decisions.....

[WalleyeLJ]

Just back back last week from our Alaska trip - GREATEST TRIP EVER!!! As I mentioned above, I rented the Canon 100-400 IS "L", and it was worth EVER penny it cost me to rent it. I used the full 400mm range about 90% of the time - whales (Orcas & Humpbacks), Dall's Sheep, Grizzly's, Moose, Lynx. My wife did a travel blog as we went and posted a number of my photos in it if anyone wants to see how that lens shot (almost every living critter photo except the horses we rode):

 

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog/ljandbev/1/tpod.html

 

Bring ALOT of memory/batteries. I brouhgt 12 CF cards from 2-8GB, and I fully utilized one of the greatest camera additions ever - external battery/vertical grip. I hot 7,146 photos, not including what I deleted right away as I went, plus several hundred more on our other two cameras (Rebel XTi & a waterproof Olympus 790.), and my wife shot about 15 hours of digital video. When it came to whales, I only overfilled the frame on two shots, and that was on an adult Humpback that came up about 50 feet from our boat.

 

For those still to go - it was FANTASTIC! Enjoy!

 

L.J.

[robert32asp]

Thank you for the comments and especially the pictures with the 400mm zoom lens. The marine wildlife pictures associated with Junea are fabulous. I am not thinking that 300 mm is now my low end magnification for wildlife. Thanks again.

[mountainhouse]

Thanks for posting the results. I'm getting pretty excited! I too ended up renting a 100-400mm. It's ready to go, and we leave tonight. :D

[wolfie11]

I have a Nikon D200 with the 70-300 lens, which I think is barely adequate for Alaska. If I had the money I would get a 400mm in a heartbeat. The photo below was taken on an Orca whale watch in Juneau with the 300mm.

[Coolcruise02]

Just back back last week from our Alaska trip - GREATEST TRIP EVER!!! As I mentioned above, I rented the Canon 100-400 IS "L", and it was worth EVER penny it cost me to rent it. I used the full 400mm range about 90% of the time - whales (Orcas & Humpbacks), Dall's Sheep, Grizzly's, Moose, Lynx. My wife did a travel blog as we went and posted a number of my photos in it if anyone wants to see how that lens shot (almost every living critter photo except the horses we rode):

 

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog/ljandbev/1/tpod.html

L.J.

 

Loved your review and pictures! Thanks for sharing. Where did you take the picture of the Seattle skyline from?

 

Thanks again.

[mountainhouse]

I have a Nikon D200 with the 70-300 lens, which I think is barely adequate for Alaska. If I had the money I would get a 400mm in a heartbeat. The photo below was taken on an Orca whale watch in Juneau with the 300mm.

 

Just rent. Here's one. :cool:

[WalleyeLJ]

Loved your review and pictures! Thanks for sharing. Where did you take the picture of the Seattle skyline from?

 

Thanks again.

 

Cool Cruiser,

 

thanks for the comments. I took the skyline shots which included the Space Needle from a little overlook in the Queen Anne sction of town, which is pretty much a hillside section of town just NNW of the Space Needle and Seattle Center. I think it might have been from Kerry Park. I just asked the cab driver to take me to the area of the Queen Anne section of town where people went to take photos of the city. They should have no problem taking you there. I hope that helps!

 

L.J.

[WalleyeLJ]

Thanks for posting the results. I'm getting pretty excited! I too ended up renting a 100-400mm. It's ready to go, and we leave tonight. :D

 

Enjoy - you'll have a blast!!! The trip and the photography!

 

L.J.

[WalleyeLJ]

I have the 70-300IS as well, and I love it! Definitly take/rent it.

It is one of my lightest lens on my canon 50D with great quality photos and I am picky.

The other lenses I will bring are my canon 17-55.

 

Those will be my primary everyday lenses.

 

I am struggling with which primes to bring. I will be doing bear viewing in Anan creek and whale watching and the bears forsure will be low light and from what I hear everything in Alaska might be low light.

 

So my 85 1.8 prime is coming forsure (it will be great for the bears since they will be 10-20feet away and I like shooting in close) and I need to decide if the 50 1.8 is next in the bag or 135 2.0?

 

The 50 will most likely win for being on the cruise ship, in low light photos, unless you think that the 135 (on a crop body) might be helpful for whale watching or anything else?

 

I would love to bring them all, but it makes the bag too heavy! Decisions, Decisions.....

 

Your 70-300 IS should do the trick. I shot most of my wildlife photos racked out to 400mm. @ f/5.6, and I was getting 1/400-1/800 for my shutter speed on the whale photos under partly sunny to moderately diffused light. It was 1/2 to 2/3 that fast on many of my wildlife photos, but then again I was on land, and the IS definitely helped, especially if you shoot early or late in Denali or anywhere else along the way.

 

While IS of course cannot make up all the difference of a bobbing boat, I can tell you I was very surprised howmany clean shots I got between the lens IS and my trying to help compensate as well. I actually got much better results shooting the 400mm unsupported than I did bracing on the boats, because the boats were of course almost always moving up/down/sideways. I don't usually use a monopod, but I did buy a nice, sturdy Manfrotto one for the trip, and it was invaluable on the bus in Denali where it can be very tough to shoot long distance - especially if the wildlife is on the other side of the bus and you cannot use the window sill as a brace.

 

I don't have any primes to shoot except a Sigma 105mm f/2.8, which I never touched on the trip (and it heavy for it's size). That said, it does take terrific photos. I'd recommend your wider prime for your bears, and trust the 70-300 IS for your longer work. I love the photos mine has taken for me. Enjoy the trip and the photography.

 

P.S. - I did have to remind myself to actually stop shooting on occasion and enjoy the moment away from the viewfinder as well;):D.

 

L.J.