What lenses to bring to Alaska with my 50D?

[tekman26]

OMG ! I am sooo glad I ran across this thread, I've been pondering these questions for my RCL cruise to Alaska in 2 weeks !!!! I have a Nikon D60 (newbie, just got it for my bday in feb but totally into to it now!!) and I rented a 70-200 f2.8 for the whale watching and the photo safari excursion in juneau and was planning on just going with the 17-55 kit lens for the rest of the time..will this be a good option ? or should I plan on just going with a 18-200 f3.5-5.6 to avoid having to change lenses ? I guess since I'm a newbie Im skeptical about changing lenses out in the "field". Im also doing the misty fjords in ketchican what lens would be good for that ??

 

BTW that pictures was hilarious !!!!!

 

Thanks again !!!

 

Being a professional photographer and being that I have done the Alsaka cruise a few years ago, I can only say these things from personal experience. Would say you need to have a long lens. The 70-200 2.8 might be to much lens for you to have if it is only going to be used for whale watching. You can get away with the same lens F4 instead if Nikon makes that. The 18-200 might make it alot easier for you but inside the ship you would need a flash source since some areas tend to be low light. The better the lens are the better the photos. Hope this helps some.

[pilotdane]

Good point Larry...

"Unless my math is way off that tele-extender is going to make your 135mm lens an f/4 189mm lens. IMHO that doesn't buy you anything considering you have the 70-300 zoom. Yes it is one stop faster but it doesn't seem worth the hassle of carrying it or the cost of renting it."

 

Unless the 135 is going to take significantly better photos....Pilotdane?

 

"If the price of renting a extender approaches $100 I would think of buying it. If you like it you can keep it. If you do not want to keep it you can sell it and still come out ahead versus renting."

 

And if so I may consider purchasing it and selling it if I don't like it.

BTW it is $100 CAD to rent vs $450 CAD. is it still worth buying?

 

I agree that a 1.4x on the 135L is probably not worth it. Photo opportunities, especially of wildlife are so unpredictable that I put a big bonus on a zoom. That said, if you already own an incredible lens like the 135L, it is hard to leave it at home.

 

For a 1.4x converter you can check with reputable companies that handle used equipment. In the USA I have had good luck with KEH.

[KIM448]

Ok, after some long hard decisions and a lot of testing on birds and animals in my back yard I am going to bite the bullet and trade in my

70-300 IS for a 70-200 F/4 IS! I am sure I will be happier long term with the 70-200 F/4 IS.

 

I am thinking of adding in the Canon EF 1.4X II as well, that way I can use it on the 135 F/2.0 and the 70-200 F/4.

 

My Alaska Camera bag will then consist of...

 

Canon 50D

 

Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS

Canon 70-200 F/4 IS

Canon 135 F/2.0

Canon EF 1.4X II

 

Polarizers for each lens (2 lenses share)

Lens hoods for each lens

32 GB of Memory

2 Batteries & Charger

Camera Raincoat

Monopod

and a Puffer for my flash if needed inside.

 

What do you think, did I forget anything? Am I covered?