Lenses for Alaska trip

I'm heading to Alaska (both cruise and inland tour), and planning to bring two bodies: a D5500 (which I like for its size) and my new D7500. I'll bring my 10-24 for landscape. I'll also want a telephoto for animals. My options are (a) carry both an 18-140 and a 70-300, and switch off as necessary; or (b) carry a 28-300. It would be great to not have to switch lenses, but if the image quality from the 18-140/70-300 combination is markedly better than that from the 28-300, I'm willing to.

 

Would appreciate any thoughts.

Part 1 - 2 bodies: carrying 2 bodies is, IMHO, the best approach when expecting to photograph wildlife. Changing lenses means missing shots, so having your 18-140 on one body and your 70-300 on the other will allow you to lift the camera that has the lens you want and get the shot. That's the good news.

 

Part 2 - long lenses: this is where we find the bad news. A 70-300, even on a crop sensor body, will frustrate you with too little reach. It's an everlasting truth for wildlife shooting that no matter how long your longest lens is, you'll find circumstances where you want a longer lens. The 70-300 will be useful for landscape shots from the cruise ship, but during the "tour" part of your trip, you'll find too much of the wildlife is farther than 300 can handle very well. If getting a longer lens is simply not an option, then I recommend that you practice shooting with techniques suitable for a 600 mm lens, and then cropping the images you get to see what you think of the results. You can at least learn how much cropping you can stand using your current hardware. If getting a longer lens is feasible, there are 200-500 and 150-600 lenses available at various cost, and any one of them would be an improvement over your 70-300 on the trip. But if you decide to get such a lens, get it soon and practice. Shooting longer lenses requires more refined techniques - don't try to learn how to handle your first long lens on the trip of a lifetime. Get the hang of it before you go.

Thanks. I think that I'll max out at 300 (450 equivalent), either with the 70-300 or the 28-300. I'll have to play with those lenses in the couple of weeks I have before leaving, and make a judgment as to what to bring.

I have used the 28-300 on a 16MP D7000, and that lens is weak at 300mm. Your cameras have more than 16MP and are more demanding. I assume your 70-300 is the AF-S VR. It will be better at 300mm, but whether it is "markedly better" is up to you to decide. I think even the 70-300 is not that satisfactory.

 

We use superzooms for their convenience. If you want better optical quality, split the range into 2 or more lenses and carry two bodies as Bob suggests above.

Thanks. (Yes, I have the 70-300 AF-S VR.)

First, my experience in Alaska (all inland, btw)...as noted above, a 300mm lens, even on a crop body, isn't sufficient for wildlife. Spent 10 days there last year, and used my 80-400 set at 400 for the large majority of wildlife shots. Going back this summer, and will take a 1.4TC to use with it. Bears, mountain goats, Dall sheep, and wolves all prefer to stay a LONG way away from humans. If you're constrained by size/weight, think about renting a Nikon 300mm f/4 (either new or AFS version) and put that on one body while you use any of the telephoto zooms on the other body for wider angle shots. That at least gets you excellent IQ at 300mm. Renting the 80-400 AFS is another *relatively* light option with very good IQ at 400mm. The 200-500 is also reportedly very good, although it is getting into the large size/weight category. Finally, I second the suggestion above to practice with a long lens before you go; using good technique is as big a factor or more than lens quality in getting sharp images. Enjoy your trip!

If you plan on making very large prints consider taking a few primes along, over 12x18" prints you will see the difference.

Have a wonderful trip!

I'm going on a similar trip in August and have been going through the same dilemma. I also have the 70-300 and have found it to be weak at 300 mm. I have the 28-300 on order (to arrive today) to test. I have a D750, D600 and a D5500. I'm going to evaluate the IQ difference between full frame at 300 (cropped) and crop sensor at the 450 equivalent. The land portion of our trip will require that we carry our valuables with us all day, so it's unlikely that I'll carry two bodies and a bag full of lenses (I'll have an Olympus TG-4 as a backup). Combine that with the potential for weather issues, there will undoubtedly be compromises made where reach and/or IQ are concerned. I'll come back and share my experiences and what I ultimately plan to do.

If you're expecting wildlife and can carry it, I'd strongly suggest something as long as possible - which probably means hiring a 200-500 or 200-600 Sport if you can, and a 300mm PF if you want more portability and sharpness instead of reach (short of dropping a lot more money on a big supertele). I've never done Alaska, but I've seen enough photos that were taken with a long telephoto that I'd hate to go without one - and I certainly needed range for wintering in Yellowstone. I'd ensure you had something wide as well - that's a good argument for the second body, since AF is likely to be less critical. My understanding is that most reviews of the 28-300 are that it's "surprisingly good, considering" - but that "considering" is hiding the fact that you'd expect a 10x zoom to be pretty rubbish. Assuming this isn't a regular trip for you, I'd bring what you need to keep the memories (and I can vouch that a viewfinder and a 200-500 makes a passable alternative to a pair of binoculars). But then I always carry too much.

 

(Btw, hi all - work crisis quieting down, sorry for the silence; I'm vaguely back.)

Image stabilization is essential for photos taken from a ship. Low frequency vibrations from the engine will spoil shots taken with a tripod, as will leaning against a rail or bulkhead. Scenery taken from the ship can probably be accomplished with focal lengths of 24 to 200 mm. For wildlife, aquatic or on land, no lens is long enough unless you also get closer to the subject. Getting closer requires technique and patience, neither of which overcome the limitations of an organized tour of this sort.

I am not a serious wildlife shooter so keep that in mind... For a recent trip to Tanzania I considered a number of lenses and finally narrowed down to the new Nikon 200-500 and Sigma 150-600 Sport (w/ 1.4 TC). I played with both for a couple of weeks. Going from memory; Both are quite slow to focus (D800 & D5). Sigma is heavier and, for me, not as well balanced. Image quality was effectively a wash (each had pluses & minuses that pretty much equaled out for me). The extra 100mm of the Sigma was nice but in the end went w/ the 200-500. Probably 80% of the shots with it were at 500 and many w/ 1.4 or 2.0 TC's). Overall I'm fairly happy with it though do wish it focused faster and would have been willing to pay extra for that.

 

Seemingly, animals in Alaska are farther away so you'd want length more than in Tanzania. If I were in your shoes I'd hire or buy a 200-500 and one or two TCIII's (or better a 600 f4).

Thanks for all the responses. I've pretty much decided to sacrifice some of the long end reach for convenience. I bought the Nikon 28-300 and have been testing on my D750. It is good enough, but not great. This is first and foremost a vacation for me, so I don't want to be so weighted down that I don't enjoy it. The logistics of the cruise will dictate that I carry whatever I have with me for hours without a break, so weight and bulk is an issue. The weather in Alaska can be rainy and damp which will make changing lenses and staying dry a challenge. The 28-300 will suffice while outdoors and I'll take another, faster lens for indoors and the ship. I may also take the D5500 body which will give me a bit more reach with the 28-300. Thanks again for all the help!

Glad we could help, Brent. Do report back!

 

The one thing I'd add is, if you want portability and are still concerned about quality, I'd think about hiring a 300mm f/4 VR and a TC-14E (or even a bigger TC). That combination is a lot of reach in not much size, although you're stuck with a prime for framing. If Nikon's new 70-300 turns out to be a stellar performer, it may also come into the equation - but none of us have tested it yet, and it does have some odd behaviour (though I believe the thread suggests it's okay on the D750). But I can't argue that, if you want to go from wide to zoom, the 28-300 is a lot more flexible. Best of luck with it!

Brent, the 28-300 is fine for carry around. It's probably the only lens I currently own that I can see a weakness in sharpnes without careful evaluation but I put it on my cameras knowing there is going to be a compromise. The strength of this lens is the zoom range that gives you a lot of room for composing. I try to keep it between f5.6-11, shoot it in the center and crop in post if I must. It should be OK with that. You will have plenty of ISO and room to crop with your D750. The current DSLR bodies require a lot more of lenses than in the past. It's a fun lens to own and not a bad choice for a one lens option. I would not bother with a tripod or monopod on any ship. There are just too many motors running. The best tripod on a ship is the human body. Good hunting.