Alaska lens selection (Denali, Chugach State Park,...)

I will be in Alaska for the last week of August and part of the first

week of September. I will be staying in Denali near Wonder Lake and

for a few days in Anchorage afterwards (dayhiking in Chugach State

Park). I expect to be day hiking on most days and therefore do not

wish to carry more weight than I need to in my backpack. I am

definitely interested in landscapes and have some interest in

wildlife and other subjects.

 

My question is about lens selection. I will be shooting with a Nikon

D-70 DSLR. My preference, since I will be hiking and carrying my own

gear, is to carry the minimum number of lenses (and preferably

lighter ones than heavier ones) necessary to do some justice to the

scenery. I shoot RAW and quality is important to me as I can tell the

difference between poor and top end Nikon lenses as I own some of

each. If you could choose only two (preferably) or three (less

preferably) lenses to carry, which Nikon lenses would they be and

why?

Without knowing (Carnack would know!) what you like to shoot, how do expect someone to answer your question?

Last sentence in my first paragraph.

My travel /hiking kit for Landscapes and some wildlife:

D100, 24-85/2.8-4 and 180/2.8 and 1.4 (non nikon) AF TC (I like this combo and have used it a lot, both lenses are 72mm filter sizes (I will use a polarizer a fair amount)

 

I really like the 24-85, I get very good image quality, good contrast, I like the range (even on a DSLR) and like the 2.8 wide opening (at 24mm it is like a 35 (36)mm 2.8 lens, good for lower light , closer in shooting). I bought this lens for the D100.

 

THe 180 I have had for years and it is great. It is smaller and lighter than a 80-200 zoom on a DSLR the crop factor makes it a 270mm which is close to the 300mm/2.8 all purpose wildlife lens. You would need extra reach for birds. A Kenko 1.4 TC boosts the reach a bit and I carry one at times but do not use it much (see 80-400)

 

Third lens = add 18-35

 

Light, sharp and gets a DSLR back near to the 24mm angle of view I like in landscapes. I have not really found a real need for a wider lens then a 24mm for film cameras for what I will typically see for an image.

 

More Wildlife than landscapes = replace 180 and TC with the 80-400 VR

 

Very sharp, Very handholdable, Looses some low light performance, In a big kit would still add the 180 but usually carry one or the other. I do at times add a TC to the 180 and try to not bring the 80-400 if saving weight but if I know in advance I will want the longer reach I think the 80-400 is a better performer than the 180+1.4xTC

 

My second body for these past trips is a film SLR so did not want to use DX lenses. (although for an upcoming trip in Nov I will have a second DSLR and will at least for the trip consider DX lenses).

 

My web site (for fun site) www.ardingerphoto.com has images (see Ireland and Utah and animal images at the bottom of the page) that were made with these lenses/D100

 

There are other combinations and given any and all nikon lenses I might not chose the ones I did but these work for Sallish kit size, lightish weight but still high quality, RAW file, DSLR photography for me.

 

Robert

Consider the Nikon AF-S 12-24mm f4G IF-ED along with the

Tamron 28-300mm DI XR.

 

The Tamron is compact, light in weight and has good optics.

Its' very useful zoom range combined with the 12-24mm gives your

D-70 a 18-450mm range in 35mm terms and you should be pleased with the optical quailty.

 

I own both of these lens and they form my walk-around kit combined with the Nikon 50mm f1.8D.

 

Al Sandberg

I was there last August, and basically the wide angle lens stayed in the pack

 

Most of that area is in a plain with mountains rising quickly and spectacularly pretty far in the distance: WA wouldn't give detail, and something like a 24-120 with the Nikon 1.5 crop should be sufficient for "sweep". My 28-135 was all I needed on my Canon 10D, 1.6 crop

 

OTOH, what wildlife I saw was fairly distant, so the longest telephoto you have might/ might not be enough. My 300/4 IS w/1.4 TC, total equivalent almost 600mm, was just barely sufficient