Which (or both) lens for Alaskan cruise

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

I will be taking an Alaskan cruise the first week of June this year and am

debating on which (or maybe both) lens to take between my 70-200mm VR and 200-

400mm VR. I will be taking several shore excursions and hope to get shots of

eagles in flight as well as other wildlife (possibly bear, moose, etc). I also

will have both the 1.4TC and 1.7TC. My camera body will be the D300. From

those of you who have taken this trip in the past, will I regret not having the

200-400mm along if I decide to leave it at home to reduce weight?

 

Barry Clemmons

[jautey]

Come on Barry. Your really thinking about leaving one the best nature lens' ever built at home on your trip to Alaska? Over weight concerns? You're going to be spending most of your time on a boat, with your luggage safely stashed in your room.

So outside the weight, can you think of a good reason NOT to bring the 200-400mm.

I can't...

[bruce_margolis]

No brainer, Barry. Pack the 200-400m. I was in Alaska a couple years ago and the biggest complaint from other photogs was the lens was not long enough. My longest was 200mm but I easily wished I had doubled that. Now that I have the 80-400mm, I am ready to go back. :-)

 

Since you are on a cruise, you don't have to walk around with the lens all day. But for those special moments such as whales, bald eagles, etc., you will really wish you had a longer lens. And definitely pack one of your t/c's too.

 

Sounds like you won't be getting up to Denali but that is another spot where whatever lens you have, it won't be long enough.

[jlkphoto]

I saw mountain goats and grizzlies from the deck of the ship...with binoculars. With my longest lens being 200mm, I got some nice brown and white specks on a scenic background.

 

Take the longest lens you own.

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

Thanks for the responses! That was my initial thinking as well, especially since Alaska is not a destination that I will get back to for quite some time if ever. I'm hoping that June is a good time to capture shots of the wildlife there, as well as the glaciers and mountains.

[Two23]

You should only take the 70-200mm VR on the cruise. Being a nice guy, you can send me the 200-400mm VR to take care of while you're gone.

 

 

Kent in SD

[John D]

I took an Alaska cruise in Aug 06. Debated between the 300 f4afs and the 80-400. The 300 won. It is sharper and focuses much faster. I wished for more. I got by, since the 300 is very sharp and I took lots of photos betting on the law of averages for sharp shots. Take the big guy and one of the converters. You will also want a lens for shipboard walkaround. I took the 17-55 it is just fine. Wife had a 24-120 on her D70. You don't need a long lens for Glacier Bay. You will need a long lens for whales and for Denali if you do the Park.

 

We were on Holland America and saw only one eagle in Ketchikan. But a long lens is a must for wildlife. Also, you will get wet, plan on it and take whatever precautions you deem necessary. My defense was a baggy wind breaker which I could put the camera under and zip up.

My cruise photos are still up on Pbase. You can have a look here. http://www.pbase.com/dahlstetphoto/profile

There are several galleries, appropriately named. Have a great trip

[Peter_in_PA]

200 isn't long enough. I went to Alaska, not to shoot wildlife, but when I did take some

wildlife shots, 200 just wasn't long enough.

 

That said, I was on a 20th anniversary third or fourth honeymoon with my wife. It was a

vacation, so I STILL wouldn't have taken the "beast" even if I had owned it I think.

[hans_janssen]

I should take a 'normal' lens with me too for some landscape shots and shots on the ship as well.

[andrew_dodson]

I agree with Hans, you'll definitely want something in the 17-55 range... 18-70... for on the

ship shots/people shots

[Hector Javkin]

" ... will I regret not having the 200-400mm along if I decide to leave it at home to reduce weight?"

 

Will you ever! If you don't take it, you will be racked with disappointment and regret. You will have to resist the urge to throw your camera and lens over the rail and watch them sink under the frigid waters of the North Pacific. After you get home, you will look at your wildlife and bird images only to cry over how much better they might have been. But don't believe us Nikon shooters who responded, there are many more nature photographers on photo.net. In the nature forum, they'll really tell you to include a longer lens. They won't be as subtle.

 

Even on the ferries from Seattle to Anchorage, if you have a cabin, there's no problem in taking all the photo equipment you need. You should get even better care on a cruise.

 

I hope we have been sufficiently emphatic. Insure your stuff if concern about loss contributes to your doubt as to how much to take. Have a wonderful trip.

[tri-x1]

Since you are on the ship a good share of the time weight isn't a factor. When we went two years ago I took and 80-200 zoom and an F4, with an FM to carry on the beach. Seldom used the zoom but I'm more of a WA guy. You'll love the food.

[kens]

Take both. Definitely.

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

Thanks to everyone for your responses! I will definitely be taking "the beast" along for the trip. I'm sure I will still be loving the pictures it makes long after the thoughts of the weight are gone. I have noticed when I am doing nature shots locally with it I tend to forget about the weight when the subjects are interesting. Plus my monopod helps as well. Thanks again!