Which lens should I take on an Alaskan cruise

[robert_wilson11]

<p>My wife and I will embark on a cruise of the Alaskan Inside Passage in May and I plan to take my Rebel XSi. I am NOT taking my wife along on a photographic expedition; I am taking my camera along on a vacation with my wife. I expect that there will be lots of landscape opportunities, some wildlife opportunities and a great deal of walking about taking snapshots of interesting things in a place I have never been and may never return. I will not buy any new lenses for the trip and I will not take more than two.<br>

I am still undecided which two of my four lenses to take. They are:<br />Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM<br />Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS<br />Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 USM<br />Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM<br>

Because of its superior image quality, the versatility afforded by its relatively large aperture and its very handy size and weight, the 28mm f/1.8 is almost certain to be my first choice and may well be my walking-around lens. Conversely, because of its limited application as well as its size and weight, the 100-300mm will be left behind. My real decision lies between the 18-55 and the 28-80.<br>

Both lenses seem to me to offer about the same image quality. The 18-55 is easier to handle and I guess the IS is nice but the two factors combined don't mean as much to me as the 28-80's USM which I really like. The most important trade-off seems to me to be the focal length. (And yes, I'm considering the approximate 1.6 crop factor.)<br>

Without it, I suspect I would sorely miss the longer reach of the 28-80 whenever I have a shot at wildlife opportunities. On the other hand, I have a nagging worry that I might regret not having the wider angle of the 18-55 for the anticipated dramatic scenery. But I'm leaning toward taking the 28mm f/1.8 and the 28-80mm anyway.<br>

The 28mm f/1.8 would be on the camera most of the time and would be used for most of the landscape shots. When wildlife or other long length opportunities are anticipated, the 28-80 would be worn. If landscape opportunities arise while the zoom lens is mounted, the short end of the 28-80 would still be available. Besides, the handy little 28mm f/1.8 in its protective case could probably be slipped into my daypack in case it's really needed.<br>

It seems to me that the superior image quality of the 28mm f/1.8 would be more important than the wider perspective of the 18-55, even for landscapes. I can't ever remember looking at a great landscape photograph and wondering how much better it might have looked if only it had been shot with a wider perspective lens. I recall reading that most of the world's great photographs, and I assume that includes landscapes, have been taken with normal prime lenses.<br>

So thanks for letting me think in print. Any comments will be welcome.</p>

[bob_himmelright]

<p>In all honesty, I'd bring the 18-55 as well as the 100-300, on my trip to alaska, the 100-300 was indespensible.</p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p>Having taken the same trip a few years back my suggestion would be the 18-55 and 100-300 as well. The 28 will not be wide enough in many cases.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I love the 28. small and light so yes for certain that one at least. I would just leave that on most of the time. I would probably take the 100-300 as well for the times you want long.</p>

<p>But if you really do not want that one the 18-55 is the what I would take with the 28</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Canon EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM<br />Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM<br>

This gives you pretty wide coverage, from the ship you will see a lot of photo op's that may be a good distance away.</p>

<p>Ross</p>

[lancemcvay]

<p>There's precious little wildlife that is available in the scope of an 80mm lens. You will definitely want the 100-300 not just for wildlife but also for landscape. The vistas you will see on the cruise ship are vast enough that a 400mm lens can be used to get a good landscape shot, and you will be close enough to glaciers and mountains that a good telephoto will be invaluable.<br>

I live in the area you'll be cruising, and my most-used lenses are at the extremes of both tele and wide. It's the mid-range that I often find myself leaving behind.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I don't see why you can't take them all. It's not like any of them are large, heavy, "L" series lenses. They're all small and light. I can appreciate travelling light, but in this case the difference betwen two and four lenses seems pretty small. If you were deciding between a 600/4 and a 400/2.8, I could see leaving one of them (or both of them) at home!</p>

[J.W. Wall]

<p>What Bob Atkins said. On a similar cruise last May, my most used lenses were 17-40 and 70-200. Could have used longer glass if I'd had it, but those two did fine. Long with IS would be handy.</p>

 

[gregf]

<p>None of those lenses are large or cumbersome, just take them all (if you have to, get a slightly larger bag).<br>

One of the especially nice things about a cruise is that you don't have to walk around for hours with lot's of heavy glass. Just take them all and don't worry.</p>

[nicholas_baker]

<p>If i could only take one It would be hard between the 20 and the 100-300..... </p>

<p>80mm will not even begin to cut it. Even 300 is gonna leave you wishing for more range.....</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>The one you leave at home will be the one you wish you didn't.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I've done the cruise too. You want to take the 18-55 and the 100-300 for all the reasons listed above. There are plenty of things to shoot from a cruise ship, including lots of vistas, that will make you want the 100-300. I also took an ultra-wide but this was a luxury rather than necessity.<br>

If it were me I would also take the 28 f1.8.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>I would take all of them, don't see why you wouldn't. Better to be prepared as much as possible than trying to be a minimalist. </p>

[phyrpowr]

<p>Been there, for two only the 18-55 and 100-300</p>

[w_t1]

<p>g9 or g10 with a polarizer. Leave the slr stuff at home, keep the wife happy. I used to live in SE Alaska, the wildlife you will see are the people. If you want to see bears, go to the dump in Petersburg. I did the g9 thing instead of usual gear (2slrs, 3-5 lenses, flash, pod, etc) on my last long family trip, much more enjoyable trip. Sure I may have missed a shot or two, but so what. If you're alone thats a different story. Tom</p>

[carl_jabido]

<p>Ha! I've taken the same trip as well and amazingly, just like everyone else, upon seeing your lens choices, I'd say 18-55 and 100-300. The 28-80 probably isn't gonna be used much.</p>

[steve santikarn]

<p>I find the IS stabilized lens to be very handy on a cruise. The engine vibrates the whole ship and tripods are no use. For one-lens-does-all vacation lens I'd buy the Canon EF-S 18-85 IS lens. Worth while investment if you don't like to take multiple lenses. You can trade-in your 18-55 and the 28-80 mm lenses.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>I've been on the cruise twice, chose to leave my DSLR at home and take a smaller Kodak P850, with 12X zoom (36-432mm) and it worked out great. One camera in a small bag, easy to carry and no problems. Didn't see much in the line of wildlife - some seals on ice floes and an island, some eagles up in trees, a bear a long way away from the ship. It was great not having to change lenses onboard ship and on the shore excursions.<br>

A bonus for me was the ability to take videos with the Kodak, got some neat shots along with the stills.<br>

Whatever you do, have fun!</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<p>Thank every one for taking the time to respond. I probably will rethink the entire proposition although I am much more likely to consider the purchase of a new, more versatile lens than to abandon my proscription against taking more than two. I remain committed to taking my sweetheart 28mm f/1.8 and to leaving behind the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which I can't hold satisfactorily without support anyway.<br>

With that in mind, I have been looking at the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Both have IS and are priced within painful reach. I know I can't use them if I ever go full frame again but, the more I use my Rebel, the less likely that seems. I like the 17-85 for its USM, for the fact that I know that I can hold the 85 without support and it's about a hundred bucks less. I like the 18-200 for its slightly larger aperture and its longer reach although, again, I'm not sure I could hold the 200mm satisfactorily on my crop-frame Rebel without support.<br>

Sorry to be so much trouble but does anyone have any thoughts about these or any other Canon EF lenses I should consider?</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Robert, how about EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 IS. Mates nicely with the 18-55. This two-lens kit combo is cheaper and sharper than the 18-200 IS. This way you'll have IS, and you can then leave the 28-80 and 100-300 at home.</p>

<p>I have the 55-250 and it's a sharp lens. It's light and compact, perfect for travel. The IS is very effective. With 250 mm you'll be able to get close to Alaskan wildlife. When I was there my longest lens was 280 mm (200/2.8 with a teleconverter) and I got full-frame shots of an otter and eagles.</p>

[robert_wilson11]

<p><br />We've been back for about three weeks and I've nearly finished culling and cleaning up the 2,506 images we brought back. For any who may be interested, here is what I learned.</p>

<p>Regardless of skill level or equipment, Alaska is a photographer's dream. My wife with her beginner's developing interest in photography took some of our best shots with her PowerShot SD1100 IS. There was even a blind woman with her husband and guide dog in our group. It was a lesson in humility to see how obviously she relished every moment of the experience. I recommend the trip to anyone.</p>

<p>After some consideration, I decided to tote just a little more luggage and I did take all four of my lenses. Thanks to all who offered that advice. When leaving our stateroom, I would simply mount the lens best suited to our anticipated activities and leave the other three behind.</p>

<p>The 28-80 was taken as a spare only, against the possibility of some misfortune occurring to the (insubstantial seeming) 18-55. As anticipated, the 28-80 was never mounted.</p>

<p>The 100-300 was taken to shoot wildlife on one specific excursion and, without it, I would have returned without any wildlife shots at all. I could have used a better lens, but the venerable 100-300 was infinitely better than no long lens at all. Fortune smiled on us the day of the wildlife excursion with brilliant sunshine allowing fast enough shutter speeds to make hand holding the 300mm very workable.</p>

<p>The 18-55 proved to be all the good things I've read about it and more. It was the lead dog of the team and was mounted at least a majority of the time. We are both absolutely delighted with the versatility of the lens and the quality of the images it produced. I finally learned why folks use lens hoods though. I lost 20 or 30 nice shots to flare with this lens and will not shoot in sunlight without a hood again.</p>

<p>Finally, my love affair with my 28mm f/1.8 only deepened. The 28 saw almost as much use as the 18-55 and definitely produced the best images of the lot.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all who helped us to plan this absolutely wonderful trip.</p>