Lenses for Alaska

[zvia_shever]

<p>Just posted questions on the travel board about Alaska (where to shoot, general advice etc..) which included the following lens questions. I thought I'd post just the lens questions here as it's the Canon forum. Any advice would be most appreciated.<br>

 

 

 

<p >Excerpt: </p>

<p >I will be vacationing in Alaska in late June for 9 days with my husband plus 4 friends. I'm the "trip photographer" and would love any advice regarding what lenses to bring.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have the following: Canon 30D (25% chance of upgrading to the 50D), 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200L f4 IS, B & W polarizer, 500D close-up lens, tripod. From reading old Alaska discussions, I realize the 70-200 won't be long enough for much wildlife. I could rent a 100-400 IS but it's really heavy and I just don't think I could lug it around. I was thinking of buying the Canon 1.4X Extender for the 70-200 as it would be more manageable than the 100-400. In addition, I could rent or buy a wide angle...I think it would be useful.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Another option I thought of, to cut down on the weight and amount of "stuff" is to leave both the 17-55 and 70-200 at home and buy or rent a Canon 18-200 IS and the 1.4 extender...the only problem here is at the 200 range with the extender I'd be stuck with f/6.3 (I think?!) although it's light most of the time in Alaska in June. Another worry is that I LOVE my 70-200 and may be disappointed in the 18-200....any thoughts?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Last year I got some great advice from people on this site before my trip to Ecuador. I came home with some great shots and my friends were ecstatic with the photo books I put together for them.....so thanks!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Zvia</p>

<br />

<p > </p>

 

 

</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Zvia,</p>

<p>Although I don't know Canon lenses, I can still answer part of this. You are much too good a photographer for an all in one 18-200mm lens. You would still get good images, but that kind of lens won't do nearly as well as those you've been using. Adding an extender to such a lens will compound its weaknesses. As to renting (and carrying) an 100-400mm IS -- how often will you be traveling Alaska? The 400mm reach will be very handy for animals and birds.You're the photographer for your group -- maybe your husband or someone else traveling with you will carry some of the photo equipment.</p>

<p>I've seen reports of mosquito repellent damaging the plastic on camera equipment, and even lens coatings. You need the repellent, but be careful not to get it on your camera or lenses. When I went to Alaska many years ago, I put repellent liberally on a wool cap and a bandanna, and didn't seem to need it directly on my skin. (I went in September, but there were some areas that still had large populations of hungry mosquitoes.)</p>

<p>Have a wonderful trip.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Oh hi Hector!<br>

Thanks for replying. Too bad about the 18-200...that was my fear also, that I'd be really disappointed after the 70-200. The 100-400 seems really heavy, especially as we'll be hiking, ice climbing and doing other strenuous activity. I will rent one for a few days soon to see how badly my wrists hurt first. If I can handle it, then I know it's probably my best bet and I'll just leave the 70-200 at home (I don't think I'll miss the 55-100 range much). Maybe my husband will stick it in his backpack so I won't have to carry it. <br>

Will be very careful with the repellant. I am also going to get a bandana and socks that come with repellant already imbedded in the fabric. The repellant is supposed to last for 25 washes. Unfortunately, mosquitos love me! <br>

Thanks again!</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Zvia, if I read your post correct you want to use the extender on the 18-200. That will not work.</p>

<p>The only lens you mentioned that works with the canon x1.4 extender is the 70-200.</p>

<p>That said, I think I read somewhere that off-brand extenders might be used with EF-s lenses but I'm not sure.</p>

<p>If I were you (with your lenses and camera) Id probably justy get the extender and bring the 17-55 and the 70-200. If you think the 17-55 is to big and heavy you might get the 18-55 IS kitlens to replace the 17-55 for this trip. A one lens solution is probably not a great idea.</p>

<p>Completely wild option: Keep the 30D, get a 100-400L leave your other stuff at home and buy a good point and shoot for the wider shots. (Panasonic LX3 or Canon G-series.)</p>

[rjkdds]

<p>Try to rent Canon 400mm/5.6L. A wonderful lightweight lens useful for wildlife and bird photography.<br>

Sharper than the 100-400mm at a fraction of the weight. Been to Alaska 4 times, and while I use<br>

the 100-400, most of the time Im racked out to 400mm for wildlife.</p>

[ajb2222]

<p>I went to alaska last Year with the following kit:</p>

<ul>

<li>Rebel XTI</li>

<li>Lens EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6</li>

<li>EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM</li>

</ul>

<p>I didn't feel I missed any pictures. </p>

<p> </p>

[i._l.]

<p>I would bring a backup camera...........</p>

[philip_wilson]

<h4>I would suggest that you think about what you want to shoot and how much you are prepared to carry. If you want to shoot sunsets (or the closet you get in Alaska in June!), landscapes etc... you probably want to go wider than the 17-55 (on a crop carmera this is almost a 28mm lens. You probably want to buy a lens of about 8 to 12mm . I only shoot full frame so I will not advise which lens as I have not used any of them. In terms of wild life a 1.4x on your 70-200 will work for many applications giving you an effective range of 110 - 450mm. Bob makes a good point suggesting you rent a 400 F5.6L as this will work well and can take the 1.4x - but I suspect that with this giving an effective 900mm F8 lens you may have AF and handholding problems. You should also take a monopod or tripod for the long lenses.</h4>

<p>By the way I do not think the 1.4X fits on the 18-200 (although I do not have this lens). I do not it does not fit on the 24-70 or 16-35. but works fairly well on the 70-200 F2.8 and 300 f2.8. The 2X TC is nowhere near as good as the 1.4X. In terms of weight I am probably a poor advisor as I usually carry at least 4Kg of camera equipment up mountains (except on rock or Ice climbs where I use a Contax G2 - approx 1Kg with lenses).</p>

<p>A combination of a 70-200 F4 plus 1.4x will cover most needs - add awide angle and perhaps the 400 F5.6 and you have a good set up. If it was me I would also take the 17-55 F2.8 which I understand is a good quality lens.</p>

[zvia_shever]

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses. So many opinions :) So here's what I think I'll do. Well before we travel, I will rent a 400 and a 100-400 to see how they feel weight wise and to see if I like the pictures. I believe my options will end up as follows:</p>

<p>Kit A: 17-55 IS + 70-200 IS + 1.4 extender (to make it to 280) + the 400L and possibly a 10-22<br>

Kit B: 17-55 + 100-400 IS + possibly a 10-22<br>

Kit C: 17-55 + 70-200 + 1.4 extender and possibly a 10-22</p>

<p>Kit A seems like a lot to carry. It's not just a matter of weight but also of bulk and the pain of changing more lenses. I will not be brining 2 bodies as I only own one and again, it just ends up being too much stuff.<br>

Thanks again for all the advice. From what I understand about the beauty of Alaska, I could probably bring a throw-away and come home with beautiful pictures.</p>