Trying to Decide on best Landscape Lens to take to Alaska

[esfishdoc]

<p>Karen and I are going on a 3 week journey that will take us to Denali National Park, a cruise on the Inland Passage and other places. We'll be carrying my 7D and her 450D. I've got plenty of choices that have just about any range covered at the wide to medium range that include a 10-22 and a 24-70L. <br>

I'm thinking about adding a Zeiss lens... probably rent one for the trip. <br>

If you had to take one lens for those once in a lifetime landscape shot.. what would it be? <br>

Thoughts.. comments?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Richard</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>The 10-22mm and 24-70mm will be great. I went on an Alaskan cruise and to be honest, I never used my 10-22mm. Since most shots were from the ship, it was too wide for the far away land. Every time I put it on, I took it right back off and put my 17-85mm on. I would highly recommend renting (or buying if you have the means) a 100-400mm tele-zoom. Since everything is farther from the ship, a telephoto is a must to get closer to wildlife or even landscapes. I took a great deal of landscape shots at 300mm from the shp. It will also be handy for wildlife while on land to help you get closer to the bald eagles and elk (or caribou, whatever they are up there) and bears. Oh, I was using a 40D, so its the same sensor format as your 7D. The 100-400mm would definitely be my suggestion, the whole time I was there I was wanting something longer.</p>

<p>To give you an idea of how useful a telephoto will be, here is a shot from the boat at 300mm. Its still a vast landscape even at 300mm; a wide angle can make the mountains look tiny in the frame unless you are on foot or very close to shore.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The 10-22mm and 24-70mm will be great. I went on an Alaskan cruise and to be honest, I never used my 10-22mm. Since most shots were from the ship, it was too wide for the far away land. Every time I put it on, I took it right back off and put my 17-85mm on. I would highly recommend renting (or buying if you have the means) a 100-400mm tele-zoom. Since everything is farther from the ship, a telephoto is a must to get closer to wildlife or even landscapes. I took a great deal of landscape shots at 300mm from the shp. It will also be handy for wildlife while on land to help you get closer to the bald eagles and elk (or caribou, whatever they are up there) and bears. Oh, I was using a 40D, so its the same sensor format as your 7D. The 100-400mm would definitely be my suggestion, the whole time I was there I was wanting something longer.</p>

<p>To give you an idea of how useful a telephoto will be, here is a shot from the boat at 300mm. Its still a vast landscape even at 300mm; a wide angle can make the mountains look tiny in the frame unless you are on foot or very close to shore.</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>sorry, photo didn't attach on 1st one then it put the whole post on again. Disregard the 1st post.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Once in a lifetime op? No question, TS-E 17mm. It gives you opportunities and images impossible any other way or with any other lens. Rent it before you go to get used to it.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>I don't have one yet but from what I hear Zeiss 21mm Distagon is one of the best landscape lenses on the market. But it might no be wide enough on a crop. But if you want to rent then you could probably get Zeiss along with some FF body. I now own 3 Zeiss ZE lenses and they are all simply amazing. Next one will be 21mm.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I suggest considering how much gear you can bring that won't prevent you from accomplishing your goals (too much bulk to deal with) or be too much risk to lose (by leaving at lodging ect.) and then settle on a kit that gives the best range of options to choose from when you are at your destination. If there's some lens that is so spectacular that it's shame not to use, then that may be worthy of altering the mix to accommodate. I don't know what focal length you intend to use the most so its hard to suggest but being on the cruise may cause need for some range and not an ultra wide.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you had to take one lens for those once in a lifetime landscape shot.. what would it be?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For a once in a lifetime three week trip to Alaska... I would take a wider range of lenses. This would be especially true for Denali - which I have visited. (I've spent a total of about a month in Alaska.)</p>

<p>Your 10-22 and 24-70 will certainly be useful lenses to have for certain subjects. I would want at least one much longer lens for Denali, both for some of the more distant landscapes and for the abundant wildlife. You could make it something in the 70-200 range since you shoot crop, perhaps augmented with a 1.4 TC. I shoot full frame and I would most certainly carry lenses to cover the range from 17mm to 400mm.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_e3]

<p>I was in Alaska a few summers ago and Nathan's answer is spot on. I brought the 10-22 but the 70-300 saw most of the action. The 100-400L was a very popular choice on the wildlife cruise we took at Kenai, and there were several 500L's and a 600L at a wildlife sanctuary we visited (where I found 300mm to be very limiting). Denali was flooded when we went, so unfortunately I have no experience to speak of there.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I've got the long end covered with a 100-400L or 300 f4 +/- 1.4 TC. Only 7 days will be on a ship. I keep looking at the Zeis ZE 18 3.5.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>That Zeiss can do nothing the TS-E 17 can't, but, the Canon can do loads the ZE can't.</p>

[esfishdoc]

Having no experience with a tilt shift..... what is the learning curve like?.... and that protruding front glass with no hood... I'm rough on equipment. Something to think about.

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>Having looked at some of your images on your blog I'd say the 17 would suit you well. Don't forget, even if you don't use the T/S features you still have one of the best ultra wide angle lenses available, it consistently tests out as having the least distortion and the best corners for an ultrawide. But read up for the basics, they are fairly common sensical really, for ultimate DOF a little forward tilt, for minimised DOF a little back tilt. The shift would work well for your panoramas too, two images shot and shifted either way gives you an even wider field of view.</p>

<p>The lens hood is very good, it is not a lens to walk around with without the hood on though!</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Why does everyone insist on equating "wide-angle" with "landscape"? Many great landscapes have been produced with "normal" and (shocking as this may be) "telephoto" lenses.</p>

<p>Too many people are focused on getting it all in with a wide-angle lens rather than making a strong composition. That being said, if money is no object and you really need to go wide, you can't go wrong with any wide-angle that costs more than 1000USD, especially at your typical "landscape" stops. I'd personally go with a TS-E just for the DOF control... but I prefer large format for that sort of stuff in any case.</p>

 

[mas-alaska]

<p>I live on the Inside Passage and have shot various places in the state with 1.6, 1.3 and full frame cams. For a 1.6 crop I would take the 10-22, your 24-70 and a tele zoom. I use the 100-400. I would not want anything shorter for wildlife. Here is a link to my Alaska galleries. Mousing over the upper right corner will give you the cam and focal length which may be helpful in deciding what bring, <a href="http://www.mitchseaver.com/alaska">http://www.mitchseaver.com/alaska</a> Also, be prepared for rain and have a great time!</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>When I was in Alaska in 2004, as wide-angle fan, I had to conclude there were not many places with that sweeping landscape from your feet to the horizon. There are too many trees in the way. But then, I didn't do hikes, stayed close to highways (we should have taken something more adventurous like taking Denali Highway east of the NP). From the Denali bus route and other scenic overviews the mountains are often quite far away and more use of a good telephoto lens could have yielded more interesting, majestic mountain shots.</p>

[crow0806]

<p>If you are going to hike, then a wide and a medium lens is what you will use; I used a 17-35 and a 35-70 on my film camera. On a cruise or on the Denali bus you will want an image stabilized lens in the 70-300 range. You could skip the 17-35 to save weight and probably not miss it. </p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Thanks to all. Much food for thought. I've been reading what I can find about T/S and had no idea what I'm missing. I'm toying with the idea of renting one now for a week to see if it would be something I'd want to take on the trip.</p>

[faysal]

<p>You could always save a few bucks for now and stitch a few shots from a telephoto or whatever you have now, into a final composition. <br>

If you are hell bent on getting a new lens, then may I suggest renting it for the trip, try the stitching idea at the same time for a few shots, compare your results at the end of the trip, and if you still want to, buy your lens.<br>

If you don't buy it in the end, you can spend that money on her one way or another and gain brownie points with the misses. </p>