lens to bring to Alaska

[701]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I looked at some of the older post, and I don't quite find the exact answer I needed so I am going to create a new post on it. I am heading to Alaska in Sept, and I cannot decide which lens to bring, especially on the telephoto end. Everyone, please chip in your suggestion!<br>

I will be going to Seward and Denali NP, in Seward I will take a day cruise and also hike the harding Icefield trail. In Denali, will stay at Wonder Lake for few days and day hike (full day hike) inside the park. I am looking for a balance between weight and quality on what I can bring with me.<br>

Here is what I have and options that I am considering:</p>

<p>D700 with 24-70<br>

I am also considering to bring a 24 1.4 for stars pic, and a 50mm just for low light pic in general</p>

<p>D300 with 70-200 + TCx1.4<br>

I am also thinking about renting Nikon 300 f4, or Nikon 80-400, or Tamron 200-500<br>

The weight are quite similar between these lens, with hiking and wildlife (not bird) in mind, would you suggestion I picked the 70-200 or rent one of the other lens?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

William</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>if you are taking a 70-200 and a 1.4/24mm -1.4/50mm prime combo, isn't a 24-70mm zoom redundant? Maybe you like to shoot at 35mm like me, but if not, lose the big fat zoom.</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>I've never heard anyone say that they took too long a lens to Alaska. If you want to shoot wildlife, the longest decent quality lens you can get is what you need to take. And practice with it before you go. Don't try to learn how to handle a longer lens than you're used to when trying to get the shot of a lifetime. I've seen lots of excellent sharp images made with the 300/4 with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, but a zoom offers a readier-to-use setup and the animal won't hold a pose for you while you change lenses. I took my 80-400 and got some really good stuff (and find myself looking about for something longer for the next trip). You'll have to decide if VR is important to you. The animals will be out feeding on cloudy and rainy days (don't see them nearly as much on sunny days), so higher ISO to get higher shutter speeds is standard practice.</p>

<p>If the extra speed of the 24/1.4 is important to your plans for star shots, then take it. You won't be carrying around the long lenses at night and you don't have to carry the 24 during the day. More importantly, I recommend a second body. Not only as a backup, but to be able to shoot when you want. I had a 16-85 on one body and the 80-400 on the other and never changes lenses for 2 weeks. It's really nice to to just grab the camera with the appropriate lens when the shot opportunity happens.</p>

<p>Have fun.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never heard anyone say that they took too long a lens to Alaska.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This. No matter how long a lens you bring, it's not long enough to get some of the wildlife you want to shoot. If you can get a decent photo of a grizzly with a 70-200 on your camera (in FX), then you are way too close... </p>

<p>I'd bring everything I could stuff in there. The 24-70 would probably get the most use.</p>

<p>Can you bring the 24-70 on the D700 and a rented 80-400 on the D300? That'd be a sweet combo. Drop a fast prime or two in the bag for "just in case" moments.</p>

[701]

<p>Thanks for the reply. Actually what I was thinking was exactly Peter's set up, 24-70 on D700, long lens on D300 with fast prime lens. What I am not sure is if I just take my 70-200 with TC1.4 or should I rent a 80-400 or the other telephoto I listed. I would love to rent a 200-400, but I believe the weight is too much for hiking. VR will be important if I am shooting in the dust/dawn hour or from the Denali bus.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>The 200-400 is a beast and, of you can find one to rent, would be THE lens to have on either of your bodies.</p>

<p>You'll likely get the most use out of the 24-70mm, but you can never go too long when shooting wildlife...especially when it can eat you if it desired to. </p>

<p>(As a side note, the 200-400mm f/4 would make a great club to bang a grizzly over the head with if it did decide to try to eat you.)</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I was in Alaska in 2010. In Denali on the Tundra Wilderness bus tour I used a D 300 with a Nikon 300 f 4.0 with a 1.4x tc. (On my other D 300 I had a 70-200mm.) This gave me some reach, but not enough for really good shots of the brown bears and other critters we saw from the bus. We came across pro photographers who had special passes for nature photography. They were all using 500mm or 600mm lenses. If I were you I would rent the Nikon 200-400mm f 4.0 and use it on your D 300 with and w/o the 1.4x tc. You will likely have days when the light is poor due to rain or overcast conditions. Plan to do a lot of shooting at high ISOs. For hiking, I would use the 70-200mm f 2.8. Bring a tripod and a monopod. Joe Smith</p>

[richard__]

<p>While I have used a <a href="http://www.henleygraphics.com/McNeilfaq.htm#_LENSES">105</a> to photograph the Alaskan brown bear family that came close to me at that point, I find the 600 f/4 works best for me in Alaska for wildlife. Anything less than that doesn't normally have enough reach.</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>Do you want a vacation or an assignment?</p>

<p>Big lenses turn your vacation into a vocation fast.</p>

<p>For me, the closer I am to home, the bigger the lenses I tote around. Big lenses also mean big tripods.</p>

<p>On vacation, I want VR lenses that do not have their own zip codes. Anything you cannot get or reach, post cards.</p>

<p>Have fun on vacation.</p>

[701]

<p>200-400 is out of the question, no way I would be able to carry such heavy lens and still be able to hike for a full day. A mid tele is going to be my max.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>It looks like you answered your own question. Hiking is your priority. If you already have the D 300, Nikon 70-200mm f 2.8 and the 1.4x tc, then I see no need to rent the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS or the other lenses you mentioned. The weight of the 300mm f 4.0 and the 70-200mm f 2.8 with the tc is pretty much the same. Handholding the 70-200mm VR will be easier than hand holding the 300mm f 4.0. And the zoom gives you added flexibility. You will likely need the faster lenses in Alaska in that full sun is not a daily thing. Make sure you have good rain protection for your camera and lenses. I suggest a rain cover for your backpack too even if it already has one. I got a heavier duty one at REI. Joe Smith</p>

[john_mallery]

<p>The 300 f4 is the best lightweight wildlife lens, in my opinion. I'm not a fan of the 80-400 zoom; I gave mine away years ago: too slow to focus, not all that sharp. The 300 f4, on the other hand, is one of Nikon's jewels, very sharp and contrasty. When I want to travel light, the 300/4 is what I take ( for example backpacking ).<br>

I am putting together a trip to Alaska for August 2012 and am taking:<br>

Nikon D3X, D300S, 500 f4VR, 70-200f f2.8VR, 24-70 f2.8, 14-24 f2.8, 105 macro. I have hiked all over the west with this load and, while heavy, it's not too heavy. In bear and moose country, I think a 500 f4 is essential equipment.<br>

Have a great trip, maljo</p>