I need a lens recommendation for a novice for a trip to Alaska.

[bradley_davis]

I currently have a D5100, and the basic 18-55 and 55-200 Nikkor lenses.

 

I am going on a trip to Alaska over the summer and am interested in a new lens, but I have no idea what wold be best. In general, I

prefer landscape and wildlife photography, so that will be my main interest on the trip and in general, but I don't know what lenses I

should be looking at. Telephoto? Wide angle? I'm a novice and don't have much experience, but know that better lenses can help me

get better pictures.

 

I was interested in the Tamron 200-500 but for no better reason than that it would help me get closer to wildlife.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you.

[ted_raper1]

<p>With the two lenses you have, you have moderate wide angle (the 18-55) and medium telephoto (55-200) well covered. Your decision as to a new lens, if you really think you need one, boils down to this: do you want to be able to photograph wide vistas of the landscape, or photograph polar bears from a long distance? The 18-55 will give you a moderate wide angle for landscape vistas, and the 55-200 will get you some distance pictures. If you want wider, consider something in the 10-12 range, and if longer, something in the 300 range. </p>

<p>"Better lenses will help me get better pictures" is true only in certain instances. For a novice, as you explain that you are, spending tons of money on new lenses can often be disappointing. A pro photographer can uses "better" lenses to maximum advantage, yes, but an inexperienced one would probably be better off studying technique, light, and composition; you'll get more benefit (and probably better pictures) from that than spending money on new lenses. As you grow as a photographer, then you will have a better idea of what new lenses you might need.</p>

<p>Also, read your D5100 manual carefully. In Alaska, you will be confronted with cold, humidity, challenging lighting conditions, all of which can affect how your camera behaves in the automatic and semi automatic modes. </p>

<p>And above all - enjoy yourself! Good luck with your trip.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>A faster tele lens (larger aperture opening) is helpful for wildlife photography by enabling a little bit more shutter speed to 1) be able to freeze movement of the subject and avoid blurriness, 2) to lessen movement of the camera while the shutter is open during the shot to avoid blurriness of the whole image 3) to help get brighter exposure which may be needed during fast shutter speeds that lessen the amount of light landing on the sensor and 4) to lessen need to pump up the ISO setting which is used to compensate for low light situations and low light shutter speeds. Plus higher ISO settings make for poorer quality images and noise.</p><p>That said, there are some other factors. For example, a monopod can help you get away with a slower shutter speed since it holds the camera more steady and results in less image blur. Its not nearly as cumbersome as a tripod. I recommend a Monfrotto or other flexible rubber head to allow for leveling the camera. Vertical oriented framing calls for another add on. Monopods are cheaper than fast lenses.<br /><br /></p><p>It is important to understand the relationship between shutter speed and aperture and how the two compliment each other and the effects they cause at various settings. Its the secret to photography actually. You may know this stuff but, if you don't, its time to learn it.<br /><br /></p><p>A superwide is key for cool vistas with foreground interest but the aperture size isn't as crucial, especially with a tripod. <br /><br /><br /><br>

As to Alaska conditions you were told about, you are going during the summer. Unless you are going to certain areas, the conditions will be normal. Cameras work the same in Alaska as elsewhere. Obviously take care of your gear under any condition you encounter as you normally should.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You've got the "normal" travel ranges covered. The only reason to go for the 200-500mm would be for wildlife, in general. It'll be a load to carry, so you want to be certain that you're really going to use it. I love my 500mm and use it a ton, but not everyone is really into birds and wildlife. If you're shooting your 55-200mm a lot at 200mm and constantly wishing for more, then you are a likely candidate.</p>

<p>500mm can be surprisingly useful for certain scenic images. For instance, like shooting a mountain from 80-miles away:</p>

<p><a title="Moon set on a pink tinged Mt. Evans by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5217/5459513763_c0769ae83c_z.jpg" alt="Moon set on a pink tinged Mt. Evans" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

[kirigoi]

<p>I'd echo Ted's response; if the only reason you are interested in a new lens is because "better lenses can help me get better pictures" you may be disappointed. Although I've a good few exotic lenses, most of my pictures are taken with a "kit" 24-105 f/4 L with my Canon 5Diii. That said, that lens is better than your consumer kit. You may find a higher quality standard zoom may be useful in the future, but the differences may be subtle.</p>

<p>For now, you have excellent basic coverage, the main thing you're short on is faster aperture lenses, not reach (although if you're only interested in landscapes and wildlife that may not be a great loss). You need to have a think about what you will be doing to see if adding more kit would be useful; for example if you are going with other people and want to record your time with them, a faster standard prime may be useful (and fairly cheap), but you'd have to carry the thing so I'd still urge caution.</p>

<p>The Tamron looks a reasonable performer for the price, but you already have coverage out to an equivalent of 300mm on full frame with your Nikkor. That's pretty good telephoto coverage already, and although the Tamron would undoubtably improve your reach, at an equivalent max focal length of 750 (and a fairly dark f/6.3), you'll struggle to keep shutter speeds fast enough to avoid shake. Are you taking a tripod? If not I'd avoid the Tamron; I'd personally find it very challenging to get good use of it, and would probably resent the extra weight I'd have to carry. There is a write-up by Bob Atkins on this site <a href="/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/">here</a> so it'd be worth having a look at that. I'd second the recommendation for a monopod; they don't take up much space and can be very useful for landscape and wildlife photography.</p>

<p>That said, I've certainly bought my share of unnecessary kit back when I was starting out, almost all of which ended up being sold on (at least I bought them second hand originally, so didn't lose too much money), so perhaps it's a lesson we all need to learn. In the meantime I'd thoroughly recommend reading your manual, learning more from photo blogs, and practicing as much as possible before your trip. Zoos and safari parks can be a reasonable opportunity to practice photographing animals in a low-pressure envirnment, but any practice helps. Have a look at which of your photos work, submit them for feedback on this site, and learn from your mistakes.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>You actually have two nice lenses. To answer what to add to them of course budget is a consideration. Unless you are shooting from quite a distance you might not need another lens at all. But here is something to think about WRT the Tamron 200-500.</p>

<p>There is a rule called the reciprocity rule. It is used to determine the shutter speed at which you can hand-hold a lens. The rule says that you can hand hold at the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. So on your Tamron at 500 mm given the crop factor of your camera theoretically your slowest shutter speed would be 1/750th sec at F6.3. This would require some pretty good light to do at all. You will want as a minimum a monopod and probably a tripod or you might be disappointed of many shots. </p>

<p> Having offered that caution. Bob Adkins (a great source) has posted a review of the Tamron lens on Photonet here: <a href="/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/</a></p>

<p>It is a pretty impressive lens for the money and as long as you understand how to use it might be a fun addition to your trip.</p>

<p>My thought is that unless this trip is a wildlife trip and that you have the time and inclination to take a tripod and work on your shots, that this lens might be a bit much to carry around. You could consider two other lenses. The Nikon 18-300 Vr and the Nikon 70-300 VR. For me the choice between these two for you is simply this. If you are willing to pay twice as much for the convenience of carrying one lens then the answer it the 18-300 vr. If you want to save money then the answer is the 70-300 vr. It costs about half as much. </p>

<p>Since you mentioned a "the summer" and that you were inclined to shoot wildlife my personal choice might be the Nikon 70-300 AFs Vr. It is light and sharp. It gives you nice reach especially on a 16 MP camera. </p>

<p>So finally then what if you do not mind busting the budget a bit and spending $2700.00 you can get the Nikon 80-400 AFS VR. On the long side the difference between 400 and 500 is probably not that great but the addition of VR is unless you are seriously committed to using a tripod. This lens is a real winner according to all of the reviews. I can think of better things for you to do with $2700.00 unless you are going to make a serious hobby out of wildlife and such.</p>

<p>My money is on adding one of two lenses. Either the excellent 300 F-4 (AF-s or not depending on budget.) or the 70-300 AFS Vr for much less. There are tons of choices out there in this range. The key is going to be the money and how much inconvenience you are willing to endure. </p>

[kirigoi]

<p>I don't mean to quibble unnecessarily Rick, but is your quoted rule really called the reciprocity rule? I thought the reciprocity rule was the ability to adjust aperture and shutter speed in opposite directions and maintain the same overall exposure (e.g. 1/15 f/22 is equivalent to 1/1000 f/2.8), the main time the rule comes up is at reciprocity failure, where film emulsions fail to maintain that linear relationship at long exposure times... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28photography%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_%28photography%29</a></p>

<p>Sorry to derail the thread, but wanted to make sure any advice was accurate. Whatever it's called, your point stands, and is perhaps a better way of describing what I was talking about in a previous post about the trouble with using the Tamron at long focal lengths.</p>

[bradley_davis]

Upon some reflection, I think a wide angle might be more what I am looking for.

 

I call myself a novice because I will likely never be anything but, but I have been learning the ins and outs of photography

for a while and do experiment with my aperture and shutter quite a bit.

 

As much as I like wildlife, I think my focus may be landscapes and even people or objects in front of those landscapes. I

would get much more from a wide angle, I believe. You can look at my few profile pictures for am idea of how I shoot.

 

So if I go for a wide angle, what should I be looking for to have a noticeable effect on my shots?

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Gorgeous shot, Stephen. I love the subdued tonality.</p>

[kirigoi]

<p>Sorry Bradley, not much to go on in your profile pictures; there's only 5 photos, all of which are telephoto detail shots (no landscapes at all and only one showing a person), and are they all from the same trip?</p>

<p>For wideangle, although your 18mm would do (a 27mm equiv) , I think you'd be best served by something 24mm or wider. 17mm gives a strong wideangle effect and can be very dramatic , or you could go for a fisheye (if you don't like the effect it can be toned down by a number of graphics packages with a bit of loss of detail on the edges). The cheaper alternative is combining photos in a panorama; there's plenty of good examples on this site; on my own page all but one of these photos were stitched from a 35mm equiv lens using a Fuji X100 compact: <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052112">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052112</a></p>

<p>Wideangle photography is quite tricky; it's important to have a very good eye for the overall scene, with a lot of objects of interest; particularly a good foreground. You should also be wary of shooting people in an extreme wideangle unless you know what you're doing, as it introduces a lot of unflattering distortion. Sounds like you're intent on spending some money though?</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>You are right Mark. My bad. It was early.... The advice stands about handholding shots and those who have called this the "reciprocity rule" are wrong as was I. I should (and do know better).</p>

<p>If wide angle is your desire I think you already have a good kit. You could add the 12-24 for about $1100.00 (or much less used) to play with but as Mark has also correctly said, wide angle is devilishly hard to do and get the results you think you are getting looking through the lens. </p>

<p>My money is on holding what you have. No need to carry the kitchen sink.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Remember, you can hand hold multi-shot panoramas and stitch them together with PS or other software. An ultrawide lens can be nice, but they can be hard to use. I like doing a pano when the scene is too wide for my 24mm on my full-frame body.</p>

<p><a title="Grand Canyon - Yaki Point Panorama by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6112/6338855078_006afa1239_z.jpg" alt="Grand Canyon - Yaki Point Panorama" width="640" height="179" /></a></p>

[john_h.1]

I find superwides easy to use. Extremely so. Camera shake usually an afterthought. Maybe paying attention to distractions in the scene or flash coverage being the only issues and only when applicable.

[railphotog]

<p>How are you getting to Alaska, by cruise ship or on a land tour? Asking because I've been on the Inside Passage trip on cruise ships twice and we didn't see a whole lot of wildlife. One bear ashore in one of the narrow passages, but it was really too far to photograph with any lens. Quite a few eagles, but not enough to want to capture them from far away. That was it for us.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>I did the "Inside Passage" cruise and made heavy use of all my lenses, from 24mm to 700mm. The 500mm was very useful for the wildlife I saw from the balcony and onshore. It's also great for scenics in many situations. Here's a shot that would have sucked without 700mm:</p>

<p><a title="Bald eagle juvenile from our balcony by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4114/4806972300_6b13ce8fd5_z.jpg" alt="Bald eagle juvenile from our balcony" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

[dcstep]

<p>Here's a huge brown bear taken from my shipboard balcony:</p>

<p><a title="Huge brown bear enters water after a greasy breakfast by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4116/4821560574_e0418f1c2b_z.jpg" alt="Huge brown bear enters water after a greasy breakfast" width="640" height="414" /></a></p>

[lynn_galloway]

<p>I was always happy with the Tokina wide angle lenses. I've used them for canon but not for nikon. also if it's just for a trip i'd rent one as opposed to buying, that way you can try it out and decide if you want to purchase one for future use. I have rented from rentglass.com and also lensrentals.com i like both of these because you don't pay a deposit to rent the lenses, they ship fast and you get them well packaged for arrival and the return trip.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Longer lenses (quality), as you already know, will cost quite a bit. Your best bet would be 70-200/2.8 plus a wide angle zoom. You could even add extender to the 70-200 to give you more reach. That said, I prefer manual lenses, since the animals are not moving all that fast + I'm pretty good w/keeping up with manual....and I manage to pay about 15% of what a big lens would go for. Just thought I'd mention that.</p>

<p>Good luck and enjoy your trip.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[timethroughalens]

<p>Bradley, </p>

<p>Have you considered renting a lens or two instead of buying one? <a href="http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon">http://www.borrowlenses.com/category/nikon</a><br>

This route you could get a couple different lenses to try and see if you really would use them more. Everyone has some great advice so I don't want to parrot it. Your lenses will work just fine for your trip. I travel and shoot wildlife on the same setup and have had no issues. In my opinion you should work with what you have. If nothing else it will make you more creative in getting the shots you want.</p>