Lens choices for Antarctica and Patagonia

[angik_sarkar]

<p>I am planning to go to Argentinian patagonia for a week and Antarctic peninsula for about two weeks. I am totally confused right now regarding lens choices after reading various accounts on this forum and others.<br>

I have a D90 and am planning to get a D750. I would take 2 bodies. <br>

Currently I own the following lenses: Tokina 12-24 (DX), 30,35,50 primes, 70-300 VR (DX/FX), 105mm macro. reading various accounts, my preliminary plan is to buy a few lenses and am trying to decide between the two choices<br>

Choice 1:<br>

Nikon 18-35 (for wide angle on D750 in Patagonia. Not sure if this would be useful in Antarctica) <br>

Nikon 28-300 (use with D750 on shore landings?)<br>

Nikon 80-400 (use with D750/D90 from ship for birds/whales/landscape)<br>

Choice 2:<br>

Nikon 18-35 (for wide angle on D750 in Patagonia. Not sure if this would be useful in Antarctica) <br>

Nikon 24-120 VR (for use on the D750)<br>

Nikon 80-400 (use with D90 on shore and D750/D90 from ship for birds/whales/landscape)<br>

I would be carrying tripod,ball head, Polarizer, Lee kit with 3 stops soft grad ND and 3 stop full ND, ziplock bags.<br>

My confusions:<br>

1. The lens choices were driven by weight restrictions. The 28-300 has okay performance, so not too happy about the choice. However, is the 28-300 a better lens to carry considering that it might be difficult to change lenses in Antarctica?<br>

2. Would I really need a 18-35 if I carry a 24-120? <br>

3. What backpack would you recommend. I would probably get a drysack to wrap around the backpack?<br>

4. Would any other lens choices be better? I can spend upto $3K but my major restriction is weight. <br>

5. Can I substitute the 28-300 with any other lens? Is the 80-400 useless if I carry a 28-300 anyway?</p>

<p>Thank you for your time.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>No way I would bring something like the 28-300mm. You didn't say what the weight limit was, but my choice would be Nikons 24-120mm f4 VR and 80-400mm AFS (the new one, not the old one.) I would also bring the Nikon 18-35mm to use on the D90, and as a back up lens. I would take several polarizers. Those are often lost, and are very critical. I would not take a 28-300mm, and would rather have a smaller/lighter camera system such as Olympus OM-D with their best little lenses than a 28-300mm. Your single focal lenses are too close together to be all that useful, so I'd leave those home.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I went to Antarctica for the first time in 1998 and wrote this article for photo.net: http://www.photo.net/nature/antarctica</p>

<p>I used 35mm film back then and had an F5 and an F4 with me, plus a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S + TC-14E, 80-200mm/f2.8 AF, etc. Antarctica has some of the greatest landscape I have seen. Therefore, I would definitely have a wide angle lens or two, in addition to the telephotos.</p>

<p>In 2009, I went to South Georgia Island and the Falklands. That time I had a D700 and D300S. The tele was a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I don't see why taking one big lens such as a 200-400mm/f4 would be an issue. I would definitely take no less than a 80-400mm AF-S VR.</p>

<p>While you are on the Zodiac landing crafts, you keep your camera gear inside your backpack. If possible, I would bring a waterproof camera such as those Coolpix AW120 type.</p>

<CENTER>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10195917-lg.jpg">

</P>

<P>

Salisbury Plain, South Georgia Island

</P>

</CENTER>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Don't be confused.</p>

<p>Unless you are going to regualarly visit these particular distant, more difficult to travel to places often then it's a 'trip of a lifetime' and you want to take full advantage of your photographic opportunities.</p>

<p>Leave the superzoom at home - you already state that it's a 2nd best option for IQ. Split the focal length with your exisiting lenses, cop a weight and convenience penalty for a few weeks of your life and enjoy the best images you can make out there for the rest of your life.<br /> <br />Be sure to get your new D750 with plenty of time before you travel so you are best familiar with it's operation and how it differs from the D90. I'd not recommend taking an unfamilar camera on such a valuable journey...... speaking from hard learned experience.....</p>

<p>Take your best equipment, put your best foot forward - your best images are usually worth fighting a bit harder for. I look forward to seeing the results - happy travels!</p>

[angik_sarkar]

<p>Thanks a lot for your replies. The only reason I was considering was that it I read that it is not advisable to change lenses ashore in the harsh conditions in Antarctica. Is that true?<br>

My reasoning was that if I cannot change lenses, 28-300 would have offered me a chance to shoot with the D750 at longer focal lengths. <br>

If I take 24-120 and 80-400, should I put the 24-120 on D750 and 80-400 on D90 for shore landings? This covers all focal lengths from 24-640mm (FX equivalent). However,I don't get D750's advantages at tele lengths.<br>

The other option would be Nikon 18-35 on D90 and 80-400 on D750. This allows me shoot D750 at tele lengths but the total range is lower.</p>

<p>PS:<br>

a. I already got my D750 and started shooting. I am blown over by the quality. It is a huge step up from my D90.<br>

b. The shuttle I fly into Ushuaia has a carry on bag limitation of 8kg. I can't see an option to carry more by paying. The camera backpack itself is 2 kg. D750+D90+laptop is 3kg. That leaves 3 kg for lenses. 80-400 is ~1.5kg, 18-35 is ~400g. 24-120 is ~700g. Leaves <1kg for my filters, batteries, 50mm (for Buenos Aires) and other gear.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason I was considering was that it I read that it is not advisable to change lenses ashore in the harsh conditions in Antarctica. Is that true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not for me. I changed lenses fairly regularly in Antarctica. It tends to be windy in the Antarctic. When I change lenses, I would put my back against the wind to shield my gear. I once stupidly left my 70-200mm/f2.8 on a Gitzo tripod without holding onto it. It took the wind no time to blow the whole set up over and the lens hit hard rock. Please don't make that kind of silly mistakes.</p>

<p>Walking around the Antarctic tends to be tough. Get solid boots with a hard sole. Recently I bought a pair of Muck Arctic Sport for my future trips. When you walk on snow to climb hills, it is like 2 steps up and 1 step down because you tend to sink on each step so that it is very tiring. If possible, I would bring no more than one camera body on shore to save weight. Do have backup bodies on the ship.</p>

<p>I have flown in and out of Ushuaia on both trips, in 1998 and 2009, respectively. Ushuaia has a small but very modern airport, and we had regular-sized jets like the Boeing 737. In 1998, I had a 300mm/f2.8, 80-200mm/f2.8, F5, F4, and N8008 bodies. In 2009, I had a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, D700, D300S, D300 ... As far as I could tell, other passengers also had a lot of gear. In the 2009 trip, our tour leader was on the same flight, and he had at least a dozen high-end walkie talkies in his carry on for his staff to use during landings. I had handled his carry on and it felt very heavy, probably at least 40, 50 pounds.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I would put the 80-400mm AFS on the D90. What "tele advantage" are you talking about with the D750? The only advantage I can think of would go to the D90 on a telephoto. I quite using regular photo backpacks a long time ago, and now use a regular Osprey backpack. I simply wrap the lense in a sheet of neoprene and fasten with velcro strap. Camera goes into a neoprence covering (available at B&H etc.) This works out well and the Osprey has a pull out waterproof covering. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

I asked many of the same questions before my trip last year and a wealth of information was collected representing many

views from people of various skill levels and interests. See http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowTopic-g1-i12337-

k5963186-Serious_SLR_photographers_Most_Useful_Lenses-Antarctic_Adventures.html

 

Most people use wide angles less than they think and wish they had more telephoto reach no matter how much they

have. That's the general consensus. Also, keep your kit as easy to use as possible. Shooting conditions are tough and

almost everyone among the hard core photographers finds that that it was a waste to bring polarizers, split filters of any

type, flashes, and unnecessary doo-dads.

 

Read thru the thread and if you have any questions I am happy to message or will check back here.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I haven't been to Antarctica specifically but my experience with carry-on limits is that once I've stated or shown that a lot of the weight is camera equipment the airline and security personnel have just let me through saying it's ok (while at first expressing concern about my second bag or the total weight). But of course this may depend on the aircraft, airline, and personnel. I have had to pay overweight fees for checked baggage in rare occasions but so far have never been forced to check in camera equipment.</p>

<p>Some users of large telephoto lenses do complain that it is becoming more difficult to travel with them.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If I were you, I would only take the D750 on shore and leave the D90 on the ship as a backup. The D750 is 24MP FX while the D90 is 12MP DX. If you crop the D750 into DX, you'll end up with approximately 10MP. In other words, there isn't much "DX crop advantage" for telephoto lenses.</p>

<p>The technologies on the D750 (2014) is 7 years newer than what is on the D90 (introduced in 2008 with mostly D300-type electronics from 2007). Once you get used to the Multi-CAM 3500 on the D750 and its qualities, most likely you'll find it difficult to go back to the D90.</p>

<p>Batteries tend not to last as long in a cold climate. I would get a couple of spare EN-EL15s and extra memory cards. Please test everything well in advance thoroughly before departure.</p>

<p>BTW, for whatever it is worth, below is my camera equipment statistics for the 2009 South Georgia trip, straight from LightRoom. The 11 "unknown" camera and lens are from images converted to JPEG with the EXIF data stripped.</p>

<p>The D300S and 18-200 DX superzoom were loaners from Nikon USA for testing. I never own those two items myself. You can find that D300S review here, with video footage from the Antarctic: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D300s/review/</p><div></div>

[angik_sarkar]

<p>Thanks a lot for the replies. <br>

@Kent, the advantage of D750 that I have noticed in the last few days is higher dynamic range (crazy details recovery from shadows), higher fps.<br>

@Shun Thanks for sharing the exif and good point regarding resolutions. I would probably keep the D90 as a true backup and go to shore with D750 with 80-400 strapped on and 24-120 in the camera bag. <br>

For camera bag, I am planning to carry an Lowepro 250AW messenger bag inside a Sealine 30L dry bag. Is this a good combination?</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>Leaving one camera on the ship is a good idea, in case the boat overturns or something else catastrophic happens. I was forgetting the camera was the D90, not the D7100. D7100 definitely has an advantage over 24mp FX camera when it comes to "tele advantage". If I were going on the trip, I'd take D800E for landscapes and D7100 for wildlife. I doubt it will be all that cold there, certainly above zero F. The Nikon batteries I use are fine down to about 20F below, after that I take care to make sure they are fully charged before I take them along. In winter my strategy is to keep a spare battery in an inner pocket and swap them out as needed. Since there is a lot of water in the scenes, I personally would definitely take polarizers.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Angik, I would highly recommend using the new D750 thoroughly prior to the trip (1) to find any bugs when you still have a chance to return and exchange it and (2) get familiar with the features and controls. Hopefully you won't need to read the manual during landings or even on the ship.</p>

<p>In my 1998 trip, which was 16 years ago and needless to say, I was much younger then, I once had both the F5 and F4 plus the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S in my backpack, and I had a long hike in the Falklands. I found that extremely tiring and my backpack felt like a ton at the end of the day. However, from the Lightroom screen shot you can see exactly how much camera equipment I had with me on the flight out of Ushuaia in 2009. Therefore, the real issue is not the amount of carry on for the flights but rather how much you can carry on the landings, and obviously everybody's strength is different. In the 2009 trip, there was one guy with a D3, 200-400mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 in his backpack and he was hiking all over the place. Unfortunately, I am not that strong.</p>

<p>I considered the LowePro AW backpack and some people who have used them discouraged me from getting one. They told me that zipper was hard to maintain to make the bag waterproof, but I have no personal experience using one. If you use a dry bag (backpack type) on the outside, you only need a regular camera backpack. Once you land, you can leave the dry bag at the landing site, assuming you are returning from that same point. Use a rock to hold it down and make sure that the tide wouldn't come up to that level.</p>

<p>One final issue is image storage. We currently have two threads about people losing important images. With better discipline, those problems are completely avoidable. I am not sure you'll bring a laptop or not, but some computer will certainly be available on board the ship. You can bring two portable hard drives to store two copies of you images.</p>

<p>One the very worst recommendations I used to read on photo.net was "don't put all your eggs in one basket" and therefore buy small-capacity memory cards. That is precisely why people lose a lot of images because they misplace cards since they are juggling with too many of them and they over-write deleted images. Nowadays, you have two card slots and the chance that both cards go bad is essentially zero. It would be great if you have one 128G card in one slot and just don't need to take it out or format it during the whole trip.</p>

<p>During my 2009 trip, I spent one day in Santiago, followed by a three-week cruise to South Georgia and the Falklands. There were about 6 "at sea" days when I mainly captured sea birds flying along the ship. Obviously I ended up with about 9000 images (according to LightRoom) and the total storage is about 120G, but that is with 12MP DSLRs.</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>FWIW, I will share the same basic screenshot from lightroom that Shun shared. Our photos both clearly show the predominant use of telephoto lenses with so few wide angle shots as to make it worth asking if it was even worth bringing those lenses along. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To put the statistics into perspective, at least when I capture landscape, I tend to capture maybe a few samples. Usually there is no need to capture 10, 20 similar frames in a row. Wildlife photography is different because when there is action, every 1/5 sec can make a big difference. Therefore, the different subject matters tends to skew the frame count.</p>

<p>For example, the image below is among my favorite from the 1998 trip, captured at Neko Harbour on the Antarctic Peninsula with Velvia film with something like a 24mm wide angle. Our tour leader on that trip was David Middleton, a professional photographer. Middleton told me that he was shooting that scene with an entire roll of film so that he would have 36 "original" slides that can be shown to different clients simultaneously. Today with digital, we can make identical copies afterwards without any loss so that there is no need to shoot so many frames of the same landscape any more.</p>

<p>I have been to many locations but Antarctica has some of the very best landscape I have seen, not available even on South Georgia Island due to the lack of sea ice there in the summer. Therefore, I would say make sure you have some landscape lens ready also, which may or may not be wide angle. The Salisbury Plain image shown above was captured with like a 35mm lens.</p><div></div>

[oscar_retton]

<p>I just returned from Antarctica (and Falklands and South Georgia) and shot with a D7100 and 18-300 f/3.5 to 5.6 and the 10-24mm f3.5 to 4.5. I'm no pro but can share some observations with what was seen and from conversations I had with others there, some that were pro photographers. No one used any polarizers. Longer focal lengths were overwhelmingly preferred over wider angle lenses. Wind speeds at times rose to 35 knots, and I never saw anyone changing lenses on shore, though it may have happened, but somewhat doubtful. In the zodiacs, a lot of people just covered their cameras with dry sacks, though I preferred to keep my completely wrapped in a waterproof backpack. Shooting with a hood was essential because of the environment. I used the wide angle for cruising zodiac rides only. When on the ship, we weren't so close to any icebergs that a wide angle was necessary. The universal opinion was that whatever telephoto lenses people had, they wished they had more reach.</p>

<p>Never had any problems with batteries, but carried a spare anyway. The temperature wasn't that cold, don't think it was ever below 20 F. My 7100 had two 64G cards in it. I didn't carry a back-up body.</p>

<p>Flew Aerolineas back to BA and they were strict with weight, some had to pay extra.</p>

<p>Was advised not to carry DSLR in BA, so I just shot with a point-n-shoot, which was fine for snapshots of the city.</p>

[salil_choksi]

Hi Angik and all,

I read your posts, and their replies with great interest. I too am doing Antarctica and Patagonia

Nov 15. I have some queries about your trip:

1. Was it easy to change lenses in Antarctica?

2. How much tele and wide were you carrying? Some say 300 mm is sufficient for the long lens.

3. I have yet to purchase camera equipment, but I have shortlisted Nikon D5300 camera and the

following lens options:

 

i) Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens (Do i really need to go this wide ?)

ii) nikon 18-300mm vr f/3.5-6.3

The picture quality in the Super zoom Nikon 18-300 is not good , as per some reviews.

 

Another option is

i) Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens (Do i really need to go this wide ?)

ii) AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140 F/3.5-5.6 G ED VR

iii) Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Telephoto Zoom Lens

 

Would Tamron lens in second option by too bulky to manage ? (2 kg for the lens alone) Would the long

600 mm be an overkill?

 

I have a budget of US $ 1500 for the lenses.

 

Will await and be thankful if you could give a detailed account of your experience with cameras and

lenses.

Regards

Salil

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Was it easy to change lenses in Antarctica?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it is. Since the beginning of this thread last November, I have been to the sub-Antarctic once more, on the New Zealand/Australia side last December/January. I change lenses in Kenya and Antarctica fairly regularly. You just need to be a bit careful and avoid getting sand and rain drops into your equipment.</p>

<p>If I were you, I would pick your second option. A long tele such as Tamron's 150-600mm can be very useful for wildlife photography. However, unless you are going to sell everything immediately after your trip, you need to consider whether those lenses are useful to you in the long run. E.g., are you into wildlife photography, after the trip?</p>

<p>At least to me, the Tamron 150-600 is not too big, but it is a slow zoom and you are better off with a tripod. I carry a much bigger Nikon 200-400mm/f4 with matching tripod on such trips. But as they say, your mileage may vary.</p>

[salil_choksi]

<p>Thanks Shun Cheung. I much appreciate your answer, and I think I shall do exactly what you suggested 18-140mm + 150-600 mm. I am a passionate birdwatcher, and have dabbled a bit into Bird Video-photography. The 150-600mm lens will give me an opportunity to pick up bird photography upon my return - so I wont need to sell the lens. And the 55-140 mm can remain as my go-to lens for routine trips. <br>

A couple of questions .<br>

Should I buy the Tokina wide 11-16 mm ? I have read a lot of reports, that the extra wide lens will make the majestic mountains, ice shelves, icebergs appear smaller, and ruin the awesomeness of the place. Should I stick to taking panorama shots to capture the beauty, and stitch then post processing? (It would be difficult for me to get those perfect overlapping panorama shots, particularly in Antarctica ) <br>

Secondly, recently, I have developed an interest in astrophotography - capturing Star trails, time lapse video, Milky way photography etc....will I get clear skies long enough, and opportunity to do this.( I have signed up for camping overnight on land). I presume the Tokina wide 11-16, 2.8 mm would be very useful for that.<br>

Thanks, again.</p>

 

[angik_sarkar]

<p>Hi Salil,<br>

Let me tell you my experience. I went with D750, 18-35, 80-400 and 24-120 with D90 as a backup. There were some great suggestions but if I had to change anything, I wish I carried a 28-300 instead of a 24-120 despite the IQ hit. <br>

The landscapes in Antarctica are so vast, 80-400 almost remained glued to my camera, though I got some really good shots the 18-35, mostly on shore. You can check some of my Antarctica shots at https://500px.com/AngikSarkar.<br>

Contrary to most of the experts here, I would strongly advise carrying a superzoom (like 28-300 for FX or 18-300 for DX) glued to at least a backup camera. You worry about the IQ only when you get the shot!<br>

The main purpose of the crappy superzoom lens is for zodiac trips. Penguins, seals and especially whales move really fast though water, the focal length requirement changes so rapidly, you hardly have time to change camera leave alone changing lenses. On one of my zodiac trips, a minke whale decided to check us out. It was swimming so close under our zodiac, I could have probably touched it. By the time I put down my main camera with 80-400 on and picked up the backup with 18-35, the whale had moved further away. There were quite a few of such encounters and missed most shots. <br>

Now for your questions,<br>

1. Again, really easy to change on mainland and on ship but not so much on zodiacs, though I did it anyway.<br>

2. Whatever lenses you take, you will come back with probably the best pictures of your life. I got 400mm and it was great for most cases but for the albatrosses which mostly hung out in the distance.<br>

600mm would have been great there. On land, 400mm was more than sufficient because the penguins come really close to you. The only case where it could have been useful was for the seals which you are not allowed to approach. But, they stay stationary on land, so you could get the shot with 400mm and just crop it.<br>

I wouldn't advise a 150-600 lens as your main lens since 150mm is too long. I got a lot of 'landscape' shots in the 80-90mm range. Also 150-600 lens is too slow. For the flying albatrosses, you may need at least 1/600-1/800 shutter speed on a cloudy day.<br>

3. Read my responses above for lens choices. The purpose of the wide-angle is not a panorama, you can easily do that with stitched photos. The wide angle can give you a great perspective which I love. <br>

Whatever you do, give yourself atleast 3 months/2000 shots to familiarize yourself with the camera. I got a fairly new D750 with me. I shot vigorously before the trip and familiarized myself with it but did not know about some video options which would have made for some killer videos.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

[salil_choksi]

<p>Thanks Angik and Shun Cheung, for your replies.<br>

There's so much more clarity of thought for me now.<br>

After the discussions with both you and Shun Cheung, I have now decided to take the following shooters<br>

1. Nikon D5300<br>

2. Nikon d 3300 ( as second camera, to avoid change of lens in field conditions. I intend to resell this camera on my return)<br>

3. Tokina 11-16 mm, f 2.8 lens for the wondrous landscapes and night skies of Patagonia and Antarctica - tripod mounted.<br>

4. Nikon 18-140 mm, f 3.5-5.6; for general photography , landscapes and people.<br>

5. Sigma 150-600 mm, 5-6.3; the recently (mar 15) introduced superzoom. I have chosen this one over the similar Tamron; as advised by some comparative reviews. Only that it is a new lens, without any actual user reports. Maybe I will wait for a couple of months , and decide between the two models.<br>

This superzoom will be monopod mounted.<br>

6. Panasonic Lumix FZ 100, my old faithful bridging camera.<br>

7. Nikon AW 100, waterproof / shockproof - another old faithful.<br>

I will persuade the good wife to be my field assistant, to juggle all of the above :)<br>

I have an extended trip covering Peru, Patagonia in Chile and Argentina, Iguazzu Falls birding and the cities of Buenos Aires, Rio, Lima - over 35 days. The only downside is the weight I will need to haul all over South America, and the extra baggage charges that I will have to incur, but I am game. This is a lifetime trip, and both South America and Antarctica seem to be on another planet, looking at them from India.<br>

Thanks again, friends.And any tips/ further input on the above plan will be appreciated.<br>

Cheers<br>

Salil Choksi</p>