feedback on Canon lens / camera choice for Alaska trip

[Burnsie]

<p>So my wife and I are finally checking off one more item on our bucket list and are headed to Alaska from mid to late August this year for a 12 day rail/cruise tour with Princess Cruises. First cruise for us. First and very likely our only time in Alaska. We are obviously excited. getting old is not so bad it seems. :)<br>

We will fly into Flagstaff, and be with the Princess cruise group via bus / train to Denali, McKinley, Whittier/Anchorage, and then on the ship seeing Skagway, Juneau, and Ketchikan as well as seeing glaciers on the way. At least 2 small group photography tours already planned and several other excursions along the way. I will probably shoot far too many pictures! :)<br>

I am trying to decide on what camera equipment to bring with me on the trip. Here is what I have available.<br>

Canon SuperZoom SX50 IS (12MP) (24-1200 mm zoom equivalent)<br />Apple iPhone 6+ (8MP)<br />Canon 60D (18MP)<br /><br />Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 <br />Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS<br />Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS II<br>

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS<br />Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro<br /><br />I want travel as light as possible but also shoot as much as possible at best quality. I know, it is impossible. :) <br>

I want to pack it all in my Domke F-2 bag so I am looking to leave somethings behind. (I am bringing my smaller tripod with ballhead also.)<br>

My plan is to have my wife use the Canon SX50 to get distance shots of wildlife, scenery, etc. using that 1200 mm effective zoom. Since most of our work ends up on my computer screen for our enjoyment (minimal printing) and I use Lightroom to post process everything, I am not too worried about the image quality of that little sensor. It beats lugging a large zoom lens around.<br>

I find myself using my iPhone 6+ a lot now for up close people shots both indoors and outdoors. It has essentially replaced my DSLR for spur of the moment shots. So that is going for sure also.<br>

My current DSLR lens plan is to leave behind the 17-55 and the 100 macro lenses. I can easily store the first 3 lenses, the 60D and the Superzoom in the F-2 bag, with my batteries, filters, etc. <br>

Two choices to make: <br>

1) Leave the 10-22 behind?<br>

2) Leave the 24-105 behind and bring the 17-55 instead, since it pairs well with the 55-250?<br>

Would I use the 10-22 that much on deck or outdoors or are we so far away from stuff that the wide angle is not really needed? An alternative for wide angle shots is to use panoramic mode on my iPhone. Not as great quality as my 10-22, but one less lens to carry. Of course if I have a chance to shoot a night scene Aurora Borealis and I needed that 10-22 and don't have it, I will be very bummed. But do I need it for that remote possibility, or can I get by with just the 24-105? people who traveled to Alaska - did you use their super wides that much?<br>

Regarding the 17-55: Can I get by without a 2.8 lens indoors on a cruise ship? Not sure what lighting levels are like. The 60D is ok at ISO 800 and hand held I am usually ok at f4.0 for decent light levels, but I hav eno idea what the cruise ship lighting will be like - dimly lit church or bright rooms? I prefer the 24-105 for minimal lens switching especially if it is rainy when we are on land. <br>

Any thoughts or feedback is appreciated.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5<br>

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS<br>

Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS II<br>

Note: I have not been to Alaska, but this is what I would take from your selection. Lightest combined with greatest range. I doubt you'll be taking many shots inside (the cruise ships are not that fascinating inside and the f2.8 with IS will be sufficient). I would certainly take the 10-22mm.</p>

[famico]

<p>Not a Canon shooter, but did an Alaskan cruise awhile back, so can share some info. Bring the longest lens you have for sure. I was on a much smaller ship than the one you will be on (Linblad Expeditions), and still used my long lens most of the time. I didn't shoot too much indoors on the ship, but got by w/o using a 2.8 aperture. Lighting on our ship was pretty good.</p>

<p>Be aware that where you are going usually has rain a fair amount of the time, so prepare accordingly. I used the inexpensive OpTech rain sleeves for my gear, and they worked very well.</p>

<p>I don't really think you'll need your tripod, as shipboard vibration usually means they don't work very well. Even the pro shooters/guides on our trip used just a monopod at times, and mostly shot handheld when on ship, even with their huge telephoto lenses. Also, I didn't bring one, and never felt like I should have.<br>

<br />Hope you have a wonderful trip!</p>

[peter_c5]

My wife and I also did an Alaskan cruise and I'd agree with everything Hosteen has said. I had a 450D then and missed

having the video capability you have on your 60D. My longest lens was a 200, and I wished I had the 100-400 I now have,

which would have been great for wildlife, whales etc.

 

You may want to take a handful of photos on board - your cabin, people you meet - but the lighting should be excellent.

Forget the tripod. Oh, and yes, it will rain!

[Burnsie]

<p>Thanks for the good feedback on cruise ship lighting and photo ops. What I suspected but was not certain. <br>

If I don't need 2.8 on the ship, I am likely to leave behind the 17-55 since it is fairly heavy and I can cover the focal range with my 10-22 and 24-105. All 3 lenses are good copies and I get good shots nearly all the time from any of those lenses.<br>

One clarification: The tripod was not for while on the ship. It was going to be for when we are on land (Denali in late evenings / early mornings, when we are on 1 of the 2 photo tours. (Time lapse of night skies, low light low ISO shots, etc.) And it's pretty easy to pack and carry via backpack (collapses to 13 inches and only weighs a couple of pounds). Once on the ship, it will get stowed away in our cabin.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>How good is that superzoom at longer focal lengths? I don't know, but I know that a 70-300mm or 70-200mm will be userful. I take the 60D and all those associated lens plus, at least, a 70-200mm. You can use the 200mm at sea and at the calving glaciers, shooting sea planes flying by the ship, etc. I took a 500mm at got eagles and other birds, but that's too much if you're not already used to it.</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>I have the Canon 60D and several lenses, the one I would always take is the 10-22.<br>

On our Alaska trip I too wanted to travel light but needed a long lens for distant close ups and choose a Tamron super zoom. Although it has limited aperture the 18-270mm does have image stabilization and I am quite satisfied with the quality. These two lenses now seem to be my main ones when I am traveling abroad.<br>

I think your needs seem similar to mine so the other lens I suggest is the 55-250. This does however leave a gap in your range so maybe the 17-55 may have to be included.</p>

[Burnsie]

<p>Thanks Dave and Jeff. For the reasons you gave, I plan to have both my 55-250 and the superzoom out to 1200. The Superzoom is good but not great, but I have nothing else even getting close to 1200. On my crop body 60D, the 55-250 gets me to 400 mm equivalent.<br>

That inexpensive lens actually does quite well at the max end. (At least my copy does.) So I should get decent pics up to 400 mm and will crop some if needed to get an even closer high quality shot. Anything we get with the superzoom from 400 to 1200 equivalent will just be bonus. <br>

Given the feedback on the superwide, I am bringing it. And my 24-105 will flll the gap between 22 and 55. So 3 lenses it is.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Superzooms can be quite good these days, particularly for internet viewing. Just be aware of the tiny sensor size that will not support much, if any, cropping or printing any larger than 19 or 20" on the long side. If the superzoom camera has "digital zoom", don't use that. You can get a cleaner crop in post processing. If the superzoom allows you to shoot in Raw, do so, so you'll have more control over the finished product and possibly pick up a little dynamic range.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I've been on a number of cruises (not Alaska) and the lighting is generally good on the ships. If I was going to Alaska I'd bring my 100-400 for those eagle shots but that 55-250 IS should work. </p>

[Jeremy Stein]

<p>Consider renting a 100-400 mk II; on my visits to Alaska that range was invaluable. I would also bring the 10-22 and the 24-105. That sets you up for anything.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>As Robin says, the:<br>

10-22,<br>

17-55,<br>

55-250.</p>

<p>The rationale is simple. <br>

10-22 gives you UWA capability. When you are travelling with a group, and have the opportunity to observe dramatic nature and landscape, you also do NOT often have the ability (time, and freedom) to change your shooting location (for example, I doubt you'll be able to convince the cruise boat captain to alter his course and position so you can get a different perspective on collapsing ice), so you'll want the ability to go ultra wide, especially if you get the opportunity to explore 'big' things up close. When travelling (whether it's AK or HI or anywhere else), I have <em>always</em> found uses for my UWA lenses to make dramatic images...</p>

<p>17-55 gives you proper wide to normal range on your crop sensor. It's also fast (f2.8) plus has IS, making it excellent for low light work. While the 24-105 has a wide range of focal lengths, it is slow (f4), and it's focal range is rather...inconvenient... on the crop. The 28mm FOV of the 17-55 is eminently more useful than the 36mm FOV of the 24-105 for a 'normal' range. With the 55-250, you aren't missing anything either.</p>

<p>While I'd prefer something longer than the 55-250, it'll do in a pinch, and is quite decent optically - even though I'd prefer something with longer reach, unless (as Jeremy Stein suggests) you want to rent or buy a 100-400 or something longer and bigger, it'll most assuredly serve.</p>

 

[geoffm]

<p>I have a similar set up, and would never go anywhere without the 10-22. It is a great lens that has given me some of my favourite shots, but is small and light enough to go into a coat pocket.</p>