pjarbit Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Scott Kelby recommends 1 lens for travel photography for Canon. It's the Tamron 16-300. I haven't purchased it yet, as I'm waiting for Canon to come out with this type of travel lens, similar to Nikon's travel kit. Most vacation pics I take with Canon 16-35 2.8 IS II. I usually bring a 24-105 or 24-70 but rarely bring it out. The 16-15 covers most of what I need. Not worried about portraiture. Great for landscapes and architecture photos. Can do big groups without backing up a mile. Don't see a lot of distortion above 24mm. It works for me. Haven't seen any need to take long zoom on any trips. Can crop in post process.

Just my 2 cents. Remember to focus on your new bride more than camera gear.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If it were me, I'd take the 10-20mm for scenics, 120-400mm for wildlife, 15-85mm for a walk around, and a 50mm for a fast portrait/low light lens.

ELNikkor

Take only the 15-85, 120-400, save the money, you'll need it, spend more time on the new wife than the photos and camera. This is a vital time to your marriage, and by far, the highest value is the relationship.

agillot

take the 16 / 300 .and dont forget the new wife .

Toby

I have never been to Alaska but otherwise I agree with everything rgenderphoto said here including the CPL. I have the Tamron lens with CPL

kensil

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Sell these:Tamron 16- 300, Sigma 120- 400. And get a 150-600 either Tamron or Sigma. Or you could get a 2x for your 70-200 2.8 [they don't play well with the 70-300.] You will want reach on an Alaska cruise. The 70-200 + extender combo is nice when traveling generally. You will also need a wide angle for up close glacier shots. Along with the 24-70, you would have everything covered. If you need to go light, the 10-20, 24-70, 70-200 and a 2x. If you can take more, add one of the 150-600 lenses.

HardwareGuy

This thread has become a funny one as it morphed from an equipment discussion to a "marital adviser" discussion.
I'd ask the wife...."dear, since we will be at an incredibly scenic location, do you mind if I take my eyes of your beauty to take photos of nature?"
If she's good with that, take the gear. If she will be lonely or ignored while your shooting away, get her in the shots, or yes, take a bridge camera.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Or get her into photography.

My wife would ask, "Do we need any more gear for our trip?"

Only one of the uncountable reasons that I love her.

Andy

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Alaska is a very scenic place and you'll be taking mostly landscape pictures and pictures of the small town or cities there. I suggest the 10-20mm lens (wide angle), and the 24-70mm for the cities and towns, maybe taking pictures of the people etc. If you think you'll see any bears, eagles or be going on any wildlife tours, maybe take your 70-200mm f/2.8 and a doubler.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

I am recently returned from an Alaskan small boat cruise. I took several lenses but the one that got virtually all the work was a 24 - 200mm. And I wished it went to 300 mm.
Also, if the cruise offers a side trip to Tracy Arm - TAKE IT! It made Glacier Bay look boring.
Cheers

Rickyb

Unless she is a photographer.

Mama Bear984 Loc: Langley, BC Canada

I’m going on one too this summer. I used to shoot only with Nikon but switched to Fuji. Love it!
Anyways think about what you are shooting vast wide open landscapes. So I’m taking my 18-135.
Then we are doing a photography tour in Juneau. So I asked them for suggestions, for the land portion still my 18-135 but when we go out on the boat 100-400 for the whales. You want to see your vacation through your eyes not through the viewfinder.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

I recently switched from the Tamron 16-300 to the Tamron 18-400 because I wanted more reach for animals (safari in Africa). (I'm using it on a Nikon d7100 camera (crop). So far I'm very pleased with the change and believe the IQ of the 18-400 (specially at the long end) is superior to the 16-300. I have not yet gotten rid of the 16-300 but I'v had no inclination to use it since I switched to I think that says something.

You have a lot of good lenses but like others I'd advise you to pare it down to just one or two. If you get and take the Tamron 18-400 then--what I would do--is just take a shorter and wider and much faster lens for those low light situations that the 18-400 is not as good for. I use a Nikon 50mm 1.4 which really has helped in low light situations and it very light and easy to carry. Of course since you'll be based on a boat you can probably take more lenses than I can but I'm not sure you'll need them.

The one variable here is what you like to do with your pictures. If you're semi-pro or really go for the ultimate images you may want to rethink my advice and take your best glass but for all practical purposes I've very satisfied with the quality of my 18-400.

In any event, I would think the pictures should be to commemorate one of the more important events in your life. If so you'll want pictures to remember all the fun you two had during this trip and you'll want to make sure that having that fun is the primary focus of the trip--the pictures should be secondary (or would be for me).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Because money matters to me, I would keep the 16-300, maximize the image quality from it and CROP your way to 400 and use well applied pixel enlargement software for larger printings. It will probably cost you $400 to go to the 18-400. My take on the 18-400 is the IQ is the same as the 16-300 - just goes longer to 400 - and the 16-300 does go wider.

..