Long lens for Alaska: I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the...

jcolton

I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the wildlife. First question: Do you agree? Second question: If so, should I rent a canon 400 mm lens or a Sony RX10 III camera? Which would be better?

Thanks for your comments.

Bill_de Loc: US

400 or 500 F/4.0

When I was there my 500 stayed on one camera the entire week.

--

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

jcolton wrote:

I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the wildlife. First question: Do you agree? Second question: If so, should I rent a canon 400 mm lens or a Sony RX10 III camera? Which would be better?

Thanks for your comments.

I took my 70-300 for a Nikon cropped sensor camera, d500, and found it too short for a few shots, but good for a lot of shots. You may want to check out the Sigma sport 150-600, and possibly a teleconverter rather than the canon 400. Have fun, we had a blast.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

jcolton wrote:

I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the wildlife. First question: Do you agree? Second question: If so, should I rent a canon 400 mm lens or a Sony RX10 III camera? Which would be better?

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, you will need longer. Consider a crop frame body.

If you are traveling with a group the Sony is best IMO. - traveling on your own, a 100-400 would be nice and a 400 DOII with 1.4X would be nice also - including a monopod or my bodypod.

SS319

I do not think you could have a long enough nor a wide enough lens for Alaska. 1000mm would still leave you wanting more, but remember that you may not be able to use your tripod unless you are traveling with your own vehicle.

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

A lot of folks will tell you to get a 150-600 or a 200-500 or a long prime in 400 or 500 . . . But, I have a 150-600 and it's just heavy and too big to deal with while traveling. . . . I like my 18-400 or 16-300 Tamron. They are a lot easier to deal with when traveling, and in my opinion . . . Give acceptable results . . .

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

SS319 wrote:

I do not think you could have a long enough nor a wide enough lens for Alaska. 1000mm would still leave you wanting more, but remember that you may not be able to use your tripod unless you are traveling with your own vehicle.

No truer words! You will need a long lens for the wildlife and a wide angle for the stunning sceney.

I've been to Alaska twice now and took 2 bodies (both Nikon crop sensors), a Tamron 150-600, Nikon 28-300, Sigma 10-24, and a couple of other lenses (can't for the life of me remember which ones I finally decided on!). Also along for the ride were my Canon SX50-HS bridge camera (optical zoom to 1200mm, but sucks in low light and has a small sensor) as well as my old Sony P&S. I kept th`e 150-600 on one body and switched off the other lenses on the 2nd body. Both the P&S and the bridge camera got their fair share of use.

We are heading for Africa and then Scotland next year and I am seriously leaning toward replacing my Canon SX50 with the Sony RX10 iii. From what I've read both here and elsewhere, it is an excellent camera. The only downside for me is that it only zooms to 600mm, and I'm afraid I'll need much more especially for the birds in Scotland.

Hope my 2 cents worth helped you at least a little.

BB4A

Your 6D should pair well with the EF100-400L IS II USM. That's a lighter lens for its size, and the reviewers have all raved about its versatility and performance, even handheld. Its $2K new, but you should be able to rent it?

If you are interested in having the maximum bang for your rental buck, it would be a good idea to also rent a 7D MkII; that body and lens would be an awesome combination of speed, reach, versatility, and overall performance.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

A good choice that would be less expensive, lighter and more versatile than carrying a heavy 150-600 lens for your DSLR, would be the Sony RX10iii. It's an all-in-one, and very convenient to have along to get those shots that come up and you need to shoot now. The smaller 1"-type sensor is a good one, too. If you want really long reach and don't mind a camera that only shoots JPEG and has the smaller 1/2.3" sensor, you just can't beat the Nikon P900 for reach with that 2000mm, 35mm eq. zoom lens. Otherwise, your 70-200 should be plenty adequate for all the landscape shots you'll have.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The tours you go on, like to one I did in Denali, are run by Pros who know where the critters are. A 300 will be ok, longer is definitely better. But for landscapes, you need wide.

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

BB4A wrote:

Your 6D should pair well with the EF100-400L IS II USM. That's a lighter lens for its size, and the reviewers have all raved about its versatility and performance, even handheld. Its $2K new, but you should be able to rent it?

If you are interested in having the maximum bang for your rental buck, it would be a good idea to also rent a 7D MkII; that body and lens would be an awesome combination of speed, reach, versatility, and overall performance.

While I totally agree that this combination is as described above I would caution against renting. I was considering doing exactly that for a trip to South Africa last month. I was advised against doing so by individuals on this forum because of the steep learning curve of the 7DII. Ultimately I decided to purchase both several months before the trip and was very glad that I did. It took that long to become comfortable with the 7DII/100-400 combo and I had great results. I shudder to think what the results would have been had I tried to learn the camera in the field.

SonyBug

What gets me is that all the comments go on and on about the length of the lens. It is really more that that. When you are out stalking wildlife anywhere, your lens in some ways makes up for your lack of ability to get closer. The longer you spend stalking your subject, the closer you usually can get. So, how much time do you have to stalk your game? I looked at a pro photographers displays in the little village outside the main entrance to Denali. Most of the wildlife shots were taken with a 600 prime. But, he spends days sometimes to get a good shot of a mountain sheep, or grizzly. So, if you have lots of time, and are not hoping to get a shot by accident, then take the big guns. Otherwise, travel light and keep up with the group of non-photographers that you travel with.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jcolton wrote:

I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the wildlife. First question: Do you agree? Second question: If so, should I rent a canon 400 mm lens or a Sony RX10 III camera? Which would be better?

Thanks for your comments.

RX
I took two camera's to Alaska, MY TRAVEL PAC, so to speak. Both Sony's. The Sony RX100 M2 for standard shots, the Sony HX50V with a zoom range of 24-720. BUT, my wife took her Sony HX400V with a range of 24-1200. We came across a LOT of wildlife on the bus tour and my wife got the best shots, she zoomed out to 1200 and got great shots. Her camera is a little bigger than my travel kit but not by much. The lens on her camera is a Zeiss T*, well, all of our camera's have Zeiss T*, so you know the images will look good. And, most important thing, travel right, travel lite.

HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN

I just returned from Alaska and you can't take a lens long enough. I have an Olympus OM D E-M1 MarkII and a Pan/ Leica 100-400: that results in a equivalent 200-800. I still wasn't enough for some shots, most notably a female bear and her cubs fending off a male bear that was happening @ 1/2 mile away. That said, the rig was goods enough for 80% of of the shots requiring a long lens, and I did get to see the encounter with the bears. And you will want a wide angel for landscapes. You likely won't be able to use a tripod most of the time ( infact I didn't take one and was glad I didn't as I wouldn't have been able to use it much) so use something you can steady or prop it or yourself on something. Just accept you will miss out on something, make hay with what you can get, and have a great time.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

jcolton wrote:

I'm going to the national parks in Alaska. Taking my Canon 6D and my Canon 70-200 F4 zoom (and shorter lenses). I think I need a longer lens for some of the wildlife. First question: Do you agree? Second question: If so, should I rent a canon 400 mm lens or a Sony RX10 III camera? Which would be better?

Thanks for your comments.

Rent the 100-400 zoom.