EngRon

We went to Alaska this year and as most have committed, the variety of photo opportunities is so wide, there is no best answer. I used both my 12-60mm and 100-400mm on the GH5 sometimes with a tripod. This combo met my needs for most situations. Yes at 800mm equivalent there were times the bears were still too far away but it gets real hard to hold the camera steady with the narrow field of view lenses. I would go with the Rx 10 for it's light weight and versatility. Very hard to use a big camera on a tour bus or plane.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Yes, rent or buy the 400mm, the longer is better! I were there two time, the whale will be 200-300 yards away, that is the min. distance that allow the whale watching boat to approach the whale! If you are on land cruse, 400mm and longer is must have, the animals may be thousands feet away.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I would go with the RX10m3. It is lighter and do all the other shots you might want to take.

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

I hope not this year? The parks are closing. It will be winter up there in a few weeks. As for the lenses, if you shot wild life and you are strong enough to carry the weight, use a long tele, if you go for landscapes, a wide angle 24mm and a zoom up to 200 is perfect. In many trips I never used anything longer as 200.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Even a 500mm lens can be short on a full frame camera so you might want to consider renting a super zoom. Your camera will not want to auto focus at f/stops smaller than 5.6 but maybe you can check around and see what kind of success 6D owmers have had with the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 zoom lenses. I own both a 500mm f/4 and the Canon 100-400 mk ii along with a 1.4X III extender. The 100-400 and the extender are a fantastic combination but your camera will not autofocus at f/8, the largest aperture that combination can achieve, so it is out of the question and that is why I suggest the Sigma or Tamron lenses. If you can handle the weight I would recommend the Sigma Sport lens. Although prime lenses often are optically superior to the big zooms they can be difficult for those who are not accustom to shooting with them, the angle of view is so small that until you become used to them it is often hard to find your subject and if it is something that is not going to sit and pose for you opportunities can be missed. Zooms offer you the ability to zoom out find the subject and then zoom back in.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

I think when you're planning a Alaska trip, to shoot wildlife, I'd like to hear what type of wildlife you're expecting to shoot. Looking at your opening question, using a f4 200mm lens and renting a 400mm would be great for some of the wildlife, but for others, like bears, it could be dangerous. Look for at least a 600mm with either a 1.4, or 2X extender, with a solid tripod. Keep in mind, I include moose on the dangerous list. Bears, both the brown ones, and white ones will be hungry as a bear can get, with hibernation in just a few weeks away. For bears, get a good guide. The guide will know what that bear is up to, and read the signs the bear is making. Moose are a different story, they look dumb as a rock, and act dumb as a rock, but don't underestimate them. A full grown bull can turn in a instant, charge through wait high brambles and pin you down with his huge horns and stomp you into a pulp. So, a long lens is worth the rental expense. Other animals, your 200mm with extender will be fine. In Alaska, never let your guard down, returning to the car, can be dangerous if there are bears in the woods. Have a great time, and good luck.

B

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The Sigma and Tamron 150-600's are worth a look. They give that extra reach and both can be fine tuned using their respective docking stations. I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and took to Alaska in June. Used it mostly on a fjord cruise and was quite happy with the results.

ppage Loc: Pittsburg, (San Francisco area)

I went there on a cruise last year. Most definitely need one. There are white mountain sheep way up in the hills, everything is big and far away. For Wildlife, your lens can never be too big. Look at the tamron 150-600 G2 and the similar offering from Sigma. Another easier route is to consider the Coopix P900 with it's huge zoom range. IQ will not stand up to much pixel peeping but if you are not an obsessive peeper, you will like the images. It is 2000 mm in the palm of your hand so for travel, nothing beats the ease of packing, carrying, flying, walking, hiking with it around a place like Alaska.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I have a different take on this. How are you traveling? My job is leading one day photography tours off cruise ships in Juneau, Alaska. We hike through the woods, visit a glacier and go whale watching in a small boat. One of the biggest problems I see over and over is too much gear and too much glass. You may luck out and get the shot no one else got if you have a 400 or 600 but most of my guests who try to carry these lenses find it is too much and too difficult. The biggest I carry on a daily basis is a 300. If I had my own wheels and controlled my own schedule, I would carry more gear. If you are on some sort of photo tour ask the company doing the tour what is appropriate. Those of us who are out there every day have a pretty good idea about just what you will need. If you have a car, load it up. One more thing. Unless you know what you are doing and have all the extra gear, long lenes need reasonable weather. Not just to keep them dry but because trying to get detail on distant subjects through mist, rain or haze just doesn't work.

Ob1 Loc: Utah

Listen to CamB, we went a few months ago and loved the trip. I took two cameras, a full frame with a 24-70 and a crop sensor with a 70-300. Did I miss some shots, Yes. Did I get some shots, yes. Tripods and monopods are just not practical especially on tours. If you are going to Denali a tour is the only way to see the park. IMO. The biggest problem you'll have is the weather. Be prepared.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

As a former Alaskan, I totally agree. You can't have too much long lens in Alaska. I do not recommend the any of the affordable FF or Crop zooms. Go for the long zoom cameras like the Nikon P900, Canon SX60, Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus Long zoom bridge cameras. For the price of you DSLR Long Zoom you can have a VERY nice bridge camera that will do an excellent job on wildlife. They are light weight, and you won't be losing shots trying to change lenses. Happy Shooting

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Yes a long lens would definitely proof benficial, but a 400mm is still pretty short!!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes, I agree that you will need a longer lens for wildlife.

But what I would recommend is that you first buy a crop sensor camera such as a 70D or 80D (20MP and 24MP respectively, either of which has a control layout similar to 6D, which will make switching back and forth between them easier). The crop camera will give you the same effect as a 1.6X teleconverter, without the loss of 1 or more stops light that occur with an actual teleconverter. Canon USA has refurbished 70D body only in stock for $750 and refurbished 80D w/EF-S 18-55mm IS STM lens in stock for $830 or w/EF-S 18-135mm IS STM for $860.

Then, one of the most portable, versatile, high quality telephotos for travel is the 3.5 lb., $2000 Canon EF 100-400mm L IS USM "II" (or the earlier push/pull zoom version, if you prefer, which is still avail. new for about $1300 or used for under $1000). On the APS-C camera, this lens will have the same effective "reach" that a 160-640mm lens would on your 6D. In reasonable light, the f/4.5-5.6 aperture of the 100-400mm lens is no problem. But the 80D is able to autofocus in about two stop lower light than 70D (-3EV versus -1EV). 80D also is "f/8 capable", meaning that 80D can autofocus 100-400mm with a 1.4X teleconverter, if you feel you need even more reach. 70D is "f/5.6 limited" and cannot autofocus 100-400mm w/1.4X.

Some alternatives to the 100-400mm are the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses. They're less expensive than the Canon and give greater "reach", but aren't as sharp, are larger and weigh more (about 4.5 lb. or more, depending upon model). Sigma also has recently introduced a 100-400mm that's a lot less expensive and a little more compact than the Canon, but isn't significantly lighter and doesn't have a tripod mounting ring. I haven't used it, but folks who have generally report the Canon is still the winner for sharpness and image quality (the Canon uses fluorite, as do many of their telephotos... which the Tamron and Sigma lenses don't).

A 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, and possibly a matched 1.4X teleconverter for use on your 6D would be superb BUT will be MUCH bigger and will weigh in around 8 lb. or more. So you're likely to want a nice sturdy tripod with any of them, and may need a special lens case/backpack that's largely dedicated to the lens. In contrast, most people find a 100-400mm can be hand-held fairly easily for long periods of time.... and if you combine one with an APS-C camera you will actually have more effective reach than the 6D and one of those big, heavy super telephotos!

The EF 10-400mm are L-series that have some sealing for weather resistance... but I'd still suggest further precautions with https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1022872-REG/op_tech_usa_9001252_25_mega_rain_sleeve.html or similar... and maybe a few cheap plastic ponchos for yourself!

charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.

=========================================================================

My wife & I will be going to Alaska next year.
I'm taking my Sony a99II with my 28-300 Tamron.
I'm also taking my 12-24 Sigma wide angle.

I'm hoping for some nice pictures.
I'm defiantly an armature, but I'm trying hard.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

A friend of mine just got back from Kenya for the second time. He gets wonderful wildlife photos using Canon crop sensor cameras and a Sigma 50-500mm lens.