SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

I can tell from your postings that you know your way around Alaska! Seeing places that are off the normal tourist path would be so interesting. But a lot of folks spending their money for a trip want to do it in comfort which does not involve such out-of-the-way places. They have what for them is a unique experience, and from what I have heard from others, it definitely is something they would not see back home.

I prefer not to be going down the beaten path, I like the one less taken. Less crowded!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The cruise ship industry caters quite well for those want comfort and style. Technically they go to Alaska too. However when wildlife and adventure are the stated purpose it really is an advantage to look past where the crowd is going.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

Take a series of shots that can be combined into panoramic vistas! But don't forget to bracket each shot for optimal exposures!

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Definitely!

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

We can agree to disagree.

OP, please do not be discouraged thinking you will only see the same things that one would see anywhere else in the lower 48. You will be able to see some of the true beauty of Alaska. Be sure to get out of your car, you will be able to see much more. I do agree with others that you might want to also head north to see Denali - it is magnificent! I encourage you to drop by a Barnes and Noble and find a guide book that can lead you to the things you are interested in seeing. And most of all, enjoy your trip and the great state of Alaska.

From a girl who was born and raised in the state and granddaughter of homesteaders.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

And don't forget that the days seem to be much longer up in Alaska.

When we were there in April, dusk was around 9:00 pm!

It was weird getting out if the arena that late at night, and having enough light that you almost didn't need head lights to drive back to the hotel!

So the moral of this warning is "don't depend on the sunset" to send you in for your evening meal!

Rely on a watch or your vehicle clock to keep you on schedule at the end of the day! You don't want to find yourselves too tired to get up in the morning or to enjoy your trip!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I can't help with specifics for your trip....

But if it were me, I'd take a ton of gear! That's no problem when traveling by car... but you probably won't want to haul it all on the first leg of the trip. Simple solution is to ship some things ahead, to meet you in Anchorage. I've done that on various trips, when everything didn't fit into a backpack.

I would definitely want a wide angle lens for scenic shots! Since you have a Canon APS-C model, you have an excellent, inexpensive option... the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM that sells for under $300. That makes it one of the most affordable of all ultrawide (pity the folks with Nikon gear... the cheapest Nikkor ultrawide costs $900!). It's also the smallest, lightest of ultrawide lenses.... and the only one with image stabilization. Yeah, it's bit plasticky, but what do you expect for that price? Image quality is surprisingly good for such an affordable lens, too.... better than most UWAs, even some that cost 3X as much.

If you want somewhat higher build quality and don't mind a little larger and heavier lens, the older Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM is another excellent lens. It's long been considered to have some of the best image quality of any UWA. It ain't the build and sealing of an L-series lens, but is a mid-grade step up from the 10-18mm. Of course, it also costs about 2X as much... around $600.

Do you have a general purpose, walk around lens? Commonly an EF-S 18-135mm was supplied with 70D. The STM version has very good image quality. The newest USM version has faster auto focus, but uses essentially the same optics. The older micro motor version (not marked either STM or USM) had different optics and wasn't quite as good as the two newer versions.

A low cost alternative is the EF 28-135mm IS USM.... it's not wide at all on an APS-C camera, but otherwise is quite good. Over the years it's been sold in kit with various cameras, so is pretty widely available lightly used for $200 or less. It's not a particularly well built lens, but not bad either (better than most kit lenses).... but image quality, IS, focus speed, close focusing ability and even durability all rival that of the much more expensive 24-105L (original version... don't know how it compares with the new one recently announced).

A premium walk around that goes wider than most (so might not need the 10-18mm or 10-22mm) is the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM. Superb image quality, high performance and a very nice range of focal lengths in a single lens, it's relatively pricey though... around $900.

Next it's a matter of choosing between your 400mm prime and the new Tamron 150-600mm. If it were me, I'd probably take the zoom for it's versatility (I like telephoto primes and have several... but got the Canon 100-400mm Mark II about 6 months ago and have been using it a lot). I imagine the 150-600mm bigger and heavier than than the 400mm (unless it's the 400mm f2.8!), but traveling by car that shouldn't be a problem.

Another lens I'd want would be a macro. My favorite macro is the Canon 100/2.8 USM (not the more expensive L-series)... but for travel with APS-C cameras I often take a more compact Tamron SP 60/2.0 Di II. It doubles nicely for portraiture, too. It's not fast focusing, but that's not a problem for macro and portraits. The Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM is also a very nice, compact macro... faster focusing too, but I wanted the larger f2 aperture instead.

Finally, I like to carry a fast, slightly wide standard lens. One of the most compact of those is the Canon EF 28/1.8. Even with it's lens hood, it's reasonably small. I'd prefer slightly wider... 24mm or 20mm on APS-C... but those lenses are larger and/or f2.8, at best.

I also always take at least one flash, flash bracket and off-camera shoe cord, with a Flash Extender to use with telephoto lenses for wildlife/bird photography. Other accessories I don't leave home without include macro extension tubes and a incident/flash light meter (currently a Sekonic 358). Traveling by car, I also always pack a monopod and a tripod. I also usually carry a 1.4X teleconverter, but that's for use with my 300mm and 100-400mm lenses... probably wouldn't be needed with a 150-600mm.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Welcome to UHH, Bob. If you see any very large creatures covered with white fur, I'd avoid those.
Have a great trip.
--Bob

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

First off you're doing the right thing by renting a car and going by yourself. I have been doing this at least 20 times over 50 years. The best time to view the real Alaska is at the beginning of September as you get that fall color. Here is what I would do and have done. Drive south to Homer, stay overnight, drive back and over to Seward, be sure you take a Glacier Tour Boat to see the glaciers. Next morning drive to Whittier, take the ferry over to Valdez, it's a scenic ride and lasts all day. Stay in Valdez overnight next morning drive north over Thompson pass, a very scenic drive, up to Glennallen. There you have to make a decision to go on north to Paxton or go west back to Anchorage, if you continue north stay in Paxton and take the Old Denali Highway over to Cantwell it is a rough road but weather permitting the most scenic. Some rental car agencies make you sign not to go on there because of the road conditions, I did it three times anyway. Lodging at Paxton is limited so you can drive to Tangles lake about 20 miles into the road, nice cabins there. It's a day's drive over to Cantwell, now you are on the main stream Alaskan highway close to Denali Park. Now you mention wild life, don't be surprised to see only a fox or a cow moose, travel sites exaggerate. On the route I mentioned restaurants are far and between, I travel solo so no trouble, but load up with KFR Chicken in case you get hungry. I would also suggest you get the Alaskan Bible the Milepost Yearly Book. Wish you a great trip and above all great weather. I have posted thousandths Alaska images on here if you want to check it out what you will find.

blackhorse 1-7

May I strongly suggest you add a battery operated "small" GPS unit and a little notebook. Often, one forgets where a picture was taken. A quick note with coordinates refreshes memories, and years from now, when you are old and gray, and someone asks, "where was that?" You'll be able to "remember."

gessman Loc: Colorado

I've seen where you've been advised to leave one of your long lens behind and in making that decision you might want to watch this video, if you haven't, that compares the results of your two lens in a loosely configured field test with a lot of good information passed on throughout. I would agree, incidentally, with the idea of taking a wide lens, probably a good zoom. That video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk&t=1s

gwong1 Loc: Tampa, FL

Bob, Welcome and congratulations on your retirement.

Alaska Drive
Attached file:
(Download)

davefales Loc: Virginia

Welcome, Bob - we drove south to Seward and north to the Denali area.

Going south, try to time your drive around Turnagain Arm to view the bore tide phenomenon. If you are a skier, spend an hour to check out Alyeska Resort.

Hike out to Exit Glacier just north of Seward. The signs will show you the dates of the glacier edge over the years (long before autos and other pollution.)

Someone else suggested taking an all-day boat tour out to Kenai Fjords to see several glaciers at water's edge (https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60873-d146623-Reviews-Kenai_Fjords_Tours-Seward_Alaska.html.)

In Seward, don't miss http://www.alaskasealife.org/

We went in August 2006 and it rained most of the time. The only reason we got to see the top of Denali was by flying out of Talkeetna.

I envy you.

BobinSDakota

Thank you so much for all the wonderful replies.
My wife and I have learned a lot about where to go and what
to bring from reading your responses.

Bob

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Welcome aboard Bob. Years ago I took a course in evidence photography. I have done some work for the Pennsylvania State Police. When you had to show photos in court you had to show the angles and feet that the photos were taken and with what lens. That was back in the film days.