olsonsview

The best camera and lens combo to take with you is the one you are willing to carry around everywhere you go! Do not get ambitious beyond your ability to be a pack mule. If you do, the photo rig will sit in a motel room while you hike and take pics with your IPhone! Travel images are one thing, works of art for sale are quite another. And sometimes we get lucky and get the work of art with minimal equipment. But the pro plans his trip, has the right tool to do the job with him, and has help if there is too much to carry. He gets many keepers.
Remember a long lens needs a solid tripod. Some more to carry. Good luck!

cthahn

It is totally up to you. You are the photographer going on the trip.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

Does he really want to be changing lenses in the field? Perhaps renting a lens is the best choice.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

The 200-500 is a great choice especially for the price. It is a beast to hand hold for an extended time however. I have matched it with a gimbal tripod head (and tripod, of course) with pretty good results.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The first thing I'd recommend, since wildlife is your primary purpose, would be to get a crop sensor camera. Your D610 is FX or full frame model, is it not? A DX or APS-C crop camera will give you "50% more reach" without the loss of a stop of light that occurs whenever you add a teleconverter. On a DX camera your 70-200mm would "act like" a 105-300mm f2.8.

But, to be honest, 300mm or "300mm equivalent" really isn't enough focal length for much wildlife. You are likely to still want more. So even with a DX camera you might want to get a 1.4X teleconverter to make for a "420mm equivalent". For wildlife, I actually use a 100-400mm, 300mm and sometimes 500mm lens a lot on crop sensor (equivalent to 160-640mm, 480mm and 800mm on full frame)... sometimes even with 1.4X teleconverter. I shoot with Canon gear, but you can find similar for Nikon.

As you've noted, when traveling the size and weight of gear can be a concern. In general, a DX kit of camera and lenses can be a lot smaller and lighter than equivalent in full frame.

A 300/4 is about the same size and weight as your 70-200/2.8... maybe a little larger, heavier when you add a 1.4X to the 300mm. A 200-500/5.6 is necessarily bigger and heavier.

A DX "walk-around" zoom such as 18-105mm, 18-140mm or 16-85mm might be a better travel companion than a bigger, heavier 24-70/2.8.

Although you say your primary purpose is wildlife, I think you're also very likely to find some scenics you want to shoot in Canada and Greenland. For that I'd want a wider lens. Personally I carry a 10-22mm "crop only"... or 20mm, 24mm, 28mm primes for use on a full frame camera (If I did a lot of landscape shots with FF, I'd get a still wider prime 14 or 17mm, or a 16-35mm zoom).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

A possible solution is to ship heavier items ahead, to meet you at your destination(s). Or look into some sturdy case to be able to check items safely.

larryc Loc: Vancouver, BC

I have a D610 with Nikon's 28-300. (Had a D600, and Nikon gave me the 610 as a replacement due to the spotting problems).
Anyway, it's the only lens I have and it does OK for me. OF course it would be nicer to have the longer lens, but with the one I have, don't need to lug any more around.
With the 610 we were in Addo Park in South Africa and saw this herd of elephants. As an example I have attached two photos. One normal, and one zoomed in.
You can appreciate how good it was. (Or not if you wanted to get closer).

To help carrying the extra weight of the camera and lens around, I have a hand strap from CottonCarrier.com so it's less of a burden. Hope this helps you out.

(Download)


(Download)

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I change lenses in the field, when I have to.
You either change lenses or you accept that you will have the wrong lens for many shots.
Of course he could get a high end bridge camera and leave everything else at home. Depends on what he will do with the pictures. On screen, media or even projected they would be OK. For high quality large prints, not so much.
In fact a high end bridge is the only answer to his "wildlife" but no weight or size requirement.

MtnMan Loc: ID

You can get a Refurb D5300 for what Nikon wants for their 1.4 TC and have a lighter outfit.

MtnMan Loc: ID

A monopod provides good enough support because of the great VR for less weight.

However I found even a monopod awkward on Safari so handheld my 200-500 plus D800. It is OK in that case because most of the time it is in your lap and you aren't even allowed out of the vehicle near animals.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Why not consider a good bridge camera such as a Sony with 35plus magnification? They are light and easy to carry!!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If you go to the Galapagos you do not need a powerful tele to make great wildlife shots. Many of my best pictures in the Everglades National Park have been made with a 70-300 VR lens.
I know nothing about Greenland and I have never been to Northern Canada. It is very possible that perhaps your 300mm lens is kind of short but I have no way to tell. Many wildlife photographers use lenses like the 200-500 f5.6 VR or one of those Tamron-Sigma 150-600 VR. Primes like the 400 or 600 VR lenses are heavy and impractical to carry on a plane and they are premium expensive.
If you have a 300mm lens and your main interest is wildlife I will take the lens to this trip but be aware that the focal length could be short for many subjects.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Using a 28-300 would be a step down from what you are accustomed to getting with your current lenses. Even when using the 70-200 with a TC, you will get better image quality.

The 200-500 Nikkor, or the 150-600 Tamron G2, or the Sigma Sport 150-600 will give you considerably better image quality.

I've personally tried all of these (except for the G2), and found that the 28-300 offers the weakest images particularly at 300mm. And you can forget using it with a TX - the results would be awful. The 200-500 is quite good, and the G2 and Sport are a bit better, with resolution and sharpness closer to a prime lens. I shoot with a 600mm F4, and recently picked up a Sport and at F8 it's really hard to tell which lens took the picture.

Don't take my word for it:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/4
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr


https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/4


The 300 F4 PF ED is very crisp even with a 1.4X. Even the older, non-PF version is very sharp, with test results only slightly worse than the PF. I have used the AFS but not the new one.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr

I suggest you bring your 24-70 and rent either a G2 or a Sport. This way you won't have to mess around with a TC, and the compromises in AF and optical performance that come with it.

sholland98 Loc: Benbrook, Texas

Sigma 150-600C or S pending depth of your pockets. You won't be disappointed.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

C is much reduced weight and debatable whether you will notice a difference optically.(S is metal so more robust for travel)
Only weight reduction you get with the S is in your wallet :-)