Poetbard

I am flying to Alaska for some shots and my first rental will be a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV or a Canon EOS 5DS, I also want to rent the best zoom to at least 200 or more, and the best walk around lens. The selection is so broad that I haven't a clue when moving up from my present, inadequate camera, which lenses to rent. (I will be renting a NIKON D810 next to try out). In your all accomplished photo experience, which two lenses (I doubt I'll get a consensus, but I'll take a poll), should lenses should I rent considering, valleys, mountains and close ups of wild life and really close ups of flowers? Eventually after rentals and learning curve, I'll purchase a target camera.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

For the D810; Nikon 16 - 35 (landscapes. Nikon 105 Macro for close-ups.

BBurns Loc: South Bay, California

I would certainly include a good wide angle lens in your kit. The panoramas are spectacular.

Poetbard

Thank you, and if I may; I am looking for top quality - Model Number- lenses to rent to fit the Canons. When I buy, it will be with a wish list for what I may get. The sites offer many lenses, I want to try out the best of them. I will add a wide angle lens. BTW, my next trip will be to the Oregon Coast, there I will be renting the Nikon. Thank you all.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For Canon and wildlife with a zoom, go 5DIV, 100-400L II and 1.4x III extender. For wide angle and general photography, add the 16-35 f/4L IS.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I heartily agree, the 100-400 II with 1.4X is very hard to beat. The 24-70 II is also very hard to beat !

Poetbard

Thank you again. I will put this to work in my first rentals. Alaska, here I come. Smile for me.

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

Without knowing what subjects you will be shooting it really hard to recommend anything. However, these articles may be a good place to start.

https://photographylife.com/wildlife-trip-to-alaska-part-1-what-and-why
https://photographylife.com/wildlife-trip-to-alaska-part-2-planning-and-execution

Photocraig

I like the suggestions. Unquestionably, based on UHH posts, the 100-400L with the 1.4 extender is a winner. Also, the 15-35 is a long time favorite. But there's a lot of images between 35mm and 100 mm that might be covered with a Prime like a 50mm or maybe the 55mm or something MACRO. Just because the scenes are so majestic doesn't mean the close focus on a plant or other small feature might not tell a key part of the story.
r
I just detected I'm suffering from TAS that TRIP acquisition Syndrome. Have a great one and tell which body performs best.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

tjjm Loc: Saint Louis, Mo.

Agree with all on the 100-400 and 1.4 extender. If taking two lenses canon has a 24-105 f4 that may cover the low end, it is an L series also.

Poetbard

Thank you for that posting. This is my first foray into serious photography since my Mamiya 645 days. I have been doing mostly point and shoot the last few years with a Canon 4i, your posting inspired me. Funny thing is, considering the advancement in photography and equipment, I am a novice all over again; and if I get one good shot to compare with your posting I will consider it a good trip.

Poetbard

I guess I sort of have my marching orders. I will let everyone know how it went. Thank you.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

5DS-R would be great for scenic shots, so long as you have enough big memory cards and hard drive space for the huge files, and a computer with enough RAM and oomph to handle them. It would not be a great choice for wildlife.

5DIV would probably be the better choice for BOTH scenic shots and wildlife. But for the latter you will need BIG, HEAVY lenses with any full frame camera..

But an APS-C model such as 7DII or 80D would allow use of much smaller and lighter lenses. For example, would you rather rent and carry a $2000, 3.5 lb. 100-400mm Mark II with an 80D.... or an $11,500, 8.5 lb. 600mm f/4L II for use on a full frame camera? Another way of looking at it, compared to full frame the APS-C camera "acts like" a 1.6X teleconverter, without the light loss penalty of an actual teleconverter. This is a disadvantage for wide angle shooting (scenics), but a serious advantage to the APS-C for telephoto work (wildlife).

On either FF or APS-C, the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens might be an interesting option.... Sharp, high quality, a bit lighter and smaller than it's f/2.8 cousin, has IS and.... best of all... is able to do 0.7X magnification all on its own. That's twice or three times higher magnification than most other zooms can do. With this lens, might not need to also take a macro for those close-up shots. It would be plenty of magnification for most flower photography, for example. By the way, the EF 100-400L II IS USM is also pretty close focusing, a little better than 0.3X, if memory serves... the most magnification of any Canon telephoto longer than 200mm.

For wider angle scenic shots... on full frame: EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM... Or on APS-C: EF-S 10-22mm USM.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If it is just 1 lens the 24-105 L II would serve better. Or if weight is no issue the 28-300 L would serve well as the one lens kit to test the 2 Canon cameras. If 2 lenses are in the cards then the aforementioned 24-105 along with the super 100-400 L II would cover everything that you would encounter. In Alaska things are far away and the 400mm can give you the reach you will need.