# Alaskan Cruise - 70-300L/Crop Sensor?



## Cory (Jun 20, 2013)

Would the big upcoming Alaskan cruise (in a week and a half) call for a 70-300L? My current gear is a T1i, Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and 200 2.8II (and the associated goodness for waterfalls, bright light, etc.).
Also, would wildlife in bright sun necessarily call for a polarizing filter in many cases or are polarizing filters more of a landscape thing? 
Thanks.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2013)

Absolutely! A longer zoom comes in handy if you go on a whale watch at Juneau or go White Pass railroad tour. It also comes in handy photographying the glaciers. The glaciers are large, but the cruise ships are thousands of feet away.

Most of the time, you'll be using it outside, so it can tak the place of the 200 2.8 II.


----------



## miah (Jun 20, 2013)

I concur. I took a T1i + 15-85 and 70-300 on the Alaska Ferry from Bellingham to Haines. It was great for dolphins and whales and a lot of landscapes that were a fair distance from the ship. A polarizer can really help out on the water to cut glare, but you take a big hit on aperture on an already slowish lens. I'd leave the 200 at home unless weight/bulk isn't a problem and you can pack the whole kit.


----------



## mojo415 (Jun 20, 2013)

Hi Cory:

Going to give you my experience on our cruise to Alaska last August. We were on the Royal Caribbean cruise line for 14 days. The route was Vancouver, Ketchikan, Icy Strait Point, Juneau, Skagway, Hubbard Glacier, Seward and then in reverse order.

Back then I was using Nikon D7000 (I've now switched to Canon MK2 with 24-70L, 40mm pancake and 70-200L) and brought with me 3 lenses: Tokina 11-16 2.8, 35mm 1.8 and a 80-200 2.8.

Personally, I would bring the wide and the 200 and that's it. You want to enjoy your trip so travel light. In terms of shooting at 200 or 300, my personal experience is if you don't get the shot at 200, the extra reach at 300 won't make that much of a difference, you are just too far. The 200 is a few stops faster and lighter . If you are shooting salmon, bring the CPL.

On excursions, I would recommend going on the floater plane in Ketchikan, the views from above is amazing. Whale watching, there will be tons of whales, you can even see them on shores at Icy strait point. If you are planning on climbing on the glacier, my wife and I climbed the Exit glacier. It was fun but the hike was pretty harsh, 2hrs uphill and we weren't even on the ice yet. In Juneau, look for the library in the city, there's a bold eagle nest on top of it, don't worry if you miss it, there's going to be tons of eagles in every city. Lastly, when eating dinner on the cruise ship, always have the tele ready, the dolphins always shows up around dinner time, and yes, I am serious. If you can, bring some sort of rain protection gear for your camera, it rains alot in Alaska. 

Hope this helps. Cheers.


----------



## Cory (Jun 20, 2013)

That helps a massive amount. I appreciate that and REALLY like the image quality from my 200 prime.
Would you say that my Sigma 17-50 should capture all/most of my non-telephoto pics or did you really find the 11-16 to be a great thing? I wasn't sure if the extra few mm's would be worth the expense or extra gear.
Which leads me to something else - I really like using primes so I was considering swapping out my 17-50 for a Tokina 11-16 and maybe a new Sigma 30 1.4. Would that be sort of dumb or maybe pretty smart?
Thanks.
Oh, and our excursions are the coastal wildlife tour, gold panning and the musher's camp (by ground and not by air).


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 20, 2013)

If you feel that you might want more reach, you can always bring a 1.4x or 2x TC, although your image quality will suffer to an extent. On the other hand, it might be preferable to trying to crop in and getting a marginal image.


----------



## mojo415 (Jun 20, 2013)

Seems like you have money to burn..... ;D
I never owned a Sigma so I can't say much about the picture quality or the build quality. I like the Tokina because it was within my price range at the time, very solid and never disappointed me. It's very wide but don't forget it does nothing but wide. 

In terms of range, your sigma is pretty wide (26mm or so on a crop) but its much more versatile. If you need a wider shot, just zoom with the your legs or stitch a few photos together post process. 

I lot of people like the Sigma 30mm, it's super fast and decently prices. Personally, why not just bring a 35mm prime or 40mm pancake. Both weights way less than the Sigma. The 1lb Sigma adds up on a long day of walking and you save 100-200 dollars depending on the market.

Alot of people like to carry full range of lenses so they have every mm covered. If you have a strong shoulder, sure why not. I personally carry just 1, 2 the max on trips, it's better for my health and overall enjoyment of my vacations.

I forgot to mention, if you are in Juneau, head over to Tracey's crab shack, they have amazing crabs and the library I mentioned earlier is just around the corner.

Cheers


----------



## emag (Jun 20, 2013)

It's been 6 years since I was there, my only regret is I didn't bring a wider lens, I could have used it and a CPL on the beach in Haines. 200mm was fine; as a previous poster said, if 200 won't cut it, 300 won't be much better. I would recommend the 11-16 and polarizer, you'll really want to knock down the sky brightness with the polarizer sometimes, at least a graduated ND would be useful. I live on the Florida coast, so I was truly impressed with the expansive, mountainous views on Lynn Canal.


----------



## chops411 (Jun 20, 2013)

I just got back from Alaska a couple weeks ago and we took two day cruises. I was switching out between my 70-200 and 24-105 a lot. The 70-200 worked great for wildlife but not wide enough for the water falls and glaciers. I also used my Tokina 11-16 just for the glaciers.


----------



## wle (Jun 20, 2013)

Recommend renting a 2x III TC to extend the 200mm on the very good chance that you will want that range for wildlife and birds. Also recommend a wide angle zoom starting in the 24mm (full frame) range. I think you will use it a lot. And yes on the polarizer. Not only will it take the glare off water and richen the sky and clouds in bright light but will take the shine off of wet foliage and show the salmon and rocks in shallow water.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 21, 2013)

You've got some great advice here above already.

I have lived and travelled extensively during my life - although I'm just middle aged. I echo the advice that travelling light on such a journey will make it more enjoyable for you, and may even allow you to get a number of photos that you might not otherwise if you were 'burdened down' with gear (or too busy changing lenses).

On my Canon 7D, my travel lens combination is the 15-85mm and 70-300mm L. I have seen photos of Alaska that my friends took a year or so ago, and also another friend who went to New Zealand (somewhat similar scenery: mountains, 'fjords', glacial features, etc).

While I also have a great Ultrawide Angle (UWA) - the Sigma 10-20mm - I would recommend that in many cases your Sigma 17-50 would cover a lot of landscape well... and having the flexibility of the 70-300mm L for eg animals, birds or some landscape features in the distance - would work well. It's when you are up close to big mountains, etc - that an UWA would be 'necessary'.

Although the 100mm and 200mm primes can be handy in low light, you'll probably have enough daylight most times (and with IS on the 70-300mm L) - to get good shots with both (your Sigma 17-50mm is f/2.8, right?)

Paul


----------



## Cory (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks for all the good opinions - they were all good.
One thing to note is that a Tokina 11-16, my Sigma zoom and a 100-400 all have the same 77mm threads and I already have a really good polarizing and ND filter, but I'm leaning towards just sticking with the Sigma 17-50 and Canon 200 2.8 and leaving it at that.
I wonder how useful an UWA would be to make the cost/extra gear worth it. Do some find that bottoming out at 17mm (on a crop) forces one to catch the most interesting part of a landscape or interior? Also, I'm a sucker for primes, but maybe a normal zoom is a great thing; provided that it's a great zoom.
And, the 100-400 might be a no-brainer instead of the 200, but the 200 travels nicely. I wonder if I'll catch the majority of my telephoto shots with the 200 vs. catching more, but having to lug a large lens around. Since there is a bunch of talk about a redone 100-400 I think I'd do it if it were out so maybe I'll hold off (and am not ruling out renting one - I'm off to lensrentals.com to check that out). 
Thanks again and thanks in advance for any other points of view. We leave in a little over a week so there's time and, of course, I'll post my "Alaskan" album.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 21, 2013)

I can vouch for the 70-300L anytime. Used it also on a crop 60D. Very good reach indeed. Enjoy the trip...


----------



## RGF (Jun 21, 2013)

Yes to the 70-300L, might consider 24-105 and keep your kit to 2 light weight lens.


----------



## Cory (Jun 21, 2013)

Thanks again everyone. Much appreciated.
Might the answer be to rent a 100-400 and call it a day and then, if I love it, buy the 100-400II one day?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2013)

Cory said:


> Might the answer be to rent a 100-400 and call it a day and then, if I love it, buy the 100-400II one day?



Might be...if you're willing to carry the weight. If you'll need 400mm much of the time, that's the way to go, else the 70-300L is the better lens.


----------



## mojo415 (Jun 21, 2013)

The 100-400 weights 3lbs or so, bring a tripod


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2013)

mojo415 said:


> The 100-400 weights 3lbs or so, bring a tripod



I've taken literally thousands of shots with the 100-400L, and even more with the 70-200/2.8L IS II (which is slightly heavier). Of all of those, perhaps a few dozen were taken from a tripod.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Might the answer be to rent a 100-400 and call it a day and then, if I love it, buy the 100-400II one day?
> ...



Can we assume that the 70-300L met your expectations after putting it through its paces? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



Not yet - that statement is primarily based on specs and test charts. I got my 70-300L just yesterday, so except for a couple of initial test shots, all I've shot so far is the FoCal test image (result is +2 AFMA across the range). 

But...I'm goring out on an excursion this afternoon, and bringing the new lens.


----------



## Cory (Jun 21, 2013)

Did anyone see the pics from the recent "300 4.0 IS" thread? Now I'm really ****** up.


----------



## chas1113 (Jun 21, 2013)

Cory: I have the EF 70-300mm L and the EF 300mm f/4 IS (can't seem to let go of it even though the zoom gets me to 300mm at f/5.6). I got rid of three zooms when I got the 70-300L (EF-S 55-250, EF 70-200 f/4 IS and an older EF 100-300L)...but I kept the 300mm f/4 IS because at 300mm it was still sharper than the zoom. With a 1.4 TCon an APS-C crop body I get great results at the "reach" equivalent of 672mm — with IS. When I am reach limited I take two bodies (5D Mark II with the 70-300L and an old 40D with the 300mm f/4 IS with TC).

There, I've whetted your appetite for buying a 70-300L, a 300 f/4 IS AND a full frame body!!


----------



## Cory (Jun 21, 2013)

chas1113 said:


> There, I've whetted your appetite for buying a 70-300L, a 300 f/4 IS AND a full frame body!!


You did. I was actually going to upgrade to a 6D, but the thought of learning something new threw me off as well as a new "normal" lens, etc. Plus, results with my T1i are really extremely good so I figured I could throw some dollars towards a great telephoto. My tele-primes really shine for indoor sports - my daughter's an "extreme" volleyball player (delusional sports-dad alert), but I can definitely use a tele-zoom for my son's outdoor sports, band, etc.
The 300 prime or 100-400 seem like a good move for several reasons; one of which is the same size polarizing filter that I already have - of course, an expensive one. I am a "prime"-ho so maybe I'll rent a 300 4.0 IS and buy the 100-400II when it comes out. That might be the move and bring just my normal zoom and 300.
:-*


----------



## chas1113 (Jun 21, 2013)

I had my 300mm f/4 for my daughter's Crew (rowing) events (Dad sports alert redux).... I considered the EF 100-400mm but it had the push-pull of the 100-300 L I had and didn't care for the action of it. That's why I opted for the lighter, sharper, better IS (4 stops) and normal twist zoom action of the 70-300L. The 70-300L balances better, too. I'm sure the new 100-400mm L II will prbably match its image quality whenever it comes out, but it will cost a small fortune and still be heavier.


----------



## Cory (Jun 21, 2013)

If no one minds one more potentiall stupid question (which I'll research some articles on anyway):
Can a polarizing filter be helpful at times for wildlife (on water, bright sun, etc.)? I've gotten great results with mine for landscapes, but "yes" for wildlife in certain conditions or not really?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2013)

Cory said:


> If no one minds one more potentiall stupid question (which I'll research some articles on anyway):
> Can a polarizing filter be helpful at times for wildlife (on water, bright sun, etc.)? I've gotten great results with mine for landscapes, but "yes" for wildlife in certain conditions or not really?



Yes, as long as the loss of ~1.75 stops of light doesn't drop your shutter speed too low.


----------



## akclimber (Jun 22, 2013)

Cory said:


> Would the big upcoming Alaskan cruise (in a week and a half) call for a 70-300L? My current gear is a T1i, Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and 200 2.8II (and the associated goodness for waterfalls, bright light, etc.).
> Also, would wildlife in bright sun necessarily call for a polarizing filter in many cases or are polarizing filters more of a landscape thing?
> Thanks.



Howdy, 

I live in Juneau and recommend either the 70-300 or maybe even better the 100-400 (the 100-400 is my go to whale lens when I'm out on my boat and my handheld bear lens when I don't have my 500 with me or the bears are too close).

And yep, a polarizer is good to have. Don't forget it can also do a very good job accentuating rainbows!

Feel free to ask any SE AK related questions if you have 'em.

I hope you enjoy your trip, the weather gods are kind and the whales, bears and eagles plentiful! (the wildflowers are going crazy right now!)

Cheers from warm (!), sunny (!) SE AK


----------



## akclimber (Jun 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mojo415 said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 weights 3lbs or so, bring a tripod
> ...



Agreed, the 100-400 is very easy to handhold. Heck that's its whole reason to exist!


----------



## akclimber (Jun 22, 2013)

Cory said:


> Did anyone see the pics from the recent "300 4.0 IS" thread? Now I'm really ****** up.



I also own a 300 f/4 IS and I haven't used it since buying my used 100-400. The 300 has better IQ and is better for close focusing for flowers, etc. but it's not as versatile as the 100-400.

Cheers!


----------



## Cory (Jun 22, 2013)

Thanks again for all the help. There's no one perfect answer so reviewing all options I rented the 100-400. My final rationale was the rental fee being similar to what a polarizing filter would have cost for my 200 prime (and I already have a 77mm polarizing filter). Almost bought the 70-300, but I think I'd rather wait to see what version II of the 100-400 might be like. Lots of soccer and band events ahead and I think I just coached my final soccer game after 10 years of coaching leaving time for massive amounts of future pics.


----------

