Help on Lenses for Alaska trip

[dculp]

I am traveling to Alaska in July with the only thought being to get some nice, crystal clear, wildlife photos. I currently shoot with a Canon XT (8mb), the standard 18 – 55mm and a Tamron 28 – 300mm. I also have a lightweight tripod.

I have been to Alaska before and notice that the wildlife is always too far away and always on the move. The problem I have with my current set up is the Tamron is not extremely sharp at 300mm, it tends to search a bit when focusing and due to a lightweight tripod, I can have some blurry images.

I have about $2000, give or take $200, and I am looking for the best solution for this type of photography in my budget. As I can not afford a big 500mm lens with IS, I am leaning toward purchasing a Canon 300mm f/4 L IS prime lens for around $1200 and upgrading my camera to the new Canon XSi (12mb) with the 18 – 55mm IS lens for around $900. I also have a buyer for my camera at around $350.

My thought is due to the IS, I would not need a tripod, the lens has great reviews for sharpness and with the additional mb, I could do more cropping on Photoshop. I would also have my existing Tamron zoom to fill in the gap between lenses. Any other suggestions as to how I might better spend my $2000?

Thanks for any help.

[Bonish Photo]

Sounds like a good set up, but a fixed f/4 lens will limit you if you're ever in low light situations. The ones that animals love.

I own a Canon USM IS 70-200L f/2.8 that is tack sharp at 200mm and pretty light for a lens of that size. I think the 300 is a bit heavier if I remember correctly.

You could get the 1.4 extender and still be under the f/4 of the 300mm but with better magnifacation.

Just my thought. Check out some of the Sigma lenses as they are way less expensive than the Canon Pro Glass, yet still very sharp and I think there are a few in the last issue of Outdoor Photographer that they reviewed that even have Image Stabilization built in.

Good Luck on your Alaska Trip and make sure to post some pictures when you return.

PM Totally Frozen, as he lives up there year round. He should be thawed out by the time you get there and can probably show you some cool places to shoot.

[gldiana]

If you are interested in wildlife photography, a lens that is a must and you cannot simply do without is the Canon 100-400 L IS. Excellent quality and for its price of about $1300 you are below your spending limit and go home with an amazing piece of glass that all pro wildlife photographers have (and I know a few). Couple that with a 1.4X converter and you have a 140-560mm effective (add to that the 1.6 crop factor of your XT and you have an actual 224-900mm) without losing the autofocus.
You could add the 2X (which I have an love) but with that lens you'd lose the autofocus.

Hope this helps!

[bob_r]

If you are interested in wildlife photography, a lens that is a must and you cannot simply do without is the Canon 100-400 L IS. Excellent quality and for its price of about $1300 you are below your spending limit and go home with an amazing piece of glass that all pro wildlife photographers have (and I know a few). Couple that with a 1.4X converter and you have a 140-560mm effective (add to that the 1.6 crop factor of your XT and you have an actual 224-900mm) without losing the autofocus.
You could add the 2X (which I have an love) but with that lens you'd lose the autofocus.

Hope this helps!

You will lose autofocus on a crop camera with a TC. They won't AF beyond f/5.6 and the 100-400 is already at f/5.6 at 400mm. The lens is still fantastic with a 1.4X even though you will have to MF. Here's a 100% crop of a shot of a hummer taken with the 100-400 and a 1.4X with no post processing except cropping and resizing the file.

Like Luca, I highly recommend this lens.

Bob R

[Bonish Photo]

Bob, I had to look at that picture really close because at first I busted out laughing thinking that was a male hummingbird and it was holding on the the branch with it's 3rd leg also

Then after looking close, I noticed it was a piece of the branch...LOL

Great shot, and although I dont have the 100-400, I have heard it's one heck of a lens.

[dculp]

I appreciate all of the feedback. My only fear with the 100 - 400 is with the lens being a f/5.6 at max zoom, it may not be fast enough at low light. As you know, it rains basically every day in Alaska and I anticipate having to do some low light shooting.

Is this a realistic fear on this lens with these conditions?

[gldiana]

The 100-400 is an IS lens (Image Stabilization) which means you actually gain 2 f/stops

[bob_r]

I appreciate all of the feedback. My only fear with the 100 - 400 is with the lens being a f/5.6 at max zoom, it may not be fast enough at low light. As you know, it rains basically every day in Alaska and I anticipate having to do some low light shooting.

Is this a realistic fear on this lens with these conditions?

You're only talking about a 1 stop difference between the 300 f/4 and the 100-400. I have not noticed a problem with low lighting that can't be fixed by boosting the ISO when needed. I rarely need to go beyond ISO400, but have had decent results even when boosting it to 1000. IMHO, the flexability of the zoom is worth the 1 stop difference.

Bob R

[bob_r]

Bob, I had to look at that picture really close because at first I busted out laughing thinking that was a male hummingbird and it was holding on the the branch with it's 3rd leg also

Then after looking close, I noticed it was a piece of the branch...LOL

Great shot, and although I dont have the 100-400, I have heard it's one heck of a lens.

Pat,

Thought you found a new use for one of your appendages?

Bob R

[hw771230]

dculp,

I'm a bit late on this one, but I felt I had to put in my oppinion. I shoot a lot with a Tokina fixed 400/5.6, and have had little problems in Alaska with low light, especialy in summer. The 100-400 is an incredible lens and would be a steal at the going price. The other lens I would take is a wide fast lens. I use a Sigma 18-50/2.8 which is very nice for the price.

Caleb

[dculp]

dculp,

I'm a bit late on this one, but I felt I had to put in my oppinion. I shoot a lot with a Tokina fixed 400/5.6, and have had little problems in Alaska with low light, especialy in summer. The 100-400 is an incredible lens and would be a steal at the going price. The other lens I would take is a wide fast lens. I use a Sigma 18-50/2.8 which is very nice for the price.

Caleb

Thanks for the help. I am still watching for just such assistance. It seems as though I can't go wrong with the 100 - 400 from Canon. I like your idea of the wide lens. I'll take a look online to see what I can get this for.

If anyone else has ideas for a good wide angle lens or more help for my trip, please speak up. I need all the help I can get.

[Walczak Photo]

I just want to add a quick $.02 worth to all of this...and a question or two to ponder.

First, in your original post you stated that you were planning on purchasing the new Rebel XSi and I was wondering if there was any specific reason for it. If it specifically for this trip, I don't think the XSi is really going to offer you much more of an advantage in the shooting conditions we're talking about over your currant XT. More over, you don't want to be going out on a major shoot like this while "breaking in a new toy"...you'll probably get a lot more out of the camera that you are already familiar with. Just my opinion here of course, but unless you have a very specific reason for upgrading the camera (such as selling your shots to a stock agency that only accepts 10 megapixel and above), I'd really suggest putting that extra $900 into the glass instead.

As far as the lenses go, if the Tamron has the reach and simply not the sharpness you're after, the 300mm Canon should be fine. While I am a big fan of Tamron, I will also be the first to admit that they do focus rather slow...any of the Canon lenses we're talking about are going to be much faster (and more accurate). I do think I agree with Pat though that if you have the money, getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a converter would give you more flexibility and close to the same focal length with an extra stop or two to spare over the 300mm f/4. If you got a 2x converter, that would even put you in the same range as the 100-400mm lens still with greater flexibility. -If it were me- (and -if- I could afford it), I'd go with the 70-200mm F/2.8 with both a 1.4x and a 2x converter for maximum flexibility. That way you have the extra speed on the lens when you don't need all the mag, but you'll have the mag too when you need it.

Now something that I would like to add here. In your original post you stated "My thought is due to the IS, I would not need a tripod,". At the risk of sounding a little rude, don't bet your britches on it! Even with an IS lens, shooting hand held at these focal lengths requires a -very- steady hand even in good lighting. IS certainly helps, but it's no replacement for a tripod. Please don't fool yourself into believing that simply because you have an IS lens that you'll no longer need a tripod...it's usually not the case.

To sum this up, once you decide which lens you really want or need, I'd suggest using the $900 you were going to spend on the new camera and use it for a decent/matched teleconverter(s) and a good tripod instead. The XSi's aren't going any where for a while and you can bet that in a year or so, there will be something even better coming out. The lenses though will last you a lot longer and you can start using them right away with what you already have.

Okies...again just my $.02 for what it's worth.
Peace,
Jim

[classyshots]

I didn't have my Canon 17-40mm L F4 when I went to AK but I sure wish I would have. Yes it may be a little slow but most of your wide angle shots you are going for max DOF anyway or at least I am.

Anyway... my suggestion for the wide angle would be the Canon 17-40mm L.

[Southern Wolf]

I bought a Sigma 50/500 specifically for my wolf trip...

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/foru ... php?t=2012

and Im glad I did. It had such great versitility that I NEVER changed lenses. There was once or twice that I added a 1.4x but never changed lenses. I paid right at $1,000 for one for my Nikon... the Canon version is cheaper... dont know why... but it is.

At extremely low light you will have to bump up your ISO... but we were shooting at sunrise + 3hrs and 3hrs before sunset till dark and for most of that I shot at ISO 400. To my eyes and alot of people that have critiqued them... they look fine. You can see them at the link above. At the extreme I was shooting ISO 640-800 and the photos look great. See the head shot of the black wolf. It was close to dark.

This may be a great option for you... add a 1.4 to that lens and you have a 700mm

[Bonish Photo]

I shoot a Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 and love it. It's really fast wide open and really wide! Since I bought it, I havent used my 15mm fisheye once unless I'm going for the distortion look

I found it used on a camera forum for pretty cheap Under $200