Is 200mm too short for an Alaska cruise?

I've heard recommendations for wide and long for an Alaskan cruise, and the longest I have is 50mm. A 200mm is all that's in the budget for a new tele lens. Am I wasting my money getting a 200 for Alaska, or is it long enough to get the wildlife shots? If it's not long enough, then i'll probably just not take a tele.

i'd say its better than a 50 but probably too short for a number of things

but i would definately go for the 200

But then how about renting a lens like a 100-400. Even buying one and reselling it afterwards would work

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

I'd say 200 is too short, but let's see what you have, which 200 you are thinking of, and also tell us your budget for this lens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

on your personal choices.. what you like to shoot and what you are going to do while there. I think you will get as many opinions as there are lenses out there. Too long, too short, too slow, too heavy, too too.. etc. So, figure what you are going to do and then what you will "need". Landscapes, animals, travel snaps ,glacier climbing.. whatever. This is a personal thing and what is right for me may not be right for someone else. My personal travel friend is the 17-85 IS.. This is a lens a lot of folks dump on but for me.. I think is great. I also have the 70-300 IS... that means I have from 27 to 480 covered .. IS all the way. I also throw in a 50 1.4 for the low light stuff and occasional panos (very little distortion on this one). So, for the price on one L.. I am pretty well covered. Some folks would not be happy with my choices... but thats ok too.. to each his own. Have a good trip. Regards. R.

--
ralph m
fcas(77)
http://www.pbase.com/rmcmillan

I had my 100-400 for my trip to Alaska last year and even it wasn't long enough for most of the wildlife I saw. The entire time I was never even able to get very close to the wildlife although I assume it depends where you are going. I was on a cruise so much of what we saw was very far from the boat, especially with a 5D.

I would get the 100-400 if you can afford it though as it would be pretty long on a 1.6x crop.

--
Brandon
5D

Brandon Berg Photography
http://www.bberg23.zenfolio.com

I have the 10-22 for landscapes, and the 50mm 1.8 for low-light. Crop camera. I want the longer lens for Alaskan wildlife (whales, seals, bear) and climbers in Yosemtie (secondary). Also for some sports photography (whitewater kayaking).

I was thinking about the Canon 200mm L 2.8, and my budget is around $800-$900. I would like the 70-200 f4, but I believe it will be too slow. The longer primes are out of my price range, and I have heard the longer zooms have mediocre image quality (anyone care to differ?). That leaves me with the 200mm 2.8 for good quality at a good price, but I don't want to buy it if I'll find out it's too short for my intended use.

I had the Bigma on my alaskan cruise (500mm) and it wasn't long enough. All depends what kind of a ship you're on too. We were on a BIG Princess cruise ship, some of the more expensive smaller cruise ships get closer to the wildlife. I used my wild angle lens 95% of the trip.

You can take side trips like whale watching, etc. to get closer i guess but i would say 200mm from the ship is useless if you're on a big ship. Alaska is HUGE!!!!!

We're doing it again in August but this time we're doing the land and cruise trip. I can't wait to see Denali, Anchorage, and Fairbanks.

Have fun.
--
***********************************************************
Rudi - Phounder Of The Phart ... CATS member #100 > ^..^
My Homepage: http://www.pbase.com/rudiman
My Pharts: http://www.pbase.com/rudiman/pharts
Favorites: http://www.pbase.com/rudiman/my_favorites
Alaskan Cruise 2004: http://www.pbase.com/rudiman/alaska
Everything in my galleries, God Made. Its just my job to show them.
***********************************************************

gtg092s said:

I want the longer lens for Alaskan wildlife (whales,
seals, bear) and climbers in Yosemtie (secondary). Also for some
sports photography (whitewater kayaking).

I was thinking about the Canon 200mm L 2.8, and my budget is around
$800-$900.

Click to expand...

This helps. If I were you, I'd get the 70-300IS. It's a lens with decent optics, decent range, and very effective IS which is quite helpful on longer lenses, especially on crop cameras. It's also nice for travel because it's pretty small and light.

You have a pretty big gap between 22 and 50. I'd personally fill that with a 35/2.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I was on a big Alaskian cruise boat and did all of the touristy stuff. The range covered most all of what I needed and it worked OK indoors and outside.

Our whale watching boat was owned by a real nature person and he didn't want to get too close to where there whales were so the 300 wasn't long enough for that (and 400 wouldn't work much better also). The other boats were close enough to them to get great shots with anything.

I never got close enough to eagles, wolves or anything other Alaskan wildlife to take a photo of with anything made so not having a 400+ wasn't an issue.

I enjoy not having to change lenses so the 28-300 was great otherwise. I had a 24-70 for shooting in the evening on the cruise ship so that was OK.

I would take the combo again.

In my bag was a Tamron 28-300 for a backup. It can make OK photos and probably is equal to my minor photo skills. Unless I was going to make a 8x10 I doubt I could tell the difference. Perhaps it might be considered.

The 70-300 sounds good as long as you have the wide angle covered and don't mind changing lenses.

Most of all make sure the batteries are charged and CF cards are empty. A external storage device is certainly a necessity if you plan on shooting a lot.

--
Ben Lanterman

http://public.fotki.com/benlanterman/
http://webpages.charter.net/benlanterman/Index.html
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=208093

I live in Alaska and my longest lens right now is the 200L. Awesome lens. Don’t let everyone make you think you will use that ultra-wide for all your landscapes. Alaska is huge. A wide angle lens will often make a mountain into a mole hill in our vast vistas. I use my 200L frequently for landscapes.

For wildlife, the 200L works for anything. Good shots are just a matter of probability. Start with a low probability of encountering wildlife in good settings. Lower that by the probability of having nice lighting. What your left with is trying to improve your already low odds with longer lenses. A 200 will capture many of the opportunities. Going to 400 might capture a few more, but a 100-400 doesn’t provide anywhere near the same capability at 200.

I like your lens choices (similar to mine) and I think the 200 is a great addition. If you have a gap, it will be between 50 and 200, but I survived last year with the same gap and only a few moments of frustration.

Here’s three reduced but uncropped from last year with the 200L

you can turn that 200 into a heckuva 300mm with a tamron 1.4xteleconverter for $90 online. Easy to carry with you too, rather than another heavy lens.
--



Linda~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown

Lee Jay said:

This helps. If I were you, I'd get the 70-300IS. It's a lens with
decent optics, decent range, and very effective IS which is quite
helpful on longer lenses, especially on crop cameras. It's also
nice for travel because it's pretty small and light.

Click to expand...

Get the 70-300 IS! It's a great lens and it's even very good at 300mm!

--
***********************************************



Visit my photo gallery: http://www.retomueller.ch
Reto Mueller, Bern, Switzerland

A used 200/2.8L from the FM B&S forum (circa $500) and the 100/2 from the same source for perhaps £350. With your 50 and wide zoom you'd have a very capable outfit. Perhaps add a good 1.4TC to reach to 280/4.

Stuart (with the Tamron 17-50/2.8, 100/2 and 200/2.8L)
--
- -

$350 for the 100/2, not £350!

Stuart
--
- -

I took the inside passage tour, and found myself using wide angle 85% of the time to capture the sheer majesty of the view. However, when we spotted wildlife (whales, bears, eagles, mountain sheep, etc.) or details of calving glaciers, I found that anything less than 400 and up was just not enough.

My next trip will be with my 5D and 15mm / 17-40 and a 500.

Just shot with 10D - 200L/2.8 - 2XII - tripod. Distance 70'



--
Supermodels don't pose in the rain.

hey Stuart,

New to this forum -- definitely in the market for some cheaper used lenses (Grad student here). What is the "FM B&S Forum"? Sounds from your pricing that it's got some pretty good deals.

Thanks,
Ben

cancrizans said:

What is the "FM B&S Forum"?

Click to expand...

Fred Miranda Buy and Sell.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

If you want great wildlife photos, I doubt that a cruise will give you much of an opportunity. You'd be better off doing your wildlife photography at a zoo, game park, etc. Or travel to Alaska or Canada by air and spend a month searching for wildlife opportunities. On your cruise I would think your best chance to see wildlife would be during the shore exursions. But those last only a few hours and most aren't intended for wildlife photography. They involve dog sledding, helicopter rides, etc. I'm going on my first Alaska cruise in June. I had planned to take my 400 mm F/2.8 lens with a 1.4x and 2.0x telextenders (with my 1.3 crop factor camera that would give me up to 1000 mm) but I decided that limited wildlife opportunities and the logistics of carrying such a heavy lens, not to mention the need for a heavy tripod, didn't make a lot of sense. Instead, I'm going to take my 24-70 mm and my 70-200 mm (and maybe the telextenders) and travel light. I'll also take my little 7.2 mp pocket camera and may use it more than the big Canon 1D Mk II system, particularly when going ashore with my non-photographer friends. If you have lenses that cover 24 mm through 200 mm I think you will come back with some outstanding photos and I don't think you'll feel you missed many shots because you didn't have a longer lens. Enjoy your cruise!
--
http://www.fantasy-photo.com

Did the Alaska thing(inland and cruise)a couple years ago and found that my 18-55 and 70-300 didn't limit me at all. I was able to get all of the nature and local touristy shots that I wanted with this 2 lens combo. Just purchased the 70-300 IS USM that was mentioned here. I really wish I would have ahd an IS lens at the time of my trip. So I would recommend you getting that lens for yours.

A word to the wise. Beware of salt water sea spray when on the cruise. You may not actually feel it, but it's there. Use a filter.
BobT