Which lens(es) for whale watching off Vancouver?

Am now packing for a trip to Canada which includes an excursion with Vancouver Whale Watch on one of their bigger zodiacs. I'll have my TG2 and G85 along and am wondering which lenses to bring. I understand there are restrictions on how close to the whales the boats can navigate, but nothing stopping a curious whale from then surfacing next to the boat. So I assume some flexibility will be important, but it's more likely the whales will be at some distance.

These are the zooms I have to choose from -

14-140ii (not the latest splash / dust resistant version tho).

PL12-60

P35-100 2.8

P100-300

At this stage, I'm tempted by the 14-140 for its range with the TG2 on hand in case spray makes me uncomfortable to use the G85. Thoughts?

I would take the 14-140 II and get a cheap plastic bag-type camera wrap for the trip. Maybe throw a clear UV filter on the front so I could worry even less about sea spray.

I think the wide range will be useful for establishing shots, and in case something interesting happens near the boat. I went on a catamaran cruise in Baja Mexico last year, and was shooting these very acrobatic devil rays that were leaping a fair distance away from the boat. Given the distance, I had the 100-300 on my OM-1 and got some nice shots. As luck would have it, a pair of rays decided to do a routine right off the bow, not ten feet from where I was standing on the deck. Too quick for me to change to the 12-100 and so the best shots were a video taken by a friend standing next to me, with her iPhone.

gnik1 said:

Am now packing for a trip to Canada which includes an excursion with Vancouver Whale Watch on one of their bigger zodiacs.

Click to expand...

These are not whales but killer whales.

Far more important is where will you be seating and what kind of zodiac? Open air (wearing the orange suit) or with windows?

How big/tall are you?

What will happen is that everybody will stand up to view and take photos. If you are not on the edge on the "correct side" you won't see much if anything.

Are you allowed to bring some small really waterproof bag to carry your personal effects? Depends on the company...

gnik1 said:

Am now packing for a trip to Canada which includes an excursion with Vancouver Whale Watch on one of their bigger zodiacs. I'll have my TG2 and G85 along and am wondering which lenses to bring. I understand there are restrictions on how close to the whales the boats can navigate, but nothing stopping a curious whale from then surfacing next to the boat. So I assume some flexibility will be important, but it's more likely the whales will be at some distance.

These are the zooms I have to choose from -

14-140ii (not the latest splash / dust resistant version tho).

PL12-60

P35-100 2.8

P100-300

At this stage, I'm tempted by the 14-140 for its range with the TG2 on hand in case spray makes me uncomfortable to use the G85. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think the 14-140ii would come with me.

I'd still try to find a way to bring the P100-300 in a bag with me in case the whales are too far to get a good look with the 14-140ii.

On my last whale watch, I mainly used my FZ300 bridge cam although I had my m43 gear with me. We were super lucky and had whales at all distances — at their closest (around 40-60m) they would have been too close for the 100-300mm IMO. But there were more distant whales where the reach was really useful. This was on a bigger whale watching boat not a zodiac, so it's possible you'll be much more close-up and not need the reach of something like a P100-300. I hope for your sake, that's the case.

And given the possible/likely sea spray, I'd also very much like to have a backup option/rugged cam in case things get too wet to risk having my main camera out and exposed (water itself isn't scary, but salt water is scary...). I'd also probably bring a dry sack or at least a very large ziploc bag to stash stuff in.

We have done a lot of Whale watching over the past 4 or 5 years. I have had success with my 100-500mm Canon RF lens on an R6 (solar all my Canon gear a couple of years ago) and then with my OM-1 with the PL 100-400. I have never really had a whale so close that a long zoom with a minimum of around 100mm isn’t enough. I once used a G85 with the Panny 100-300 in pouring rain off Oregon and still got a few shots. I generally leave the camera in subject detection mode. Birds worked nicely for whales on both a Canon R6 and OM-1. I generally take a Panasonic LX100 with me just in case a whale starts dancing next to the boat but after 7 or 8 excursions I have year to use it.

Thanks for the replies folks. 14-140 it is. I’ll consider the 100-300 too.

Minimum watching distance by law is 200m keep that in mind. You may get lucky with the boat engine(s) off and a whale (assuming you're lucky enough to see any) coming closer on their own, but don't count on it, this ain't Mexico!

--
Roger

Regor250 said:

Minimum watching distance by law is 200m keep that in mind. You may get lucky with the boat engine(s) off and a whale (assuming you're lucky enough to see any) coming closer on their own, but don't count on it, this ain't Mexico!

Click to expand...

I got very lucky on my last trip (Alaska), having had humpback whales coming closer than 100m even (boat engine was off) - probably ~40-60m.

YMMV...

gnik1 said:

Am now packing for a trip to Canada which includes an excursion with Vancouver Whale Watch on one of their bigger zodiacs. I'll have my TG2 and G85 along and am wondering which lenses to bring. I understand there are restrictions on how close to the whales the boats can navigate, but nothing stopping a curious whale from then surfacing next to the boat. So I assume some flexibility will be important, but it's more likely the whales will be at some distance.

These are the zooms I have to choose from -

14-140ii (not the latest splash / dust resistant version tho).

PL12-60

P35-100 2.8

P100-300

At this stage, I'm tempted by the 14-140 for its range with the TG2 on hand in case spray makes me uncomfortable to use the G85. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I went last week to the dolphins also on a Zodiac on the coast of Portugal, used PL 12-60 on my G9, but we get a lot more closer to them, compared to the expectation on whales...on the other hand whales are also a lot bigger... I had the 35-100 2.8 and the PL50-200 ready for a swap in the bag, but was really not needed...

In your case, considering what you have, I would consider the 35-100 2.8, maybe a bit shorter, but quality far superior... over the 100-300, so even if needed to crop a bit, the quality will still be there...

Do not have the 100-300 lens but do have the 100-400 Panasonic lens. How would that work? What do you mean that you have a minimum of 100mm? thanks

Going to Iceland in a few weeks and will be on a whale watching boat. Is there any reason I should not take the Panasonic Leica 100-400 lens? In other whale journeys did not get that close to them, so I thought the extra reach would help...? Any thoughts would be appreciated...thanks

eyeu said:

Going to Iceland in a few weeks and will be on a whale watching boat. Is there any reason I should not take the Panasonic Leica 100-400 lens? In other whale journeys did not get that close to them, so I thought the extra reach would help...? Any thoughts would be appreciated...thanks

Click to expand...

I'd bring it with me if I were you.

I did a photographer's whale watching event out of Victoria last fall, I only used the PL 100-400. For anyone that is interested, they're running another one this September. Many of the crew are photographers and they work overtime to maneouver the boat into the positions with the best angles. There is another one this fall.

I've been out on the zodiacs as well, I don't think I'd be willing to take my gear on one of those unless I was using my Outex cover. Just the spray of saltwater can do long term damage to photography gear.

I have done 4 whale watching trips off the southern end of Vancouver Island, all in zodiacs, and a lot more from live aboard boats around the Johnstone Strait further north.

I think that the regulations on minimum approach distances for the southern end of the Island are 400m for Southern Resident orcas, 200m for Biggs killer whales (aka Transients) and 100m for other marine mammals, i.e, humpback and minke whales, dolphins, porpoises, sea lions and seals. Of these, the only ones that are likely to come near the boat are dolphins, although we have had two feeding humpbacks surface and dive again only 15-20m behind the boat.

North of Campbell River where the Northern Resident orcas pre-dominate, the minimum distance for orcas drops to 200m.

So, you will be shooting primarily with 100-300mm, but keep the 14-140mm handy in case any dolphins decide to surf on the bow wave.

On all the zodiacs that I have been on, the driver will drop the speed right down when close to marine mammals (I think that that is a legal requirement) and I have never had problems with spray when shooting. To shelter the camera when moving at high speed, I just push it into a large dry bag.

There are some images in my gallery, mainly of dolphins.


--
Chris R

You've received a ton of recommendations for the 14-150mm. Either they've never been whale-watching in the Salish Sea, or somehow their experience was very different from mine.

This time of the year, you'll mostly see humpback whales and Bigg's orcas. It is true that boats are required to idle 200 metres / 200 yards away from whales (400 for Southern Residents, but many tour operators voluntarily do not track them at all). And yes, the whales sometimes do come close on their own, but it's rarely going to be so close that you need a wide angle lens.

What's more likely to happen is that you spot a humpback whale, they go underwater, and resurface even further away, or at a comparable distance in another spot. And while you're waiting for the whale to come up again, you see something else that's interesting, such as a common murre or a rhinoceros auklet. You can't shoot them well with 150mm.

I actually had orcas go right under our Zodiac, but the water was too murky to see them. When they came out on the other side, 200mm+ was wide enough to frame them and have room left to crop.

But if you do get really lucky and whales come up and linger right next to your boat, you have your TG-2 for that! Yes, the IQ won't be as good as with your G85 but the odds of you needing 300mm for good photos are exponentially greater than needing 14mm.

I used a two-camera setup: 300mm Pro (with or without TC) on one, and 50-200mm SWD on the other. Since whales are unpredictable in terms of where they will surface, I had to often use the 50-200mm zoom, and 200mm was often too short ... therefore, I wish that I had a 100-400mm instead. In fact, I would recommend either of the 100-400mm's to you, because 300mm is often not enough, but the fact remains that your 100-300mm will see more use than your 14-150mm. In my numerous trips, I used the 50mm end of the 50-200mm exactly once - to photograph Race Rocks Ecological Preserve in its entirety.

I am including some of my shots as examples. These are unprocessed except for converting to JPEG and resizing to 800 px for the web (they are uncropped). Note the focal lengths.



































--
Semi-reformed pixel peeper.

thank you...

why I took the PL 12-60 for the dolphins... one example at 12mm and another at 60mm and on a zodiac, no water at all on camera, it depends a bit on the size of the zodiac...on a longer one, if you stay more to the front, there is no risk of spash for the camera, no extra housing needed... as you can see the zodiac near me is completely dry even after 1,5 hours at sea, and it was a bit windy on a reasonable speedy boat...

for whales, yes, I would take a longer lens...in fact I had several more with me on the backpack, but just used this one during the sea trip...nevertheles, despite having PL 50-200 and PL 100-400, I decided to leave the 100-400 at home this time




at 12mm




at 60mm

I've done 4 very successful whale watching trips in the last year, and it's rare I'm not wanting more reach. It's rarer for the lens to be too long at the short end.

Once I only had my 45-150, and I could definitely have used the 100-300 instead. When I had the 100-300, I got lots of good shots at 300, and only a few shots I had to zoom out, very occasionally to 100.

A lot of the time I could have done with something longer than 300. One of the trips I didn't have the M4/3 with me, but a compact with a 400 (M4/3 equivalent) and could still have done with more reach.

The 100 shots were when the whales strayed unusually close to the boat, and I've never seen a closer one. The boat isn't allowed to approach that close, no one tells the whales that though, so they occasionally come closer, and the boat has to stay dead in the water while it does.

My brother got really lucky, when someone got slimed with whale snot, and the 17 (M4/3 equivalent) on his compact wasn't wide enough. You know a whale is close when you can smell it's bad breath.