Lens recommendations for Alaska Cruisetour

Hello everyone,

I’ve got a trip to Alaska coming up end of July. It’s probably going to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me. I would like to lean on the collective knowledge and experience of this forum on what kit I should take with me.

The trip will include:

• a few days in Vancouver
• 4d in Denali Park
• 7d cruising through glaciers with stops at Skagway, Juneau and Ketchikan

I currently own the following kit:

• Canon R6
• 17-40 f4L
• 24-70 f4L IS
• 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
• 100 f2.8 macro IS
• 135 f2
• x1.4 converter

As you can no doubt tell, I use these all with the EF-RF adapter. From what I’ve read, I’m thinking of taking the following, though I’m hesitant to use the x1.4:

• EF 17-40 f4L
• EF 24-70 f4L IS
• EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
• EF x1.4 converter

I was wondering if renting the RF 100-500 would be a better option than the 70-300, but would it be worth the £400+ cost.

Another lens that might be an option is the RF 24-240mm, but I’ll still have a gap at the wide and tele ends, so whilst it might be a good travel lens, I’m not sure it’s for this trip.

Thank you in advance for your help. I look forward to seeing what suggestions come.

Thanks! It's good to know that the 300mm is not enough - helps to take it out of the equation.

I fully agree on keeping the number of lenses to the minimum 

Actually, another lens that I've come across that might be an option is the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary. It's 100mm shorter than the RF100-500, but if it means I don't have to also use a x1.4 as well, then that feels like a win.
-------------------------------------------------
https://mdesilva.myportfolio.com

I will assume the 70-300 is not the L.

For not much more than that rental you could buy a used EF 400/5.6 L. It would work extremely well with your 1.4x and is easy to handhold. In a pinch the R6 would probably AF well with it and an EF 2x very well.

The 400/5.6 is very close in IQ to the RF 100-500, and you already have a bunch of zooms.

Ah, my mistake! It is the L lens, though I don't think that changes your view on the 400mm. I've updated my gear list (didn't realise that was a thing).

Thanks for the suggestion. The concern I have with primes is fixed range. There's only so much zooming out I can do with my feet on a ship  That and the lack of IS.

There is nothing wrong learning how to change lenses on the fly. You already have an excellent zoom, so why add another. When you see a whale that your zoom simply cannot reach, you switch out for the 400 and 1.4x. It takes less than one minute, depending on size of lenses.

You could put a Kenko 1.4x on your zoom, but I can tell you from experience that they are not nearly as good as any of Canon's.

People continually over estimate what IS can do, and you already have IBIS. Neither will help with yaw and roll of a ship, or the breaching whale.

You will be surprised by what a good affordable prime can do. When you have primes you just learn how to manage your photographing experience.

Have an awesome trip!

P.S. Your lens selection seems to cover everything.  I don't think your EF 1.4x can be used on any of them though.

I suppose there are different situations. I know one can go on small boat type tours, where they approach the whales, which I would assume means that even a 70-300 would be sufficient. No, I would not want to be changing lenses in a small open boat at sea. Though I do it all the time on lakes. From a cruise ship, which I assume the whales stay well away from, a much longer lens, probably beyond typical zooms, may be required? I am going by my few ocean ferry ships that I have been on, and not specifically for whale watching. Just curious.

P.S. Actually you pretty much said in your post what I have been saying. Sounds like zooms are getting zoomed to max, and still adding teleconverters. Seems to me a good duty zoom like the OP has combined with a long prime could still be ideal.

Mahin wrote:

As you can no doubt tell, I use these all with the EF-RF adapter. From what I’ve read, I’m thinking of taking the following, though I’m hesitant to use the x1.4:

• EF 17-40 f4L
• EF 24-70 f4L IS
• EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
• EF x1.4 converter

I was wondering if renting the RF 100-500 would be a better option than the 70-300, but would it be worth the £400+ cost.

Another lens that might be an option is the RF 24-240mm, but I’ll still have a gap at the wide and tele ends, so whilst it might be a good travel lens, I’m not sure it’s for this trip.

Thank you in advance for your help. I look forward to seeing what suggestions come.

I've been on a couple of Alaska land tours and many Inside Passage tours.  In Denali, the longer the better; 500mm might not be enough.  Will the 1.4X even work with your 70-300?

Mahin wrote:

Hello everyone,

I’ve got a trip to Alaska coming up end of July. It’s probably going to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me.

I don't know anything about whale-watching trips, but I do know that if I was going on a "once-in-a-lifetime" trip, I wouldn't go with only one body. With two, you can have two lenses mounted for changing situations, and G_d forbid if one body breaks down, you have a spare.

pixseal wrote:

Will the 1.4X even work with your 70-300?

No, it won't. The EF 70-300L doesn't take a Canon TC, though I seem to remember that one can be fitted if the lens is zoomed out to almost 300mm. A Kenko TC may work, but the IQ is likely to be less than great.

Chesapeake Imagery wrote:

I don't know anything about whale-watching trips, but I do know that if I was going on a "once-in-a-lifetime" trip, I wouldn't go with only one body. With two, you can have two lenses mounted for changing situations, and G_d forbid if one body breaks down, you have a spare.

My suggestion for whale watching is something like a 70-300 zoom (full frame equivalent); you will not want to be changing lenses.  At 300mm it may be difficult to maintain a subject due the the rolling of the boat.  70mm might be required to capture close action, if that should occur.

70mm on an APS-C body (112mm FF equivalent), uncropped.

pixseal wrote:

Chesapeake Imagery wrote:

I don't know anything about whale-watching trips, but I do know that if I was going on a "once-in-a-lifetime" trip, I wouldn't go with only one body. With two, you can have two lenses mounted for changing situations, and G_d forbid if one body breaks down, you have a spare.

My suggestion for whale watching is something like a 70-300 zoom (full frame equivalent); you will not want to be changing lenses. At 300mm it may be difficult to maintain a subject due the the rolling of the boat. 70mm might be required to capture close action, if that should occur.

70mm on an APS-C body (112mm FF equivalent), uncropped.

Pixseal, you probably didn't mean to reply to me. The only thing I know about whales is Moby Dick was a book I read in high school!

Yep, you are correct, it does not  Well, it does at 300mm, but it's obviously not designed to be compatible.

That's a good point! I'll have to bring my Canon 7D along for the ride.

Well, as it happens, that 70-300 range is exactly what I have at the moment. I do get the feeling from what I've read and said here, that it'll probably be a bit short at 300mm though

Mahin wrote:

Hello everyone,

I’ve got a trip to Alaska coming up end of July. It’s probably going to be a once-in-a-lifetime trip for me. I would like to lean on the collective knowledge and experience of this forum on what kit I should take with me.

The trip will include:

• a few days in Vancouver
• 4d in Denali Park
• 7d cruising through glaciers with stops at Skagway, Juneau and Ketchikan

I currently own the following kit:

• Canon R6
• 17-40 f4L
• 24-70 f4L IS
• 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
• 100 f2.8 macro IS
• 135 f2
• x1.4 converter

As you can no doubt tell, I use these all with the EF-RF adapter. From what I’ve read, I’m thinking of taking the following, though I’m hesitant to use the x1.4:

• EF 17-40 f4L
• EF 24-70 f4L IS
• EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
• EF x1.4 converter

I was wondering if renting the RF 100-500 would be a better option than the 70-300, but would it be worth the £400+ cost.

Another lens that might be an option is the RF 24-240mm, but I’ll still have a gap at the wide and tele ends, so whilst it might be a good travel lens, I’m not sure it’s for this trip.

Thank you in advance for your help. I look forward to seeing what suggestions come.

Thanks everyone for your input thus far. Based on what's been said, I think I need to change my view on what to to take to be:

• Canon R6
• Canon 7D (backup + x1.6 crop)
• EF 17-40 f4L
• EF 24-70 f4L IS
• EF 70-300 f4.5-5.6L IS OR <a zoom covering a better range>
• <maybe a prime>

Given that I need/want lenses that could fit both bodies in an emergency, the RF 100-500 is out. T

The EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II is currently very high up the list. However, 70-300 on my 7D gives me an effective range of 112-480, so perhaps the dual camera setup removes the need for another lens altogether?

You can get by with 300mm, but you'll be much happier with more reach.
Practice on your local bird (even if they aren't eagles) before departing.

The RF100-500 is out because I want to make sure the lenses I take will fit both bodies I have - namely, the R6 and 7D.

I'm contemplating between:

• Sigma 60-600mm f4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport
• Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary
• Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 VC USD G2

BTW - your photography of birds is fantastic...well done!