Lens recommendations for Alaska Cruisetour

Mahin wrote:

That would commit me to the RF mount - essentially making the 7D (my backup) redundant

I thought you had mentioned the 100-500 and 24-240 in your post.

You could certainly go with the EF 100-400LII and maybe even the 1.4x TC and still use both the R6 and 7D

After all the responses it certainly seems your three zooms will cover 95% of the subjects available.

Putting all that money into a big zoom to leave in the cabin seems superfluous.  Plus it also seems for the smaller whale watching craft you would be better off with the smaller and easier to handle 70-300 L.

Note that that awesome breaching whale was taken with a 500mm, maybe prime, on an R7.  That's an 800mm on the R6.  This all reinforces my idea of a relatively cheap used EF 400/5.6 L with your 1.4x.

Otherwise, I highly recommend the EF 100-400 II with 1.4x over the megazoom.  You could sell your 70-300 to help pay for it too.

Mahin wrote:

Savage River, composite - 7D 113mm

From the ship; Breeching humpback - 7D 500mm

Thanks very much for all your suggestions. Your photos are really lovely - I love the breeching humpback and Alaska railroad one especially.

The breeching whale was shot using an EF 500/4 Mark II prime, probably not something that you'd want to buy.

It's a Princess cruise.

https://www.princess.com/search-cruise/details/?voyageCode=H323&resType=T&tourCode=T3ADB4

We are taking the train from Denali --> Whittier and they claim the train has areas for taking in the scenery, so I'm hopeful.

I rode the train from Denali to Anchorage with Princess. Princess has their own rail cars - on our train, Princess had the rear car (I don't know if that's usual).

You've given me pause for thought on what excursion to do in Juneau!

I've been on glaciers before, so it's not something that I'd do.  I've already booked my whale watch trip for next May.

Based on what you've said so far, I still feel that I need a lens with a long reach, but not necessarily to carry everywhere (e.g. to have on the ship for the Inside Passage).

and one of these, which will probably live in the cabin most of the time.

• Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary OR
• Canon 100-400mm II f4-5.6 IS and TC EF 1.4x III

The range of the 100-400 is appealing more now though.

I've owned the EF 100-400 Mark II since it was released and it's still one of my favorites. I bought an RF 100-400 as a travel companion to my R7, and I don't regret it. I still have the EF 100-400, which is a better lens in a coupe of ways; sharpness and speed (but it's heavier and longer). When it's mounted on my R7 (with adapter), it is capable of all of the RF lens functions, and very good at that.  It will accompany me on my next trip to Alaska.

Enjoy your cruise.

It is a matter of personally-preferred strategy, but I’m not a fan of renting a lens if there is any possibility I will buy it later. I would rather put the money towards a purchase I can keep and enjoy for years. Whatever lens you take, there are going to be times you would wish for more reach!

When you can go to two RF bodies you will find it a great relief, I spent a year shooting with an RF and an Ef body and don’t miss it at all.

So I suggest rather than strategizing for one trip, you look at building your kit for the long term. I know it is harder to say than to do when looking at an exciting trip like this one though!

My only input to the question you actually asked is that I bought the Sigma 150-600 before going mirrorless, and returned it the next day. Too big and too clumsy for me. Those who work out more than I do obviously feel differently, but don’t fail to think about the weight and handling issue.

Incidentally, when I’m in Anchorage, I always stop by Club Paris (not Paris Cafe) and have a filet mignonette with blue cheese stuffing. Your loss if you don’t!  

Thanks again - I think I'm settled on the 100-400 II 

mikebinok wrote:

It is a matter of personally-preferred strategy, but I’m not a fan of renting a lens if there is any possibility I will buy it later. I would rather put the money towards a purchase I can keep and enjoy for years. Whatever lens you take, there are going to be times you would wish for more reach!

When you can go to two RF bodies you will find it a great relief, I spent a year shooting with an RF and an Ef body and don’t miss it at all.

So I suggest rather than strategizing for one trip, you look at building your kit for the long term. I know it is harder to say than to do when looking at an exciting trip like this one though!

My only input to the question you actually asked is that I bought the Sigma 150-600 before going mirrorless, and returned it the next day. Too big and too clumsy for me. Those who work out more than I do obviously feel differently, but don’t fail to think about the weight and handling issue.

Incidentally, when I’m in Anchorage, I always stop by Club Paris (not Paris Cafe) and have a filet mignonette with blue cheese stuffing. Your loss if you don’t!

I fully get behind your strategy, it's how I built up my current selection of equipment.

In this case though, I cannot afford the cost of the new lens I'd really want (RF 100-500 - ~£2.8k). Renting the 100-400 II + 1.4x for the trip (£400), which whilst around 13% of the RF cost, is still a much more manageable expense.

I've decided on the 100-400 + 1.4x combination for the trip. It'll give me the range I want and the flexibility of using it on the R6 and 7D.

Oh, thanks for the suggestion for Club Paris