I have the canon 7D, and have the 70-200 lens that I have used in Yellowstone with a 2xextender. I am not thrilled with using the extender, so can I get suggestions as to what telephoto lens would be a good choice to take with me when I go to Alaska in 2 weeks. All suggestions are appreciated.
I'm not after nostril-and-fang shots Nancy, but in over 30 years up here I find my 300 f/4 to be the most useful and versatile telephoto for my activities. I have a 500 f/4 and love it, but it's so much bigger and heavier, and requires my larger and heavier tripod and Wimberly head, that it is a real anchor on my movements. The whole complexion of my days change when that lens/tripod are along.
The 300 f/4 is not only smaller and lighter, I can get away with a lighter tripod and ballhead. That means I walk further and get a lot more opportunities. Heck, I even use it handheld with good results when things happen too fast to deploy the tripod.
I know you're discouraged with results when using an extender on your 70-200, but in truth I've never been happy with extender performance on such zooms. But that's no reflection on how well they'll work with a 300 f/4 if you want a little extra reach while carrying the lighter lens rather than a big one.
YMMV most certainly, but I'd part with my 500 f/4 before I'd sell my 300 f/4.
I agree with Hank on the 300 - but try for the F2.8 if possible. That will couple happily with your TC 2.0 in good light, and give you a very versatile range. I also have the 500, but dragging that around all day is getting harder and harder. The 2.0 extenders are often not tack-sharp on many lenses - try to borrow a 1.7 and see if that is better on you good 70-200.
Posted by Marty Kramer on July 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM
I recently went to Nome and rented a 500mm IS from Glazers a rental group in Seattle. They also have the new series II avail be as well. I loved it!
Posted by Dennis Plank on July 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM
I'd agree with Hank on the 300 f4. It's very light and incredibly sharp (plus a whole lot cheaper). Canon doesn't make a 1.7 extender, but coupled with their 1.4 (the version II is quite adequate if you don't want to blow the bucks on the version III) it makes a very versatile and fairly easily hand held lens. With the 7D it's adequate for most situations.
Posted by Bunn Martin on July 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM
The new Conon 500 F4 is much lighter and folks are shooting it hand held (Arthur Morris). I waited years for it and then switched to Nikon. I recently bought the 300 2.8 and love it . It is very easy to hand hold. I bought the 1.4 and 2.0 which gives me 600 at 5.6. So far that combo seems very sharp. The new Canon 300 2.8 is a pound lighter than the Nikon and much cheaper than the new 500 if that matters to you.
Seems like a relevant question here is what is your budget. Yes, the new Canon 500mm f/4 is lighter than it's predecessor. It is also $10,500. If that's in your budget and you want a lens that big, then it is a great choice.
The 300 f/2.8 is a great lens, would provide the ability to use your 2x and have a 600mm f/5.6 that will still autofocus on your 7D. That lens is $7299.
The 400mm f/5.6 is a VERY sharp lens, easily hand holdable in good light and will set you back $1339. While it is not an IS lens, that should not scare you away from that excellent lens. You will not be able to use any Canon teleconverters (1.4x or 2.0x ) on the 400mm and maintain autofocus with your 7D. So the effective focal length is the same as using your 70-200 with a 2.0x on the long end at 200mm. I'd assert the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper than the 70-200 with a 2.0x.
You didn't mention how you will be traveling in AK and what you will be shooting. Will you be on one of the large company tours or on your own? Logistically it could make a big difference. For example if you are going to be on a tour, counting on using a large lens/tripod could prove to be pretty frustrating. If you are on your own it's a different story. For shooting mammals up here 300mm is usually plenty of lens with the extenders as an option if necessary. If you're interested in birds, well, birds are birds no matter where you go and you never seem to have enough reach.
One more thing to toss into the mix for Alaska photo travel- lens related but a bit of a diversion.
Check the details on your insurance coverage. Some travel may be by float plane. A friend's photo pack was dropped in the process of loading a float plane from a dock. The pack went into the drink and sank immediately, dousing a 600 f/4, a 300 f/2.8, three bodies and a gaggle of other lenses and gear.
Covered by her insurance policy so no sweat. Right?
Wrong.
Her insurance company refused to pay up because she didn't have the pack in a waterproof bag.
So much depends on where you are going in Alaska and what you want to photograph.
If you are going to rent an RV and never be more than half a mile from the road, then weight matters a lot less and a big lens is practical. If you are schlepping the lens the length of Pinnell Mountain Trail, or hiking the Chilkoot, then it's obviously a lot different, And has Hank says, if you are traveling by small plane, then that's another consideration, because cubic and weight both matter.
If you are after photos of the big mammals, then you can probably get by with your zoom telephoto. If you are after birds, then you need bigger glass. I use a 90-250mm f2.8 for big critters. It's about the right size. For birds, I use a 300mm f2.8 and either a 1.4TC or a 2.0TC. As you note, teleconverters aren't so hot with zooms.
I strongly recommend a water tight bag, because it is dust and mud proof as well. Most of road Alaska is unpaved. Dust is a big issue. The shuttle buses into Denali National Park, for example, seem to vary between seriously muddy and incredibly dusty.
If you have specific destinations in mind, Hank and I can probably be more specific.
Posted by Nick Baldwin on July 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Hope you won't mind a comment from a 48 year Nikon shooter.
I have used the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 2.0 Ver.III TC and love it.
For my really long shots I use a 400mm f/2.8 with the same TC which gives me 1200mm on the D300-But it is a whopper.
So recently I tried the new OS Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8.
It fits right in the middle of my existing lens system, and is easily portable. and only costs $3k.
It fits nicely into Think Tank's Airport Antidote backpack with 2 bodies a W< lens, flash etc.
If you can get your hands on one to try it out I think you might like it.
I will second what Nick says. The new Nikon 2x is pretty darn sharp. I have read that Canon has an equivalent. A 70-200 with a reasonably sharp 2x is pretty versatile. I think the most relevant question is what younare going to shoot. For landscape I found that the 70-300 VR on an APS sensor was plenty. Like another poster said thought, birds are birds and the longer you can get the better.
Discussion
11 repliesThe 300 f/4 is not only smaller and lighter, I can get away with a lighter tripod and ballhead. That means I walk further and get a lot more opportunities. Heck, I even use it handheld with good results when things happen too fast to deploy the tripod.
I know you're discouraged with results when using an extender on your 70-200, but in truth I've never been happy with extender performance on such zooms. But that's no reflection on how well they'll work with a 300 f/4 if you want a little extra reach while carrying the lighter lens rather than a big one.
YMMV most certainly, but I'd part with my 500 f/4 before I'd sell my 300 f/4.
The 300 f/2.8 is a great lens, would provide the ability to use your 2x and have a 600mm f/5.6 that will still autofocus on your 7D. That lens is $7299.
The 400mm f/5.6 is a VERY sharp lens, easily hand holdable in good light and will set you back $1339. While it is not an IS lens, that should not scare you away from that excellent lens. You will not be able to use any Canon teleconverters (1.4x or 2.0x ) on the 400mm and maintain autofocus with your 7D. So the effective focal length is the same as using your 70-200 with a 2.0x on the long end at 200mm. I'd assert the 400mm f/5.6 is sharper than the 70-200 with a 2.0x.
Some varied price point options......
Check the details on your insurance coverage. Some travel may be by float plane. A friend's photo pack was dropped in the process of loading a float plane from a dock. The pack went into the drink and sank immediately, dousing a 600 f/4, a 300 f/2.8, three bodies and a gaggle of other lenses and gear.
Covered by her insurance policy so no sweat. Right?
Wrong.
Her insurance company refused to pay up because she didn't have the pack in a waterproof bag.
If you are going to rent an RV and never be more than half a mile from the road, then weight matters a lot less and a big lens is practical. If you are schlepping the lens the length of Pinnell Mountain Trail, or hiking the Chilkoot, then it's obviously a lot different, And has Hank says, if you are traveling by small plane, then that's another consideration, because cubic and weight both matter.
If you are after photos of the big mammals, then you can probably get by with your zoom telephoto. If you are after birds, then you need bigger glass. I use a 90-250mm f2.8 for big critters. It's about the right size. For birds, I use a 300mm f2.8 and either a 1.4TC or a 2.0TC. As you note, teleconverters aren't so hot with zooms.
I strongly recommend a water tight bag, because it is dust and mud proof as well. Most of road Alaska is unpaved. Dust is a big issue. The shuttle buses into Denali National Park, for example, seem to vary between seriously muddy and incredibly dusty.
If you have specific destinations in mind, Hank and I can probably be more specific.
I have used the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 2.0 Ver.III TC and love it.
For my really long shots I use a 400mm f/2.8 with the same TC which gives me 1200mm on the D300-But it is a whopper.
So recently I tried the new OS Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8.
It fits right in the middle of my existing lens system, and is easily portable. and only costs $3k.
It fits nicely into Think Tank's Airport Antidote backpack with 2 bodies a W< lens, flash etc.
If you can get your hands on one to try it out I think you might like it.
have a great trip.
don't forget to share your shots with us. (-: