Lens advice for Alaska trip?

[lkohawaii]

I have a Canon Rebel.I have decided to invest in lens versus investing in a new camera. Will the Kelly Lens do for an Alaska trip? I know I will need a good zoom lens...but don't want to be changing lens...just want a good all around lens with a good zoom. Currently my stock Canon 18-55 lens is not doing me any good. Can anyone suggest a good all around lens for me. I've found that I use the zoom a lot more than wide angle. Someone pointed me to the Tamron 18-250. Can someone tell me the difference besides the huge price difference?

 

[jann1033]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309&sort=7&cat=43&page=1
i think the kelly lens was 18-125? if so the review isn't nearly as good although if i remember correctly if you searched you could get a good copy
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=1
some love the canon 28-135 IS as well, around $400.I have one, it's sharp but had problem with a previous copy with the IS if money were not much of an object i'd get a 70-200f4l and a 17-40l and throw in a 50mmf21.8 for low light...for about 1200-1300 total. i love my 70-200 ...an f2.8 would be nice but out of my budget. i have heard the ex brand sigmas are good as well and mickey 88 got a 80-200f2.8tokina that looked good.( might do a search for the thread)
i would think depending on what you are doing you'd want some reach for animals etc. so anything under 200mm might not be nearly enough to get what you want to get. i can crop with my 70-200 to get about what i could get with 300mm( almost) but i'm getting a teleconverter to add some reach for that one.

 

[handicap18]

If I were going to Alaska I think I'd want 2 lenes for sure. 1 being my 18-135 for the wide angle landscape stuff and will help with some extra zoom, therefor your 18-125 would do you well.

I would also want a loooong zoom. I don't know that a 70-200 or even a 70-300 would be long enough for me. I would look towards something that goes upwards of 400. There is a lot of wild life and the 400mm end on a Canon would make the field of view 640mm. A buddy of mine has the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS USM. Its expensive (around $1400), but the shots I've seen of his are awesome. Then again is is "L" glass.

Sigma makes a 50-500mm and a 170-500mm. Not as good quality, but less expensive. They also make a 135-400mm and an 80-400mm with OS (their version of IS).

I don't know Canon's line well enough to know what they have other than the 100-400mm in that zoom range.

As for the all in one lenses. They serve their purpose, but you do loose some quality especially on the wide end and long end. With the lens you mention it is f/6.3 at the 250mm end and that is not very wide at all.

Check out www.pixel-peeper.com for examples taken with specific lenses. You can also check out flickr.com and do a group search for Alaska to see pics from that area. You can see what kind of focal lengths are used a lot. Some of the groups may even have some better lens suggestions.

Have a great trip.

 

[lkohawaii]

Thanks everyone...lots to think about..but I guess if I'm going to spend money on a lens..I better know what I'm buying.

 

[jann1033]

you might want to check out this site, it has reviews of equipment with nature photography in mind
http://www.naturephotographers.net/camerareviews.html

 

[Phalene]

I've lurked here, but haven't posted, but just wanted to say Hi from Alaska.

I don't have any specific recommendations, but I know that my 70-200mm lens isn't long enough for a lot of the wildlife opportunities here, so if you can get something with more reach you would definately use it. A wide angle would also be good to have.

 

[lkohawaii]

Thanks everybody...I can just see money pouring out for this lens. I knew I should have just waited for Disney to possibly sail to Alaska in 2011...would have given me more time to save all that money.

 

[mhutchinson]

I've lurked here, but haven't posted, but just wanted to say Hi from Alaska.

I don't have any specific recommendations, but I know that my 70-200mm lens isn't long enough for a lot of the wildlife opportunities here, so if you can get something with more reach you would definately use it. A wide angle would also be good to have.

With a 70-200 you could get a 1.4X converter and sacrifice some speed, but gain more range. Sigma has a really nice lens nicknamed the Bigma because it has a focal range of 50-500mm http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=2. Image gets a little soft after @375mm but not noticeable if printed on 4X6. Lens is not cheap at about $900+, and there are many combination options....bottom line you'll need a couple lenses and post pics when you get back


Mike

 

[jann1033]

70-200 with kenko 1.4 converter would be a little under $800( lens is $569 at beach right now, converter slightly under $200) and give you "sort of like" 440 ish with 1.6 crop camera..you lose a stop of light with the 1.4 converter. the kenko is cheaper than the canon, is reportedly as good and can be used with more lenses( sigma makes one as well but it's only supposed to be ok for f2.8 or less lenses. kenko you can use f4). it's not 600mm but you should be able to get something with that range...unless you have a lot of extra cash to spend, then go for something longer