So I think I've made my decision...thoughts welcome.

[annnewjerz]

I went back and forth over the past week trying to decide between a variety of cameras. I have been borrowing my friend's Nikon D60 while she is on vacation and I have really loved it. Only slightly bigger than the D40 but still feels comfortable in my hands, has a few added features and isn't quite as expensive as the D80. I know that once I get into taking shots with my own dSLR, I'm going to be permanently hooked and I will more than likely want to upgrade the body to something with the focus motor built into the body, like the D80 or 90, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

For now, the D60 it is. I have to return it to my friend tomorrow...and I think I'm going to take the plunge and put in my order.

Now...for lenses. I plan on keeping the kit lens for a while just to get a better feel for actually using all of the featuers on the camera. Once I have a better understanding, I will want to begin saving for/purchasing a few new lenses for more specific situations. Here are the ones I have been looking at..any recommendations/feedback would be greatly appreciated!

-Sigma 30mm f/1.4 OR Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for low-light situations (like the rides at WDW, the darker exhibits at the local zoo, etc.)

- Nikon 70-300mm VR for situations where I will need a higher zoom (i.e. an upcoming trip to Alaska) OR...would I be better off just renting a really good telephoto lens for this trip??

- Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro for everyday...with the good zoom capabilities, the lower aperture, it was recommended for using as a go-to lens that I will be able to keep on for the majority of situations and change out to a more specialized lens on an "as needed" basis.

I do realize that these three lenses will be expensive, however, I do not plan on rushing out to purchase all of these lenses right away. I am talking about aquiring them over the course of the upcoming 1 or 2 years as our budget permits. I will probably start with an 18-250mm, then decide if I will need more zoom for our trip to Alaska...and so on and so forth.


Thanks - and for all of you that I have been nagging over the past week with my non-stop questions...thank you so much for all of your help, it's been a really informative week!!!

 

[ukcatfan]

For low light on things like the dark rides at WDW, f/2.8 will not be enough. Think of that lens as a kit replacement instead of your low light lens. Sometimes the f/1.4 is not even enough. That is when you need a camera that goes to ISO 6400 or higher. You can also push a RAW file to higher exposures than they were recorded, but that is another discussion

 

[ukcatfan]

- Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro for everyday...with the good zoom capabilities, the lower aperture, it was recommended for using as a go-to lens that I will be able to keep on for the majority of situations and change out to a more specialized lens on an "as needed" basis.

I personally do not like these super zoom lenses b/c I feel you give up too much in image quality and the poor max aperture. If this is what you really want, why not save yourself a small fortune and get a super zoom p&s? The image quality would be would be difficult to distinguish between the two.

 

[handicap18]

If your going to keep the kit lens, then for now I would go with the 30mm f/1.4 over the 17-50mm f/2.8. Down the road when your ready you can upgrade your kit lens to the 17-50mm f/2.8. I would also go with the 70-300mm VR.

I would only go with the Tamron 18-250 if your not going to get the kit lens or the 17-50mm f/2.8. But even then you might be better with the 18-105mm VR or 16-85mm VR. These would be INSTEAD of the kit lens.

For years I shot with just 2 lenses. 28-90 (similar field of view of an 18-50 on digital) and a 70-300mm. It wasn't till I really started getting into photography over the last 3 years or so that I started adding the "specialty" lenses

If you can get the 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the kit lens, then I would do that initially. Otherwise stay with the kit lens for now along with the 70-300mm VR and the 30mm f/1.4.

 

[annnewjerz]

I personally do not like these super zoom lenses b/c I feel you give up too much in image quality and the poor max aperture. If this is what you really want, why not save yourself a small fortune and get a super zoom p&s? The image quality would be would be difficult to distinguish between the two.

So I put in my order and the camera will be here on Friday (hopefully). If you don't like the super zoom lenses...(I mean this in all seriousness because of our trip to Alaska)....how would you recommend getting a close-up shot of something like a bear/moose/wolf/anything you don't want to get extremely close to?? We aren't going until 2010, we'll be driving up and touring the state for about 10-14 days on our own and by then, I would guess that my skills will be much better developed. I would love to get some great shots of the animals, the landscape, etc.

 

[annnewjerz]

For years I shot with just 2 lenses. 28-90 (similar field of view of an 18-50 on digital) and a 70-300mm. It wasn't till I really started getting into photography over the last 3 years or so that I started adding the "specialty" lenses

If you can get the 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the kit lens, then I would do that initially. Otherwise stay with the kit lens for now along with the 70-300mm VR and the 30mm f/1.4.

My guess would also be that for the first few years, these lenses will also suit my needs perfectly and on the occassion I may need something special (if it comes up) I would probably be more likely to rent a lens to try it out before spending a fortune on purchasing one.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as a replacement for the kit lens (which is the 18-55mm VR). I'm sure that if I get the 70-300mm I will end up loving it, so that will be going on my short-list of lenses to purchase sometime down the road when I can scrounge up the money.

My concern with the Sigma 30mm is just the issue of not having the image stabilization built into the lens. Since the Nikon D60 doesn't have the "VR" built into the body...am I going to spend the money getting the nice prime lens and then end up with a bunch of blurry shots? I would obviously set up a trip-pod whenever possible, but if my main use for this camera will be in low-lighting (like the rides in WDW, etc.), I would guess you don't just pull out a trip-pod on the boat on PoC and start snapping away.

 

[wenrob]

So I put in my order and the camera will be here on Friday (hopefully). If you don't like the super zoom lenses...(I mean this in all seriousness because of our trip to Alaska)....how would you recommend getting a close-up shot of something like a bear/moose/wolf/anything you don't want to get extremely close to?? We aren't going until 2010, we'll be driving up and touring the state for about 10-14 days on our own and by then, I would guess that my skills will be much better developed. I would love to get some great shots of the animals, the landscape, etc.

I think what he's saying is he prefers a two lens set up verses one big lens, not that he's against zoom.

For what it's worth, a year ago when I bought my camera I also bought the 18-200mm VR lens so I wouldn't have to switch all the time. I am now looking to get rid of it and go to the two lens set up, probably the Sigma f/2.8 17-55mm and the 70-300VR. My lens is great and I don't regret getting it but what ucatfan is trying to say is that you will get better, sharper pics with a two lens set up verses a one big lens which tends to be softer. At least that's what I've gathered and seen in pics posted here.

I think Kyle gives good solid advice above, I personally plan on taking it.

 

[wenrob]

My concern with the Sigma 30mm is just the issue of not having the image stabilization built into the lens. Since the Nikon D60 doesn't have the "VR" built into the body...am I going to spend the money getting the nice prime lens and then end up with a bunch of blurry shots? I would obviously set up a trip-pod whenever possible, but if my main use for this camera will be in low-lighting (like the rides in WDW, etc.), I would guess you don't just pull out a trip-pod on the boat on PoC and start snapping away.

I'm not an expert but from all my reading and the helpful people here, the Sigma is a very fast lens. The VR buys you a couple of stops on a slower lens. From what I understand, having the faster lens negates the need for VR. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[annnewjerz]

I think what he's saying is he prefers a two lens set up verses one big lens, not that he's against zoom.

For what it's worth, a year ago when I bought my camera I also bought the 18-200mm VR lens so I wouldn't have to switch all the time. I am now looking to get rid of it and go to the two lens set up, probably the Sigma f/2.8 17-55mm and the 70-300VR. My lens is great and I don't regret getting it but what ucatfan is trying to say is that you will get better, sharper pics with a two lens set up verses a one big lens which tends to be softer. At least that's what I've gathered and seen in pics posted here.

I think Kyle gives good solid advice above, I personally plan on taking it.

Thanks for the input. I wouldn't be getting the 18-250 in place of the 70-300 though, I would be getting it in addition to. I thought the 18-250 would be good for those instances when I may need a little zoom but didn't want to cart around my whole collection of lenses.

For example, in WDW I don't know that I would need much zoom (I'm sure some people do-but I don't know if I would), so the 18-250 would give me the ability to have one lens on for all of the general pictures I would take, bring a prime lens for low-light and there ya go...two lenses instead of three.

BUT for our trip to Alaska, I would guarantee I need zoom for closer-up pictures of the wildlife and we would have a car to store extra lenses in...so I would bring my kit lens, my prime lens and my 70-300mm zoom lens, but probably leave my 18-250 at home.

Does that make sense??

I agree, Kyle has given great advice so far and I plan to take it. I got the 18-55mm VR with the camera and will probably purchase the 70-300mm VR and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 first, and get the Tamron 18-250mm later if I feel like I need it and can afford it.

Who knows, maybe I'll be so thrilled with the other two lenses I scrap the idea completely, just wanted to get a good idea of the lenses that would cover the broadest scope of shooting for someone who is new to the dSLR game.

Thanks again!

 

[zackiedawg]

That's probably your best approach - take it slowly and decide how much you like a few lenses before deciding on more. You might find you're comfortable with what you've got.

As you know, I personally like the 'superzoom' lens...but as you mentioned, it's an alternative lens, not an attempt to substitute for other lenses in that range. I can have a 16-35, or a 70-300, or even a 200-500 to cover specialty ranges, and dedicated fixed lenses like a 50 F1.7 for low light, etc. And I can always grab the camera with one lens and one or two extra lenses to cover the same effective range the 18-250 gives me, and probably incrementally better overall with regards to light sensitivity and sharpness at extreme ends of the zoom.

But - sacreligious or not, I sometimes don't want to lug around a camera bag with extra lenses. There are times when I prefer to travel light and less encumbered...yet I want some of the benefits I can get from a DSLR. I have a super-compact for when I really want to travel light, and just want a camera in case spontaneous things happen...but other times I want to travel light, but still want to take decent photos in the full spectrum of situations a DSLR can perform in. That's when the 18-250 comes into play. I find it's better than any superzoom camera for overall versatility, because I can still shoot up to ISO3200 with decent results, can shoot from 27mm wide to 375mm tele, can shoot action or movement, night shots, landscapes, etc. A superzoom could do as well with tele, landscapes, and night shots, but would fall short at high ISO, usually don't go as wide, and struggle with action or burst modes compared to DSLRs.

Disney is precisely the type of place I love having the 18-250. The last two times I went up there, I ended up going into the parks 9 out of 10 days with just my A300 and 18-250, and came away with lots of shots I have never been able to take with my superzoom P&S. Yet I also had just a camera around my neck, no bag for bypassing security checks or lugging around all day, and not having to swap lenses every time I wanted to go from a 27mm wide shot to a zoom across the lake. I could have done a little better on tele with a dedicated tele lens, and a little better on wide with a good wide prime...and certainly better in low light with a good F1.7...but the overall versatility and the option to travel light and fast with a single-lens/DSLR package was what keeps selling me on it. Next trip, I'll spend a few days in the parks with my low light lens, or a dedicated wide, and a bag & tripod, so I can set up for some nice dedicated shots with more specialized lenses. But likely at least one or two days, I'll go commando style with just the 18-250.

 

[annnewjerz]

That's probably your best approach - take it slowly and decide how much you like a few lenses before deciding on more. You might find you're comfortable with what you've got.

As you know, I personally like the 'superzoom' lens...but as you mentioned, it's an alternative lens, not an attempt to substitute for other lenses in that range. I can have a 16-35, or a 70-300, or even a 200-500 to cover specialty ranges, and dedicated fixed lenses like a 50 F1.7 for low light, etc. And I can always grab the camera with one lens and one or two extra lenses to cover the same effective range the 18-250 gives me, and probably incrementally better overall with regards to light sensitivity and sharpness at extreme ends of the zoom.

But - sacreligious or not, I sometimes don't want to lug around a camera bag with extra lenses. There are times when I prefer to travel light and less encumbered...yet I want some of the benefits I can get from a DSLR. I have a super-compact for when I really want to travel light, and just want a camera in case spontaneous things happen...but other times I want to travel light, but still want to take decent photos in the full spectrum of situations a DSLR can perform in. That's when the 18-250 comes into play. I find it's better than any superzoom camera for overall versatility, because I can still shoot up to ISO3200 with decent results, can shoot from 27mm wide to 375mm tele, can shoot action or movement, night shots, landscapes, etc. A superzoom could do as well with tele, landscapes, and night shots, but would fall short at high ISO, usually don't go as wide, and struggle with action or burst modes compared to DSLRs.

Disney is precisely the type of place I love having the 18-250. The last two times I went up there, I ended up going into the parks 9 out of 10 days with just my A300 and 18-250, and came away with lots of shots I have never been able to take with my superzoom P&S. Yet I also had just a camera around my neck, no bag for bypassing security checks or lugging around all day, and not having to swap lenses every time I wanted to go from a 27mm wide shot to a zoom across the lake. I could have done a little better on tele with a dedicated tele lens, and a little better on wide with a good wide prime...and certainly better in low light with a good F1.7...but the overall versatility and the option to travel light and fast with a single-lens/DSLR package was what keeps selling me on it. Next trip, I'll spend a few days in the parks with my low light lens, or a dedicated wide, and a bag & tripod, so I can set up for some nice dedicated shots with more specialized lenses. But likely at least one or two days, I'll go commando style with just the 18-250.

Any chance you got that awesome shot of the castle down Main Street with the "ghosting" effect that I want to replicate with your 18-250mm and no tripod? I know you used the ND400 filter already. I told you I wanted to try to replicate that one and if the 18-250mm was what you used, that just might be all the convincing I need to get one.

I don't mind carrying a bag (more than likely it will be a messenger bag that my DH will carry) containing a very small tripod (like the Gorillapod) for some of those fireworks shots, and even a prime lens if I decide to purchase one...just didn't want to bring an entire piece of luggage holding camera components.

 

[handicap18]

My concern with the Sigma 30mm is just the issue of not having the image stabilization built into the lens. Since the Nikon D60 doesn't have the "VR" built into the body...am I going to spend the money getting the nice prime lens and then end up with a bunch of blurry shots? I would obviously set up a trip-pod whenever possible, but if my main use for this camera will be in low-lighting (like the rides in WDW, etc.), I would guess you don't just pull out a trip-pod on the boat on PoC and start snapping away.

Ann, with this particular lens (and others with this size aperture) you don't have to worry about VR being in the body. The f/1.4 aperture is VERY wide. Combined with the very good high ISO performance of the D60 you should do well in the lower light settings. With the indoor rides you'll do better with a wide aperture lens like this than a lens with VR. The VR will help you with the slower shutter speeds for still subjects. The wide f/1.4 aperture will help you with getting a faster shutter speed for moving subjects.

I also took a lot of pics on the fly while walking around MK, DHS and EPCOT using this lens wide open. The family just didn't give me enough time to set up a tripod. The picture of the castle in my signature (the night shot on the right) was taken with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at ISO1600, f/1.8 and with a 1/40th shutter. I took a lot of pictures like that around the parks. The only drawback doing it this way compared to with a tripod is the noise issue. It was a lot greater this way. Though the D60 does a better job with noise at the higher ISO's than my D50.

I also got some real good images on PotC with this lens, along with pics from Pooh, Great Movie Ride and Grand Fiesta (Mexico in EPCOT). A VR lens on these rides wont help.

Glad to hear you made your decision. As for Alaska, like I said before, I would go with nothing shorter than 300mm. Unless you can rent the 80-400mm VR lens (which is huge) the 70-300mm VR will be great. Sigma does make a few that go up to 500mm, but you'll want to carry around a monopod with them as they are also quite large.

Can't wait to see some of your images.

 

[annnewjerz]

Ann, with this particular lens (and others with this size aperture) you don't have to worry about VR being in the body. The f/1.4 aperture is VERY wide. Combined with the very good high ISO performance of the D60 you should do well in the lower light settings. With the indoor rides you'll do better with a wide aperture lens like this than a lens with VR. The VR will help you with the slower shutter speeds for still subjects. The wide f/1.4 aperture will help you with getting a faster shutter speed for moving subjects.

I also took a lot of pics on the fly while walking around MK, DHS and EPCOT using this lens wide open. The family just didn't give me enough time to set up a tripod. The picture of the castle in my signature (the night shot on the right) was taken with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at ISO1600, f/1.8 and with a 1/40th shutter. I took a lot of pictures like that around the parks. The only drawback doing it this way compared to with a tripod is the noise issue. It was a lot greater this way. Though the D60 does a better job with noise at the higher ISO's than my D50.

Thanks for clearing that up. Like I said above, I really don't want to be lugging around a whole camera bag of stuff along with a real tripod while in WDW, so I think having whatever "everyday" lens I use, plus the prime f/1.4 will probably be enough to suit my needs. Since it'll only be DH and I, I really don't want to make him stand around too long while I try to get decent pix, but I also don't want to be rushed...so having lenses that will produce decent pix without a tripod sounds like the perfect compromise.

I don't know why I keep thinking that VR is a must in any situation other than daylight...I guess just because with my point&shoot my pictures always came out so crappy in low-light situations unless I had it sitting on something with a timer. I need to get out of that mindset.

Glad to hear you made your decision. As for Alaska, like I said before, I would go with nothing shorter than 300mm. Unless you can rent the 80-400mm VR lens (which is huge) the 70-300mm VR will be great. Sigma does make a few that go up to 500mm, but you'll want to carry around a monopod with them as they are also quite large.

Can't wait to see some of your images.

Definitely if I buy a lens with more zoom, it'll be the 70-300mm...especially since I looked at the prices for the 80-400mm, I don't think that will be happening, nor do I think I'll really need it for anything other than the occasional trip to the zoo, hike or vacation to Alaska.

As for that trip, we won't be going until August 2010!!! So I have plenty of time to learn and decide which lens I do or don't need. My thought is that I may just end up saving some money and renting a really good telephoto lens for the trip, but only time will tell.

Thanks again for all of the advice, for some reason it definitely helps hearing it from someone who owns a Nikon and has experience with the exact lenses I am mentioning.

 

[ukcatfan]

So I put in my order and the camera will be here on Friday (hopefully). If you don't like the super zoom lenses...(I mean this in all seriousness because of our trip to Alaska)....how would you recommend getting a close-up shot of something like a bear/moose/wolf/anything you don't want to get extremely close to?? We aren't going until 2010, we'll be driving up and touring the state for about 10-14 days on our own and by then, I would guess that my skills will be much better developed. I would love to get some great shots of the animals, the landscape, etc.

I think what he's saying is he prefers a two lens set up verses one big lens, not that he's against zoom.

Yes, that is what I mean. When going to a SLR type camera, you have to give up what zoom used to mean to you in the p&s world. Now to you zoom only means that it is not a fixed focal length lens. For example, a 10-100mm lens and a 50-500mm lens are both 10x zoom lenses, but obviously extremely different. You now have to start thinking in terms of focal length. A lens that covers a very large range of focal lengths will suffer from a degraded IQ and the max aperture available is limited (extremely so on the tele end of the lens). At f/6.3, most consumer level DSLRs start to have trouble even focusing b/c there is so little light coming in the lens.

I'm not an expert but from all my reading and the helpful people here, the Sigma is a very fast lens. The VR buys you a couple of stops on a slower lens. From what I understand, having the faster lens negates the need for VR. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

It certainly does not negate it, but many situations you use it on call for a shutter speed fast enough to make it not come into play. It still works like normal on shots where the subject is stationary and you want to go down to say a 1/4 sec. shutter hand held. That is where the in body IS models have an advantage.

Another thing that this made me realize is that the 18-250mm lenses are going to work better on cameras with in body IS. zackiedawg has a Sony with it, so he does not have to worry much, but without the IS, you are pretty much limited to tripod work above 200mm. You need very good light (i.e. daylight with no clouds) to have success at those focal lengths without a tripod or IS. That sort of negates the traveling light benefit. If that lens is really important to you, you might want to reconsider going with Nikon.

 

[annnewjerz]

Another thing that this made me realize is that the 18-250mm lenses are going to work better on cameras with in body IS. zackiedawg has a Sony with it, so he does not have to worry much, but without the IS, you are pretty much limited to tripod work above 200mm. You need very good light (i.e. daylight with no clouds) to have success at those focal lengths without a tripod or IS. That sort of negates the traveling light benefit. If that lens is really important to you, you might want to reconsider going with Nikon.

It's not really important, just something I was thinking about. I'm going to stick with the Nikon D60, just because after playing around with my friend's camera for a few days, I am 99.9% sure that I will be satisfied with this body for at least a few years, at which point I will be able to upgrade to a D80 or D90 if I really think it's necessary.

You do make a very good point about the Sony having the IS built in. I have also been considering the 18-200mm VR that Nikon makes, so the fact that you pointed out the need for a tripod at the higher "zoom" lengths alone will make me think twice before making any final decision on whether or not to purchase one of those lenses.

Thanks!

 

[zackiedawg]

Very good point UKcatfan...I wasn't even thinking about the IS, but surely it helps when I'm shooting 250mm at F6.3 or F8 in average light - I might be seeing shutter speeds of 1/40 or so. Without the IS, that would be fairly hard to handhold without some shake or blur at that focal length.

The 18-200VR I don't know as much about as far as reviews from folks who own that lens, but it sounds like it might be a better all-round one-lens solution for a Nikon body. I have been very happy with the performance from the 18-250...surprisingly good sharpness and color from 18-200, and though I was warned of likely softness at 250, it has given me some very sharp, detailed shots at that range. If I know I'll be shooting lots of distant birds and wildlife, I'll use my Tamron 200-500, but the 18-250 can stretch conveniently far for those times I'm only carrying the one lens.

 

[Steve's Girl]

I have had the Nikon 18-200 for almost 2 yrs. now. The IQ is not bad given the range it covers. Of course, it doesn't compare to some of the high end Nikkor glass, but I still really like this lens. It is a convenience lens. It's a great vacation lens when you want to travel light and not carry a bunch of gear or change lenses all the time. This lens with one prime lens in my purse has been my kit for many of my WDW trips. I am looking to purchase another Nikkor 2.8 lens at some point, but I don't think I would sell my 18-200 lens simply because it is convenient to have wide angle and zoom capabilities without having to change lenses.

 

[annnewjerz]

I have had the Nikon 18-200 for almost 2 yrs. now. The IQ is not bad given the range it covers. Of course, it doesn't compare to some of the high end Nikkor glass, but I still really like this lens. It is a convenience lens. It's a great vacation lens when you want to travel light and not carry a bunch of gear or change lenses all the time. This lens with one prime lens in my purse has been my kit for many of my WDW trips. I am looking to purchase another Nikkor 2.8 lens at some point, but I don't think I would sell my 18-200 lens simply because it is convenient to have wide angle and zoom capabilities without having to change lenses.

Glad to hear you like your 18-200mm VR. From what I have read, it seems like a lens that most people enjoy. That's EXACTLY what I was thinking I would need for WDW, one sort of "catchall" lens and one prime in my purse for any low-light situations I wanted to get some pictures in. If I had to carry anything else, like a tripod...I would probably just pick a small travel tripod that I can sit on top of a garbage for things like fireworks shots.

 

[pjacobi]

As for Alaska, like I said before, I would go with nothing shorter than 300mm. Unless you can rent the 80-400mm VR lens (which is huge) the 70-300mm VR will be great.

Your chances of sighting bear from cruise ship or even in Denali NP is low. If you do find one, it will be too far away even for 400mm.

The only good way to see bears is to book a flight into Katmai NP via floatplane. This is where all the famous pictures of bears are taken. It's about $100 for same day to fly in/out from Anchorage. Overnight cabins are available, but call now for 2010. They are usually sold out 18 month in advance. The one day trip is unforgettable if you go during peak bear viewing season.

Halo Bay is another areas frequented by bears, but I have not been there.


-Paul

 

[annnewjerz]

Your chances of sighting bear from cruise ship or even in Denali NP is low. If you do find one, it will be too far away even for 400mm.

The only good way to see bears is to book a flight into Katmai NP via floatplane. This is where all the famous pictures of bears are taken. It's about $100 for same day to fly in/out from Anchorage. Overnight cabins are available, but call now for 2010. They are usually sold out 18 month in advance. The one day trip is unforgettable if you go during peak bear viewing season.

Halo Bay is another areas frequented by bears, but I have not been there.


-Paul

We won't be taking a cruise, we'll be headed up for 10-14 days on our own to cover as much of the state as possible. We will be going to Denali, I don't expect to see bears (in fact I would prefer I didn't), but if I do see something like a bear, a wolf or a moose I want to capture it on film. We'll be going to Anchorage, Seward, Denali, Wasilla, the North Pole and Fairbanks (not in that order).

We also plan to take a tour of the Kenai Fjords where we have been told it's common to see a whale here or there, some seals, etc. and we will be going to the Sea Life Center in Seward, the Animal Conservation Center along the way back up from Seward to Anchorage, so I plan to see animals there (even though the setting is more like a zoo than their natural habitat) and the reindeer and musk ox farms along our way up to Fairbanks.