I will be going to Alaska this summer, and need advice on new gear. My interests are primarily wildlife (mammals and large birds), macro subjects (wildflowers, insects, etc.) and scenics. I have ~20 years experience, with the following tired setup: manual focus Minolta X700, MD 28/2.0, MD 50/1.4, Sigma 90/2.8 macro, Tokina 400/5.6. Of these, the 28 and the macro are my real favorites. The 400 has given me some shots that I couldn’t get otherwise, but it isn’t a great lens. The standard is a nice lens, but I have little interest in that range.

I have already settled on the Elan 7e body, and I am agonizing over lenses. Given my plans and interests, I am leaning towards a wide angle, a macro, and a long zoom. I have about $2000 to spend, and would rather not buy used. I am particularly interested to know what people think about the 80-200/4L vs. 75-300/4-5.6 IS vs. Sigma’s 100-300/4. I know the IS is not as nice a lens, but I may be shooting from moving boats, idling vehicles, etc, with a monopod at best. Also, The new 100/2.8 USM macro vs. Sigma’s equivalent. Finally, I will have to carry this stuff on my back, so weight is not irrelavant.

-- Andy Gavrin (agavrin@iupui.edu), March 13, 2002

Answers

You might consider the 100-400IS with a 500D as a long lens and macro combo. Then a 20-35/3.5-4.5 would complete the wide end. This outfit would also allow you to just use 77mm filters.

Another approach would be a 70-200/2.8 non-IS (also a 77mm filter size) with 500D plus a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to cover the telephoto and macro range. (I think the 70-200 IS version would be ideal for your trip but not within your price parameter.) The 70- 200/4 (a fantastic lens) would also make a nice combo, but you would need to use a 500D with a step up ring, it wouldn't be as useful with a teleconverter, and without any IS I think a faster f2.8 lens sounds more useful for what you're planning (lots of unsteady shooting requiring either IS or a fast shutter speed). Getting the f4 version might free up enough to get a dedicated 100mm macro, but I've found a 100mm a little short for insects, and you'd also be duplicating the 100mm focal length if you added the 70-200/4 to it.

If your heart is set on primes, Canon's 24mm (or 20mm), 100 macro, and 400mm lenses would also work well. I have no experience with the 70-300IS or Sigma lenses.

-- AC Gordon (cgordon@stx.rr.com), March 13, 2002.

Hi, Have you thought about the 300mm f4 L. It is a great lense and works well with the 1.4xTC. I find that it takes really great photos and is not too big. If you are interested in birds the 300 is as short as I would go. Any zoom is not going to take the great photos this lens can produce. The IS 300 f4 is a bit more but might be worth it.

The 100mm f2.8 Macro is a large lens (for 100mm macro) but it is as good as you could ever want. I brought mine when they were first released and often carry it rather that my 70-200 f2.8L.

The wider end of things is interesting you could go for a zoom e.g., 20-35mm. This is ment to be ok stopped down, but I don't own one. Or go for a 24-85 ok but nothing wonderful (i have one). Or look at a couple of primes eg a 24mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8 both of mine are great.

I would go with 300 f4L (IS if I had the $), 1.4xTC, 100 macro, 24mm and 50mm. New this will set you back about $2160 new. You could save lots by getting a second hand 300.

Or 100-400IS L and a 20-35(slow one) and a 100mm macro- about $2500 but might not give you the image quality.

Good luck Leif

-- Leif Pigott (leifpigott@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

For Alaska I carry a 17-35, 28-135 USM IS, 75-300 USM IS, 35 f/2 and 85 f/1.8. All my best shooting has been done in Alaska and I travel there a lot. In fact any time I think about photography I think about Alaska. I really do love Alaska, and the summers are great. But then I live here & right now I'm sick of the weather! And I want out! I want out now!!!

Sorry. Cabin fever setting in I guess.

I like the IS lenses. They really do work from moving vehicles/boats. The 75-300 is not the best but it works for me. I had the 100-300 USM before & I prefer the IS. Don't use a 'pod on a moving boat as the vibrations will defeat the IS.

Moose are dumb enough to get close to and often a shorter lens is needed. 300mm is certainly enough if you are patient. For most anything else it's not long enough though. 400 would be the minimum.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), March 14, 2002.

My wife says we're driving South to see the real world this summer. Or at least the other western states. I guess she's just as sick of the winter as I am.

So what lenses should I take to the Grand Canyon? Crater Lake? Edmonton Mall? :~)

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), March 14, 2002.

If 28 is wide enough for you, I would recommend the 28-70 f2.8L USM & the 70-200 f2.8L USM. If you go used, this will fit in your budget. Add a set of Kenko extension tubes, and maybe the two-element Canon diopter, and you can take fine close-ups, too. Add the TC 1.4 and you are out to 280mm at f4. Both take 77mm filters.

You could sub the 70-200 f4 for the f2.8, but it rains a lot, and it is couldy a lot, and f4 is pretty slow from a moving boat/vehicle etc.

I am not the world's biggest zoom fan, but these are two seriously nice lenses.

300 f4 L IS is really a corker, even with TC 1.4, but I would hate to give up the focal lengths from 100-200mm to get it.

-- J.Horton (masssalt@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

By the way, the weather is best in June for most of the state, but that's also the worst time for bugs (Alaska's other big game). The southeast coast is the wettest area and the driest is the interior. Lots of sunshine there. Summers in Alaska really are nice. You'll love it.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), March 14, 2002.

Okay, the budget is $2000 for the lot. Camera already selected. How about a Canon EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 (I've got one, it's a good lens but it's almost always on a tripod where speed matters not), Canon EF 70- 200/4L (sharp, lightweight) and a used Canon EF 300/4L non-IS (you didn't want to go used but, with your budget, you've got to compromise). Add a Canon 500D close up lens and you've got macro covered. Locate a used Canon EF 2x extender and you've got yourself a good useful 600/8 lens for those animals at a distance. These are all great lenses, fairly light weight and it's probably over budget but it's a great investment.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), March 14, 2002.