Lenses for Brown Bears in Katmai NP

[BillW]

I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[DRwyoming]

Given those choices I'd either take the 500mm PF with one of the shorter zooms on another body or carry the 200-500mm as I expect it would be about perfect for Griz in Katmai as long as the light is half decent.

 

[Abinoone]

I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

I'm heading there myself in the fall, and have similar questions. From what I understand, you get quite close to the bears, so exceptionally long glass isn't really necessary in most cases. I plan to take my 200-500, 70-200, 24-70, and 16-35 for landscapes. I like the flexibility of the 200-500 zoom, even if the optics and AF can't match f4 primes.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Just a thought, maybe the 500 pf on your choice of FF, and rent a 80-400 mounted on your D500 and keep the 70-200 close by. The 500pf will probably be too close on the D500.

 

[Ralph]

I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Bill , Just so your aware, The 70-300 AF-P isn’t compatible with any of the TC’s.

 

[FB101]

Another light option, not as flexible as the 200-500 is the 300pf + 1.4x TC on the D850. Just used that combo in Colorado and it worked well giving me both 300 and 420mm with high quality. Coupled with the 70-200 you’d be well covered.
The only issue is that you’d need two TCs (Z and EF)which is a bit of a pain.
or as others mentioned, keep it simple and rent the 200-500 and call it a day. You know that will work great.

 

[EricBowles]

I'd take the 500 PF and the 70-200 + TC. The 70-200 + TC will likely be enough, but the 500 PF for tight shots will be very useful - especially if backgrounds are distracting or light is harsh. The added benefit is you'll have two lenses - a bit of insurance in case a lens is dropped or fails. I would not consider the trip without two lens options and two bodies.

Don't forget to consider any weight limits for small plane travel.

 

[Backdoor Arts]

Not being a wise ass here (I swear) but this discussion makes me so glad I decided to switch systems when I went mirrorless and can now just carry a 100-500mm. I just can't wait to go somewhere special with it.

That said, as I still have much of the gear you're discussing, I like the idea of the 70-200mm, 300mm PF and 1.4x TC. That'll get you to 420mm (effectively 630mm on the D500). WIth the extra MP's on the D850 if you're stuck between the 200mm at the long end and the effective 450mm on the D500 you at least have the pixels to crop in.

 

[Amasaback]

We just returned from there Sunday. In many cases the 500mm was too much lens when shooting on the platforms. The perfect lens was clearly the 180-400, which I don’t have and don’t see a way to buy since they seem to be out of production. I used my 300 most. It was surprising how often I used my 24-70 lens. My wife used a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 and it was a perfect set up most of the time. I took the 600 F4 and never used it.

 

[BillW]

Thanks for all the thoughts. I’m inclined to go with the 500 mm PF and 70-200 Z with the two Z mount TCs along. I’ll bring the 70-300 AF-P along as a backup. I can shoot the 500 mm on the D850 (more flexible than the D500, as I can do a DX crop in post) and the 70-200 with or without TC on the Z7II or Z6II depending on light and other factors. Will do some more testing with the 700-200 S lens and Z mount TCs this week. So far, my experience (from just shooting aournd my house and our cabin, not test charts) is that both work quite well optically, although the 1.4x Z TC is better. Thom Hogan says he thinks the 70-200 S with the 2x Z TC is on par with the 80-400 mm G lens, which I used to have. I think it might be a bit better than that, but wonder how it will do with AF on fast action.

 

[DavidT]

I’d rent the 180-400 and take the 500pf

 

[BillW]

We just returned from there Sunday. In many cases the 500mm was too much lens when shooting on the platforms. The perfect lens was clearly the 180-400, which I don’t have and don’t see a way to buy since they seem to be out of production. I used my 300 most. It was surprising how often I used my 24-70 lens. My wife used a D500 with a 70-200 2.8 and it was a perfect set up most of the time. I took the 600 F4 and never used it.

I have thought in the past about buying the 180-400 mm lens. Expensive, but very nice. What has held me back is the weight. I’ve told myself that I don’t want anything materially heavier than the 5 lb 200-500 mm. Might make an exception to that if Nikon makes a 6.X lb 600 mm f4 for the Z mount.

I’m don’t think we will have platforms. Were you at Brooks Station? We will be taking a float plane out each day from Iliamna to various spots in Katmai, depending on where the bears are active.

Your comments make me think I may want to bring my 300 mm PF and a 1.4x F TCIII, although the 70-200 Z plus the Z TCs gives me similar options, plus zoom flexibility.

 

[Amasaback]

I was at Brooks. Also did a few float plane excursion near lake lake.

 

[Abinoone]

I have thought in the past about buying the 180-400 mm lens. Expensive, but very nice. What has held me back is the weight. I’ve told myself that I don’t want anything materially heavier than the 5 lb 200-500 mm. Might make an exception to that if Nikon makes a 6.X lb 600 mm f4 for the Z mount.

I’m don’t think we will have platforms. Were you at Brooks Station? We will be taking a float plane out each day from Iliamna to various spots in Katmai, depending on where the bears are active.

Your comments make me think I may want to bring my 300 mm PF and a 1.4x F TCIII, although the 70-200 Z plus the Z TCs gives me similar options, plus zoom flexibility.

Yeah, the 180-400 f4 strikes me as an ideal lens for Katmai bears, but the price!

 

[Amasaback]

Yeah, the 180-400 f4 strikes me as an ideal lens for Katmai bears, but the price!

It takes serious rationalization (or ir-rationalization) considering that I won't ever make a living doing this. Here is what I am telling myself. I am not buying a 12,399 dollar lens. I am just buying the depreciation of that lens. If I sell it in the future for some amount of money - today they sell fo more used than new - but say even 25% depreciation, then I am doing a multi year rental for ~$3000. That lens rents for 550 -700 a week so that might help me convince myself. The issue is that I can't find one to buy even if I do convince myself.

 

[RikWriter]

I am not a Nikon guy, but when I went in 2007, I took a 300 2.8, a 1.4X TC and a 100-400 lens and that combo worked pretty well.

 

[fulltimewanderer]

I have thought in the past about buying the 180-400 mm lens. Expensive, but very nice. What has held me back is the weight. I’ve told myself that I don’t want anything materially heavier than the 5 lb 200-500 mm. Might make an exception to that if Nikon makes a 6.X lb 600 mm f4 for the Z mount.

I’m don’t think we will have platforms. Were you at Brooks Station? We will be taking a float plane out each day from Iliamna to various spots in Katmai, depending on where the bears are active.

Your comments make me think I may want to bring my 300 mm PF and a 1.4x F TCIII, although the 70-200 Z plus the Z TCs gives me similar options, plus zoom flexibility.

Bill,
Just took a quick look lens rental has both the 200-400 and the 180-400 as a possible option. I owned the 200-400G /VR liked the lens but, found it a bit on the heavy side. Could shoot hand held in bursts but required a tripod for extended shooting. Actually sold it a got the 80-400, can jump out of the truck and run with it.

 

[BillW]

Bill,
Just took a quick look lens rental has both the 200-400 and the 180-400 as a possible option. I owned the 200-400G /VR liked the lens but, found it a bit on the heavy side. Could shoot hand held in bursts but required a tripod for extended shooting. Actually sold it a got the 80-400, can jump out of the truck and run with it.

Thanks. I’ve thought about that, but I think the 180-400 is heavier than I want to use. And I recall it is a bit heavier than the 200-400.

I’m spoiled by the PF lenses. If I decide to go the zoom route at the long end (without TCs), I’ll take my 200-500, which I have travelled with before and used handheld. A couple of pounds lighter than the 200-400 and 180-400, I think.

I picked up Brad Hill’s 180-400 with a D5 attached on a trip to Gwaii Haanas a couple years ago and marveled at how heavy it was and that he managed to handhold it so successfully in a zodiac. I think I’d have to hit the gym to use that lens (other than perhaps on a monopod in a vehicle or on a tripod).

 

[Abinoone]

Thanks. I’ve thought about that, but I think the 180-400 is heavier than I want to use. And I recall it is a bit heavier than the 200-400.

I’m spoiled by the PF lenses. If I decide to go the zoom route at the long end (without TCs), I’ll take my 200-500, which I have travelled with before and used handheld. A couple of pounds lighter than the 200-400 and 180-400, I think.

I picked up Brad Hill’s 180-400 with a D5 attached on a trip to Gwaii Haanas a couple years ago and marveled at how heavy it was and that he managed to handhold it so successfully in a zodiac. I think I’d have to hit the gym to use that lens (other than perhaps on a monopod in a vehicle or on a tripod).

Yeah, at 7.7 pounds, the 180-400 is a bit heavy, but oh how I wish I could afford it! I'd be happy to hit the gym if someone would buy me one for my birthday! Any takers?

 

[fulltimewanderer]

Thanks. I’ve thought about that, but I think the 180-400 is heavier than I want to use. And I recall it is a bit heavier than the 200-400.

I’m spoiled by the PF lenses. If I decide to go the zoom route at the long end (without TCs), I’ll take my 200-500, which I have travelled with before and used handheld. A couple of pounds lighter than the 200-400 and 180-400, I think.

I picked up Brad Hill’s 180-400 with a D5 attached on a trip to Gwaii Haanas a couple years ago and marveled at how heavy it was and that he managed to handhold it so successfully in a zodiac. I think I’d have to hit the gym to use that lens (other than perhaps on a monopod in a vehicle or on a tripod).

Bill,
With today’s gear I feel you will have success and a Good time. I went up they years ago and took a float plane out and really enjoyed myself. Camera a Nikon D100 lens the original 80-400. Boy has gear improved since then.

 

[jeffnles1]

We were there in 2018. Not Brooks Falls but took a float plane out to a river that flowed into the ocean and walked through the flats. Saw lots of bears and one rather foolish (or brave) mama moose with a baby out in the middle of the bears. I had a D7200 and a Sigma 150-600 lens. Since we were on foot (wearing hip waders by the way) slogging through costal flats with several stream crossings, carrying a lot of equipment would not have been good.

My thoughts on the gear I had.
1) the D7200 was fine. It was my main body at the time, no complaints. Bears didn't require super fast frame rate since they were mostly meandering around eating goose tongue grass.
2) 150-600 focal range worked. 600 was useless for most shots. Most of my shots were between 200 and 400. If I had the 200-500 at the time I would have used it as the primary lens. It was heavily overcast and rained off and on all day when we were there. F 6.3 at the long end and a camera body (D7200) that is not noted for exceptional high ISO performance and shooting through rain & mist made for some shots that are great memories, look "decent" but could have been better.
3) the dry bag I brought with me came in handy. It rains a lot there (especially in June when we were up that way).
4) good eyes or binoculars (I brought a pair of compact lightweight binoculars). I would encourage you to spend almost as much time taking in the scenery and the "time and place" creating memories as you do looking through the viewfinder. It truly is a beautiful place, the bears are magnificent creatures but so are the other creatures around there. Eagles and other birds, smaller mammals, Moose, etc. I found myself shooting a burst of photos and then just taking time to watch and soak it all in.

Hope you have a great time.

 

[Anjin San]

I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Brooks Falls or elsewhere? The viewing platform there is fixed sp probably the 500 although as some said it might be too much…depends on whether you want portraits or environmental shots. If elsewhere and landing on the beach…when we did that the bears were pretty close. I had my 18-300 and Sigma 50-500 on DX then…and all I used was the short one and mostly at closer than max zoom.

 

[BillW]

Brooks Falls or elsewhere? The viewing platform there is fixed sp probably the 500. If elsewhere and landing on the beach…when we did that the bears were pretty close. I had my 18-300 and Sigma 50-500 on DX then…and all I used was the short one and mostly at closer than max zoom.

I don’t think we will be going to Brooks Station. Rather landing by float plane on rivers in the park where bears are active. Will be wearing full waders to get out of the plane and for shooting along and occasionally in the rivers. Makes me think that the 70-200 f2.8S lens in Z mount with either the 1.4x Z TC or 2x Z TC might be nice on a Z7II or Z6II. Or the 70-300 AF-P FX on a D850 or D500.

 

[Anjin San]

I don’t think we will be going to Brooks Station. Rather landing by float plane on rivers in the park where bears are active. Will be wearing full waders to get out of the plane and for shooting along and occasionally in the rivers. Makes me think that the 70-200 f2.8S lens in Z mount with either the 1.4x Z TC or 2x Z TC might be nice on a Z7II or Z6II. Or the 70-300 AF-P FX on a D850 or D500.

Yeh…you definitely want 2 bodies and 2 lenses for any oopsies. I think I would take the 7II, 70-200 and 2.0 TC for the main camera, a shorter zoom on the D500 (or maybe 850 depending on how much weight you want to schlep around) and the 70-300 and an FTZ in the bag in case of lens trouble on the 70-200. The 7II is only about 20MP in DX mode but that’s plenty for most purposes. Between the 70-200 and TC and FX/DX on the 7II…that gives you effective reach of 70-550 without any swaps other than the TC. For most of the places you will be 70 minimum is plenty wide enough…so I would keep the D500 in the backpack to make hiking around more comfortable…but you’ve got spares just in case. Definitely carry some short zoom as well…Alaska has nice landscapes and while there are lots of bears it isn’t quite like herons in FL. On our trip to Katmai…we landed on t(e beach with balloon tires…we were on the ground about 3 or 4 hours and had 15 or 20 bears including one that literally walked by us at 10 feet away. You can’t legally approach the bears closer than 75 yards…so in several cases we got in front and let them come to us…but we’re mostly at 20 or 25 yards minimum…except for that one boar that didn’t know the rules. Luckily he was fishing and could not have cared less about us.

 

[Abinoone]

It takes serious rationalization (or ir-rationalization) considering that I won't ever make a living doing this. Here is what I am telling myself. I am not buying a 12,399 dollar lens. I am just buying the depreciation of that lens. If I sell it in the future for some amount of money - today they sell fo more used than new - but say even 25% depreciation, then I am doing a multi year rental for ~$3000. That lens rents for 550 -700 a week so that might help me convince myself. The issue is that I can't find one to buy even if I do convince myself.

I like your thought process! I may use it myself.