Looking for Recommendations on Upcoming Trip to Alaska

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Jadiehl

Jadiehl

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
We are making a trip to Alaska this summer. It will be a cruise followed by a land portion ending in Denali. This trip will include whale watching, site seeing tours and town scapes. I am trying to decide which lenses to take to minimize weight for a more pleasurable experience, but know this is the last time I will probably go to AK. I currently have the following Z lenses in my arsenal: 24-120 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, 600 PF f/6.3, 50 MC f/2.8, and a 1.4 TC. I use these with my Z8. I am currently considering taking the 24-120 and the 100-400 with the 50 MC and the 1.4 TC, leaving the 600 PF behind. This gives me a lot of flexibility but leaves out the super telephoto, so taking pics of the Dahl Sheep will be a challenge! Thoughts? Do I need to add something to the set or leave something else behind. Adding the 600 to my backpack as is just won’t work unless I leave the 100-400 behind.
 
Member's gallery
Jadiehl said:
We are making a trip to Alaska this summer. It will be a cruise followed by a land portion ending in Denali. This trip will include whale watching, site seeing tours and town scapes. I am trying to decide which lenses to take to minimize weight for a more pleasurable experience, but know this is the last time I will probably go to AK. I currently have the following Z lenses in my arsenal: 24-120 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, 600 PF f/6.3, 50 MC f/2.8, and a 1.4 TC. I use these with my Z8. I am currently considering taking the 24-120 and the 100-400 with the 50 MC and the 1.4 TC, leaving the 600 PF behind. This gives me a lot of flexibility but leaves out the super telephoto, so taking pics of the Dahl Sheep will be a challenge! Thoughts? Do I need to add something to the set or leave something else behind. Adding the 600 to my backpack as is just won’t work unless I leave the 100-400 behind.
Click to expand...
There are a number of threads on this. Much of the wildlife (Dahl sheep, brown bears, eagles, etc) will be at a distance in places like Denali or from a cruise ship. So the 600mm PF would be of best use for these. The 100-400mm is perfect for whale watching. And for scenics, your 24-120mm would be great. So only you can decide how much you are comfortable carrying. And not to add to your load, but are you bringing two bodies? How would you feel if something happened to your Z8? Tough choices that only you can make. Have a great time, Alaska is an amazing place to visit.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
There are a number of threads on this. Much of the wildlife (Dahl sheep, brown bears, eagles, etc) will be at a distance in places like Denali or from a cruise ship. So the 600mm PF would be of best use for these. The 100-400mm is perfect for whale watching. And for scenics, your 24-120mm would be great. So only you can decide how much you are comfortable carrying. And not to add to your load, but are you bringing two bodies? How would you feel if something happened to your Z8? Tough choices that only you can make. Have a great time, Alaska is an amazing place to visit.
Click to expand...
The 1.4 TC gets my 100-400 to 560, right; so nearly 600. Then again, 1.4 with the 600 gets me to 840… I only have 1 Z body, unfortunately.
 
Member's gallery
Doing a similar trip there in July with my wife, her sister, and my brother-in-law. It's a vacation, not a photo-trip, so I'm taking my Z8, 24-120, and 400 4.5 with a 1.4 TC. That's it. We updated our phones, so those will suffice for snapshots, etc. Hope to see some critters, etc. but decent wildlife shots will be a bonus, not a main goal.
 
Member's gallery
Jadiehl said:
The 1.4 TC gets my 100-400 to 560, right; so nearly 600. Then again, 1.4 with the 600 gets me to 840… I only have 1 Z body, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Personally I did not find that a 1.4TC on the 100-400mm was to my liking (though I know many people do). I think that the 1.4TC plus the 600mm would be great! The Dall sheep we saw in Denali was a long way off:
Dall sheep.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
On a cruise ship you can leave some of your gear in the cabin and only take what you need for that day's outing. Most of the time a zoom lens worked better as my location was limited and distances to subjects are great and there are limitations as to how close you can get. The 180-600mm or the 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC would be my choices for larger animals.

Not to muddy the waters but the new 28-400mm is a great lens and it is very light and very compact. Add the 600mm PF and you have a lot of options.
 
Member's gallery
Jadiehl said:
We are making a trip to Alaska this summer. It will be a cruise followed by a land portion ending in Denali. This trip will include whale watching, site seeing tours and town scapes. I am trying to decide which lenses to take to minimize weight for a more pleasurable experience, but know this is the last time I will probably go to AK. I currently have the following Z lenses in my arsenal: 24-120 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, 600 PF f/6.3, 50 MC f/2.8, and a 1.4 TC. I use these with my Z8. I am currently considering taking the 24-120 and the 100-400 with the 50 MC and the 1.4 TC, leaving the 600 PF behind. This gives me a lot of flexibility but leaves out the super telephoto, so taking pics of the Dahl Sheep will be a challenge! Thoughts? Do I need to add something to the set or leave something else behind. Adding the 600 to my backpack as is just won’t work unless I leave the 100-400 behind.
Click to expand...
Your questions are hard to answer because it's not clear what you're hoping to photograph, and what you'll encounter. But, without question, you'll want to capture some of the spectacular Alaska scenery, so take the short lens for landscapes (you might even consider renting a shorter or wide angle for this purpose). For wildlife, if it's a toss up between the 100-400 and the 600, I'd take the 100-400 to provide maximum flexibility in changing situations, and carry along the TC for some extra reach if you need it.

Last summer, I was at Katmai for bears, and a 100-400 would have been ideal because the bears were quite close at times, and at others much farther away; a fixed focal length wasn't ideal in that situation. I also spent some time on Resurrection Bay photographing otters, whales, puffins, kittiwakes, and other birds, and the 600 didn't seem long enough, although finding my subject on a rolling boat using a long telephoto was a challenge (for me at least!).
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
+1 on taking the 600mm. If you take the bus into Wonder Lake in Denali you'll wish you had at least 600mm for the wildlife along the way.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Dave. That road is closed before you get to the top of the pass due to a landslide. If I take the 600 I may need to leave the 100-400 behind. This is supposed to be a vacation for my wife and I, but I will take photos just the same.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Your questions are hard to answer because it's not clear what you're hoping to photograph, and what you'll encounter. But, without question, you'll want to capture some of the spectacular Alaska scenery, so take the short lens for landscapes (you might even consider renting a shorter or wide angle for this purpose). For wildlife, if it's a toss up between the 100-400 and the 600, I'd take the 100-400 to provide maximum flexibility in changing situations, and carry along the TC for some extra reach if you need it.

Last summer, I was at Katmai for bears, and a 100-400 would have been ideal because the bears were quite close at times, and at others much farther away; a fixed focal length wasn't ideal in that situation. I also spent some time on Resurrection Bay photographing otters, whales, puffins, kittiwakes, and other birds, and the 600 didn't seem long enough, although finding my subject on a rolling boat using a long telephoto was a challenge (for me at least!).
Click to expand...
Thanks, Abinoone, you’ve given me more to consider.
 
Member's gallery
I've been to Alaska three times, bears, whale watching, and most recently Bald Eagles. My wildlife backpack always includes two cameras and the same three lenses no matter where I go. My two Z8s, the 600PF, the 100-400, and a 24-120 for landscape, as well as a 1.4TC. This has worked out very well for me and I've never thought, "O heck, I should have brought X, Y, Z." Same backpack just a few days ago for Yellowstone and Grand Teton NPs and for foxes on two different islands a few months ago.
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
I've been to Alaska three times, bears, whale watching, and most recently Bald Eagles. My wildlife backpack always includes two cameras and the same three lenses no matter where I go. My two Z8s, the 600PF, the 100-400, and a 24-120 for landscape, as well as a 1.4TC. This has worked out very well for me and I've never thought, "O heck, I should have brought X, Y, Z." Same backpack just a few days ago for Yellowstone and Grand Teton NPs and for foxes on two different islands a few months ago.
Click to expand...
What backpack are you using?
 
Member's gallery
In a motel heading home from Yellowstone, here are pics. My batteries and cards fit in and I can put in two battery chargers if need be (I always carry two). I always carry a soft computer case with the computer and other stuff. I use Peak Design camera straps and really like that I can put them in their little bag and nothing gets scratched that way, although my cameras are always wrapped (this is, of course, after a different camera got scratched by a different brand of strap when the camera was not wrapped). This bag is long and more narrow so it fits nicely in airplane overhead bins. Hope this helps.


Jadiehl said:
IMG_0931.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
IMG_0932.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
IMG_0933.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
What backpack are you using?
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
If you're not on a wildlife specific trip IMO I'd take the 24-120 and the 100-400 and call it good. But I would certainly figure out a way to take a second body. For landscape work you don't need another Z8. You could rent a pretty inexpensive Z7ii to pair with the 24-120. It could also serve as emergency backup to the Z8 in a pinch. Enjoy the trip and don't stress over the kit.
 
Member's gallery
Jadiehl said:
We are making a trip to Alaska this summer. It will be a cruise followed by a land portion ending in Denali. This trip will include whale watching, site seeing tours and town scapes. I am trying to decide which lenses to take to minimize weight for a more pleasurable experience, but know this is the last time I will probably go to AK. I currently have the following Z lenses in my arsenal: 24-120 f/4, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, 600 PF f/6.3, 50 MC f/2.8, and a 1.4 TC. I use these with my Z8. I am currently considering taking the 24-120 and the 100-400 with the 50 MC and the 1.4 TC, leaving the 600 PF behind. This gives me a lot of flexibility but leaves out the super telephoto, so taking pics of the Dahl Sheep will be a challenge! Thoughts? Do I need to add something to the set or leave something else behind. Adding the 600 to my backpack as is just won’t work unless I leave the 100-400 behind.
Click to expand...
As Calson stated above, you can leave some lenses in the cabin and take what you think you will need for the days outing thus keeping it light when you're out and about. If you want a decent backpack to carry all the lenses you listed, including the 600 pf, the Mindshift Backlight 26l will work. Here it is packed with same lenses as you have except the 500 pf is in place of the 600 pf, the 500 pf + FTZ is about the same as the 600 pf. and you have room left over!:
original.jpg
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
In a motel heading home from Yellowstone, here are pics. My batteries and cards fit in and I can put in two battery chargers if need be (I always carry two). I always carry a soft computer case with the computer and other stuff. I use Peak Design camera straps and really like that I can put them in their little bag and nothing gets scratched that way, although my cameras are always wrapped (this is, of course, after a different camera got scratched by a different brand of strap when the camera was not wrapped). This bag is long and more narrow so it fits nicely in airplane overhead bins. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your help!
 
Member's gallery
Lance B said:
As Calson stated above, you can leave some lenses in the cabin and take what you think you will need for the days outing thus keeping it light when you're out and about. If you want a decent backpack to carry all the lenses you listed, including the 600 pf, the Mindshift Backlight 26l will work. Here it is packed with same lenses as you have except the 500 pf is in place of the 600 pf, the 500 pf + FTZ is about the same as the 600 pf. and you have room left over!:
original.jpg
Click to expand...
Thanks, Lance. My backpack is just a little smaller. Debating on getting a bigger one but looking a logistics on the train between Anchorage and Denali which seems to be our limiting factor. Has to fit between my legs for the day.
 
Member's gallery
Jadiehl said:
The 1.4 TC gets my 100-400 to 560, right; so nearly 600. Then again, 1.4 with the 600 gets me to 840… I only have 1 Z body, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Those are the 2 lenses I took to Africa…and they were an excellent complementary pair…with the TC being on the 600 or not depending. Of my 33,000 shots…almost 15K at 840, 5K at 600, and the remainder with the 100-400. I had the 2.0 TC as well…90 shots with it amd a couple dozen with the 24-120. I have the 180-600 now as well…and will pair one of the zooms with the 600 on outings depending on distance I am walking, whether 100-180 need is likely, and whether the better MFD of the 100-400 seems likely. Taking both to CR next month since I can put one in my bride’s backpack…but probably the 100-400 to Glacier after that because no bride and I need the wide lenses as well for that workshop with Hudson Henry. If I were to do a single lens kit for wildlife…it would be the 180-600 unless I had been there before, knew that 600 would be the only focal length I needed, and was willing to forgo the flexibility for the weight…

Generally speaking…wildlife in Alaska will be further out than in Africa…so based on the half of my shots in the latter being at 840…and having been in AK with a DX and Tamron 150-600 zoom which is effectively 900 at the long end…take the 600.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
Those are the 2 lenses I took to Africa…and they were an excellent complementary pair…with the TC being on the 600 or not depending. Of my 33,000 shots…almost 15K at 840, 5K at 600, and the remainder with the 100-400. I had the 2.0 TC as well…90 shots with it amd a couple dozen with the 24-120. I have the 180-600 now as well…and will pair one of the zooms with the 600 on outings depending on distance I am walking, whether 100-180 need is likely, and whether the better MFD of the 100-400 seems likely. Taking both to CR next month since I can put one in my bride’s backpack…but probably the 100-400 to Glacier after that because no bride and I need the wide lenses as well for that workshop with Hudson Henry. If I were to do a single lens kit for wildlife…it would be the 180-600 unless I had been there before, knew that 600 would be the only focal length I needed, and was willing to forgo the flexibility for the weight…

Generally speaking…wildlife in Alaska will be further out than in Africa…so based on the half of my shots in the latter being at 840…and having been in AK with a DX and Tamron 150-600 zoom which is effectively 900 at the long end…take the 600.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input, Anjin.
 
Member's gallery
I leave in two days for the same itinerary as you, but in reverse (land first, then the cruise). I'm taking my Z7II, 24-120 & 70-180mm. I'm not very much into wildlife so the 70-180mm will just have to suffice.
 
Member's gallery
As it’s a family holiday and not a dedicated photo trip I would take the 100-400, the 24-120 and 1.4 TC. Most of the time the 100-400 can stay on the body and you can enjoy the holiday rather than fiddle with lenses. For days with wildlife put the TC on the 100 - 400, the results are plenty good enough for screens, social media and A3 size prints.
You should have time to swap to the 24 - 120 for landscapes when needed although a smaller second body would make life simpler.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
+1 on taking the 600mm. If you take the bus into Wonder Lake in Denali you'll wish you had at least 600mm for the wildlife along the way.
Click to expand...
There was a major landslide at Pretty rocks (mile 43) due to thawing permafrost,
so he closure of the Denali Park Road at Mile 43 is expected to remain in place through summer 2026.
No access via road to Wonder Lake.
Eielson Visitor Center is closed.
Wonder Lake Campground is closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top