Alaska & Antarctica trips — best zoom lense?

[Doug Trabaris]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Leica SL2-S and Leica 24-70mm f2.8 lense. I’m traveling to Alaska & Antarctica over the next year and am looking for a zoom lense. Dan Tamarkin recommended 2: Sigma 100-400 & Leica 90-280. They’re quite different in capability. The Leica is brighter and the Sigma has greater range. Which one is better? I have tried the Leica and liked it, despite its weight. I haven’t tried out the Sigma, but it’s highly rated.

Any thoughts?

Edited April 23, 2022 by Doug Trabaris

[Ba Erv]

Personally, I’d skip them both and take the Sigma 150-600.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

That depends on what you realy need. I think the SL2 sensor and lens are of highest quality. That means you can take a crop of your files. You should try/test it.

I will go up to Nome, Alaska and than to Canada in this year (August/September), to Patagonia/Antarctica/Atacama in the next (March/April). I have a M 10-R plus APO-Summicron 35 and 75 mm OR my S3 plus the 30-90 mm lens (real 28-70 mm). As to my experiences and tests a 25% crop is absolutely sufficient to get best pictures for prints up to A3+ and K4 HDAV-files. Primary I am a landscaper but at the moment my problem is, what should I take with me, the handy M10 or the big boy S3 in any case with tripod about 2 or 5 kg. I will have to decide it. But as mentioned ???

Hans

[michali]

4 hours ago, Doug Trabaris said:

I own a Leica SL2-S and Leica 24-70mm f2.8 lense. I’m traveling to Alaska & Antarctica over the next year and am looking for a zoom lense. Dan Tamarkin recommended 2: Sigma 100-400 & Leica 90-280. They’re quite different in capability. The Leica is brighter and the Sigma has greater range. Which one is better? I have tried the Leica and liked it, despite its weight. I haven’t tried out the Sigma, but it’s highly rated.

Any thoughts?

I've done several trips to Antarctica, on the first trip in 2010 I took 2 M9s & 3 lenses: WATE 16-18-21mm, MATE 28-35-50mm & 135mm APO Telyt. The 135mm was more than good enough for wildlife. Based on my experience the Sigma 150-600mm & even the 100-400mm are overkill for Antarctica. 

As these animals haven't been hunted, they're not afraid of humans & you're able to get right up to them. Have a look here:   Antarctica M9 Images

On subsequent trips I took 2 SL bodies & 2 lenses: VE24-90mm & VE90-280mm which was more than sufficient.  

If you take your VE24-70mm & the VE90-280mm you've covered the range for landscapes & up to a medium length tele. zoom for wildlife, it's the perfect combination.

I would seriously consider buying or renting a second body, as you're not able to change lenses when you're out there. Also make sure that you take a couple of spare batteries, they lose power quickly in the cold, keep them on the inside of your parka where it's warm. Also take a portable hard drive  to back pictures up daily, you don't want an SD card failing...

Over & over I've seen photographers agonising endlessly over the amount of gear to take with them & then spending the time out there endlessly fiddling around with gear & missing out on what's going on around them.

Best,

Mike

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by michali

[didier]

1 hour ago, michali said:

I've done several trips to Antarctica, on the first trip in 2010 I took 2 M9s & 3 lenses: WATE 16-18-21mm, MATE 28-35-50mm & 135mm APO Telyt. The 135mm was more than good enough for wildlife. Based on my experience the Sigma 150-600mm & even the 100-400mm are overkill for Antarctica. 

As these animals haven't been hunted, they're not afraid of humans & you're able to get right up to them. Have a look here:   Antarctica M9 Images

On subsequent trips I took 2 SL bodies & 2 lenses: VE24-90mm & VE90-280mm which was more than sufficient.  

If you take your VE24-70mm & the VE90-280mm you've covered the range for landscapes & up to a medium length tele. zoom for wildlife, it's the perfect combination.

I would seriously consider buying or renting a second body, as you're not able to change lenses when you're out there. Also make sure that you take a couple of spare batteries, they lose power quickly in the cold, keep them on the inside of your parka where it's warm. Also take a portable hard drive  to back pictures up daily, you don't want an SD card failing...

Over & over I've seen photographers agonising endlessly over the amount of gear to take with them & then spending the time out there endlessly fiddling around with gear & missing out on what's going on around them.

Best,

Mike

 

Very nice portfolio @michali ! Thanks for sharing 

 

[Doug Trabaris]

On 4/23/2022 at 1:41 AM, michali said:

I've done several trips to Antarctica, on the first trip in 2010 I took 2 M9s & 3 lenses: WATE 16-18-21mm, MATE 28-35-50mm & 135mm APO Telyt. The 135mm was more than good enough for wildlife. Based on my experience the Sigma 150-600mm & even the 100-400mm are overkill for Antarctica. 

As these animals haven't been hunted, they're not afraid of humans & you're able to get right up to them. Have a look here:   Antarctica M9 Images

On subsequent trips I took 2 SL bodies & 2 lenses: VE24-90mm & VE90-280mm which was more than sufficient.  

If you take your VE24-70mm & the VE90-280mm you've covered the range for landscapes & up to a medium length tele. zoom for wildlife, it's the perfect combination.

I would seriously consider buying or renting a second body, as you're not able to change lenses when you're out there. Also make sure that you take a couple of spare batteries, they lose power quickly in the cold, keep them on the inside of your parka where it's warm. Also take a portable hard drive  to back pictures up daily, you don't want an SD card failing...

Over & over I've seen photographers agonising endlessly over the amount of gear to take with them & then spending the time out there endlessly fiddling around with gear & missing out on what's going on around them.

Best,

Mike

 

Thank you for your sage advice!

[Shawn30]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If your going on any float planes in AK you'll have some weight restrictions. The size and weight of the 100-400 are ideal but my copy consistently missed focus. I switched out to the Panasonic 70-300. So far so good with it, but I’ve only taken it out a couple times. 

[beewee]

I’ve been to Alaska a few times. It really depends on what your mode of travel is and what you’re shooting. It’s been a few years since I’ve visited but the last time I went, I was shooting with an M10 with 18 SEM, 24 Elmar, 35 FLE, 90 Elmarit, 180 Apo-telyt R and Canon 5D2 with 300/2.8 IS + optional extenders.

On the road in Denali, the 300-420mm was useful for distant animals like bears and foxes. Same for smaller boat cruising through fjords and shooting seals, walruses, whales, etc. 300mm also came in handy for very high resolution stitched panoramas of tidal glaciers.

The only time I used the equivalent of 800+mm was for very distant whales. 

Otherwise, most of my landscapes were shot with the M10 + 24 Elmar.

 

If I were to go back today, I’d probably take:

• 1x SL2
• 1x SL2-S
• 16-35 SL
• 24-90 SL
• 90-280 SL
• Sigma 150-600

Depending on what the situation is, I would run the following combos:

• SL2 w/ 24-90 + SL2-S w/ 90-280 for general shooting and probably for something shooting from a boat in Antarctica
• SL2 w/ 90-280 + SL2-S w/ 16-35 for landscape + general wildlife (i.e. Denali and Fjords)
• SL2 or SL2-S w/ 150-600 for distant small animals like foxes or very far away whales