I am looking to go Antarctica in January. I have read numerous posts about what camera lenses to take, but I still have some questions. I have a 400mm f/2.8 prime that I typically take everywhere I go. I know there are weight restrictions, but if that wasn’t the case, would this lens still be a good choice to take? I would be taking:
I will have multiple camera bodies with me ass well. My only dilemma is should I rent a 100-400mm instead of the 400mm. Looking for any feedback. My main interests are wildlife first and landscape second. Thanks in advance.
I’ve not been to Antarctica yet, my booked trip got cancelled due to Covid, but by then I had done all my thinking on lenses for the trip, it was meant to be a photography trip. I had similar kit to yours planned and a Nikon 14-24 f2.8S. My trip guide also uses a 400mm f2.8 and goes to Antarctica every year. He doesn’t feel the need for anything longer. Have a great trip
AdamWoods wrote:
I am looking to go Antarctica in January. I have read numerous posts about what camera lenses to take, but I still have some questions. I have a 400mm f/2.8 prime that I typically take everywhere I go. I know there are weight restrictions, but if that wasn’t the case, would this lens still be a good choice to take? I would be taking:
I will have multiple camera bodies with me ass well. My only dilemma is should I rent a 100-400mm instead of the 400mm. Looking for any feedback. My main interests are wildlife first and landscape second. Thanks in advance....Show more →
We were in Antarctica in February, but cruising the Peninsula for three days, through iceberg fields, very near glaciers and Antarctic research stations, in small harbors, quite close to land and mountains, through narrow passages, etc. My best images came with the 70-200 f2.8 GM II, sometimes using either a 1.4X or a 2.0X extender--but mounting and unmounting the extenders was often awkward and a 100-400 would have been nice to have.
However, there were also many excellent opportunities to use my 24-70 GM II, for both scenery and wildlife. When we were among a colony of penguins (in the Falklands, not in Antarctica), the 24-70 was best, with the 70-200 occasionally useful. The 24-70 zoom was also very important for establishing vistas and avoiding having too many close shots of ice.
In general, you are likely to be constrained in how much you can move for an image and the range of potential distances that you will need to cover is large. So, in my view zooms are king and really come into their own. If you are landing on Antarctica by Zodiac, your time and maneuverability may be very limited, again making zooms valuable.
I would take the 24-70, the 70-200 f2.8 with the extender--the light-gathering over the 100-400 will at times be very valuable, and a 100-400 instead of the 400. You may miss the 400 for the occasional shot where it would shine, but I think the fixed tele length would be constraining and the flexibility of the 100-400 will be very valuable. Do bring more than one camera.
There may be a lot of mist, fog, and light rain.
It goes without saying that you have to filter my experience and advice through your own preferences in the kind of images you like to make and how you like to work and the differences between your tour and my own.
It is a fabulous trip. My best wishes for a wonderful time.
I've been there twice, on a mid size ship and on a small boat. I believe most all carriers have inflatables to get you to shore. Since you never stated what you really want to photograph I'll assume it's what all of us want: wildlife and scenery. There isn't much else there! If you're a wildlife/bird photographer already then you know what to bring. If you're a landscaper already you know what to bring. Take everything on that list and add a wide angle lens. Fit it all into a compact camera bag (backpack) and find a dry bag to put the pack in, for the zodiac outings.
When I went in 2009 my kit was 17-40,50 prime, 70-200/4 and 400/5.6. I had a film body and digital. Although it was Canon I found I didn't need anything else.
While out on zodiac excursions I used a discontinued LOWEPRO Offtrail and wore a rain poncho. I had both cameras around my neck under the poncho and when an opportunity to shoot came forth I just lifted my camera from under the poncho and shot. Others were busy digging cameras out of their dry bag and missed shots I got. There was occasions when the zodiac would have splashes but my gear was protected by the poncho and the Lowepro.
The poncho further helped on one rainy day that we made a landing and while hiking my gear stayed under the poncho until needed.
If you rent the 100-400, you could easily leave the 70-200 behind and never change lenses. Haven't used the 400, but maybe it's worth it just for the image quality, lower light, or better compatibilty with the teleconverter. If you had something wider, I'd want to bring it, but 24 will do (probably needs to hit 15mm or less for it to be worth taking; don't think a big zoom would be worth the haul).
Agree about taking a waterproof bag for the zodiac rides -- and about leaving out one camera out for surprises. Figure out how you'll wear 2 cameras at once and maybe skip wearing a camera bag (leave your river bag at the zodiac).
When you bring a camera in from the cold, the sea air humidity will condense, so put your camera in a ziploc with the air removed as best you can, and the humidity will condense on the ziploc exterior. Unbag after the camera warms up.
Use a clear/UV front filter if you don't normally. Also, there are special lens cleaning fluids for salt water spray. Even with weather sealing, you may situationally want a rain cover.
I have been there 3X bring 100-400 also wider lenses , you will be close to wildlife mostly 100-200 is enough and the scenery is amazing, you need wide. Also bring a waterproof bag. yeti, fishpond, simms. etc. a monopod is enough If I went back I would bring three zooms my nikon 14-24, 28-120, 100-400 plus two Z8s high speed 20 fps. There is walking and 2.8 prime is heavy and overkill.
