I'm finally pulling the trigger on a nice photography centric trip/vacation. Which is a big deal as trip planning is not my strong suit!
The trip will be to Alaska this summer and primarily focusing (ha!) on grizzly bears. I've filled out my gear for the most part over the last couple of years in preparation and it currently looks like this:
Bodies
OM1 Mk1
OM1 Mk2
Current lenses in play for the trip
12-40 f2.8 mk II
40-140 f2.8
300mm F4 Pro
4/3 7-14 F4 Pro lens
mc14
mc20
Pack
Shimoda Action X30v2
Tripod
Benro carbon fiber with Manfrotto ball head. Can't recall the specific model, but a beefier tripod.
Monopod
Benro Supadupa with Wimberley MH-100 head
*********************************************************************************
Not sure on which I would take regarding the tripod vs monopod but will figure it out. Tripod probably needs a head upgrade but I could take the monopod and add smaller travel tripod.
Lens wise, I've got it pretty well covered. However, the 150-400 always is out there in my brain. I have the reach with the 300 F4 and 1.4 TC, but that 150-400 gives a little more reach and more flexibility.
But, then I think about the new 50-200 f2.8 instead, and would that be a better choice. In these respective scenarios I might sell either the 300mm F4 or the 40-150 f2.8.
While I guess I could afford the 150-400, it is a large chunk of cash on top of the price of the trip. I would certainly use it after this trip. On the other hand the 50-200 f2.8 while still a lot of $$, is more palatable pricewise and adds its own unique abilities to the mix; but admittedly only a little more than the 40-150.
So, just looking for a little discussion on the relative merits of what I've got vs adding the 150-400 or 50-200 to the mix. Or any other suggestions I suppose.
Need to know some questions and that determines better targeted gear choice.
Going with a guided group or finding bears on your own?
What part of Alaska?
Forest environment and hit and miss finding them?
Tundra or along a river?
Tidal rivers with bears clamming or fishing for salmon?
Just trying to put myself photographing bears in the situation you will be and think about what I would use and why.
Patrick
I went to Katmai National Park and a couple of other destinations around Anchorage five years ago. I used a Sony 200-600 on a Sony a1 and found myself mostly at the 600mm end. I didn’t crop too much.
I also got close to a bear (it came near me) - and it was huge. I would happily stay at the 600mm end. I saw a lot of people with the Nikon d500 and 500mm f5.6 combo that was popular back then.
Your 300mm f4 should have sufficient reach. Maybe use a 1.4x teleconverter. I’d skip the 150-400mm and use the money to go on a guided tour or get a plane to katmai or Kodiak island.
Aside from my 200-600, I brought a 16-35 and 28-60. I mostly used the 16-35 outside of my 200-600 and didn’t miss having a midrange.
Also I brought a tripod but wish I brought a monopod instead for portability.
Very good advice above, very much dependent on where you're going and how. I spent 5 nights camping on Katmai 10 years ago when Hallo Bay Bear Camp was still in operation. I was planning on bringing my Nikon 500 F4 but then decided to purchase a Sigma 150-600 S just for that trip. Really glad I did. In the spot where I was, the bears, and wolves, were very often moving and got very close. So I carried a D750 with the 24-120 and a D500 with the Sigma 150-600. The D500 combo was the most used by far. I also had along an 80-400 but didn't take it to Katmai. I did carry the 80-400 when we took the bus into Denali. That lens proved too short for any wildlife we saw there. I wouldn't bother with a tripod or monopod unless your main focus would be landscapes.
Gary
PV Hiker wrote:
Grizzly Bears in Alaska. Alaska is a big place...
Need to know some questions and that determines better targeted gear choice.
Going with a guided group or finding bears on your own?
What part of Alaska?
Forest environment and hit and miss finding them?
Tundra or along a river?
Tidal rivers with bears clamming or fishing for salmon?
Just trying to put myself photographing bears in the situation you will be and think about what I would use and why.
Patrick
Thanks for the reply.
Going with a guided group or finding bears on your own? Guided group
What part of Alaska? Lake Clark National Park
Forest environment and hit and miss finding them? Coastal, sounds like pretty consistent opportunities
Tundra or along a river? Coastal
Tidal rivers with bears clamming or fishing for salmon? Yes, I hope. Trip is in Mid July, not sure on timing for salmon.
There is also an excursion for part of one day for some horned puffin, tufted puffin, and kittiwake.
tzhang4284 wrote:
I went to Katmai National Park and a couple of other destinations around Anchorage five years ago. I used a Sony 200-600 on a Sony a1 and found myself mostly at the 600mm end. I didn’t crop too much.
I also got close to a bear (it came near me) - and it was huge. I would happily stay at the 600mm end. I saw a lot of people with the Nikon d500 and 500mm f5.6 combo that was popular back then.
Your 300mm f4 should have sufficient reach. Maybe use a 1.4x teleconverter. I’d skip the 150-400mm and use the money to go on a guided tour or get a plane to katmai or Kodiak island.
Aside from my 200-600, I brought a 16-35 and 28-60. I mostly used the 16-35 outside of my 200-600 and didn’t miss having a midrange.
Also I brought a tripod but wish I brought a monopod instead for portability.
That's the main question I guess. The 300f has plenty of reach, but would the extra reach of the 150-400 be useful, or just the increased flexibility. Or would the 50-200 be a good option as well with the 300f4, instead of the 40-150.
Leaning toward monopod and maybe a very small tripod only for nighttime landscape type of shots.
Always wanted to go but I've never been to Lake Clark so I'm out Sounds like a fantastic trip. Congratulations !! Alaska is amazing and if you're like me it will stick with you forever.
Gary
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Very good advice above, very much dependent on where you're going and how. I spent 5 nights camping on Katmai 10 years ago when Hallo Bay Bear Camp was still in operation. I was planning on bringing my Nikon 500 F4 but then decided to purchase a Sigma 150-600 S just for that trip. Really glad I did. In the spot where I was, the bears, and wolves, were very often moving and got very close. So I carried a D750 with the 24-120 and a D500 with the Sigma 150-600. The D500 combo was the most used by far. I also had along an 80-400 but didn't take it to Katmai. I did carry the 80-400 when we took the bus into Denali. That lens proved too short for any wildlife we saw there. I wouldn't bother with a tripod or monopod unless your main focus would be landscapes.
Gary...Show more →
Gary, thanks. Yeah main focus isn't landscapes and the only reason for a tripod would be any landscapes in evening or night/early morning. In that case maybe a very small tripod like a gorilla pod type of thing? The monopod still might come in handy, TBD. The trip guide recommend a tripod.
Sounds like long end was desirable and the flexibility was a plus.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Always wanted to go but I've never been to Lake Clark so I'm out Sounds like a fantastic trip. Congratulations !! Alaska is amazing and if you're like me it will stick with you forever.
Gary
Sounds like you had a fantastic trip and got some great photos. I'm trying to develop some better habits on planning trips and pushing it off. Kind of like the 150-400 purchase thing, just get it life's short. But, part of me was thinking get this trip under my belt using what I have and then get it. I guess I could always rent it, but seems to me for some things it's better to buy and then sell later.
Pwdrhound wrote:
Sounds like you had a fantastic trip and got some great photos. I'm trying to develop some better habits on planning trips and pushing it off. Kind of like the 150-400 purchase thing, just get it life's short. But, part of me was thinking get this trip under my belt using what I have and then get it. I guess I could always rent it, but seems to me for some things it's better to buy and then sell later.
I always struggle with the whole rental thing. Especially something like the 150-400 which will probably be close to $500 ?? That's money that could go towards the purchase. I don't think I'd ever be able to give that lens back after renting I had an opportunity to try out the 150-400 while standing next to a generous photographer while birding down in Florida. If I thought I could have outrun him I would have And I'm also a firm believer in a learning curve with every new piece of equipment regardless of experience. If the 150-400 was within my means, which it isn't, that would definitely be my choice. That and something like the 12-100 f4 and you'd be done. Having said that, you can't go wrong with the 300 F4 aside from the fact that you may find it too limiting. The only thing that holds me back from purchasing a 300 F4, I have rented one, is that I know I'd mostly be using it with the 1.4 TC and I'd miss the flexibility of the zoom. In which case I'll just stick with my 100-400 until I can somehow afford the 150-400. Not an easy decision to make.
Yeah, rental is close to $500 and I feel the same way, that money could go toward purchase instead. Especially if I think it's only a matter of time before I get it anyway. The photo store nearby in Anchorage doesn't seem to have the 150-400 for rent, so I'd end up renting more than a week as it's a 7 day 6 night trip so maybe even more. I've never packed it so need to see how it works in my pack. Plus as you say, it would be good to have some practice time with it.
Either way, I'll get great photos and have great experience.
Pwdrhound wrote:
Current lenses in play for the trip
12-40 f2.8 mk II
40-140 f2.8
300mm F4 Pro
4/3 7-14 F4 Pro lens
mc14
mc20
Tripod
Benro carbon fiber with Manfrotto ball head. Can't recall the specific model, but a beefier tripod.
Sounds like Silver Salmon Creek Lodge, nice place. Mid July you'll find bears clamming and eating grass. The salmon run is getting started and bears will be checking it out. The boat ride to the Island for Puffins you should be able to get off on the island and catch the puffins flying in.
Yes bring both camera bodies as you want quick access to both with different lenses range.
As far as lens choices. I would be bringing ( and I own this for these reasons).
150-400mm.
40-150mm (or 50-200mm I now own this lens.)
12-40mm (I own the 12-100mm.)
Your 7-14mm f/4 may not be used for wildlife as your not being that close. I have the f/2.8 version and it rides along just in case.
And bring the extenders. I do but seem to never use them.
In my past I used Cannon 600mm f/4 or 200-400mm w/1.4x on bear trips. One trip I tried the 200-400 and said never again, I missed the reach of the 600mm. The 600mm is not handy at times when you are too close or too far. It is the dance using extenders to get the framing needed. There was always that gap when using the 70-200mm or 100-400mm to the 600mm that the subject was either loose in the frame (small) or too tight just settling for head shots.
For Micro 4/3 you have 40-150 and 300mm, Same situation, you'll have that gap and have a fixed 300mm dancing with extenders. I did that and never enjoyed it.
Since you might only be at this shooting opportunity once in your life and already putting out the cash to go. Consider the 150-400 with built in 1.25x if you can. Reason... It is the one lens that will get you 150 to 500mm at a reasonable aperture allowing you to zoom to crop in camera to maximize getting pixels on your subject. Go in tight for head shots, zoom out for environmental shots within seconds. Catch the shot of the bear eating the clam tight then zoom out. You can follow the bear in zooming the lens while bear is walking toward you.
With two camera bodies having 40-150mm and 150-400mm you will have a continuous zoom range from 40mm to 500mm with no gaps and no constantly fiddly farting with extenders on and off. You will get more keepers zooming and framing to what you want.
The 50-200mm is your choice. You have the 40-150mm f/2.8 and you'll be fine with that.
On the island for Puffins the 150-400mm would be perfect hand holding. Have the second body on you with the 40-150mm if needed.
Tripods. Yes I bring a small lighter one and use it. Mine does not have a center column and that allows me to be low ground level. Yes you want to wear waders and lay down and get shots at the bears prospective. Get dirty.
Let's say you are watching a bear clamming for thirty minutes. The tripod gives you support to maintain your framing without you getting tired holding the lens waiting for the right moments to capture. Without a tripod you will be drifting the lens around or even worse put the lens down to rest and miss the shot.
If you can get the 150-400mm I would. Yes you can rent them. But buying you can use it and later sell. Consider the loss as rental fees. Since we were able to get the first production run of the 150-400mm lens, we will never go back with just the 40-150mm and gap to 300mm doing the extender dance. Getting images cropping in camera has more pixels on the subject and increases image quality and the enjoyment.
As always, the choice is yours based your situation and budget. Cheers, Patrick
Pwdrhound wrote:
That's the main question I guess. The 300f has plenty of reach, but would the extra reach of the 150-400 be useful, or just the increased flexibility. Or would the 50-200 be a good option as well with the 300f4, instead of the 40-150.
Leaning toward monopod and maybe a very small tripod only for nighttime landscape type of shots.
My impression of the 150-400mm is a bit of a large hefty lens. If you’re going to Lake Clark (presumably on a float plane?) and then walking around, compactness matters so within the micro 4/3 universe, I’d stick with the 300mm f4 still. After that trip, I actually ended up selling that Sony 200-600mm because it was so heavy to use but there weren’t any good truly lighter substitutes within the Sony ecosystem until the Sigma 500mm 5.6 came out (note I no longer use Sony).
Candidly, if I were going again, I’d probably bring a full frame 500mm f5.6 or 600mm f6.3 (take your pick of manufacturer) with a high resolution body so I can crop down if needed. I think the 600 to 800mm range is valuable to have but I would not trade weight for reach after 500mm. I’d probably just bring a high resolution point and shoot to cover all the various landscape use cases.
Also re tripod, not sure about lake Clark but at Katmai they prohibited tripods and only monopods for bear viewing. Not sure about Lake Clark, but at Katmai, you had to wait for the bears at times and so having a monopod helpe with the weight especially with a 200-600 or 150-400mm type lens.
Picture from first trip photographing bears in Alaska August 12, 2012. My gal, the young bear was nervous after catching fish and saw older bear and wanted to go eat someplace else.
.
Second image from Silver Salmon Creek Lodge August 19, 2014.
PV Hiker wrote:
Sounds like Silver Salmon Creek Lodge, nice place. Mid July you'll find bears clamming and eating grass. The salmon run is getting started and bears will be checking it out. The boat ride to the Island for Puffins you should be able to get off on the island and catch the puffins flying in.
Yes bring both camera bodies as you want quick access to both with different lenses range.
As far as lens choices. I would be bringing ( and I own this for these reasons).
150-400mm.
40-150mm (or 50-200mm I now own this lens.)
12-40mm (I own the 12-100mm.)
Your 7-14mm f/4 may not be used for wildlife as your not being that close. I have the f/2.8 version and it rides along just in case.
And bring the extenders. I do but seem to never use them.
In my past I used Cannon 600mm f/4 or 200-400mm w/1.4x on bear trips. One trip I tried the 200-400 and said never again, I missed the reach of the 600mm. The 600mm is not handy at times when you are too close or too far. It is the dance using extenders to get the framing needed. There was always that gap when using the 70-200mm or 100-400mm to the 600mm that the subject was either loose in the frame (small) or too tight just settling for head shots.
For Micro 4/3 you have 40-150 and 300mm, Same situation, you'll have that gap and have a fixed 300mm dancing with extenders. I did that and never enjoyed it.
Since you might only be at this shooting opportunity once in your life and already putting out the cash to go. Consider the 150-400 with built in 1.25x if you can. Reason... It is the one lens that will get you 150 to 500mm at a reasonable aperture allowing you to zoom to crop in camera to maximize getting pixels on your subject. Go in tight for head shots, zoom out for environmental shots within seconds. Catch the shot of the bear eating the clam tight then zoom out. You can follow the bear in zooming the lens while bear is walking toward you.
With two camera bodies having 40-150mm and 150-400mm you will have a continuous zoom range from 40mm to 500mm with no gaps and no constantly fiddly farting with extenders on and off. You will get more keepers zooming and framing to what you want.
The 50-200mm is your choice. You have the 40-150mm f/2.8 and you'll be fine with that.
On the island for Puffins the 150-400mm would be perfect hand holding. Have the second body on you with the 40-150mm if needed.
Tripods. Yes I bring a small lighter one and use it. Mine does not have a center column and that allows me to be low ground level. Yes you want to wear waders and lay down and get shots at the bears prospective. Get dirty.
Let's say you are watching a bear clamming for thirty minutes. The tripod gives you support to maintain your framing without you getting tired holding the lens waiting for the right moments to capture. Without a tripod you will be drifting the lens around or even worse put the lens down to rest and miss the shot.
If you can get the 150-400mm I would. Yes you can rent them. But buying you can use it and later sell. Consider the loss as rental fees. Since we were able to get the first production run of the 150-400mm lens, we will never go back with just the 40-150mm and gap to 300mm doing the extender dance. Getting images cropping in camera has more pixels on the subject and increases image quality and the enjoyment.
As always, the choice is yours based your situation and budget. Cheers, Patrick
Thanks Patrick. It is Silver Salmon Creek, the Homestead Lodge.
I appreciate your perspective and experience using this gear and multiple trips as well as everyone else. Good point on the tripod use case. I need to check mine and see how it would work for that or more likely get a smaller travel one that can do it.
Getting closer to finalizing that I just should pull the trigger on the 150-400. I remember seeing you sold one not too far back, but hadn't planned the trip yet and just wasn't there. It sold pretty fast. So I'll be looking used on FM or other places, or just by new if I have to. There are always some popping up on MPB, but still around $7500. Never purchased from them. But I've had great luck purchasing on the FM Buy and Sell.
tzhang4284 wrote:
My impression of the 150-400mm is a bit of a large hefty lens. If you’re going to Lake Clark (presumably on a float plane?) and then walking around, compactness matters so within the micro 4/3 universe, I’d stick with the 300mm f4 still. After that trip, I actually ended up selling that Sony 200-600mm because it was so heavy to use but there weren’t any good truly lighter substitutes within the Sony ecosystem until the Sigma 500mm 5.6 came out (note I no longer use Sony).
Candidly, if I were going again, I’d probably bring a full frame 500mm f5.6 or 600mm f6.3 (take your pick of manufacturer) with a high resolution body so I can crop down if needed. I think the 600 to 800mm range is valuable to have but I would not trade weight for reach after 500mm. I’d probably just bring a high resolution point and shoot to cover all the various landscape use cases.
Also re tripod, not sure about lake Clark but at Katmai they prohibited tripods and only monopods for bear viewing. Not sure about Lake Clark, but at Katmai, you had to wait for the bears at times and so having a monopod helpe with the weight especially with a 200-600 or 150-400mm type lens....Show more →
Size is a consideration, but in this case it doesn't seem like it will be the main limiter. I don't have any issues in carrying the increased size over the 300f4; but do believe the flexibility of the zoom will win in the end. The guide has also recommended bringing a tripod so not really a restriction. But as mentioned in an earlier reply I may look at a smaller, travel friendly one.
I've pretty much settled on OM for my system and at this point don't have any desire to add full frame into the mix. I'd have to drop a lot of $$ on a body then the lenses and then learn it. And I just like the OM system a lot, its well suited for what I like to do.
Pwdrhound wrote:
I'm finally pulling the trigger on a nice photography centric trip/vacation. Which is a big deal as trip planning is not my strong suit!
The trip will be to Alaska this summer and primarily focusing (ha!) on grizzly bears. I've filled out my gear for the most part over the last couple of years in preparation and it currently looks like this:
Bodies
OM1 Mk1
OM1 Mk2
Current lenses in play for the trip
12-40 f2.8 mk II
40-140 f2.8
300mm F4 Pro
4/3 7-14 F4 Pro lens
mc14
mc20
Pack
Shimoda Action X30v2
Tripod
Benro carbon fiber with Manfrotto ball head. Can't recall the specific model, but a beefier tripod.
Monopod
Benro Supadupa with Wimberley MH-100 head
*********************************************************************************
Not sure on which I would take regarding the tripod vs monopod but will figure it out. Tripod probably needs a head upgrade but I could take the monopod and add smaller travel tripod.
Lens wise, I've got it pretty well covered. However, the 150-400 always is out there in my brain. I have the reach with the 300 F4 and 1.4 TC, but that 150-400 gives a little more reach and more flexibility.
But, then I think about the new 50-200 f2.8 instead, and would that be a better choice. In these respective scenarios I might sell either the 300mm F4 or the 40-150 f2.8.
While I guess I could afford the 150-400, it is a large chunk of cash on top of the price of the trip. I would certainly use it after this trip. On the other hand the 50-200 f2.8 while still a lot of $$, is more palatable pricewise and adds its own unique abilities to the mix; but admittedly only a little more than the 40-150.
So, just looking for a little discussion on the relative merits of what I've got vs adding the 150-400 or 50-200 to the mix. Or any other suggestions I suppose.
Silver Salmon Creek Lodge is a super choice -- you will have an unforgettable experience. My wife and I were there about 12 years ago -- I would love to go back, but too many factors will probably keep that from happening.
They will get you very close to the bears, so you really need a good tele-zoom in place of your 300mm f/4. If you can spring for the 150-400mm, it's a no-brainer. However, you also shouldn't overlook the OM 100-400mm Mkll -- bears don't move all that fast, so slower shutter speeds are not a big issue. That lens is sharp and has Synch IS so hand holding is no problem -- you'd save money and weight.
When I went I shot with an Olympus E-M5 and the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 and got a lot of 'keepers'.
If you would like to see my images from that whole Alaska adventure, including SSCL, here is a link to my gallery on Pbase:
Silver Salmon Creek Lodge is a super choice -- you will have an unforgettable experience. My wife and I were there about 12 years ago -- I would love to go back, but too many factors will probably keep that from happening.
They will get you very close to the bears, so you really need a good tele-zoom in place of your 300mm f/4. If you can spring for the 150-400mm, it's a no-brainer. However, you also shouldn't overlook the OM 100-400mm Mkll -- bears don't move all that fast, so slower shutter speeds are not a big issue. That lens is sharp and has Synch IS so hand holding is no problem -- you'd save money and weight.
When I went I shot with an Olympus E-M5 and the Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 and got a lot of 'keepers'.
If you would like to see my images from that whole Alaska adventure, including SSCL, here is a link to my gallery on Pbase:
Sounds like a fantastic trip. Congratulations !! Alaska is amazing and if you're like me it will stick with you forever.
