Renting a lens for Alaska

[Tim]

I'm going to Alaska this summer for a missions trip, but afterwards I will be staying in and near Anchorage for a week. I plan on renting a lens from lensrentals.com for the purpose of wildlife and nature. I have a wide angle lens, so I want something on the telephoto side that is light weight so I can hike with it. So far its between the 70-300 IS f/4-5.6, 70-200 IS f/4, and the 300 IS f/4. The sky will most likely be overcast and I only have 77mm filters. But I might be too limited with the 300. Suggestions on these lenses or other lenses are welcome.

[clemmb]

I envy you. I so want a trip to Alaska. Someday I'll make it.


My suggestion is the 70-200 IS f2.8 or 4 and a 1.4x or 2x extender.


Look forward to seeing some of your pic's posted here.


Mark

[STL]

Since you want to rent the 70-200 f/4 and you already have 77mm filters (I guess you mean a CPL, as location lenses generally comes with clear ones already), I would suggest you to rent the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM. It is heavier than the f/4 version though, and you mention possibly hiking with it. Still, at f/2.8 you will be able to do depth-of-field effects, while you must very close of your subject at f/4 to achieve a similar effect.


The added bonus of the f/2.8 version is that you can stick a 1.4 teleconverter between the lens and the body and still maintain a rapid focus rate, as the new maximum aperture will be f/4. With the lighter f/4 version, you would get a much slower f/5.6, which is the limit at which non-professional bodies will retain autofocus.


On a crop factor body, you would then get a 157-448 f/4 lens, which is more than ideal for wildlife.


Still, I understand how the weight issue affects you and I would suggest you to take instead the 70-200 f/4 IS for a ride. It has been said that the sharpness of the f/4 is slightly better than the f/2.8's, so as long as you don't plan on using TCs, it should suit your needs fine.

[STL]

Since you want to rent the 70-200 f/4 and you already have 77mm filters (I guess you mean a CPL, as location lenses generally comes with clear ones already), I would suggest you to rent the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM. It is heavier than the f/4 version though, and you mention possibly hiking with it. Still, at f/2.8 you will be able to do depth-of-field effects, while you must very close of your subject at f/4 to achieve a similar effect.


The added bonus of the f/2.8 version is that you can stick a 1.4 teleconverter between the lens and the body and still maintain a rapid focus rate, as the new maximum aperture will be f/4. With the lighter f/4 version, you would get a much slower f/5.6, which is the limit at which non-professional bodies will retain autofocus.


On a crop factor body, you would then get a 157-448 f/4 lens, which is more than ideal for wildlife.


Still, I understand how the weight issue affects you and I would suggest you to take instead the 70-200 f/4 IS for a ride. It has been said that the sharpness of the f/4 is slightly better than the f/2.8's, so as long as you don't plan on using TCs, it should suit your needs fine.

[Tim]

I noticed that the 100-400 is 0.2 lbs lighter than the 70-200 IS f2.8, So I suppose if the 70-200 IS f2.8 is an option, the 100-400 is as well. And it has a 77mm filter dia, which yes, is for a CPL. Thing is I might go on a multiple day hike, so weight might be my deciding factor.

[mark]

im with the 100-400 and a 1.4 extender ...you can never have too much reach in alaska

[mpphoto12]

if your doing landscapes and animals and other things, the most versital lens you could get would be a 70-200 f/2.8 and then a 1.5 or 2x teleconverter for those long shots and only having it stop down to around f/4.