SLR LENS for Antartica 2009!

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

I will be going to antartica next year and I have been seeing various opions on the net about what lens to use. Some people are really getting carried away. The lens I have are they long enough I have 300mm 70-200 2.8, 100mm, 50 mm 24-70, and 17-40. Do I need a 400 5.6 or do you need a lens with a lot of light. I do have the 1.4 extender. This is for a canon 40d. What about a 15mm. I just don't want to get carried away just like these other people have. I plan to sell these later on for my start up photo business. Just don't have the money for a 500mm like most people have suggested.

I thought the animals are pretty close to you in Antartica?

can you see the fur sea seals in livinstion Island?

Marc

Hope to hear from you soon about this.

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

If you can please send responses to mjf0048@hotmail.com, not mjf0048@airmba.com

Marc

[Paul Ward]

Hi Marc,

I took a 28mm, a 50mm, a 70-200 zoom and a 2x teleconverter with me to Antarctica. When I could (after a year!) I bought a fixed 100mm lens which pretty much became my standard lens for wildlife (and most other things too in fact).

Of the pictures on this site that are mine, they are about 50% with 100mm, 30% with 50mm, 15% with the zoom and 5% or less with the 28mm. I used the teleconverter a handful of times only and took only very few decent pictures with it.

I am a great believer that the best accessory you can get for your slr is the ability and willingness to walk around and find the best postion. The 100mm wasn't really necessary for wildlife pics, I like the perspective it gives and it allowed me to stay a little further away from my subject.

I liked the way I could carry the 100mm on my camera in a waist-belt case with the 50mm lens at the bottom of the case. Everything else was in my rucsac.

Wide angles are a matter of style rather than necessity and I'm not that keen on them, personally I wouldn't even bother with a 28mm, I'd get a 35mm instead maybe as one end of a zoom.

500mm? I see no reason for this whatsoever. You might be able to get some pictures of seals on distant ice-floes and I'm sure that someone will say they got some great picture with their 500mm lens. A couple of guys I was in Antarctica with who became professional photographers owned long lenses, but virtually never used them. As we spent 2 years, we had the luxury of spotting potential pictures in advance and planning for them, this is when the longer lenses would be used and usually for the perspective they gave rather than "reaching" the subject.

As your time is limited, I'd suggest 35, 50, 100, 200 and spend your time thinking about how to use what is attached to your camera at the time and taking lots of pictures. Get loads of memory and/or the ability to download to laptop. Record everything at maximum resolution. Get a tripod and a bean bag or similar to staedy the camera (I used to use the top of my rucsac propped against a rock).

I used to aim to take pictures at f5.6-11 only with as fast a shutter speed as possible for the best quality. I'd also recommend as much photography practise before you go as possible so you're as good as you can be when you get there.

I haven't been to Livingstone Island, if there are fur seals, you will be able to see them, for many people fur seals get too close for comfort! They are my favourite Antarctic animal though, your 70-200 will easily be adequate.

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

Sounds good, but I already have the 100mm lens, but is for Marco photos, I used it in the amarzon with great results. Also, how many memory cards do I need? I am planning of having 3 2GB plus two 4 GB giving a total of 14 GB. I see where I can get a bean bag? what about a monopod what is a good brand to buy? most of my lens are around 2.8 fixed, I only have three zooms but they are 2.8 and 4 the 17-40 and 70-200 2.8, and 24-70 2.8, the rest is a 100mm, 50 1.4, and 300mm I have 1.4 converter and heard it gives better results than the 2x becuse you do not lose as many stops. After speaking with tour operator, they said there are 4 places around the sheltion islands to see the fur seals and many penguiln colneys. Hope to hear from you soon. I guess some people get carried away like a disease going out and buying all these long lenes costing thounsnds of dollar where the money can be used towards paying for the curise by just sticking to what they have. the pictures I have seen on other sites they used lenes that where 24-70 and 70-200, nothing larger.

Hope to hear from you soon about this

Marc

[Paul Ward]

My 100mm is a macro lens too and only f3.5, it's bright in the Antarctic summer and most lenses are at their best quality from about f5.6 to 11, don't worry about silly-expensive fast lenses. It sounds like you already have the lenses you need. I'm assuming that they are of at least reasonable quality? Budget lenses are not worth the savings like any budget tool.

Fixed length lenses are always going to be better and faster than a zoom in the same region for the same price, and better quality too. I prefer to use my feet to move and frame the picture, not the zoom. You'll probably get a gaggle of people with their cameras standing around a penguin colony or near some seals who are upright and hardly walk anywhere, they will also probably have the most expensive stuff (all the gear - no idea).

To take the best pics, you need to be moving around, thinking of background, thinking of your level and prespective. There's little better a picture can be with more expensive equipment. "Professional" standard equipment will give high quality results, but much of what you buy is in terms of facilities and interchangeablity (that the vast majority of people will never use) and reliability and ruggedness (at the expense of weight and size as well as cost).

As for memory, I'd say you need to take enough to take 100 shots a day at maximum resolution (this may well be significant overkill, more reason to practise before you go). You may also want to take short movies on your slr if you don't have a separate movie camera, so you'll need to work out what that comes to. Some tour ships have the facility for you to burn your memory card to disc on board if your card gets full, so it may be worth asking this question?

If you don't normally take many pictures, I'd spend time before you go practising as much as you can to get better. Only by taking pictures and looking at the results will you improve, better that happens at home than in the limited time you have in Antarctica.

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

I thought that some of the zooms that are L series that are just as good as the fixed lenes that ones that are rated 2.8 like the white ones and the 24-70. The only time I have used 17-40 when I was very close to something where there was not space to move backward when I was in the middle east in Petra. I do use my equipment quite often. The zoo would also be good practice for your camera. the 70-200 is good to use shooting from a moving boat and the 200mm is good once you are on land along with a 300mm to get closer shot. I have no ideal what you would use the 35mm lens for? Do you think I would be better off trading my 24-70 in for a 35mm lens or even the 17-40 for a 20mm lens? the 24-70 seems kind of heavy. The 24-70 use a lot of an every use lens of landscapes, nature, but the 17-40 I harely use as well as the 50mm lens. I guess I can leave some lenes at home and just bring 100mm, 200mm if is worth to purchase, 300mm and 70-200mm lens. Is a monopod necessary or is it better with a tripod since a tripod takes more time to set up? Sounds like the expesive equipment is not worth it. I usually don't spend over a grand for glass since that is out of my price range and you could also move in closer to get a better picture and the places I have been to in the last years the wildlife was close to you anyway so you did not need longer than a 70-200 in contrast to what birdsart says in his book. This is simply not the case in places like the amazon and Galapagous I have experienced. Take care and hope to hear from you soon.

Marc

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

Hey Paul,

Some people have recommend I purchase a monopod if I can get bogan 234 twist head along with the clamps. This will cut down on wight and time of setting up a tripod. They recommend the Gitzo 3551, since the 5something is to much overkill for lenses less than 400mm. Do you need a flash? some people say yes and some no? what about ND, CirPOl filter. Bean bag sounds good, not expensive. I found a place that makes customer waterproof bags. They are from Alaska, but pricey, but will not be as bulky as lowepro dry zone. Will also fit all your gear including laptop.

Marc

[Poindexter]

Here is my advice after just getting back: http://axspot.wordpress.com/2008/11/...ed-what-didnt/

[Paul Ward]

Hi Marc,

Reading through the above threads and in particular poindexters blog I think it's a question of what you are happy doing and like using.

My Antarctic shots here are on 35mm film with a set of lenses that between them delivered better quality than current digital slr's. With the quality/weight/equipment issue perhaps less critical than with digital (35mm is lighter and with quality - pixel equivalent - that digital still struggles to match) my priorities were elsewhere.

Stability is critical, I wouldn't carry a tripod every where as it slows you down and limits where you go. A monopod and bean bag would be my preference. The best accessory you have is your legs to get the best place to take your picture. I think a waist camera bag is far better than a backpack (though you should have both).

As for water proof, I never had a problem with a standard rucsac and waist bag with internal drawcords keeping my gear dry. The only problems I ever saw were when people dropped their camera into the sea and that happened when it was out of a bag.

The majority of my pictures on this site were taken with either a 50mm or 100mm fixed lens which was never more than about 5 seconds from readiness.

I also think that the experience of "being there" is important too, you can't get this so well if you are viewing the world through a camera lens. Sometimes I would leave my camera gear behind deliberately.

Of course planning and a tripod will get you some great shots, but not all of them and you will have to carry all the gear around. I'd go for the faster moving and more flexible approach without any lens outside of 28-200mm. I spent a lot of time taking pictures when other people did and I know I got plenty they missed. Get good quality gear you can move quickly with and practise, practise, practise before you go.

[mjf0048@airimba.com]

To: Paul,

Your advice sounds good. Is the Lowe pro toploader a good bag good to use as a wist bag? or is there something else different. From reading posts over the last several months. Is better to stick with the 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 300mm or maybe the 100 2.8 and leave the other lenses at home, the 50mm 1.4 which I have not used in 3 years. I mostly been using the first four and only used the 100 2.8 to take pictures of the instects. I just have to buy the special attachments for my monopod with the twist head to work right. I have the gitzo 3550. Deceided not to buy the tripod too much to carry and takes to long to set up when on a tour for a month. I just need to purchase the foot plates and bean bag. I have the ziplock 1 gallon sandwich bags for moisture control. Any more suggestions for Antartica and Iguizi falls? I know the histrogram is the best friend you can have on the camera and magic latin guide.

Marc