18-70 vs. 17-55 for Alaska

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
I take my 18-70 frequently on hikes with the 12-24 and also sometimes the 80-200 (which I dread) I am never disappointed when using it for landscapes and I like the extra range it offers plus it is very light.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,470
Location
SW Virginia
I'd be more inclined to take the 12-24 and the 28-105. The 28-105 is awesome, and going past 70mm will be very handy to bring in interesting features. 55mm will be quite short, certainly if you are in the shores of Katmai or somewhere equally pretty, you'll want to be up to 100 or even 200mm if you get decent sky. 55mm will be too short for this - you can mitigate against this by taking a second body with a longer lens.
I took the 12-24 and 28-105 combo on a trip to Spain in May. I used them both extensively, but found that the focal length break between the two was very awkward for me.

I'll certainly take the 28-105, but may leave the 12-24 at home.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
695
Location
State College, PA
If you don't bring your best glass, you might as well leave your dslr at home and take your cp5700. :rolleyes:
This is a great point, but not for the reasons Frank intended. If your "best glass" weighs you down to the extent that you can't hike to where you want to shoot, then you might as well leave it at home. For hiking, I'd take your D40 with the 18-55. That is all the camera you're going to need on the trail, and you can replace the extra weight and room with food and water so you can hike further, and get more great shots!
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,470
Location
SW Virginia
I think I need to clarify my original thinking a bit. We will not be doing any especially challenging hikes - just day hikes, probably not more than 4-6 miles. And I have a bum shoulder (torn rotator cuff) and can't carry much weight.

I had planned to keep the 17-55 on the D200 in the car for stops along the road; my wife will have her D40 with 18-200 and will be blazing away from the car window. Then for longer hikes, the 28-105 goes on the D200 which I will carry, and the 70-300VR in a light backpack in case we see a bear :eek:. My wife will hike with her D40 and 18-200VR or 18-55 as she chooses (and she usually chooses the 18-200VR).

So the 17-55 (or 18-70) will largely be used for roadside shooting and evening walks.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,470
Location
SW Virginia
My point was, the cp5700 is a terrific, lightweight solution. It has a range of 35mm to 280mm, and delivers excellent results wide open.
Taken with my CP5700 on our previous trip to Alaska (2004):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,659
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
If you are going to bring both bodies, one of the 18-200's and the 18-55, why do you need something else to cover the 18-28mm range below the 28-105?

I went to Alaska last year, ~700 shots with my telephoto, 635 with the 12-24, and 600 with the 28-105. I left the 17-55 at home. Size, weight, and the fact that I had jobs lined up for when I got home is why I left the 17-55 and 50-150 at home.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,470
Location
SW Virginia
If you are going to bring both bodies, one of the 18-200's and the 18-55, why do you need something else to cover the 18-28mm range below the 28-105?
Interesting point, David. The fact is that my wife and I tend to be pretty independent in our shooting, so we need two complete kits. For her, a "complete kit" is the D40+18-200VR. The 18-55 is along for when she wants a really light combo for longer walks.

And she usually gets lots of shots that are better than mine.:redface:
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
929
Location
Texas
So the 17-55 (or 18-70) will largely be used for roadside shooting and evening walks.
I was undecided until this. I've never had the good fortune to go so I don't know what "evening" is like or your exact definition of evening but based on my definition of evening at home the f2.8 of the 17-55 would be the winning factor in an otherwise close call.
 
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
9,906
Location
Western Slope of Colorado
Hey Jim -

Geez! *Another* trip for you two to a photographically-rich wonderland?? I should have become a nuclear engineer (almost did actually - lol!).

The 18-70 in good light has always served me very well, with one singular exception: it vignettes at 18mm when I use it with my (quite thin) Hoya "Super Pro-1" CP.

The light weight of the 18-70 should be a plus, I'd think . . .

Say hi to Beth, and have a(nother) great trip,

Your pal,

Eric
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
21,470
Location
SW Virginia
Hey Jim -

Geez! *Another* trip for you two to a photographically-rich wonderland?? I should have become a nuclear engineer (almost did actually - lol!).

The 18-70 in good light has always served me very well, with one singular exception: it vignettes at 18mm when I use it with my (quite thin) Hoya "Super Pro-1" CP.

The light weight of the 18-70 should be a plus, I'd think . . .

Say hi to Beth, and have a(nother) great trip,

Your pal,

Eric
Thanks, Eric. We think we'd better be doing these trips now while we're physically able. At our age, one never knows :eek:.

My wife likes to quote her maiden aunt who lived to 97: "money spent on travel is never wasted".
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom