Which lenses should I take on a honeymoon trip to Alaska?

Question

Newbie photographer here and really hoping for some expert advice! I go to Alaska on honeymoon in July and really need some advice on lenses.

My camera is the Canon EOS 1100D (told you I was a newbie!) and it came with the following lenses:

• EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (I've read it's pretty poor)
• EF 75-300mm f 4-5.6 III USM (again, read it's not great)
• EF 50mm f1.8 II (read it's a pretty decent performer, if on the cheaper end).

We are having four days in and around Anchorage before embarking on a cruise from Juneau. I have read that non-specific questions are hard to answer, so here is what I want:

• I would love to take some memorable landscape shots (I am relying on the 75-300mm as our telephoto, though I am expecting it not to perform too well). I have it in my head that I need a wide angle lens for these landscape shots, but to be honest I am not sure how wide I need. The only decent lens I have at the moment is the 50mm, so I don't know if I should be looking at a 24/28mm prime or if I should get a more versatile zoom.

• Price wise, I don't want to blow a huge hole in the honeymoon fund on something I am probably not good enough to get the best out of. But I also don't want to buy a crap lens that won't be worth the investment.

• I don't mind taking a few lenses, as we have a pretty large travel bag that can accommodate them if we need to, but again is the inconvenience of swapping lenses outweighed by the benefits of having a good prime?

• Is it worth me even taking the 18-55mm or will I be better off without it?!

Answer 1

I know this isn't a relationship advice site, but that's the route I'm going to take anyway.

In my experience, family trips and serious photography do not mix — and I think it's at least double-true for honeymoons. This isn't an anti-spouse or anti-family concept; in fact, it's probably even stronger if you're both into photography. While some rare photographers may both photograph their experiences and be of them, for the large part, photography is an activity of observation, and almost by necessity an activity which puts you at some remove.

I have a photographer friend who won't shoot weddings anymore, because he wants to be a part of such celebrations, not an outsider. This is like that, except even more because it's your own celebratory time.

When you're on a vacation — especially your honeymoon — you should appreciate the experiences you are having, not focus on the recording of them. Even if photography is a passion and something which you are able to experience in the moment, that participation is a very different thing from enjoying your trip. New places should be adventures, not potential photographs; people you meet, new friends, not new subjects; new experiences, actual experiences right then, not possible captures for future reflection.

Taking amazing landscape photographs requires significant time and effort — preparation, scouting, watching the weather, following the light learning the location, deciding on what to say and how to say it. If you want to travel for the sake of photography, that's awesome. I'd suggest, though, that it's best separated from the vacation trips. If you want to make great landscape photographs and don't have the budget for remote locations, that's okay: concentrate on what you are able to return to again and again. Ansel Adams spent years at Yosemite; those famous photographs aren't from a trip there, but from spending his life's energy on knowing the place.

I'm not saying you shouldn't bring home some nice snapshots as memories of your trip. There's nothing wrong with snapshots — despite the sneers one might picture on hearing that term, they are after all the primary purpose of most photography. But I suggest putting your DSLR away for this trip. Don't bring more lenses, and especially don't bring a big, bulky zoom. If you've got a nice compact camera, bring that, and if you don't, borrow or rent one. (You can rent a Canon G12 for a week for less than $50.) A high-end compact will let you get high quality images if a moment comes up, and as a bonus, you'll be more comfortable handing it to a fellow tourist to take an occasional photo of you and your new spouse together.

You'll be able to bring home including some memorable landscape shots, which won't rival those from National Geographic, but which you'll be happy to look at in years to come. More importantly, you'll be able to leave the camera in your pocket, and concentrate on bringing home memories of an experience that won't repeat.

Answer 2

I agree with mattdm - honeymoon and photo tour don't mix

But, even if you decide to ignore his advice you really don't need any new lenses.

The kit lenses aren't as bad as people say - they aren't as good as the L lenses obviously but they are pretty good compared to anything other than pro gear (just compare pictures from your "bad" 18-55 to any point and shoot)

Your lenses will not produce pictures that are to the technical standard of National Geographic or high end fashion commercial work - but you are not on assignment from National Geographic - pictures from the kit lenses look just fine on screens and printed at sizes that fit into albums

The impressive landscape (and wildlife) pictures you see in books and magazines are taken after an experienced photographer spent days or weeks scouting and planning and than returned to the same spot again and again and again (sometimes for years) until the weather is completely perfect - no lens will let you bypass all the hard work.

And most important - enjoy your honeymoon.

Answer 3

At the risk of attracting the ridicule of the aficionados, if your budget stretches to it I'd recommend the Tamron 18-270 mm, f/3.5-f/6.3, or older 18-250mm second hand.
Sony have lightly modified the 18-250mm version (iris petal shape and focus gearing ratio) and sell it as their SAL18250.

I'll risk saying that you'll never regret buying this lens. There are few lenses that do more for you as a general purpose lens for the money and it will happily be the single lens solution to most of your holiday needs. It more than replaces your 19-55 and 70-300 (30mm on the top end is unlikely to be missed). The 50mm f/1.8 still has an occasional place.

Here's an 18-270 on ebay "manufacturer refurbished" for $US425. Seller has 4289 sales and 100% positive feedback. That's probably as cheap as you'll get an as new one. Used, anything can happen.

Wide range zooms were always well down the range for quality - until Tamron produced their 18-250 and this is the next model on. The prior 18-200 were rather inferior optically. No one lens with such a wide range will do everything and it cannot match $3000 lenses (of course) but results are very very good for the $ and very very good by many absolute standards.

Here is the Dyxum site user evaluation of the Minolta / Sony mount version. Essentially the same lens optically.
The older 18-250mm version averaged 4.36/5 from 34 user reviews.
The newer 18-270mm rated 4.45/5 from 2 user reviews.
Ratings are based on 5 parameters and the 18-250 ratings were
overall ratings: 4.36
sharpness rating: 4.46
color rating: 4.62
build rating: 4.32
distortion rating: 4.03 flare control: 4.38
total: 34 reviews.

New price is officially a tad under $500 but ebay has them for somewhat less than that new. Th factory refurbished one should be as good as new.

Actual 34 x reviews here

As a walk around lens this is very hard to beat.
250mm or 270mm will about match your 300mm.
18mm matches your 18-55mm.
You have 2 stops less light gathering capability than your f/1.8 50mm which is an excellent lens despite the low price. (Good quality largish aperture 50mm primes can be built cheaply as they are relatively simple and were largely perfected optically decades ago.)

Answer 4

That's a pretty good setup. I would bring it all plus a tripod, shutter release and ND + CP filters. And definitely bring the wide angle with you (18-55) to shoot grand vista landscapes.