Going whale watching: which lens?

[wilburpan]

This summer we’ll be going on an Alaskan cruise. I want to get a telephoto lens in case we see whales, and I need some guidance as to which lens to get.

 

The way I see it, my options are:

 

XF 55-200/3.5-4.8

 

Pros: Smallest, lightest, and cheapest.

Cons: The other lenses have slightly better image quality.

 

XF 55-140/2.8 (+/- 1.4x teleconverter)

 

Pros: Image quality, wide aperture. Also, outside of this trip, this is the focal length range I’m most likely to use.

Cons: May not be long enough. 

 

XF 100-400/4.5-5.6

 

Pro: Longest reach, image quality.

Cons: Size. And size.

 

Outside of this trip, I don’t do that much nature/animal photography that requires a long lens. I’m leaning towards the 55-140/teleconverter option for this reason. However, this gets me around 300mm (35mm equivalent focal length) with the teleconverter, and I don’t know if this is a long enough lens for pictures of whales, bears, moose, and other big animals.

 

If you were going on this sort of trip, what lens would you bring?

 

 

 

[erwiurewurwehu]

I think 50-140 + TC makes sense. I have been on tours where the whales came really close so 50 or even wider would have been useful. Or often they are far away and you need something long. If I went on a tour now I would probably take 18-135 and 100-400.

[deva]

I would take the 100-400... regardless of what other lenses I brought. There is nothing more annoying when shooting critters than not having enough reach.

 

But then I already own it, so it is an easy decision. 

[erwiurewurwehu]

I would take the 100-400... regardless of what other lenses I brought. There is nothing more annoying when shooting critters than not having enough reach.

 

But then I already own it, so it is an easy decision. 

The problem with those whales is that they are really unpredictable and it may be hard to find it on time with the narrow FOV of the 100-400. My best shots I have made so far were at around 200mm with a lot of cropping but at least there was a whale in the picture :-)

[deva]

The problem with those whales is that they are really unpredictable and it may be hard to find it on time with the narrow FOV of the 100-400. My best shots I have made so far were at around 200mm with a lot of cropping but at least there was a whale in the picture :-)

 

 

Zoom out to 100 to locate, then zoom in to compose. The 100-400 handles pretty well. It also just takes lots of patience and paying attention and developing some sense of the behavior of the critter you are photographing. 

[wilburpan]

@deva, it sounds like you know your way around photographing animals in the wild. Have you photographed whales?

 

The reason I ask is that this afternoon I got to play around with a friend’s full frame DSLR. I was able to see what a 300mm and 600mm lens can do. At this point in time, I think 300mm may give me enough reach for a whale, which does put the 50-140 and a teleconverter into play. 

 

My friend loves his 600mm, but his interest is bird photography. A whale is a much bigger target animal.

[deva]

@deva, it sounds like you know your way around photographing animals in the wild. Have you photographed whales?

 

The reason I ask is that this afternoon I got to play around with a friend’s full frame DSLR. I was able to see what a 300mm and 600mm lens can do. At this point in time, I think 300mm may give me enough reach for a whale, which does put the 50-140 and a teleconverter into play. 

 

My friend loves his 600mm, but his interest is bird photography. A whale is a much bigger target animal.

 

 

Never photographed whales... more birds and various animals... I've seen whales when out on boats, but never planned so didn't have a camera.

 

Of course it really depends on how close you can get... or how close the whales get to you. I had a friend go out and he ended up using close lens cause there were whales all around the boat. He still didn't get any iconic shots. I think his experience was better than the photographic result.

 

And hey... you do what you can and then some luck is needed. Also, if all you can get are shots at 600mm, they are not so likely to be spectacular anyway. I would much rather be close to the whales with a closer lens. 

[plaidshirts]

My choice would be 100-400 for its reach and weather resistance. You may not be able to get that close to whales and you definitely don't want to get too close to bears and moose.

[Nero]

Aside from the whales, Alaskan cruises typically pass glaciers that can make for incredible photo opportunities and a 100-400 could be perfect for those types of shots too. There is a lot of beautiful landscape that the ship may not get very close to that this lens will open up for you to photograph.

[mcjamison]

I went whale watching earlier this year, from Monterey, California.  My main observation: things can happen REALLY FAST with whales. What you're hoping for is that they'll end their 3-or-so minute dive with a spectacular breach, and if you get one, it can be in any direction around the boat, and is over very quickly. 

 

I had my XF 55-200 on, and actually kept it pretty wide most of the time, around 65mm, and kept it up near eye level. Frankly, many of my shots were "hip shooting", spray and pray, as I didn't have time to get the camera to my eye. 

 

Maybe things are more leisurely on an Alaska cruise, and whales are just fussing around on the surface - or maybe cruise ships won't attempt to get as close as these dedicated whale watching boats, so you'd need a lot more lens. But on my trip, I wouldn't have been able to make use of anything beyond 150mm. I missed a few great moments even sitting there at 65mm, but I'm sure one would get better with practice and experience.

 

These are two of my best shots, of a Humpback who showed off for us - heavily cropped, but the Fujis have plenty of pixels.  This is with the XT-10, and I did feel some pain from the more limited buffer size when going full auto; an XT-1 with its bigger buffer size would have been better.

 

In any case, I hope you have a great time, and capture some wonderful memories!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 24, 2016 by mcjamison

[mcjamison]

Sorry, one of those was kind of blurry, so here's another. The markings that Humpbacks get on their tails over time are very distinctive, and can be used to track individual whales over time.

 

-- Jamie

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[erwiurewurwehu]

Nice shots. Breaching whales are really hard to get. They just appear somewhere and are gone quickly. Aiming the lens focusing is pretty much impossible.

 

Here are some of my mine. It took hundreds of pictures to get some decent ones.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jlmphotos]

That's on my to-do list. I will most definitely use my 55-200 on my X-T1.  And if per chance the X-T2 comes out by the time I go on this trip, then the 18-55 will be on it.  This way I've got a great wide range covered, OIS on both, and i don't have to worry about changing lenses on a boat.

[wilburpan]

Answering my own question: I rented the 50-140mm and a 1.4x teleconverter for the trip. I did not anticipate how much I would enjoy using the 50-140mm. I used it for a lot more than wildlife shots. And even though I have an X-Pro 1, it focused quickly enough for my needs. 

 

The teleconverter was a nice surprise. Images taken using that were perfectly sharp as well, despite my worries that adding this component would degrade the image. Apparently adding a teleconverter does not mean an automatic decrease in image quality. See here:

 

 

My only regret is that I didn’t go with the 2x teleconverter. If I had to do this over again, I would have used the 2x teleconverter. I tried the 100-400mm before going on the trip, and I would rather have the 50-140mm and a teleconverter.

 

I didn’t see any breaching whales, but saw a lot of them swimming around.  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 7, 2016 by wilburpan

[jlmphotos]

I don't know where you get the impression the 55-200 is not sharp.  I use that lens professionally and it is tack sharp.  I have several blog posts about this lens which you can find in my signature block.  For me, I switched from Nikon to Fuji to save weight and size so the 50-140 2.8, which would have replaced my Nikon 70-200 2.8 "should" have been the way to go, except for the size and weight,  but I found the 55-200 cheaper, lighter, and tack sharp to boot so I went that route.  The 100-400, if Thought i needed it I would probably rent it -- As I seriously doubt I would find a use for it in my normal shooting.

 

Maybe you might consider renting it from lens rental or another outfit.

 

 

 

[jlmphotos]

You know what: here are the links to my blog about the 55-200:  You can be the judge.  

 

First Post

 

Second

 

Third

 

Fourth

 

Fifth

 

Sixth

 

And Last for now

Edited March 13, 2017 by jlmphotos

[Sebastian_Warneke]

Oh nice, these are beautiful animals!

When I was in Kaikoura on New Zealand's South Island in 2011 I only had my EOS 7D and a 17-55mm lens with me.

This one is a cropped photo, where the sperm whale was in the middle of the frame:

 

Sperm whale / New Zealand by Sebastian Warneke, auf Flickr

 

I would also recommend a lens with a little bit more focal length, I think I had luck that the whale was not that far away at this scene.

I tried the same last year in Iceland with a full frame camera and a 16-35mm lens because the AF of my 85mm seemed to slow for me, but that was a stupid idea...