# Lens for a Nikon D3100 for an Alaskan Cruise



## jbyrd_1976 (May 21, 2013)

We are leaving for an Alaskan cruise June 1-June 8.  I have dabbled around with some photography but never spent the time or money to do anything great.  I like to shoot on auto.

My sister has a Nikon D3100 with the standard lens.  I thought about buying a zoom lense to take with us since she is going to let me borrow her camera.

What would your recommend?  I want to capture the beauty of Alaska.


----------



## rip18 (May 21, 2013)

Hands down, if I could only take 1 lens on a trip like that, it'd be the new Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6d Ed VR AF Zoom lens at just under $2000.00.  

This lens was just released a few months ago.  I've seen 4 of them and shot with 2 of them (on someone elses camera).  One of those was bought specifically for an Alaska trip.  I'm really impressed with this lens...  I know of a couple of pros that are getting rid of their 200 to 400 to go with the 80-400.  This lens focuses amazingly fast (for it's limitations) and is sharp.  The old 80-400 was sharp, but slow as Christmas to focus.

I wish I could share an indigo bunting in flight shot that a fellow took with this lens.  Blows my mind!

That lens along with a wider angle lens would do much of what you want on a trip like that...

That lens (in my opinion) puts the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) to shame on focusing speed & sharpness... (and it only costs twice as much).  (The 80-400 also did great when coupled with the 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters!).

More info here:
http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/detail_page.cfm?ProductID=1996&cid=19&manufacturer=Nikon

That lens would hold resale value pretty well, especially if it were put back on the market quickly.  Of course you could also look into renting one from a place like www.lensrentals.com .

If you want to buy a lens & don't want to spend that much, then you might look at the Sigma 50-500 (at around $1000).

Or for much less than that, pick up a 70-300 (but you won't get nearly as many cool & upclose shots with that lens as you would with one of the other two...).

Both of those other lenses are available for rental as well...

Good luck!  Hope you have a great time in Alaska & bring back lots of great shots!


----------



## cre8foru (May 22, 2013)

I thought this lens was closer to $3000. Did the price drop?
Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6d Ed VR AF 





rip18 said:


> Hands down, if I could only take 1 lens on a trip like that, it'd be the new Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6d Ed VR AF Zoom lens at just under $2000.00.
> 
> This lens was just released a few months ago.  I've seen 4 of them and shot with 2 of them (on someone elses camera).  One of those was bought specifically for an Alaska trip.  I'm really impressed with this lens...  I know of a couple of pros that are getting rid of their 200 to 400 to go with the 80-400.  This lens focuses amazingly fast (for it's limitations) and is sharp.  The old 80-400 was sharp, but slow as Christmas to focus.
> 
> ...


----------



## rip18 (May 22, 2013)

cre8foru said:


> I thought this lens was closer to $3000. Did the price drop?
> Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6d Ed VR AF



Apparently so... Right at $3000 was the suggested retail price, but the link in my post above was from Hunt's where the price is just under $2000...  Repeated again here:  http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/detail_page.cfm?ProductID=1996&cid=19&manufacturer=Nikon

Of course it is out of stock at that price...


----------



## Hoss (May 22, 2013)

Sounds like Rip has you pointed the right direction.  On a trip like that, you definitely want something with some reach.

Hoss


----------



## rip18 (May 22, 2013)

Closer to $3000 was right, cre8foru!  I left the -S out of my search (as in internal, silent-wave motor)...

Nikon 80-400mm F/4.5 - 5.6d Ed VR AF-S Zoom Lens is the correct name...

And it comes in at $2699.99... http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/detail_page.cfm?ProductID=2208&mfg=Nikon&show=yes

That's a big difference in price, but it's an even BIGGER difference in performance!   Like noted earlier, lots of nature pros buying the new lens, but VERY few pros bothering to carry the old version...

Sorry for the confusion...  I even looked back again to make sure I had it right the first & second time...  At that price, I was trying to figure out how to buy one...  I still want one at the higher price, but can't figure out how to justify it for now...

BUT, when I go back to Texas this fall, I'll either be sporting a rental 80-400 (new version) or 200-400...  Seven day rental for the new 80-400 is just over $150...  I can justify that...


----------



## carolinagreenhead (May 22, 2013)

How about either one of these two?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED       $1099
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-GREY/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II     $2396
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-USA/Nikon_2185_AF_S_Nikkor_70_200mm_f_2_8G.html


----------



## cre8foru (May 22, 2013)

Ive been looking at that new lens really closely too. Man I wish I could afford it. Have to wait for now though. You're right though. It seems to be a great lens. I dont think anyone would regret getting it from what Ive seen and read about it. 




rip18 said:


> Closer to $3000 was right, cre8foru!  I left the -S out of my search (as in internal, silent-wave motor)...
> 
> Nikon 80-400mm F/4.5 - 5.6d Ed VR AF-S Zoom Lens is the correct name...
> 
> ...


----------



## georgia357 (May 23, 2013)

carolinagreenhead said:


> How about either one of these two?
> 
> Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED       $1099
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-GREY/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html




I have this lens and think that it's fantastic.  Fast focusing and easy to hold.  Doesn't have quite the reach as a 400, but it's also quite a bit cheaper.  I wonder if something like the Nikon Coolpix P510 might be a better camera to take?  It's hard to beat 42x zoom for long shots.


----------



## rip18 (May 24, 2013)

Yep, the 80-200 is a great lens, but it doesn't hold a candle to the new 80-400...  The newest 80 to 200 with any teleconverter pales when compared to the 80-400...  

I'd rent the 80-400 for 2 weeks before I'd buy an 80 to 200 just for this trip (and I own the 80-200 already).  That's just my opinion, and your mileage may vary...


----------



## BERN (Nov 6, 2013)

I know this is way too late to help the OP. I shoot canon also, so I'm kind of horning in on the Nikkor discussion.

I went to Alaska in 2012 and took an L series 70-200 f4 with a teleconverter. This was a big mistake. I needed f2.8 (and/or IS) most of the time. The weather is volatile in Alaska and the angle of the sun at midday is such that with cloud cover it is difficult at ISO 800 to get a shutter speed fast enough to kill camera shake. If you go above ISO 800 with the camera I used at the time the noise is too much to filter out in lightroom. Traveling on a plane with a stout tripod is a pain and not helpful for wildlife much anyway.

If I had to do it all over again I would take a 200mm f2.8 fixed with the converter and a wide zoom.

FWIW


----------

