This was the first year for me to lead trips to Katmai, two trips to be exact. My guests had all been to alaska and some to brooks falls and lake clark, but none had experienced bears like this! looking forward to the trips in 2026!
These are amazing. We are in the middle of planning a trip to Katmai and the Inner Passage for next summer. I hope I can get some pictures anywhere near a good as these are.
Would you mind telling us which focal lengths you used? I've been planning to bring a 24-105, 100-500 and an 600 F/4.
This set was close.....i will make another post with more a varied images. I get caught up in those tight shots, i love them, but i also know it looks like the animal was in a zoo.
morris wrote:
Great action and quality Jason. It appears you had too much lens for a few just fitting the subject in yet still impressive images.
Hi, I took the RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 100-300 2.8, RF 400 2.8.
From here on out, i'll be doing RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 70-200 2.8 Z, RF 400 2.8/or/RF 600 4.0
Not all parts of katmai/alaska are created equal for bear viewing. Two guest had just done the amazon, pantanal, and more as well as lake clark, brooks, as well as other guests have done other parts of alaska and said my bear trip was the best trip they've ever done.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
These are amazing. We are in the middle of planning a trip to Katmai and the Inner Passage for next summer. I hope I can get some pictures anywhere near a good as these are.
Would you mind telling us which focal lengths you used? I've been planning to bring a 24-105, 100-500 and an 600 F/4.
big country wrote:
Hi, I took the RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 100-300 2.8, RF 400 2.8.
From here on out, i'll be doing RF 24-105 Z 2.8, RF 70-200 2.8 Z, RF 400 2.8/or/RF 600 4.0
Not all parts of katmai/alaska are created equal for bear viewing. Two guest had just done the amazon, pantanal, and more as well as lake clark, brooks, as well as other guests have done other parts of alaska and said my bear trip was the best trip they've ever done.
Awesome images - why the change on the RF 100-300?
traveling on planes, domestically and especially internationally, i decided that bringing the 100-300 2.8 + the 400 2.8 or 600 4.0 was just too much to carry around, and it is sometimes a headache with weight going to places like africa, india and churchill.
So i recently sold my 100-300 2.8. I love that lens, but the 70-200 2.8 Z is that good, and it takes a 1.4x flawlessly and i can get back to that 100-300 range if desired.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Awesome images - why the change on the RF 100-300?
