Your Favorite Vacation Lens?

<p>Apostolos, if I take a thousand vacation shots, maybe one of those might be good enough to become a large print.</p>

<p>Ok, it's not a Nikon but, Sony/Zeiss 16-80 walk around and 80% of shots, light weight. Sony 28 2.8 night time city/landscapes. Sony 70-200G distance, low light, heavy but beautiful. For special occasions I've taken a 35 1.4 or 50 2.8macro. You will need good coated lenses. Moving from indoor to outdoor, sun to shade, night to day will require lenses with good light control.</p>

<p>18-105mm VR and 85mm AFD (f/1.8). If I need more than this, it stops being a vacation.</p>

<p>Reading respones here once again reminds me how much Nikon needs a pair of pro level f4 zooms, preferably with VR. Instead, they pump out 18-xxx consumer zooms, f5.6.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I agree Kent, it is very frustrating that they don't build a comparable 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4 VR, 70-200 f4 VR. Heck I would be happy even without VR.</p>

<p>Depends on the trip. Usually F6 with 85mm (f1.8), Canon G10. </p>

<p>Calvin, I'm sure it won't be necessary to go up to thousands of vacation shots to find one deserving large printing. I didn't mean that, please accept apologies.<br /> <br /> What I meant to say is that an image from a 35mm-format camera is unlikely to blow nearly 250X in order to show the small details of a far distant landscape captured with a 10mm focal length lens AND STILL be sharp enough and tonality-rich enough so as to keep its original appeal.</p>

<p>When I go on vacation, I take one body and one lens only--a mechanical R6.2 and the 28-90mm/2.8-4.5 aspherical. That means film images: limited number of shots and the cost of processing. But I gain a lot in mobility and quality of images, some of which I can blow up to 16X24 prints. And I never have to worry about discharged batteries, electronics failure and the like.</p>

<p>OK, in case of an unavoidable digital 35mm outfit, my suggestion is find one zoom lens only, no wider than 24mm and no longer than around 120mm, but definitely at least f/2.8 fast and absolutely aspherical. Mobility and readiness is of more value than wider choice in focal lengths.</p>

<p>Note: you do not sacrifice corner sharpnes by using the Nikon 18-200. You lose speed at 200mm. It is not like this lens is not sharp. And on vacation, it will help you get the shots that you would miss while changing lenses,</p>

<p>My idea of vacation is not a photo session and I like to be mobile so I don't want to have to charge anything or upload anything and I really don't want to caryy much. So it's one body with a 35/2 Ai and film.</p>

 

<p>I'd take a 17-40mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/4. I think I'd have a very small chance of using 70-200, but it's light enough so I don't mind carrying it, just in case I need it. I think I'd be happy with just one Tamron 28-75mm but I don't have that.</p>

<p>Took all my lenses with me on vaccation but they stayed in the box. Throughout I uses 18-200 VR. Not wide enough for Smokies but then I did not have anything better than its 18mm. I am happy with results and ii was no heavy on m D200.</p>

<p>I am on my way to Paris next week and bringing a D300, 50 1.8, 18-300 2.8 VR, Tokina 11-17 2.8, and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I think it is too much to carry but I can't bring myself to leave one behind.</p>

<p>i'm a Canon user and the 24-70mm does just about everything I need...it ain't cheap but I love it...</p>

<p>Photo trip? I'll carry my whole gear.</p>

<p>Vacation? One body with attached 18-200 or 17-55, or just simply a point-and-shoot.</p>

<p>Vacation is relaxing and fun, but relaxing and fun don't always come with a photo trip. You do lots of work in a photo trip: getting up early, getting a spot at no man's land. You know, all those things that a tourist won't do. A photo trip is satisfying and rewarding, but it's no vacation to me.</p>

<p>Depends on the vacation. A once in a life time (or nearly so) walk in Iceland through volcanoes and glaciers, I packed my 15mm VC, 35mm, and 90/2.8 and M6. For a vacation with my family, I add a canon Digital elph and, lately, an underwater case. Just a short trip/visit, I like the discipline (and liberation) of just one lens, one body. Lately it's been the new (used) 50mm/2. Otherwise it's the 35mm/2 Asph.</p><div></div>

<p>...the UW case is very fun with kids and the pool.</p><div></div>

<p>17-40/4L for landscapes<br>

70-200/4L for streets and few nature shots<br>

50/1.8 for portraits.</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight, David.</p>

<p>I pretty much couldn't agree more, especially regarding how vacations can involve juggling priorities.</p>

<p>I travel with every lens Nikon has ever made, two F6 and four D3x bodies. The cost for an entire airline cargo container gets old so I'm rethinking my gear and may cut down to taking only the current production set of Nikon lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you do not sacrifice corner sharpnes by using the Nikon 18-200. You lose speed at 200mm. It is not like this lens is not sharp.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Take a look here: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=1<br>

Especially the 100 mm figure is pretty far from what I expect. And this is looking only at a single resolution figure. Better to get a shorter range zoom and/or cover a critical focal length with a good lens. Personally I wouldn't be caught dead with a 18-200, but I know lots of people like it.</p>

Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 the walk around lens

Sigma 105/2.8 Macro

and (just new Tokina) 12-24/4.0

filters,uv,pl and a +2 magnifier

a one leg tripod

It has all to fit on my belt, including sigars, otherwise I leave it at home.

<p>Nikon kit lense 18-70. Can be a bit short on the tele side, but lightweight and very good picture quality.</p>

<p>18-105 VR. I don't need a fast lens. I need a versatile, sharp lens with good Bokeh.</p>

<p>17-35mm D700 for this shot in Florida. Drove here so brought everything up to the Mamiya 645 AFD w/ Phase One.</p>

<p>here is the shot...</p>