Europe (Germany, Switzerland, London, Paris) lens recommendation

<p>Look, this guy's going to be getting off a tour bus in the company of zillions of other people way after dawn and before dark. Personally I'm not convinced I've ever seen a great photograph that someone's made on a bus trip. He may as well IMO settle for a convenient way of making a decent record of his trip. </p>

<p>Further I think you're being a bit damning about the capabilities of todays compacts. I know they aren't perfect but a friend and colleague has shown me the books he's made on Blurb from photographs made in deserted mining villages in Namibia and they are really very good. I was at the opening of a group exhibition in London a couple of weeks back at which the star exhibits were both made on compacts- and I'm not talking G10, rather Canon A610/A620. I have photographs taken on my wife's A650 on 800ISO in gloomy interiors that are perfectly usable - not noise free but not noise dominated either. </p>

<p>Anyway the OP shows every sign of having decided to major on his widest zoom before first posting here, so I don't imagine he'll be buying a compact regardless.</p>

<p>Ilkka, I'm certainly not arguing that the digicam doesn't have limitations, but I think the versatility and convenience of those with the longer zooms override the occasional missed shot. Canon's SX10, which I do not own nor do I own any Canon equipment, is a 20x optical zoom 10mp Image-stabilized camera that sells for around $350. True that it might not give you the best shots in low light, but if you're riding/walking along with your wide angle lens on the camera, and suddenly come across a shot that you'd love to use your telephoto lens on, how convenient will it be to switch lenses as opposed to pressing a button that zooms the lens out in seconds. If you're more concerned with missing lower-light shots than you are with convenience and versatility, then you go with the SLR and 2.8 lenses. If you're more concerned with convenience and versatility, then the digicam might be your best bet. Perhaps a nice compromise would be to use the digicam by day and break out the SLR toward the evening. In terms of what Isaac is considering, I think it would be a huge mistake to not carry something with telephoto capability. There are too many shots when travelling that you simply can't get close to without the aid of a telephoto lens. They aren't just for wildlife. </p>

<p>Well, my preference for DSLR with fast glass for travel is because along with places, I photograph people and in order to control the visibility of details in the background I need to be able to control the aperture. This cannot be effectively done in digicams as the sensor is too small and the aperture range is very small (yes, it can be controlled but only by a few stops). When taking a portrait with a digicam, the depth of field is typically several feet whereas it can be a few inches with a DSLR, leading to reduced visual clutter. This is a central element to my travel photography and I wouldn't be able to work without it. Of course carrying 7kg of photo gear when traveling can be a pain especially when going long distances on foot but that's what I nonetheless do. Background control, subject isolation, low noise (so I can go for my favorite look which is high contrast) and low-light photography options are given by my kit and I can't get these with a compact camera or a DSLR with a superzoom like the Nikon 18-200. My experience with point and shoots is with the Nikon P5000 and that went noticeably noisy even at ISO 400; the images look "thin" because of the lack of dynamic range. I suspect the Canons are better to some extent but having seen images from the G10 it seems there are still issues with indoor photography. Also, timing is important when photographing potentially moving subjects and I haven't been lucky enough to try out a point and shoot with a sufficiently short shutter lag. Maybe I should try some Canons and see if there has been improvement.</p>

<p>I have never felt that missing shots because I have the wrong lens on is a serious issue. I'm concerned with making those shots that I <em>can </em>get as good as possible. With the superzoom point and shoot you can get a great focal length range but are limited by the small pixels in the camera. It just depends on what priorities you have. The 105 VR should be a long enough lens for portraits, flower close-ups, and architectural details on the D300. I do think that there is no great disadvantage to taking a point and shoot <em>along</em> with the DSLR if you are concerned about missing shots in the distance.</p>

<p>We recently did our own Frankfurt/Luxembourg/Paris/Amsterdam/Zurich/Bern/Frankfurt trip. Not a tour, but we were moving fast.</p>

<p>My number one lens was my 18-35 followed by my 28-105. Only a few pictures with my 70-300. I used a point n shoot for times I either had my wide lens on and wanted a fast shot, or when I was in a crowd and didn't feel comfortable hauling out the dSLR.</p>

<p>I could have left the 70-300 at home and not really missed it. I actually did leave it home when we went to Rome. I did have the point n shoot tho for the few telephoto shots.</p>

<p>That said, I'd bring the 17-55 of the lenses you have if I was bringing just one lens. If you're going back another time, you're on a tour and you're with other people, you'll just be getting an overview of everywhere you're going. I know you want to bring the 14-24 but I don't think it will be as versatile. If possible, I'd bring the 105 and if you have a point n shoot all the better.</p>

<p>Have fun!!!</p>

<p>I have a Nikon P3 point-n-shoot which will be used for casual snapshots and short video clips, but I wouldn't trust it as the only camera due to the excessive noise at any ISO higher than 200 and the lack of wide-angle. Yes it sounds like I have a preference for the 14-24, lack of versatility notwithstanding. Remember not so long ago we were content with a fixed-lens 35mm pocket film camera and the equivalent of 21-36mm (on DX) nowadays would not be too bad. It would be the first lens in the bag and it looks like the 105 Micro would be next. The 35/1.8 DX would fill the gap nicely in the middle, and the weight and price of admission are attractive.<br>

The 17-55 while perfect as an event lens, I found that it is just not quite wide enough for interior shots.</p>

<p>The important thing about traveling -- especially when you are traveling with a group and are not really in control of your time -- is to accept that regardless of what lenses you take you will always miss shots because the lens on your camera is not the one for the shot you want to make.<br>

This will be true regardless of whether the lens you want is at home or in the bag and impossible to get to before the moment is past.<br>

Therefore, you should take the shot you CAN take with the lens you have on the camera at the moment you recognize the opportunity. Better to get the shots you can get rather than lamenting the shots you can't get.<br>

That said, I believe in traveling light. When I am in a city, I have a full-frame dSLR over my shoulder with a 24 mm f/2.8 and I carry in a small bag a 50 mm f/1.8 and 85 mm f/1.8.<br>

I used this set-up in extensive European travel a few years ago with a film body and I love the shots I got. There are infinitely many other images I could have made, but that's life.</p>