Jump to content

Prime or Zoom lens for travel


hcho22

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello Everyone,<br>

I'm traveling to Korea and Japan in few weeks and I need some lens advice. My current setup is D90 + 18~200mm VRII. I think I can cover most of my shots with the 18~200mm. However, I need something for low light. I was considering the Nikon 50mm AF-S 1.4 or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (Nikon version is out of my budget). I know these lens are for FX body, but I thinking long-term and would like to upgrade to FX in the future. I know there is ther crop factor, but I think I can work around that.<br>

So my question is, can I use the 50mm f1.4 as a walk around lens or do I need the 28-75 f2.8? I like to shoot everything from street, portrait, landscape, etc. Thanks.</p>

<p>Hyung</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't see why you can't - I head out some days with only my D200 + 55mm/2.8 Micro Nikkor. However, I'm certain you will miss the capability for wide and cropped shots, especially on a trip lasting a few weeks!<br>

My opinion - get the 50/1.4 for low light use and dof control, and bring along the 18-200 for your travels. That's a good flexible range, imo. If you get to full frame, buy the lenses there and then. Me, I'm hoping nikon will release a 300/2.8-DX VR :P :)</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Considering its range and size, the 18-200 is ideally suited as a travel lens. With an ISO of up to 6400 with relately little noise, you don't need a "fast" lens for low light. A 50mm lens is an awkward length on a cropping DSLR. A 17-55/2.8 zoom is only 1/2 stop faster, less range and a lot heavier and more expensive than what you have. Some people like Sigma lenses, and don't seem to mind when screws fall out in normal use.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The D90 and 18-200 VR combo should be quite ideal for travel photography in good light. In fact it's probably one of the most convenient setups out there. The Tamron 28-75's FL range's gonna feel awkward on a DX body. It's not very long and it's barely wide. </p>

<p>The 35 f/1.8 DX could be a nice addition to your setup. It's not a very expensive investment, but it's a very high quality lens (good optical quality, good built quality, light and compact) that allows low light photography. The 50 f/1.4 or the "cheap" 50 f/1.8 AF-D are two good alternatives to that, but not everyone like the look of their FL on a DX body. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As everyone said, your 18-200 will do a good job. For low light I would recommend the 35 f/2 coz you said you are planning to go FX and the 35 f/1.8 is a DX lens. Also instead of getting the 50 f/1.4 I would get the 50 f/1.8 instead since it is so cheap and small that you won't even notice you are carrying it. this way you get a fast normal lens (35) for low light and also a nice portrait lens(50).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I were you, I'd forget about the Tamron. f2.8 really isn't fast enough for low light shooting, and as was pointed out, you lose a lot on either end compared to what you've got. So take your 18-200, and bring one prime for low light - either the Nikon 35/1.8, 50/1.8, or 50/1.4. All are small enough to make carrying one well worth what you'll get out of it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kind of strange that when it comes to fast lenses some people seem to forget that the real advantage/difference of a fast lens vs zooms is not the speed itself but the possibility of widening the DOF options. Even a 2.8 zoom does not give you enough shallow DOF that a 35/2, 35/1.8 or 50/1.4 provide; all that being said, the only sound option to your 18-200mm is a fast lens as a 2.8 zoom will be too expensive for its marginal rewards. Regards.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although I'm going against the grain, here, I'd recommend the Tamron 28-75. Since I got it, I never use my 50 1.8. The Tamron is a great portrait lens and not bad as a normal to moderate tele lens on a DX camera. It's a good companion to the 18-200 when you want better bokeh, have lower light, or want better IQ than the 18-200 can provide, particularly for people shots, and it's much more versatile than a 50 or 35. Actually, it's the lens most often on my camera.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When we went to China a year ago, took my D300, 18-200 Nikkor, an f/2.8 24mm Nikkor and the f/1.8 50mm Nikkor. Used the zoom for probably 90 percent of the photos, the 24mm for 9 percent and the 50mm for 1 percent. I now have a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime and if we were going now I would probably take it, the zoom and the 24mm. Given the high ISO performance of modern DSLRs, super fast lenses aren't really necessary.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the 35/1.8 is a nice compact lens that would help you in low light situations; the 50/1.8 and 1.4 are also great, but I think they're not as general purpose on DX as the 35. You can also alternatively get the 35/2D which covers FX but it has some CA at f/2 which you might not like. The 35 DX is better wide open though maybe not stopped down.</p>

<p>Once you've got a 35mm lens, you might also consider the 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer which is a pancake lens that is so small you may forget where you put it. Also, a lens which I think would be a good choice for portraits as well as close-ups that you might want to take when traveling is the 60mm AF-S Micro-Nikkor. For tighter portraits in low light you may want a 85/1.8D. I think a setup 20/3.5 V, 35/1.8 DX, and 60 AF-S would be a fabulous travel kit that fits in a very small camera bag and produces great quality results and some versatility in low light as well as for close-ups.</p>

<p>I think you can safely buy a DX 35 for now as the cost of the FX body is quite high compared to this lens, and the current 35/2 may be replaced with newer FX glass by the time you switch formats. It's also possible that the new 35 FX (if any) will be f/1.4 and as such much more expensive. I just want you to be aware that the 35/2 while it's f/2 the wide open aperture performance isn't that great so if you're planning on using it specifically at wide apertures be prepared to stop down to f/2.8-f/4 where it starts to shine (and where it's sharper than even the 17-55). But it's very compact and lightweight so in that respect it fits well with your travel photography plans.</p>

<p>Edward Ingold wrote: <em>Considering its range and size, the 18-200 is ideally suited as a travel lens. With an ISO of up to 6400 with relately little noise, you don't need a "fast" lens for low light. A 50mm lens is an awkward length on a cropping DSLR. A 17-55/2.8 zoom is only 1/2 stop faster, less range and a lot heavier and more expensive than what you have.</em></p>

<p>I think this is very misleading. ISO 6400 is quite crappy on a D700 and much worse on a DX body. For travel photography my quality requirements are the same as for my photography in general; in fact as amateurs we often make some of our best pictures when traveling - why should we put up with shoddy quality in situations where we're for once free to shoot most of the time, we have paid a lot to get to the location of interest and it's often a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? I have shot with the 18-200 a bit and would not use one myself for travel or anything else. Also, I don't think any focal length is "awkward" than another; it's a question of personal taste, subject matter and style. I got great results on DX with the 50/1.8. I think in the OP's position I'd go for the 35 DX + 60 AF-S setup though. While the 17-55 f/2.8 is only slightly faster (I'm sure the difference is more than 1/2 stop at 55mm) it produces nice results wide open and with good background blur. Try that with a 18-200.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One more vote for the 35mm 1.8 as a great low-light, do-everything travel lens. 50mm always felt a little constrained to me on a 1.5x body, but the 35 seems to hit a very sweet spot indeed for the money. And as far as you can go with higher ISO's on modern cameras, you can go even farther with higher ISO's plus F1.8.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are still new with your SLR I would suggest you to go with 18-200 only as you dont change the lense too much and cut down chances of dust accumulation on the filter over your D90 sensor. Do carry a tripod for slow shutter speed shots. Play around with ISO settings. Its a great lense except may be at very wide angles where vignetting is there. <br />However, if you know very well to take care of lense changes on the go and would take photos in low light why not go for 35mm lense from Nikon (a craze now). It will have some issues once you mature to FX. Furthermore, as Nikkor users you will never be satisfied with Tamron lenses(my experience). But if you are getting the nikkor 50mmAF-S (mind AF/ AF-S)dirt cheap just carry it. Its boils down to what you are satisfied with.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>get the 50mm. it's my favorite lens overall. i used it on numerous journeys and it proved its worth - small, excellent image quality, and no problem in low light. on 1.5 crop body it especially good for street and portrait. here are some examples with this setup - <a href="http://mooostudios.com/India_Thar_musicians/Thar_musicians.htm">http://mooostudios.com/India_Thar_musicians/Thar_musicians.htm</a> . enjoy your trip.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> The thing is to <strong>GOT that picture</strong>. You didn't mention the tripod (or monopod)... I agree that You will mostly use 18-200 lens but with modern DSLR You'll never have lens that is too fast, but You will have some situations that needs <strong>very</strong> fast lens. You will chose 35 or 50mm ( my vote for 50mm 1.4) prime but its nice to shot at the club or church with 1/125 instead of 1/30. Not to mention excellent optical quality and bokeh. Get fastest glass that You can afford, and keep Your camera at ISO 100-200. These are basics of photography, I am suprised that some people mention second zoom...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are going to Tokyo first, my advice would be quite different. Do not buy anything now, but take the cash with you. Go to Shinjuku station and shop around in the camera stores there. I'm still drooling about the stuff I saw when I was there! A real used photo equipment paradise. ;-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The 18-200 was MADE for travel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, the 18-200 VR was also made TO travel, as in every time you tip your camera the front element tries to run away from you. Aside from that little nuissance, however, it's a very sharp and flexible lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would go with the 35f2 or 35f1.8DX. They will give you the ability to get amazingly close to objects, as you probably don't want to come away with all wide angle shots. It's tempting, but it'll get boring real quick. Make sure to get close up, detail shots. Like a fish on a skewer over hot coals or funky rice balls. Although I like my 50f1.8, the 35f2 would be my choice if I needed something to swap out with. YMMV</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the 18-200 VRI and the 50mm f/1.4D lens. The zoom is f/3.5 at 18mm, but stops down pretty quickly as you zoom out. I would definitely take the fast lens along given how light it is, especially for nite shots without a tripod.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...