India - Equipment

<p>Hello Everyone,<br>

Will be going back to India, to not only visit family, but also tour/travel (I'm from there origianlly... long time ago... in the States for a very very long time). Going back after 5 years.<br>

Last time, I had bought my Nikon D90. I had a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Tokina 12-24mm, along with some filters, and a small tripod (more on the tripod later).<br>

(1) I'm going to be taking along my D800E, along with all Nikkor 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Not sure about the 70-200. It may not fit, or it might become a very tight fit for the Lowepro Flipside 400. It may become necessary to use the rolling LowePro X200 suitcase, but I belive it exceeds carry-on size limitations. The good thing about the X200 is that you can take the internal compartment and make it into a backpack, and then you can check in the emply outer shell (suitcase). Anyway, I digress.<br>

I will have filters and cleaning supplies, along with batteries, etc... I will probably put the SB910 flash into checked in luggage, but not absolutely sure I want to take along the flash. There's also a plethora of other lenses that I will not take along.</p>

<p>(2) I currently have a Sirui T-1005X 5-Section Aluminum Tripod. It folds down to 13.4" (34 cm)and extends all the way up to 51.4" (130.5 cm). I use this for most of my local shooting, but am wondering if something shorter, lighter and with as much capacity can be had. I know, with what I'm asking, it comes at a premium price, but right now, I am intersted in what is out there. Price can be managed somehow.<br>

Here's a link to the item if anyone is intersted: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/822125-REG/Sirui_BSRT1005_T_1005X_5_Section_Aluminum_Tripod.html<br>

So, I'm looking for two suggestions. Whether to take along the 70-200 f/2.8, and are there some lighter / stronger alternatives to the above Sirui tripod / head?</p>

<p>Thanks and cheers.</p>

 

<p>The Sirui tripod is already lightweight so there is not much room for improvement. For travel I use a Feisol CT-3441 + CB-40D head. Carbon Fiber so it is stable, not too heavy and not cheap.<br>

As for the lens: it depends on what you're going to do and on the lens in question, f/4 or f/2.8. I'd certainly bring the f/4 version, the f/2.8 one only if you're not going for long walks/hikes but YMMV.<br>

BTW, normally I bring along a Canon 5D + 10D (spare) + too many lenses. The 100-400 lens (about the same weight as a 70-200 f/2.8) only when I don't go hiking In that case a 135 mm prime will have to do.</p>

<p>You have the right three lenses to cover just about anything you're going to encounter. IMHO, you absolutely have to take the 70-200. There are just too many things it does to not take it. If I were going to leave anything at home it would be the 14-24, but if you are going to do interiors of temples, ancient buildings, etc., you're going to want that also. And the 24-70 covers everything in between. Honestly I can't see leaving any of the three behind. And I would take the flash also -- again, there are going to be places where you will need it. This is not a lot of gear -- it's actually a very boiled-down kit compared with the people who think they need to carry a dozen primes. And it doesn't necessarily need a rolling suitcase. I have both a Lowepro roller and a Ruggard backpack, either of which can hold the same three lenses you have plus two bodies and two flashes. <br /><br />A lot of people are purists about tripods but I don't usually use one, especially not when traveling. They absolutely help in getting tack-sharp pictures and if you were shooting professionally for publication I'd say it's part of the job to carry one. But given the choice between any of your three lenses and the tripod, I would leave the tripod at home.<br /><br />I say all of this assuming that photography is one of your primary purposes for this trip and you want to make some serious pictures. If you are just taking snaphsots and need to spend most of the time with family playing tourist, leave the real gear at home altogether and take a nice point and shoot. That's what I do on most vacation when I'm not there to work.</p>

<p>Craig - I did a really quick "fit" of the D800, along with the 3 lenses mentioned above. They fit nicely. I have a bunch of other bags, as well as a rolling case (Lowepro X200), that I can use, but would opt\prefer for the smaller Lowepro Flipside 400 to work out. I think I'll be able to manage with the LP-FS-400. If need be, I'll throw in the flash/sync cord, and a few other misc. items in the check-in luggage. <br>

The purpose of the trip to India is #1, to visit family. That being said, touring / traveling my motherland is high on the priority list. Photography being my passion, I want to make/take the best of it. It will also be the first time my daughter will be visiting, and second time for my son. I don't want them to not not where his parents are from. I've had too many conversations with people that wish they had contact with relatives in the old country (mostly Europeans). I would like for my children to know something of where we are from and to not forget. I'm doing my part I suppose; the rest is up to them in the future.<br>

As I think about it, the tripod will probably go into the suitcase, like the last trip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikkor 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could take the 16-35/4, a nice cheap 50/1.8, and the 70-200mm. A lot lighter I suspect and would work very nicely for your purpose. Many would baulk at a 70-200/2.8 - you could consider the new f4 version, but as you already have the f2.8, you'd probably better take it. In India I would always be aiming to go as light as possible. Not sure why you need a tripod. Teeming India does not seem a natural tripod destination to me. If you had the 16-35 VR then the VR would probably eliminate any thoughts of tripods.</p>

<p>Robin - thanks for the input. I'm one of those people that believe in simplicity, and if it is NOT simple, I try to make it simple. That being said... I purchased the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200 (all f 2.8) for a reason. It covers the specturm with highest range of glass available in the Nikkor world. Yes, I realize there are plenty of contenders, esp. now with Sigma putting out their "ART" lenses, and the plethora of Zeiss primes. But this is about traveling with equipment, to cover a good range, and I think / I hope, the Holy Trinity of lenses does a that, but first of all not overlapping and also being fast lenses, I can use them in situations that I could not with an f/4 or slower lens.<br>

I don't own the 16-35. It's an okay lens, but doens't compare to the 14-24. Not saying its a bad lens by any means. It holds it own. But besides that, it's a different lens. If I had owned the 16-35, and had to choose between the 16-35 or the 12-24, I would leave back the 16-35, and use the 24-70. The range and superiority of the lens 24-70 cannot be ignored.<br>

I have the 50, and I may throw that into the bag if there's any room, but I don't feel I really need that lens. Yes, it's small, but at the end of the day, one has to consider that you don't want to do too many lens changes in a potentially dusty environment. I like the idea of having the 24-70 on for most of the time, and change lenses to the 14-24 or the 70-200 when the shot calls for it.<br>

Yes, weight of these lenses is a little bit of an issue, but the Lowepro FS 400 fully loaded is not too bad. If it becomes necessary, I may opt for using the rolling bag (X200), as previously mentioned, but won't be so convenient to use while I'm there.<br>

Not sure why I would sell off my 70-200 f/2.8 for the f/4. Take a loss selling the f/2.8 and then buy the f/4 for the trip? Hmmmm. Not sure that makes a lot of economical sense. When I bought these lenses (14-24, 25-70, 70-200 - none of these are particularly heavy on their own... to me at least), I specifically paid so much more to have the best glass. Is that wrong to do so? If I downgrade, and say give up the f/2.8 (in leiu of the f/4), then I should never have bought the f/2.8 in the first place. To the point... a 400 prime is starting to get a little heavy (I don't own the 400... I'm just stating a point of view of what I consider heavy and not heavy). <br>

Tripod - the last 3 times I've been to India, I've made good use of my tripod. If you're thinking of only street photography, then yes, I would agree that the tripod has no such place. But I think you know, there's more to India than just street photography. I do (try to do) a lot of landscapes (panoramics), waterfalls, dust/twilight shots. As you've stated, the VR in the 16-35 does not cover this type of long exposures (I'm talking about 1s to 30+ sec., as needed).<br>

So to reiterate, I don't plan to sell off better equipment for lesser... the tripod... hmmm, not fully decided yet. Trying to find the lightest/smallest one, and I think I already have that (as mentioned above, according to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=251161">Jos van Eekelen</a>).<br>

Did I miss anything?</p>

 

<p>f4 70-200mm is not worse than the f2.8 - just much lighter at the cost of one stop. My point is that always getting the most expensive is not necessarily the best for the job in hand. It depends how much the weight will get to you. I didn't expect you to change anything, but my guess is that you may not find this the optimum kit for your trip, but maybe you will. Everything is a matter of compromise, particularly weight/size versus portability, so I was just outlining other equal image quality possibilities that did not depend on taking the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive versions of everything. You don't need a 50mm in addition - I think you want to be removing items not putting extra things in in my opinion. Another way to look at is that by lightening your load elsewhere you could take a tripod more easily.</p>

<p>Sridip -- Just want to complement you on the fact that you "get it" about this combination of three lenses. I agree that they should be considered the "Holy Trinity"<br /><br />My opinion comes not just from my own experience. I work in Washington, D.C., and even though I don't shoot full-time, Washington is one of the news capitals of the world and I rub shoulders regularly with some of the world's best news photographers. Many of these people have jobs (full time or freelance) where they have to be ready to hop on a plane a moment's notice and shoot a job anywhere in the world. They are sort of the Marines of photography.<br /><br />I'll admit that everybody has their particular prefrences with camera equipment. But almost every one of these photographers is carrying the 14-24/24-70/70-200 combination or something very close to it. Most also have a teleconvertor for when 200 isn't long enough, and they can grab a 400 or 600 when they need to go really long. Maybe they've also got a macro lens for extreme closeups and maybe a 50 1.2 for when there just isn't any light. But for the most part the "Holy Trinity" covers them for 90 percent of what they are likely to shoot on any given day whether it's on Capitol Hill or Iraq. And they don't sit around thinking "what lens do I take for India/Japan/Germany/France" because the answer is the same regardless -- the same three wherever they are going.<br /><br />And nobody I've ever met -- nobody -- has wanted to give up a 2.8 for a 4. Back in the day when cameras were routinely sold with a 50mm standard lens instead of a kit zoom, 2.0 was the standard and if you could afford it you got a 1.4 or 1.2. So an f/2.8 lens is already slow by comparison and justified only because three lenses can replace a whole bag of lenses.<br /><br />IMHO, 2.8 lenses are not overly heavy or large. Three 2.8 zooms even if they weigh two pounds each comes to around six pounds. But they replace around a dozen primes and already reduced the weight of my bag by at least half.</p>

<p>Having traveled over the years with a "trinity" of lenses that covered whatever I might encounter, I've found that for any given trip, about 70% of my photos come from one lens, about 25% from the second lens and 5% from the third. When I travel now, I want to soak in the experience and focus (pun intended) on the images that I want to capture rather than have to think about what lens to use. So I take one lens as my primary and a second lens as back up, which stays in my bag for most of the trip.<br /> <br /> I'm going to SE Asia next month. I plan to take my D800e and Sigma 35/1.4 ART. My 28/1.8 AFS will be in bag as well, but only as a back up.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One more thing... With the D800e and ANY ONE of your f.28 zooms, you have roughly $4k worth of gear. And you are supporting that with a $100 tripod?????????</p>

<p>I travel with a heavy DSLR and 3 zooms that cover me from 156 mm to 200 mm - even greater as I also pack a 1.4 converter. Last trip I even brought my Tamzooka 150-600 mm. Is it excessive? To some people. I may not carry it all each and every day. I leave the hotel with the lenses I need for that day. But I always ensure my gear is safe in a secure hotel and locked in luggage as well.<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets<br>

I meet people that just carry a 28-300 lens and for some that is sufficient. I don't mind the heavy lifting - it is like a workout to me. I had a telephoto zoom die on me on a trip to SE Asia. I still had 2 other lenses to play with. If it had been my sole lens that died....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>156 mm to 200 mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You need 3 zooms to cover 44mm? I assume you mean 16-200mm. I think taking more and not necessarily always taking them all out is, indeed, a practical approach.</p>

<p>Robin - I will not disagree at all with you, that the most expensive is NOT always the best. But there's something to be said for f/2.8 vs f4 (1-Stop I believe). Doesn't seem like a lot, does it. The reality of the whole situation is that I'm not going to buy another lens for this trip, just to make it lighter. I'm either going to take a lens or not take a lens with me. In my mind, no matter how much lighter the 70-200 f/4 is (I looked up and compared the f/2.8 vs f/4 weights), the option to get it just is not there for me. Either I take the 70-200, or simply put it way.<br>

As for the 50mm, I am leaning towards what you've said. It's Holy Trinity all the way. The tripod has to go. I've taken a tripod to India the last 2 or 3 times. Since the plans (may change... who knows) are to go up to the mountains (Himalayas), as well as the beaches. Plan to use the tripod quite exensively.</p>

 

<p>Craig - When I decided to up the game from the D90 to the D800E, and concurrently from a handful of other, older, lesser quality (IQ/Build, etc...) lenses, I did a lot of reasearch, and finally concluded (2012), that the Holy-Trinity was all that I needed for going anywhere. Well, this will be the first major outing out of the country with said Holy-Trinity. So, there's this bit of "thinking" about the sanity of taking these lenses. But, I think I'm okay taking with these lenses.<br>

As for your hob-nobbing with the "Marines of Photography" (I like that description)... Completely agree that the 2.8s are not "heavy". To me, they feel solid. Yes, when carrying them, it would be nice if they were feather light, but when I'm shooting with any particular lens, I like / appreciate their robust feel. To me, it's all about the, "Form, Fit and Function". Need to have at least two of the three. Having all three qualities in all three lenses is a winner, right?<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

Sridip -- Just want to complement you on the fact that you "get it" about this combination of three lenses. I agree that they should be considered the "Holy Trinity"<br /><br />My opinion comes not just from my own experience. I work in Washington, D.C., and even though I don't shoot full-time, Washington is one of the news capitals of the world and I rub shoulders regularly with some of the world's best news photographers. Many of these people have jobs (full time or freelance) where they have to be ready to hop on a plane a moment's notice and shoot a job anywhere in the world. They are sort of the Marines of photography.<br /><br />I'll admit that everybody has their particular prefrences with camera equipment. But almost every one of these photographers is carrying the 14-24/24-70/70-200 combination or something very close to it. Most also have a teleconvertor for when 200 isn't long enough, and they can grab a 400 or 600 when they need to go really long. Maybe they've also got a macro lens for extreme closeups and maybe a 50 1.2 for when there just isn't any light. But for the most part the "Holy Trinity" covers them for 90 percent of what they are likely to shoot on any given day whether it's on Capitol Hill or Iraq. And they don't sit around thinking "what lens do I take for India/Japan/Germany/France" because the answer is the same regardless -- the same three wherever they are going.<br /><br />And nobody I've ever met -- nobody -- has wanted to give up a 2.8 for a 4. Back in the day when cameras were routinely sold with a 50mm standard lens instead of a kit zoom, 2.0 was the standard and if you could afford it you got a 1.4 or 1.2. So an f/2.8 lens is already slow by comparison and justified only because three lenses can replace a whole bag of lenses.<br /><br />IMHO, 2.8 lenses are not overly heavy or large. Three 2.8 zooms even if they weigh two pounds each comes to around six pounds. But they replace around a dozen primes and already reduced the weight of my bag by at least half.</p>

<p>Keith L<br>

How do you like the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART? I am seriously giving consideration to the 24 f/1.4 ART that is slated for release, very soon. </p>

 

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4163560">Keith L</a> , Feb 16, 2015; 02:35 a.m.</p>

 

<p>One more thing... With the D800e and ANY ONE of your f.28 zooms, you have roughly $4k worth of gear. And you are supporting that with a $100 tripod?????????</p>

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Keith - I've had zero issues putting any one of those lenses on the $100+ tripod. It has the weight capacity rating (i.e. I go for 2x the rated load as a measure of what is acceptable to me).

 

I've read plenty of failures, in that camera/lens and tripod blows over, even though it was a top rated ($600 to $1200) tripod being used. The so called failures, mostly happen, because of inattention. Not the triopod itself (there are always exceptions). People are not careful. There is a tendency to believe, and blame, the equpment. Most of the time, it's not the equipment, but simple 'user error'. Can it happen to me? Sure can. But it can happen on my current $100+ tripod, or my CF Benro full size tripod. Accidents are just that... accidents!!!

 

<p>Re: Sigma 25/1.4 ART: I highly recommend it - sharp from center to edges. The 50/1.4 ART and 24/1.4 ART (when released) are on my buy list.</p>

<p>Re: tripod: most people think the purpose of a sturdy tripod is to keep your gear from crashing to the ground. While that is certainly the primary reason, another big reason is to keep the setup vibration-free. With a $100 tripod, the slightest of gusts or the passing of a large truck could induce vibration, while a higher end rig could absorb that and eliminate or at least minimize vibration. The point is that your high end body and lenses are more or less crippled because of a cheap tripod-- why buy high end gear when you'll cripple it anyway?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Keith L.<br>

I do not disagree with you about your assesment about a "strudy" tripod, at all. In fact, I advocate and also preach to other, along the same lines. However, for all practicality, traveling with family, luggage (other than my camera gear), kids (they are still quite young and need looking after), something has to give. Yes, would love to just hire a coolie (a porter in India) and have him carry everything for me. But really, I'm my own porter, and the wife/kids ain't gonna do it.<br>

I've been making use of this puny $100+ tripod for about 1.5 years now. There have been a few instances of slight wind while I was shooting, and I've compensated (dampened) for the wind by hanging the my camera-backpack at the bottom of the tripod's hook. Did it do the trick (for 10 to 20 sec +/- shots). Some instances, yes, and some no.<br>

About the truck going by and rattling the light weight tripod vs the heavy weight tripod. Sorry, but I must disagree there. The truck passing by (if fast enough), may possibly knock over your entire camera/lens/tripod setup; it will also possibly create enough of a vibration, that your heavy duty (no matter how heavy) in the road to ruin the shot. Even the heavies tripod has it's limitations. <br>

For $100+ IS a compromise, of "form, fit and function". </p>