Jump to content

WHICH LENS TO TAKE?


Recommended Posts

hi there,

I have a big decision to make, I am going abroad for the first time in 15 years and really cant decide which of my lenses to take, I have these = all Nikon = afp 18-55, 16-85, 18-140,

I have been using all 3 lately and still cannot decide which I think is the sharpest and overall best to take,

any advice would be greatly appreciated,

thanks

 

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were taking one, I'd take the 18-140, since it's got the widest range. I wouldn't even consider which is the sharpest, as long as they're all reasonably decent lenses. Flexibility would be much more important to me than sharpness, which I think is often over-emphasized anyway. Also, if one of the lenses is one you feel most familiar and/or comfortable with, you might want to take that one.
  • Like 5
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi fred, thanks for your reply, I like all the lenses but I am very indecisive, I probably need to trust and judge what I photograph but all I seem to be doing is confusing matters more, they are all fairly sharp but I cant decide which is the sharpest either! I was considering selling one of the lenses as I have to many with similar attributes and don't want to regret which one to sell,

pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred has it.

 

However, one criterion to consider is size and weight.

If you are only taking one, then the 16-85 (especially on a 'crop' body) is the handiest.

On the other hand, the little 18-55mm lenses are wonderfully compact and light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is more of either 16-85 or 18-140 and I'd certainly take the latter since I found longer end of the lens rather useful last time I was abroad.

 

Will it be the ONLY lens you take? A prime would be useful, wouldn't it? Or is it due to constrained luggage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot depends on your destination, style of shooting, preferred subjects and budget. I like landscapes, and spend as little time in town as possible. That colors my decisions described below.

 

When I surveyed the photos I've taken on vacation, particularly on a vacation devoted to photography (most recently, Ireland), I find that about 50% are taken near 50 mm, the remaining divided between long (100 and up) and short (24 mm - 35 mm). Only a handful are taken wider than 24 mm. The lens used most often was a 24-70 zoom. the next most was a 100-400 zoom. For wandering about in town, I prefer a smaller lens, usually a 24-25 mm prime. Most landscapes work better with a longer lens than shorter. Longer lenses give a more 3 dimensional look to a landscape, especially hills or mountains. Short lenses are best used to emphasize something in the foreground, or in towns when you just can't backup any more.

 

You will have to judge which of your lenses is the sharpest or most appropriate. I prefer primes or lenses with shorter zoom ranges, with the best available sharpness, for landscapes and architecture. Sharpness doesn't matter with people shots, but a wider view helps establish a sense of place.

 

A cross-shoulder strap is the most comfortable when walking, even with a heavy lens (e.g., 70-200/2.8). Examples are those made by Black Rapid, Sunsniper and Magpul/RRS (my favorite). They place the least stress on your lower back, yet are quick to put into action. A heavy strap (Magpul) or one lined with wire cable (Sunsniper) are probably the safest against theft in crowded areas.

Edited by Ed_Ingold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on what body you have, where you are going and plan to photograph, should determine what lens to take. You have lots of overlap with the two shorter zooms, and a size issue with the 3rd. Personally I think that either of the shorter zooms should do the job just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Fred's reasoning. If it takes decent pics, just take the 18-140 and then maybe get yourself one of the Ricoh GR or GRDs. You'll have so much fun with that camera, especially in the cities, if you are going to cities. It weighs next to nothing. And fits in a pocket. Carrying around all three lenses will just make you feel like a pack mule instead of a photographer. Save your back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a fast lens is equally critical (if not more) as versatility of focal lengths, so I like Dieter's idea too. Considering in outdoor you have limited control over lighting, I would hate to miss a shot because it is blurry. I would rather miss a shot due to lack of focal length than miss a shot where I have all other parameters: composition, subject, lighting in line and then ruin it due to camera shake. Also, shallow DOF is something that can lead to really creative results at times. I also find the 24 mm (i.e. 16) useful for compositions with buildings and arches, and sometimes landscapes covering vast expanses. So, 16-80 2.8-4 seems like a versatile choice, since all your lenses are at least one to two stops slower than that. However, this is all my own opinion and others may have different perspectives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on where you are going.

To ME, the 18-140 is the best all around lens; decent wide end and medium tele reach.

 

Next would be the 16-85 for a slightly wider wide end, at the cost of a significantly shorter long end. But then I might want a 2nd lens in the 135-200mm area to give me more reach. But they don't really sell primes anymore, so you are looking at the 50-200 or larger 70-300 lens. But maybe the 85mm end is good enough. As a 128mm FX equiv, it is good enough for a GP lens.

Edited by Gary Naka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so here's a radical idea, but something I find myself toying with more and more as I get older (and maybe wiser). Ever think of just getting a 35mm (50mm ff) prime and using it as your only lens? As I get older, I want to blend in more and the less camera I have, the more I blend in. I find it easier to talk to people on the street and end up taking their photos if I don't have a honking big lens on the camera. Plus, I find I really enjoy my traveling more with my minimalist approach.

 

I have a friend who went on a two week trip to Rome one year. I asked her about the photos, and she said she had not taken one photo (and bear in mind this woman was a photo editor for the Associated Press). When I asked her what about all the sights she saw, she pointed to her head and said, "It's all up here."

 

Now I'm not advocating that you not take a camera with you, but most likely, the chance that anyone will like your photos as much as you yourself do is not very high. And you will have all the memories of the trip stored in your head. So, step back, put the camera down once in a while and just take in the view with your own eyes with nothing in front of them!

 

Use your feet as a zoom lens. Move back or forward as needed. And if you just can't get the shot with the lens you have on the camera, put it down and just enjoy the view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not said what camera you have.

While that is a fixed item, it helps to think about the entire kit.

 

I did a bit more thinking.

  • I have the 18-140 and it is a bit long and heavy to carry around, for a LONG vacation.
  • Your 16-85 is only 5 grams lighter than the 18-140. So there is essentially no weight savings by dropping down to that lens from the 18-140. It is a half inch shorter, and that may make a little difference.
  • The 18-55 on the other hand is about 45% lighter than the 18-140. But you give up significant on the long end, even compared to the 16-85.

Not being as young as I used to be, I would not want to carry the 18-140 + D7200 around my neck all day, every day for 2+ weeks. Been there, done that, don't want to do it again.

 

So the light lens options are

  • 18-55
  • Used 18-70. No VR, but much lighter than the 18-140 or 16-85.

If you have a D7xxx camera, another option is to switch to the lighter camera; the D3400 or D5600.

From a D7200, that is a 250+ gram weight reduction, or about 40% lighter.

That in fact was what I was going to do, to make a lighter travel kit. D3400 or D5600 + 18-70 or 18-55.

 

Instead I switched systems to a micro four thirds, for travel, and dropped both the weight and size of everything (camera and lens).

This was a more expensive option, but with care it could be done much cheaper than what I did.

Example, an Olympus OM-D E-M10 mk2 with a 14-42EZ lens reconditioned, can be bought for about $450.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically, the choice is between the 16-85 and 18-140. Whether you value that extra 2mm on the wide end is probably the most deciding factor, since it's a much larger difference than you'd expect. So, depending on the travel destination and your shooting style, you need to decide for yourself whether you will use wide angle a lot or not, and hence choose between the 16-85 and 18-140. Both are good lenses, so hard to go wrong.

 

Of course you can also buy all kind of other things, but if you're already indecisive, buying something else shortly before a trip sounds like a rather bad idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one else can tell you what to bring. In Windows it is possible to sort images by focal length - suggest you do something similar with yours and select lenses based on your usage. I usually travel with 3 lenses and two cameras which I don't find too difficult. When I go light, it is two cameras with lenses mounted - 24-120 and 18-35 - sometimes with a small, light, fast 50 in luggage. Personally speaking, I find I rarely use longer focal lengths on trips. Unless travelling in my own car, 28-300 is the longest I'll bring, and that rarely used at the long end. IMO, No hard & fast rules - it is a matter of style and individual photographic practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I carry anything longer than a 50 is if I want to take candid people shots.

A something in the 100-135 range comes in handy for that.

95% of the time a 50 works great and it allows me to be casually less conspicuous.

If on a wildlife tour in some place like Africa, different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want to cover all possibilities. That's a dead end. You want to be limited in a sense in order to go as far as you can possibly go.

Yes, "all possibilities" is a not possible in one lens, but practically speaking, a lens that takes decent pics with a broad range such as the 18-140 can be useful for a 1 lens trip. For me, I use a mirrorless and take a 35 equiv. as my only, or maybe add a 75 equiv. All fits in tiny bag. More often than not, would just be the 35.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider adding the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, for shooting in LOW light. You may not need it, but if you are in LOW light, you will really appreciate having it. I have one to go with my 18-140.

Unfortunately, the only fast DX prime is the 35mm normal lens. I would have preferred something a bit wider, around 24mm (35mm FX equiv).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Ever think of just getting a 35mm (50mm ff) prime and using it as your only lens?

After I bought my Nikkor 35mm/1.8 I decided to give this approach a try. I took it as my only lens on the D5100 on a walk through the Hoh Rainforest in Olympic National Park, assuming, correctly, that the large aperture would be needed. Of course, the first thing I ran into was a rare owl species perched in a tree, for which the 35mm lens was woefully too short. Next, we were constrained to stay within bounds of a well marked trail, so the 35mm was too long to capture views of trees and groves within the available standoff distances, and despite my valiant efforts at stitching multiple images. In the end, my usable images were limited to those views appropriate to a normal/prime lens, and I missed out on a large number of images that my other or more flexible lenses would easily have captured. I'm all for the "zoom with your feet" approach, but there are many times when my feet can't or won't go to the place a normal lens requires.

 

I wouldn't even consider which is the sharpest, as long as they're all reasonably decent lenses.

Fred makes an excellent point. In my case, my normal walking around lens for my Nikon DX body is an 18-105mm/3.5-5.6 DX kit lens that will never win any awards for sharpness. However, it is sharp enough, light enough, small enough, with VR, and has an absolutely superb focal length range. It's on my camera most of the time because it has such enormous utility and flexibility, despite its reputation (well deserved) for less than stellar IQ. +1 to the suggestion to take the 18-140, then add a small, lightweight, and inexpensive fast prime to have in your pocket. If the prime is more likely to be used for indoor shots, get it a little on the wide end (24-35mm on FX, 18-28mm on DX). Otherwise, a 50-55mm/1.8 FX or equivalent will do, and can be had at very low cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I bought my Nikkor 35mm/1.8 I decided to give this approach a try. I took it as my only lens on the D5100 on a walk through the Hoh Rainforest in Olympic National Park, assuming, correctly, that the large aperture would be needed. Of course, the first thing I ran into was a rare owl species perched in a tree, for which the 35mm lens was woefully too short. Next, we were constrained to stay within bounds of a well marked trail, so the 35mm was too long to capture views of trees and groves within the available standoff distances, and despite my valiant efforts at stitching multiple images. In the end, my usable images were limited to those views appropriate to a normal/prime lens, and I missed out on a large number of images that my other or more flexible lenses would easily have captured. I'm all for the "zoom with your feet" approach, but there are many times when my feet can't or won't go to the place a normal lens requires.

 

However David, if you had a zoom, you might be inclined to shoot scenes that everyone typically shoots in such a setup. By limiting yourself to an unconventional focal length (with respect to the situation), you may be forced to find or see things that others would miss. Your photos could end up having a surprising element in them. Thats the upside I think, in addition to the downside that you mentioned.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By limiting yourself to an unconventional focal length (with respect to the situation), you may be forced to find or see things that others would miss.

One of the things I used to love about participating in the Fixed Focal Length Friday threads, before dropping away from No Words, is ALMOST just that. It did force to me to see a little differently and often approach scenes differently to go out and shoot with my 50mm lens instead of my normal go-to lens which was a 24-105. It was not so much a matter of ways that others would miss but, more importantly to me, in ways that I might have missed. It was a very physical experience, too, and I like the physical aspects of photos and of taking them. It would put me, often, in very different physical relationships with the content I was shooting and would create different sorts of physical relationships within the frame. I would take it on some very "inappropriate" outings and it became a fun challenge.

  • Like 2
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
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...