I have a D50, but have been using old lenses from the film days (28-80, 70-300, 50mm 1.8). What can I say, I'm cheap. The lenses obviously each have their limitations, but I've used them a lot, and work around them pretty well. But I'm going on a trip, a rather long, large, varied trip. (russia, china, SE asia, india, nepal, europe, etc.) I'm packing light, and I'm not going to bring a bunch of lenses, and I'm certainly not going to bring a tripod. I've been thinking about getting a new lens for the trip, and I've more or less narrowed it down to choosing between the 18-55 VR nikon and the sigma 30mm f1.4. There are advantages to each 18-55 is cheaper, zoom, much wider. The sigma is faster and from what I can tell has better image quality. I guess my question is part technical and part philosophical. If you were traveling around the world with one lens, would you want the 18-55 VR or the 30mm f1.4? Will the VR help enough to allow me to shoot at night and indoors without a tripod? I feel like I'll want something wider than the 30, but it's been 5 years (last foray with film), since I've shot with anything wider, and very rarely miss it. Is the image quality going to be that much better on the prime? My normal philosophy is to just wait till you feel like you need something to do a specific thing before I buy it, but in this case, it would be a bit late to buy something when that happens. I can obviously afford to buy both, but I've never understood why people set out a budget to buy things, it's always just a matter of getting the best product for the money for what I'm going to do with it. Any thoughts?