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

<p>I am going to Europe in September. The countries/cities I will be travelling to will include London (UK), Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Paris (France). I currently have the Nikon D300 and the following lenses: 14-24/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 105/2.8VR. I figured I'll leave the 70-200 at home since I won't be shooting wildlife. I also want to travel light. The debate I'm having right now is whether I should bring just the 14-24, just the 17-55 or both. Would the 105 Micro come in handy for flowers, given I'll be going in September?</p>

<p>The 14-24 will have an equivalent of 21-36mm on DX, while the 17-55 is about 26-85mm. Now if I leave the 17-55 at home, will I be missing the long end, given the 14-24 only goes to about 36mm equivalent? Would the 105 Micro be a substitute for the long end, if I'll also be shooting flowers? (I know the focal lengths are different, but I think there's not a lot of difference between 55 and 105, at least not as big as 14 to 17). Hmm... decisions decisions...</p>

 

<p>If it were me, I would bring the 14-24 f2.8 and the 105 micro, not so much for the micro capability, but for the focal length. 105mm on a dx camera will allow you to pick out faces in a crowd, stack elements in a frame and do quite a bit of people shooting/portraits of the people you meet. You also retain the ability to get in close to subjects if you decided to shoot that shot of a beer label in the pub you happen to be sitting in. I think it would work well with your telephoto needs during a trip like this.<br>

The only thing that I can think that you would be missing with this two lens kit is a fast prime, something in the f1.4 arena, like a 50mm f1.4. Faster would help greatly when handholding during lower light times and will give you a chance to play with much less depth of field during your travels. You might also want to bring along a flash for shooting inside bars/clubs and such.</p>

http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00TmF7

<p>Isaac, I was in Europe a couple months ago and honestly, I couldn't imagine not having 200mm with the D300. I know, easy for me to say since I hardly 'travel light' but I used the long end enough that I would seriously have missed it if the lens wasn't included.</p>

<p>You have some state-of-the-art glass for what I guess is a once-in-a-lifetime journey. Me, I would pack the 70-200 without thinking about it. However, if you really want to go light, leave it home and pack the rest. </p>

<p>BTW, most of my shots were in the 18-50mm range. There is no right or wrong here, just personal preference.</p>

 

<p>I'd go with the 14-24 and the 105. I just got back from 12 days in Germany and France. As I don't have a wa zoom I used 3 primes, 24/2.8, 35/2.0 and 85/1.8 on my D80. I really needed a very, very wide lens. The 85 was great for zeroing in on details, your 105 should do excellant in that area. The 14-24 is just about perfect for general photography. Be sure you have a circular polarizer for each lens. Take more cards and batteries than you think you will need, between film (f100) and digital (d80) I took about 800 shots. Have fun, man I miss the brochen and cheap wine.</p>

<p>I agree with RJ Hicks in that you should pack a 50mm, either 1.4 or 1.8, to give you a short tele that also functions in low light. The 12-24 will be important in tight spots (narrow streets etc) and the 105 will give you a long end should you need it for details. I would leave the 17-55 and the 70-200 at home if you wish to travel light. The D300 has enough pixels that you can do a lot of cropping with the 105 to get an approximation of the 200 mm range. A lot depends on your shooting style. If you shooot a lot at the 50 mm (FX) range you might consider the 35 mm Nikkor to have that option.</p>

 

<p>This question comes up a great deal, and rarely does the OP provide any information about what sort of photographs they like to take- which kind of determines the answer. The general advice in the absence of that is to travel light and stick to wide angle lenses, and these two fit neatly together. </p>

<p>However I'm not sure this is right and it certainly wouldn't be right for me. I live near London and have photographed extensively in all the localities you mention, and personally I find that wide angle photographs are often lacking in subject and the scale looks wrong. Mountains look smaller and less dramatic. Of course I carry a wide angle but to me, especially in cities, they get a lot less use than a mid range zoom and I find plenty of use for a 70-200 zoom . Much of the joy in photographing in cities lies in the details, or getting far enough away so that distortion and strange perspectives are reduced in impact.</p>

<p>Travelling light? How many times do you make trips like this one? Is it not important to have with you what you need to make the most of it, photographically? My bag for a day in a city comprises a full frame body body and mid-range zoom; a 70-200 zoom (both with IS) and a 17-40 zoom. Back at the hotel there'll be back-up equipment and a tripod which in general gets taken out whenever I know I'm going to be in low light conditions with no tripod restrictions. My bag is not heavy. I can and do carry it all day, and for days at a time and there are lots of people younger and fitter than I am. So if it were me travelling zillions of miles for an important and presumably expensive trip, I'd want to be prepared for whatever opportunities present themselves, and I tend to notice details. I'd take the lot and leave a lens in the hotel room safe according to the potential in each location. For example in a city , daytime, I might leave the 105 and maybe even the 12-20 at the hotel. In the Swiss Alps ( I hope you're going to get into the mountains there) I might leave the 70-200 and the 105, and so on. </p>

<p> But the reason you ask this question at all is that you don't know what these locations will throw at you and how you'll want to respond. Best to be able to respond, I think.</p>

<p>PS September is not the best time for flowers in Europe. </p><div></div>

<p>The gap between 24 and 105mm is big, so I would think about something in between. Don't expect too many flowers in September - it's very late in summer, close to autumn. Personally I wouldn't miss anything wider than 28mm (35mm-equiv.), so I would leave the 14-24 at home if I wanted to travel light, but that's always a personal decision. For example, many people say they need a strong wide angle in Europe, because streets are narrow in many old cities. I'd say, yes, streets are narrow, but why don't you just try to show the narrowness instead of broadening up everything so that now one sees how narrow the streets are. Understand what I mean?<br>

Enjoy your trip very much. Europe can be beautiful in September.</p>

<p>It's hard because Europe is packed full of photo op's and I do not know what you like to shoot.</p>

<p>But answering your question, and using your limitation of only ONE lens, I'd bring with me the 17-55. If you see a motive that you need any wider, I'd shoot 2 images and stich them together. In my opinion, 24 is too wide on the longest side.</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions so far. I wish I have a fast prime to work with, but new lenses are out of the question for now. To answer some of your questions, I'd like to shot city scapes, famous landmarks and buildings, and mountain scenary. (I know, anything a first time tourist might shoot.) This trip is intended to be a "highlights" trip where interesting localities are noted and returned to for a more in-depth visit in the future. I am more inclined to have the 14-24 with me this time, despite its size and weight. I also might be tempted to bring the 105 and leave the 17-55 behind since I am getting bored of the "normal" focal lengths.</p>

 

If you are travelling alone I think its up to you how much time you are willing to spend fumbling through a bag of lenses, bodies, filters, film and/or memory cards but if you are traveling with others I would suggest leaving the hotel room in the morning with one camera and lens or expect to find yourself looking at the bottom side of a bus before noon. You can always skip out later to take the pictures you missed with the extra equipment you need. Enjoy.

<p>I take a light tele and macro like your 105mm to the Swiss mountains and use if far more than any wide lens. I like the compressed view and use the tele or a 50mm prime for panoramic shots as well. If you visit Zurich and want some tips for photographic locations, you can write me offline. Have fun. </p>

<p>i think you could get it done with the 14-24 and 70-200 and not miss the middle too much. still a lot of kit, but if you can only have two lenses...</p>

<p>That's a lot of travel. Travel light. If you need something to fill the frame more, walk forward. If you need more in the frame, walk backward. Did I mention travel light? It'll be warm weather, and ideally a travel kit should fit in your pockets.<br>

If you miss a shot, why you'll just have to go back another time.</p><div></div>

<p>I will be travelling with my wife, and with a travel company. So time is non-flexible. But at least I won't have to worry about the logistics of driving and finding my own way, and mostly don't have to lug equipment from place to place. I'd imagine we will mostly be transported by motor coach from attraction to attraction. However I still would want to travel light since for security reasons I don't want to have too many fast f/2.8 lenses with me, and they get heavy very quickly.</p>

<p>The 35/1.8 DX lens sounds interesting BTW, I think it will complement the 14-24/2.8 very well.</p>

<p>I'd leave the 105 at home. I try to be prepared and carry most of my gear most of the time. I carried it all through Europe and Hawaii and I used it all. I even carried it all on a cruise although a P&S would have been fine for that trip.....</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd seriously consider one of the full-range digicams that give you 10x or greater zoom. The newer ones probably have more capability than you'll ever use and some use the very convenient AA batteries. Can't travel much lighter than that.</p>

<p>I would choose the 17-55 and 105 VR. This is a reasonably light weight and versatile kit. I photograph people, architecture, landscapes, and flowers myself and you're covered for all these applications with these two lenses. The 14-24 gives a few extra mm on the short end but adds a lot of weight - which can be a pain on a long trip. The 70-200 would be an alternative to the 105 - giving more versatility in general photography but severely limiting the close-ups that you can take, if that's one of your main interests. Also the 70-200 is a big lens; do you really want to carry it everywhere?</p>

<p>I nust admit that since you are going on a coach trip, unable to control your timings, unlikely to see your locations is interesting light and often whilst crowded then Mr Jordan's advice above would be very tempting. </p>

<p>Compact digital cameras have extremely poor low-light capabilities; that is why I would by far prefer the D300 and f/2.8 lenses (or faster) for a trip in cities. I just came back from NYC and although it's the peak of summer I still had to shoot most of the time at ISO 1000 or thereabouts. NYC has light-blocking and reflecting skyscrapers which made this situation happen; European cities are at their most attractive in old towns with narrow streets which are also low light when the light is best. If you want tourist snapshots with bright sunlight that no one will care about later, then take a point and shoot. If you want to make memorable photos, take the DSLR and work also in low light situations.</p>

<p>Took a trip to Southern CA with my trusty Olympus 750 4mp 10x zoom digicam about 5 years ago, and got many a fine shot, including some nice sunsets. Granted, they wouldn't look good as wall murals, but some that I made into 8x10s looked fine to me (though perhaps they would not to all). Out of 700+ shots, only a few were unusable, from what I can remember. Regardless, I now have a very nice pictorial record of my trip that the kids and I can enjoy whenever the spirit moves us. Obviously, if my concern was to get photos worthy of enlarged prints that I could brag about or sell, the digicam might not have been the way to go.<br>

Some of the newer digicams get pretty decent reviews for low-light capabilities, and many have image stabilization built in as well. But it's unlikely they can compete with 2.8 lenses on a professional SLR. As a tourists, not only does the digicam afford you the ability to travel light, but if your camera gets broken, lost, or stolen, it's easier to live with (assuming you didn't get one of the really expensive digicams). They do have their place in the photo world.<br>

</p>

<p>And one more thing while I'm thinking about it, if I want to be a bit inconspicuous for some reason, my little digicam powered out to full zoom might allow me to get shots that my 300/400mm on an SLR might not. Hard to carry one of those around and not attract some attention.</p>

<p>Take the 17-55, the 105 micro, and the 70-200. That much is certain.</p>

<p>You can take the 14-24 if that's all you have available, but there will probably be instances where you want to go wider. The new 10-24 would be ideal. If you can't cough up the bucks, try a less expensive Tokina or other brand. I just got back from the UK where I missed not having an ultra-wide lens.</p>

<p>In the mountains of Switzerland, you'll probably use your midrange zoom and your telephoto zoom more than a wide-angle zoom. The wide-angle zoom is most useful in and around buildings.</p>

<p>If you can borrow or buy a 70-300 VR, take that instead of the 70-200. You won't need the f/2.8 aperture unless you're shooting sports or weddings.</p>

<p>David H, that's a GREAT shot!!</p>

<p><em>if I want to be a bit inconspicuous for some reason, my little digicam powered out to full zoom might allow me to get shots that my 300/400mm on an SLR might not.</em></p>

<p>That's all fine but what do you do when the light level is ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/125s? Is your digicam going to give you precisely timed, noise-free and subject-movement free telephoto shots in those conditions? Mine sure doesn't. In fact it turns noisy as soon as it's overcast let alone after sunset.</p>

<p>If you can manage overcast, what do you do when inside a cathedral it reads 1/60s, f/2, ISO 3200?</p>