Full frame travel kit

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I have been considering what travel kit to take with me and here's what has turned out to be a successful set.</p>

<p>I had to build a set around a <strong>Nikon d700</strong>, beause that's the body I own and I wasn't getting another one. It's not the lightest nor smallest but it's a very capable camera and the encumbrance can be offset by thoughtful selection of lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D</strong><br />This one's a neat surprise. Unlike the newer 24-85G and 24-120G, it's undistorted, light and cheap. It's also sharp wide open. Covers a useful range for casual shooting. Even though the aperture is variable, it's relatively fast and doesn't need to be stopped down. <br /><br />Negative points: zooming is unevenly distributed between wide and tele, the ring rotates with zoom and the 1:2 macro function, while striking, is clunky. Getting the PS/LR profile can be hard.<br /><br /></li>

<li><strong>Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 D</strong><br />What I appreciate most about this lens:<br />- Just the right range. Wider lenses all get bigger and more distorted.<br />- Sharp where it needs to be: very sharp wide open when the subject is close and centered (think 'journalism') and overall very sharp stopped down for distant subjects (think 'landscapes'). Just don't expect sharp corners at f2.8 (they will be out of focus anyway).<br />- Unlike the newer 18-35G and 16-35G, this one is pretty undistorted, bright and relatively small.<br />- I have used a 20mm f2.8 D before, which is smaller, but the zoom is actually sharper and has less fall off. <br /><br />Negative points: zoom ring feels too close to the body. While not as expensive as some of the AFS lenses, it isn't cheap either. Nikon doesn't support this lens any longer so when it breaks down, you lose the lens. Getting the PS/LR profile can be hard.<br /><br /></li>

<li><strong>Nikon 50mm f1.8 D</strong> <br />Small enough to carry as a companion for either zoom. <br /><br />Negative points: hazy wide open, better at f2.2 and excellent from f2.8. Getting focus right at f1.8 isn't easy, especially up close with moving subjects (think anything people-related). If you have a capable zoom, this lens becomes a bit redundant. <br /><br /></li>

</ul>

<p>There is some focal overlap but I have experienced this as a positive point. Previously I travelled with a wide zoom, tele zoom and fixed 50 and didn't enjoy constantly switching lenses. I also noticed I was shooting more wide and normal than tele (this might be different if you're on a safari).</p>

<p>I have been considering a Fuji XT with 18-55 f2.8-4, 35mm f1.4 and either 14mm or 10-24mm wide angle. However, the Fuji set would cost me more than the Nikon and I question the optical improvement. IMO, the only significant change would be paying more in order to carry less.</p>

<p> </p>

I used to travel with 17-35mm 2.8

and that lens stayed on the d700

85% of the time.

<p>Several years ago, I was visiting the Middle East and did not want to lug all of my 2.8 glass and D3. I took my D700 and my old, tried and true 28-105 and never regretted it for a moment. I had not used that lens for at least 15 years and it was such a pleasant surprise. So I am obviously recommending that you take it on your trip. For wide angle, I took a 20mm/2.8 (again - an oldie from the back of my shelf that has been gathering dust since I bought the 14-24 10 yrs ago.) And for length, I threw in a 70-300, but in the 2 weeks there, it never left the hotel room.<br>

Not clear from your post whether you own any of the lenses you inquired about. You can buy a great copy of both the 20/2.8 and the 28-105 for small cash from KEH or B&H etc. I cannot get excited about the 20-35 for what you describe. It is a fine lens, but if you have 28-105 with you, it is easier to carry a 20mm in your pocket than it is the 20-35.<br>

Same for the 50/1.8. Yes it a faster lens, but the 700 easily tolerates an ISO bump. I went small with the 28-105 and the 20mm and loved the combo. Easy to carry and relatively unobtrusive. </p>

<p>Oh - and FYI - while it will never replace a true macro lens, the 28-105 can be set up to close focus and I found I got some great results where close up work was necessary. Just an added point for the 28-105.</p>

<p>Just posting a couple from the Middle East trip I referred to above. All shot with 28-105 on a D700.<br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EODF66eEsPDvVIlLDGgv0fSEdnVuYMdaLm_NxuAGqF3j0ga_6f8437yPzOTcJhzqXB8dc1E1R2mtBPdMOrbsh3H30ZNAuWFfEwocJTxXDn9dPGZFkZxxQ_W2c0gL2kxuOH441JnTcLfrqriqMWhdPiPzC8Dxotpqoa-rz0K5zGZ_UycrHpPm1FSrxms0zxDWcs5pKYpj0PKOHY29u373VkFRnnUeCCJhUUm_Kqon2Aqr1CDYw2ihGl7uFYD2CUV1z4qOq23FPfTYyG7a4eV5bpKD5Q_m-pymTqVzo0gjmSJTM3xMGL5GGw8jQLD4IX9Y4WUVKYDg8oJKRZo6Cv4pvzlNSkztppjjQ0F9v3xHp8GUI2g8dGwAEY5rKvMYUca1SkjyOPQmMBJFVOzcYI9LWlg5Y7lQVpIkw5ZVgoJycrvCpi5gTP4k5bcSXolZEC_EZ04lUuVfd43l_olUvhEmmz0LtAuBC_UnM5_UfrUfWtq-53H2WfKL-5xiWQ0a4Y2OPHmO1QnaUzZvhb06VlidkTVRP-GC6u-mAeQuJ3pftjSIvM9SUiKupFQQMqdlI_lWc-wpOnwsoitSNdhGBZbdhAotmwopxDNA7UsfB9bH2vQpInTE=w560-h698-no" alt="" width="558" height="698" /><br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/AwDN0RThAA8yenv1CY7Wdsmpx2mtL0E1SPc1-ldyd0C47PtTYancqOFiTCZEo1sccoKEEV0vN3xqKF5_B_kZuuuT5kGACn-DU4xmALjDNUb0BGmAeTMgCXgtDmTE4aPUTgMWv5xTP970tv62iNt4TrUwGO14M5q-F1z0IMZTiBFkDkANvY3V2AedYjjDGMd2oT92FM3VKAW1ahHBM_cxxwVuBpJlYtNGYBWDR9jTKqYLySUpxyJxQqhOJuM9_L9u09gkIELOeTFkCxAI4AwsV9x3b6L7ExnC5i1u0psqAh6MVJk-ONtbxRRE_YyidK3vYCvB1l4WnUm3xPZpfnPbVvQlh9nKeyEfDeC_wfdXT5XRR2Yeg7O_iydCLF_VUv-Tqp3Nh-eF6Ht9us1aFnyh5Kk6XBi_IOrTCYb5mu0UUgoaQ8f2IzjoKD63LIkyO7QDL1MX36Lse9JgyOII-orm3j3K1NIxOebvgQLlB0tMA1s70mIsVaA8aPhxZdh4qnd8p1eAK06SIOdFbKQOnQ265vRlWla73g6GuU3GnYIscRJ3NJrdJjb6mnWOu6vHlp3UyHNwn-oQ0JBLRh3JAEmIwklHtuCW_PRigjVyvyWSXTwYgjQ=w500-h698-no" alt="" width="499" height="698" /><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p7FOwV-0JO--wk0TprUIcN675P33NH9kV_WXeqZfxx9KTj_cp4pQHuekX0RCIScaqZo5rQrLGAmzCRuQqnGSxfBZ5SAPkNhnha7JemkZB8GU3obs1TDgYR5M2p3SxrtSZ7YkpV6yqYcbhD_vZQT_SyRz7HUFejD3K1RJPRkSm2YqgHotws4E4vms8ser1AJ7Z-Jxch_xYEu5ePktaGnMQ9OU0z2VO1dAzDdjPYjJACMKy9lWbSqucuzVXkT-BOsXVJ2FUzDbZqkH8zKYPGulrSCBO5CTTmMb_j_V_yqgn_QHT84BcCiuXDJ_9cWakz8VMV-a_IznnRKutH8XgLfBvHwGgvRb4Ye5EgTz-GcEk13GGSieVfWt_aFMm8IIvTnKLt3qviWxUGM4E_x-OrJYPEbAtOwC38sOssLSt5ktc29X-2QP43Z0PPr1M26ZozFnhtWquHpeKA_XdWl5np4KMqoyC1Fepuij_cWSRdLqOlMCbUqz6_l-acSxaoSUKk2hNnFHSmZIt4JbtQIy9GCnX7p4Q_Wwz37x85uzJlSN4AwVSXYisy7p3znMupow5XlhSYrNMoF_0YmJ4n3arw9oJEhfdqDsQEOTPjmeRL2rq1YmZ2g=w560-h700-no" alt="" width="560" height="700" /><br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/o8G-xSlXSgd0YkI7bYCDil6pzlsolhD3LWk4RbbCmoYNuk8lmoK3T7ckuVjhqVt1PuUjZLR4Wz1BSRcSZe56js7Pak5qiZNEbIu_GcH9iU75sytrwZol2QO2l5K1l--TYr83VqBR-eTs8SWaH39T47NIDVUq3IBRGz9d8jUwc804Bd1m7n9cM_-rqh5sPkDpUE1dOCZkD_dzBB0n-Y4JZjVvb3hQ6nTFfObY1uTmJjvN2QhSmP5e3T8-k7hxX1cyc9ez1FagZY5O5yEEvAUJiDrg9XMJBrXNzZdJ5gKtENfRwKOg6AnkukrCYtnfKcW5Fvd2qCd0rfGAJjR3wGxuswoOAZ-pWVeQh5bJ8HsfapviSmtBSX5HBxbYlzktFcZaXyFFCgQTo8Kz1yQPcCIGLca1moIVmATEF2-GjGISvmjIHXUwnQaeAOHvldBEA4Pn8C6Inb84dGTeN6K913hUIPXLmj9zHUavVUD1hCnLhXTc_GsQIg-6X9jFoxgwjjTvivivd9n9QSv_GFOXnKqMLkLIH3uH0Yxsc9rutBCZHQwtNzYnlDJZ50u3L29QycwR9it5D7dSjw-o2Db2RdWmUr2KBtYAaLFnL2_RhUVS8ukH808=w873-h698-no" alt="" width="873" height="698" /><br>

<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Jfo_MYW1jnqFVyHS2c_tEAAFTv3bDpidSXfhglG2Xkqr83QeZTgI_UcxM4LSP282oN0vWHfjAjGmnDEp6pK1UHP4YZWIbFsi_g0hVrm9t5rI4vQ1-Pf4V8xgMTWaMjTk9n6xqfei1ZmjoxMj_4oM1SydeTgqhdZayyfW0xUllAATee9v-QV42NNJmthcLFGrGkk0KOq7wnOfgCw6VcO9rqUw1PJ0WIuw9PrZOvzgQoGcI3J4LkcB7G4VEoDvVZJrmXSJEHZMz7bPUglHMAxM2tWGMMnlGwgc96xw6G0qdsQ220QS0rgYX0P98U8lh28DRaBSHg100XDbXARuexNorqm-7Kjq5KpYV1MLyCtjuBGQbGoGc3nQZVqQZ3mwuWdzGQe5kWr-ZJuwAEyc1aZ8EuHspRQuKX10W_OgazalyhC5zzaBhkCZryn2mIl4ZOBWW9HQRxr7ANChqkvCpUCGx6o5SfFhjA169i5ExyFdNyi3Ir7huWNlQsOStXjvnN1SydqyJ9wR_MROJKePAdwZicA9_H0_QDMinL44qYiqSlWEelfn4TqrL1CwpMKyMWjemjqd07Ks85YkAyMSeUt25JJM2eNWHunMdwsUo8nrUGGp7Tfi=w873-h698-no" alt="" width="873" height="698" /></p>

As long as there isn't a specific need (safari, birding, underwater, etc...) then IMHO, the basic needs are: reach, low light

and wide (with one of those lens also serving as your 'normal' lens). On my trip last year to Japan I even whittled that

down to liw light and wide. And ended up with Just the Sigma 35mm/1.4 ART (which was also my everyday lens) and.

20/1.8 AFS on mu D800e. I have a trip coming up in a couple of months and am adding a zoom to the above for some

reach.

<blockquote>

<p>I cannot get excited about the 20-35 for what you describe. It is a fine lens, but if you have 28-105 with you, it is easier to carry a 20mm in your pocket than it is the 20-35.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're in the middle of something, like photojournalism, landscape or interior photography (all of which can be part of travel), you don't want to be switching between lenses. In these settings, 20-35mm is the 'normal' lens.</p>

<p>Besides, the 20mm prime has considerably more fall off than the zoom, making it more an f4 lens than f2.8. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>An 18-200 (or 18-300) makes a very nice travel lens. It's not particularly fast, but comparable to the 28-105. The 20-35 is f/28, but large, heavy and with slow AF. Nikon f/2.8 zooms have excellent image quality, but aren't especially good traveling companions.</p>

<p>For years, my working kit consisted of one or two bodies and a trio of f/2.8 zooms - 17-35, 28-70 and 70-300, with a 300/4 thrown in for good measure, along with a couple of tele-extenders. The coverage was great, and overlap minimal, but my back suffered for the trouble.</p>

<p>There are several f/4 zoom lenses which have excellent quality with less weight and bulk. Canon caught on to this years ago, and Nikon is gradually catching up. I am very pleased with my Sony 16-35/4 and 70-200/4, but couldn't resist the monster 24-70/2.8. It's my go-to lens and as good as any prime in its range.</p>

<p>Pretty much mirrors my trip. <br>

I took the 18-35, 50 and 70-200 recently. I used the 70-200 the least. Not so much into quality but to get the shot esp under 35 degrees Celsius heat. I think a 18-35 and a 24-120'ish would be pretty sweet. That is for general travel leisure type. </p>

<p>I didn't really use the 50mm. I think generally the 35mm might be preferred. I tended to use the 50mm when I wanted a small kit for walking around and less time zooming in and out. If to swap lenses more maybe a 18-35, 35 prime and a 85 (?). </p>