Short-term Travel but Long-term Goals

<p>I have recently decided to switch from my partner of 7 years, a Canon 10D with 28-105mm f/4.5-5.6, to a new Nikon D700 with a range of lenses. I have scoured the internet for opinions and visited two stores to help me decide what lenses I should get. I am a serious enthusiast, meaning I shoot for memories but occasionally do paid portraits for friends, my company, etc. I enjoy shooting the entire style range, including Landscapes, Photojournalism (street, events, etc.), Nature, Architectural, Portraits, and Macro. I haven't done a lot of sports, mainly because I am not a big sports fan and am never at sporting events. I want a set of lenses that I can grow into over the next 5 years (i.e. I don't want to be limited by them after 6 months as I develop as a photographer). I have been limited by both the 10D and 28-105 for the past few years, though they have served me well. I purchased an LX3 w/ wide-angle converter last year and already find myself pushing it's limits, though I love the camera. For an idea of my style and the quality of shots I've gotten between the 10D and LX3 you can view my flickr page:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/</p>

<p>(note that the Indian wedding shots are with my friend's Nikon)</p>

<p>In addition to having a set of lenses that I can grow into, my short-term need is a set that works for a 6 month around-the-world trip. I'll have an internal frame backpack and a small messenger / day pack. I'll be traveling with my wife and visiting Chile, Argentina, Patagonia, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Weight is an issue, but I will be packing light on clothing, etc. I am hoping to do more wildlife photography than I have in the past - I swear if I don't get some sharp closeups of penguins in Patagonia I'll be pissed =) Cost is not a limiting factor, in that I can manage up to $7,500 or so. I would like to save as much $ as possible, but it's not mandatory...</p>

<p>I am leaning towards the following:</p>

<p>16-35 f/4 VRII, 50 f/1.8, 105 f/2.8 VR Micro, 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, TC-20EIII. </p>

<p> Cost: ~$7,300 (varies w/ rebates)<br>

Weight: 9.5 lbs</p>

<p>Couple issues I'm struggling with:</p>

<p>1. Given the weight and cost of the above option, I am considering swapping the 70-200 with the 70-300 f/4 VR. I bet the 70-300 would be adequate and I'll be glad to have the lighter lens. But.... I don't want to be disappointed because that one shot wasn't sharp, or I had to set the ISO too high. In addition, I know that after the trip I will pushing the limits of the 70-300. With the 70-200, I will have to work to keep up and will continue to learn from it. It will also give me an additional 100 mm with the TC-2.0EIII. That's dangerous thinking I know, so I have been trying to convince myself to not worry, save money and weight, and just get the 70-300. </p>

<p>2. I could swap the 16-35 with the 17-35 and / or the 50 1.8 with the 50 1.4. Not a huge issue, but I'm leaning towards the above simply for cost. 16-35 f/4 with VRII and the D700 will get most the shots at night. And if it doesn't, I can switch to the 50 1.8. </p>

<p>3. I considered ditching the 16-35 and 50 for the 24-70. However, I want an ultra wide for landscapes and streets. I've read the 24-70 is mediocre at 24, and I have yet to find a good prime around 16 or 18. I don't need or want the 14-24 due to the cost, weight, and bubble.</p>

<p>4. Ditch the 105 micro. I love macro shots and it would be nice to capture some unique macros around the world. It would also serve as a carry-around short telephoto in combo with the 16-35 and 50, if my arm and shoulder are dead from carrying the 70-200. But - it probably isn't necessary, and the 70-200 (or 70-300) would serve equally well for portraits. </p>

<p>Extra Issue - I am also debating whether I should lug around a flash and umbrella, lol. I took one to India and never used it. But - I look back and most my people shots could have been improved with the flash. However, with the flash comes batteries, charger, filters, etc., and thus more weight and less space....</p>

<p>Any thoughts would be appreciated,</p>

<p>Lee</p>

<p>I also want to add that all of the India shots (except the wedding) were with the LX3. I bought the LX3 expecting it to serve as my travel camera for our 6 month trip. I loved the 24 mm wide angle and the 16 mm with the converter. I didn't mind switching between the two that much, though it was annoying at times. I also liked the f/2.0-2.8 fast lens and relatively good ISO performance. But I severely missed having telephoto beyond 60 mm. At my friend's wedding, where I used his Nikon, I also realized I missed the benefits of a DSLR enough that I have decided it's worth carrying a DSLR and a few lenses around the world....</p>

<p>Lee</p>

 

<p>lol, one more piece of info... I'll be carrying a Gitzo Traveler tripod with me on the trip, so while most shots will be hand held, I will have a tripod available. Of course, if the lenses let me shoot without a tripod, I might just leave it. *sigh* I do like the occasional time lapse landscape or city shot though and will probably lug the tripod on the trip =)</p>

<p>There is no 70-300/4 VR - the current lens is 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR.<br>

Your gear selection looks sensible to me - the one place were you might be able to save is on omitting the 105 and carry a Canon 500D diopter for the occasional close-up shot with the 70-200; it isn't a substitute for a macro lens but can fill in nicely on many occasions.<br>

Flash and umbrella - your call. If you are in people photography (posed) then most certainly. The umbrella also doubles nicely as a reflector.</p>

<p>A couple things:</p>

<p>(1) You won't outgrow a lens if you understand its strengths and weaknesses (provided it has strengths not available in any of your other lenses). So you won't outgrow the 70-300VR, because nothing else will provide light weight and VR from 200-300mm. But you shouldn't expect it to match up to the 70-200 within that range!</p>

<p>(2) The change in camera body is significant. The D700 is probably at least two stops better than the 10D in most measures, even before you factor in the doubling of pixel count. So I'm thinking for your trip you can live with somewhat slower lenses in the name of portability -- the larger sensor will make up some of the difference in depth of field too (for equivalent angle of view -- I don't want to reopen that discussion!)</p>

<p>(3) You seem willing to carry quite a lot of equipment. If it were me I'd probably go with a 16-35, 50, and 70-300VR for the trip -- skip the flash and umbrella (and stand, presumably), maybe consider a smallish collapsible reflector instead -- then consider your long-term lens selections later.</p>

<p>Just a quick point about the 70-300 VR, it has a 4.5-5.6 f stop range, which has it's limitations in low light, but I use it often in limited light and still get some pretty good shots. also, mine is excellent even at 300mm, sharp and clean.</p>

<p>sounds like a good plan to me. i'd seriously consider the 70-300 VR over the 70-200/2.8 simply b/c of size/weight. but last week at a botanical garden i saw several troopers lugging serious glass around, so maybe i'm a tenderfoot with the 70-300 VR... also, instead of a 50/1.8, go for the 50/1.4 if possible -- a small margin of extra capability in low light. i also will tuck the SB-600 in the bag somewhere. it is compact but can work remotely via CLS, and doesn't require too much supporting gear for the added capabilities. whatever you take, i'm sure your trip will be a blast! enjoy...</p>

<p>All,</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I meant 4.5-5.6 vs 4... I should probably go with the rational approach and get the 70-300 VR...</p>

<p>I suppose I could look into using a Macro filter as Dieter suggests. Any thoughts on whether that would be a reasonable substitute to the 105 Micro for this trip? Looking at shots with the 105 Macro online, that lens takes awesome shots and really makes me want to consider it. Especially if I go with the 70-300 vs 70-200.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Lee</p>

 

<p>Forget the 105 macro that is a waste of space if you are taking the 70-200mm. Personally for back packing, about the last lens I would take is a 70-200mm f2.8. Forget the flash too.</p>

<p>Or how about taking the 105mm + teleconverters (1.4 and 1.7x) and leaving the 70-200m behind? Assuming, that is, the 105mm takes TCs. I'm not a Nikon user so I don't know.</p>

 

<p>You'll curse the tripod too. Take a good table top model instead, your long lenses have VR: that should be sufficient.</p>

<p>The 105 macro does take TCs and based on online comments it does fairly well with them. Interesting option but it leaves me 100 mm short of 300 mm, and that's with the 2.0 TC.</p>

<p>So if I left the flash, my portraits would have to rely on natural light only. I suppose I could use a small reflector and natural light to help with the shadows a bit. Overall I would get some decent portraits but would be limited. Honestly, I didn't use the flash in India because I was too timid. I felt awkward enough asking for people's portraits, to suddenly pull out a flash, etc., was tough for me. So in that sense it makes me want to leave it, but at the same time I should get over it and use it to improve the photo....</p>

<p>Some other thoughts....</p>

<p>1. What about swapping the 50 1.4 with the old Nikon 55 f/2.8 AI (MF) Macro lens? That would give me a decent aperture at 55 mm plus a good macro. That would be an alternative to getting a diode lens and putting it on the 50 1.4 or 70-300.<br /></p>

<p>2. No one commented on getting the 24-70 vs the 16-35. Give that I want the 16-24 range, I don't see that as an option. Unless I went with 16-35, 24-70, and 70-300. That's within my budget. I could easily tack on the 50 1.4 or 1.8 as well. But - then I'm stuck with a fat heavy 24-70 that in all honestly is accounted for by the 16-35 and 50.<br /></p>

<p>Robin - With only a table-top tripod I would really be limited in the composition. If I'm in a room it's probably fine, but out in the field it would be a real limitation. For example, I wouldn't have gotten this composition:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/4282444677/in/set-72157623106532439/</p>

<p>But I understand your point and it's something I am going to consider... It takes up about 1/5 of the space in my backpack and weighs the same as the D700 body (2.2 lbs).</p>

<p>Sounds like a great trip, Lee. I know it's somewhat off the mark, but you might look into a Panasonic GF-1, or Olympus EP-2 camera for your travels. You'd save a lot of weight & bulk and still be able to get excellent image quality.</p>

<p>Picking either body with the Panasonic 7-14/4, 20/1.7 & 45-200 lenses would give you great coverage (14mm to 400 equalvilant ). With the exception of the 7-14/4 lens, all of these items are`reasonably priced and fall way under your $7,500 figure. You'd still have enough for the 16-35 & 70-300 Nikon lenses with money left over.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's an alternative to consider. I do a lot of travel photography and I'm enjoying the micro 4/3 offerings...so easy to carry all day.</p>

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>I thought about that... That argument is why I picked up the LX3. I admit to not having tested the new MFT cameras, but I feel like I might as well get something that is (honestly) not that much larger or heavier but that has significantly more authority and control (speed, ISO, image quality). I feel like in 5 years the MFT might be the camera of choice, but they aren't there yet...? My other issue is that I can not afford a MFT and a new D700. So whichever I get, it will serve as my camera for all purposes for the next 5-10 years. So in that sense, I think the DSLR will give me more flexibility.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you need to carefully examine each piece you intend to take along as to how often you think you might use it and if that usage is worth carrying that particular item around. That goes especially for the tripod, flash, and umbrella - just occasional use would not warrant carrying those around. Though for a trip like yours, I'd carry a flash and tripod.</p>

<p>16-35 vs 24-70 - only you can make that call. From what you stated so far and from a quick look at your flickr stream, it appears to me that you like wide - so the 16-35 would be a better choice. Of course, your selection of 16/35 and 50 leaves the question open which one you intend to use as a walk-around lens. 16-35 + 24-70 seems too much weight for what it provides - if you need the 35-70 range, get the 35-70/2.8 instead. But for me, you really got that covered with the 50.<br>

50 vs 55 - not sure I would make that trade. There might be a lot of things you don't want to or simply can't get that close to.<br>

70-200 vs 70-300 - I would be tempted by the lighter weight of the 70-300 but especially with the TC option you mention, the 70-200 will be the more versatile one. 400mm isn't all that long on an FX camera.</p>

<p>On another note - how are you dealing with backups of your memory cards?</p>

 

<p>Ah...sorry Lee. I thought you already ownd the D700. I understand your reasoning. However, the D700 is MUCH larger & heavier than any MFT offerings, and MUCH better IQ than your LX3.</p>

<p>But, as I said, I understand your train of thought perfectly, having wrestled with the issue myself. Enjoy your wonderful trip.</p>

<p>Hi Lee,</p>

<p>It sounds like you're going on an exciting trip. I've hauled camera gear through multi-country trips before, and I just want to say: travel as light as you possibly can.</p>

<p>You will be extremely irritated if you have to haul heavy gear through airport security checks, through train stations, up and down stairs, etc. When you're walking a lot every day, every extra pound, every cubic inch of bulk, will weigh you down. There *is* a point where the weight will negatively affect your photos, because you'll be more tired, lazy, or you spend more time resting than taking photos and enjoying yourself.</p>

<p>Secondly, consider the possibility of theft. The more valuable your stuff is, the more of a target you are. The more you appear fleet footed as opposed to pack mule, the less of a target you'll be. Even if you have travel insurance, having your gear stolen will be a major setback.</p>

<p>Unless you're firm on a D700, you may want to consider a lighter camera body which could become your backup body. I would recommend skipping the umbrella. The largest flash I would consider is the SB-400 if any at all. Tripods are essential, but if you're not going to use it very much, consider getting a small travel tripod (or even a monopod) as opposed to a full sized one.</p>

<p>My goal when I travel is to have 1 backpack and 1 medium rolling luggage. Everything valuable goes in the backpack and stays with me (meaning: all the camera equipment and the laptop). When I do the daily walking, I take my backpack, and my goal is to limit it to *half* full of photo gear. This leaves room to put drinks, guidebooks, maps, snacks, souveniers, clothes, etc. in the backpack.</p>

<p>Travel photography is simply much more enjoyable when you can stroll, instead of haul.</p>

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>Memory cards? I have a single 2 GB, that should be enough while shooting small JPEGs right? Just kidding... =) *sigh* Another weight vs use issue. Probably a 2 lb netbook plus 1 TB WD passport drive. Possibly upload the best photos to an FTP or burn them to a DVD and mail as well. I don't want to take a laptop but for 6 months I think it is worth it. </p>

<p>I keep going back on forth on the 70-200. Your last comment makes me want to go with it... But if I'm honest with myself it would probably be crazy in the end given the weight, size, and cost value of the 70-300.</p>

<p>Whatever you decide, you are going to need a good bag that you can carry on to a place. I suggest you look at the Kiboko Bag from Gura Gear. It will hold everything and will not advertise photo gear inside.<br />I would substitute the Nikon 60mm f AFS G VR macro lens for the 105 f2.8 G VR macro and the 50mm f 1.8. This way you get a macro lens and a great general purpose prime lens. (I cannot argue against the quality and low cost of the 50mm f 1.8 lens.)<br>

If you want a wide angle prime consider the Nikon 24 mm f 2.8 or the Nikon 20mm f 2.8 or wide angles made by Zeiss in Nikon mounts. There are two of them, the 28mm f 2.5 and the 35mm f 2.0. They are pricey however.</p>

<p>Definitely get the 70-200mm f 2.8 AFS VRII, not the earlier version. I think you might be better served with the Nikon TC 14E II or the Nikon TC 17E II. If wildlife is one of your desires, add a Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS, not the older AF version. I would not buy the 70-300 if you have the 70-200mm and a tc.<br>

I read all of the earlier comments about  weight, security, etc. Only you can decide what is important to you. <br>

If you take a laptop also take a Hyperdive too. When I travel, I always make two backups of my images. <br>

I use SanDisk Extreme IV Cards and shoot in RAW.  <br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>if you're not shooting sports, i'm not sure why you wouldnt just get a 5dmk II instead of a d700.</p>

<p>anyway, a couple of things here: 1) 24-70 and 70-200 are not ideal travel lenses due to the bulk and weight. ditto the 16-35. i'd think about taking a smaller, lighter kit. the 24/1.4 is good enough to where it can be your main lens. in fact a 24/1.4+50/1.4 AF-S+ 85/1.4 kit with a d700 body would yield fantastic results, IQ-wise. (the 50/1.8 is very small--it will practically disappear on a d700--but the bokeh isnt stellar).</p>

<p>2) you dont have to spend all $7500 now. in fact, you could get the kit i mentioned for your trip and still have enough left over to buy the 70-200 VR II when you get back.</p>

<p>3) if you really feel you want a long lens for your trip, the 70-300 VR is much more suited for travel than the 70-200.</p>

<p>4) if you really want to be kitted-out, i'd budget for a lightweight CF tripod, cable release, vari-ND filter a good CP, also 1 or 2 sb-600s for max lighting versatility. a hyperdive and/or netbook is also a good idea. with a netbook, you can stop into an Internet cafe on the road and back up your images online.</p>

<p>I thought about this some more - it's simply fun to spend someone's money.<br>

While I can understand the desire to carry the best for a trip like this - there apparently is a need for restriction and compromise. So, I would not take an FX camera along but get a D90 instead. Not a D300s - simply to save the weight and knowing that the superior AF won't be missed (and hoping that the D90 is robust enough). Then I would take either my trusty Nikon 12-24, a 35/1.8, and the 70-300 VR. Or the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, and the 70-300. I might consider swapping the 70-300 for the 80-400 - though the latter is considerably more bulky and almost twice as heavy (and costs almost three times as much too). The Sigma 100-300/4 might be an option too - plus a 1.4x extender.</p>

<p>Your proposed kit sounds good on paper but I'll bet you will tire of carrying all those big zooms around. If I were you I would splash out on a Zeiss 35mm ZF as a walk around lens. On top of that maybe the 25mm ZF for your wide angle lens or even the 21mm if you are likely to use such a wide lens often. On the long end stick to the 70-200 VRII (avoid the first version 70-200mm which is badly compromised for landscape use). You may as well add the Nikon 50mm f1.8 for a cheap fast job of good optical quality. The ZFs are outstanding and you will never outgrow those and they have resolution to spare for future DSLRs.</p>

<p>Eric,<br>

5dmkII vs D700. Ha, I will not start up that subject. But there are other things that move fast in this world besides sport subjects =)<br /><br />I'd like something wider than 24 mm, hence the 16-35. <br /><br />Already got the Gitzo Traveler, a 2.3 lb CF tripod. Got the GND filters, polarizers, etc. from my current Canon 10D (I'm not Nikon biased).<br /><br />Dieter,<br /><br />I feel I must stick to the D700, otherwise I am throwing away money on a body that would not meet my needs when I return. I don't need a backup body after returning, so I'd be stuck with the D90. I want the wide angle of the FX and the ISO capabilities of the D700. As I mentioned, sports are not the only fast moving objects, so the AF is still very desirable. And compared to my 10D, it's only an extra 0.5 lb. Compared to the D90 it's roughly 1 lb heavier... <br /><br />James,<br /><br />You mention I'll get tired of carrying the big zooms - but then you suggest the 70-200?? lol. <br /><br />All,<br /><br />I like Joseph's suggestion of the 60 2.8 macro. Heck, I could get both the 50 1.4 and 60 2.8. Use the 60 2.8, 16-35, 70-300 during the day and the 50 1.4, 16-35 at night. That's not too much gear to carry around... Or is it? The total weight with the D700 would be 7 lbs. Total cost would be ~$5,500, less if I got a rebate with it.<br /><br />Lee</p>

<p>James,</p>

<p>Really beautiful gallery by the way. Looking at it brings to mind whether I really need the 16-20mm range. Perhaps I would be ok with just a 2X mm prime. *sigh* Most of my landscapes have always been limited to ~50 mm on the 10D. It made me think differently and not just go for the "widest shot possible." With the LX3 though I am able to get 24 mm and 18 mm (with the WA converter) and really like the occasional 18 mm action or landscape shot. </p>

<p>Another limitation I see with the Zeiss 2X mm is that it's manual focus only, so while fine for landscapes I would have trouble with wide angle action.</p>

<p>Lee</p>

<p>Hi Lee,<br>

I love primes and my kit would look this way:<br>

16-35 f4 VRII<br>

Nikkor 50mm f1.2 AIS (this is really a gem)<br>

Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro (and portraits)<br>

Nikon 180mm f2.8</p>