Europe visit, which lens to bring? Experiences?

[bennett ho]

Planning a 5 week trip to Europe. Countries on the list so far -

England, Ireland, France, and Italy.

Bringing the D2x, SB-800, 80gig HD and tripod.

 

Currently I have these lenses:

12-24mm F4 / 17-55mm F2.8 / 80-200mm F2.8 (AF-D) / 28mm F2.8 AIS /

45mm F2.8 P / 85mm F1.4D

 

The MF lenses usually stay on my little FA so I'll probably omit them.

I only want to take the miniumum and here are the combo(s) I have come

up with, in no particular order...

 

1) 12-24mm + 80-200mm

 

2) 17-55mm + 80-200mm

 

3) 12-24mm + 85mm

 

4) 17-55mm + 85mm

 

I would love to take just the 17-55mm lens but I think I need

something wider and longer. Wider for interiors/cathedrals/landscapes,

longer for portraits/isolation/scenery. Will the 85mm be long enough

you think? If so I am leaning towards option #3. It is also the

lightest combo. I will be stuffing this gear into a lowepro dryzone

rover and the 80-200mm might be a pain to carry and might not be needed.

 

18-200mm VR is out of the question so don't bring it up. >;)

 

Any suggestions or experiences you like to share on shooting in europe?

[pcm__]

If I had to make due with just one of those lenses it would be the 12-24. If you like to

shoot architecture like I do that is. Plus I'm sure you will want to get some great landscape

shots.

 

As to whether or not you'd like to carry the 80-200 versus the 85 1.4, that's a decision

you'll have to make, but there's no way in hell I'd lug the 80-200+D2X around Europe :)

 

I'd say 12-24 and 85 1.4 (lightest combo). Or 17-55 and 85 1.4 (if you want to focus on

people and can let go of that ultrawide).

 

I spent 10 days in Prague and Germany with an FM3A and 18mm and 35-70 and didn't

even mount the 35-70 more than 5 times.

 

Good luck it sounds like a great trip.

[michaelging]

I would take door #2 , as I like shooting people photos and a little longer length would be

nice. Wide in europe is also important , and with the 2.8 you might not need your large

tripod . I carry a small table top tripod and its works very well. If you are going this

summer, the crowds will be a zoo. Have a great trip.

[brandonhamilton]

Iv never gone on a trip like this, and NOT ended up needing my 200mm range zoom.

 

Also, the 17-55 is the pefect "all around" type lens, and would be wide enough for most landscape-esque kind of shots, so my vote would be for #2 as well.

[ShunCheung]

If it were up to me, I would bring at least 3 lenses: 12-24, 17-55 and 80-200. Usually, I bring a lot more than that.

[sean_flanigan]

I have the same lenses! My 28mm is the AF however. I would bring the 17-55 and 85mm 1.4, more vesatile imo. I don't care for my 12-24, too much distortion, it doesn't look the way the 17-35 did on film.

[cooper8168]

I do a similar trip 3 times a year for work (Germany and Italy) and always give myself a few

free days to roam around and shoot. I used to bring 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200. I found

lately that 95% of the time, I used the 17-55 only. We just returned from another one of the

trips, and this time I only brought the 17-55. Didn't miss the other lenses one bit, though I'd

probably bring along the 12-24 next time, just in case. I have never once needed the

70-200 and see no reason to lug your (80-200) around. It's a backbreaker - that 17-55 on

your D2X is heavy enough. And if anything else, I try to keep lens changes on DSLR's at a

minimum to avoid dirtying up my sensor. Trust me, Italy is extremely dusty! And 5 weeks?

I'd be sick and tired of lugging around that kit after 5 <i>days</i>!

[wilsontsoi]

I'd personally go with <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=343263">door #1</a> and add a tabletop tripod for times a regular size tripod is not allowed (in front of the Louvre for example.)

[steve_ql]

Get another "little" FA.

 

28 on one, 85 on the other.

 

All done!

[vivek iyer]

Chris nailed it. If you take the 17-55, you can do without the others.

[ramon_v__california_]

not one of you choice combos, but i'd take the 12-24mm, 17-55mm and the 80-200mm. a little weight problem? take the 85mm in place of the latter..... you will for sure regret taking only one lens.

[john_n._wall]

I traveled in Europe (England, France, Italy) for over a month with one body and three lenses. For my F4 (with the MB20 grip), I took a 24, an 85, and a 180 (all Nikkors). I did take a big tripod. I never took the 180 out of the bag except to use as a close-up lens (with a diopter). I soon quit carrying the big tripod since I never used it except for close-ups. I took dozens of rolls of film with the 24 and the 85. I used a table-top tripod when the light was low. I am delighted with the shots I got, of people, buildings, landscapes, interiors, and a few close-ups of flowers. You may see some of them at jnwallphoto.com.

 

I think the issues have to do with your mobility. If you will be staying put in one area for extended periods and can scout the area to identify shots -- and if the cost and burden of transportation is inconsequential for you -- then take the gear you need for a wide range of shots. Its like being at home. You might as well have it all with you.

 

If you are on the go, moving around, needing to respond quickly to what the world provides -- and ESPECIALLY if you are traveling with other people -- you may want to keep the kit light and flexible.

 

I think people misunderstand the nature of gear. Gear does not mean that you get the big shot so that wihtout lots of gear you don't get the big shot. All gear does is change the kinds of images you can take. There are infinitely many wonderful images you can make in any situation -- and ESPECIALLY in Europe -- with any gear you take.

 

Go there with one body and a 24 mm lens and you will have the opportunity to take wonderful images. Add an 85 mm lens and you can take different wonderful images. But the cost of taking along the 85 is that you will not get (some of) the shots you would have taken with the 24 because you will be using the 85 instead.

 

This issue multiplies the more gear you take, until finally you won't make any photographs at all because you will be spending all your time arguing with yourself about which lens to use and changing from one lens to another. In the meantime, the people have moved on, the light on the building or landscape has changed, and the moment has passed.

 

If you are moving a lot, gear gets heavy and you get tired and again you won't make the photographs that are there to be taken because you are stuck in your room resting up or nursing your sore back.

 

Now, mostly, when I travel I take a Contax G1 I bought cheap at KEH, with a 28 mm lens on the body. In a waist pack I carry a 90 mm lens, a table-top tripod, and film. I love the shots I get and don't worry about the shots I might have gotten with what I'm not hauling around. I see more, have more opportunities to make great shots, and am a lot more fun to be with for my traveling companion.

[hash]

Love this one Wilson - nice effect.

http://www.photo.net/photo/2122163

 

As for lenses I'd just take my that lens which Ho said not to bring up, and the 30/1.4 Sigma. Maybe the 10-20 as well. :-)

[klix]

12-24mm and the 85mm. AND the 45mm (it's small anyway).

[klix]

<i>"... a similar trip 3 times a year for work (Germany and Italy) and always give myself a few free days to roam around and shoot. I used to bring 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200. I found lately that 95% of the time, I used the 17-55 only. -- Chris"</i>

<p><p>

Chris has a valid point, but only for someone who makes the trip multiple times a year. For someone to whom this may be a once every blue moon type of trip, IMO, one lens will not be enough.

<p><p>

KL

[george_lupton]

well i live in europe - scotland to be exact - and i would go for door 2.

 

if you come to europe you really need to visit the most beautiful country in europe and come

to scotland.

 

i have been to nearly every country in europe and still think home is the most beautiful.

[ky2]

Are you going on a documentary shoot, or are you planning to enjoy your trip?

 

I'm not a wide angle shooter; and when I'm on vacation, I won't be setting up tripods, etc, nor bother with 80-200 zooms. (4) makes the most sense; leave the tripod at home, unless you're really into night photography.

[heavy]

What you shoot is important, not where you do it. I don't think anyone can tell you what you should bring with you. It all depends on you subject matter and how much you equipment you want to carry with you.

 

But if you still want my opinion, I live in Europe and usually I'm happy with fast 35 or 50mm lenses and Tri-X 400. YMMV.

[joe tarrant]

I spent a few days in Prague recently. Typically for me, the best photos I took were taken

when I was lightly laden and wasn't tired from carrying a lot of kit. Carrying less keeps you

less tired and more awake and more prone to see good photos. I'd go with whoever said

35/50mm (I'd choose a nice 35mm/f2). No matter how much you take, you'll miss some

photos because you didn't have something (eg, a 500mm for photos of the Charles Bridge

from the clocktower of the Klementinum).

 

Two suggestions: have something that can get good night photos of Wenceslas Square

and of the church of Our Lady Before Tyn (Old Town Square). The latter is especially

breath-taking at night.

[lilly_w]

Survey says...4! The thought of toting an 80-200/2.8 for 5 weeks pains me. <Will the 85mm be long enough you think?> If you'd like a tad more reach, break the bank for a used 105/2.5 AI or AIS; size and price are equally palatable. (Every good trip begins w/ a new piece of gear, no?) I would hazard to say you wouldn't be tickled by the 18-200 anyway. You've several fine optics...why supplant w/ a slow super-zoom that will do a D2X no justice. You've got quite a bit riding on one camera...how about a reserve point-n-shoot if the body goes south?

[malcolm_farrow]

Being based in Europe, this strike me as a slightly odd question. The range of subjects and

locations is, after all, just as diverse in Europe as it is anywhere else in the world!

 

So I'd throw back your question by saying it depends entirely on YOUR shooting style and

personal vision. Whatever combination of equipment you feel most comfortable with, and

use most often in the U.S. are the ones to bring here too, providing you're happy to carry

them around.

 

Personally, I'm happy with a limited range of equipment to choose from and hate lumping

heavy gear around when on holiday. So if I was on an extended trip and planned to carry

my gear for long periods, I'd aim to travel as light as possible, especially during the

summer. So none of you combinations would really suit me - and i'd hate having a camera

as heavy as a D2x on such a trip - it's way too heavy and hardly unobtrusive.

 

Forced to choose, I'd go for the 17-55. But I might be inclined to go for the 12-24 and

buy a 50 1.8 as a fast short tele for a more versatile set up - and I bet i know which one

would be on my camera the most!

 

Have a good trip!

[jeff h.]

You say you "only want to take the minimum." That would be the little FA and the 45/2.8P.

If you must take the D2x, then the "minimum" lens choice would be the 17-55. Beyond

that, it's all just additional weight, security issues, and juggling. For years I only travelled

in Europe with a 35mm lens; sure, I always could have used another focal length, but that's

not what I remember when I look back at my albums. Enjoy your trip!

[j_dc]

Having spent months and months backpacking around Europe in my mispent youth, I've always preferred wide angle and large aperture optics. Great for narrow Paris Streets on rainy nights, UK scenery (not that Northern France isn't utterly spectacular, and, well, buildings everywhere.

 

Personally I'd take 3, in order, the 17-55, then the 12-24, and finally the 85. I can't say I ever used 100+mm to any extent while travelling.

 

You trip plans brings back fond memories.

 

Jim

[anthony_bez]

Hello B Ho, When I take my 80-200mm on trips (Europe) I never use it. But when I do not, I feel I need it it all the time?

 

I now normally take my 12-24mm, 50mm, and 85mm when I want to travel light. So my pick for you 12-24, 17-55, 85mm.

 

As for George's advise to visit Scotland, if you do you will need a Waterproof Camera Housing. As it rains on average 364 days per year. It is true that ten's of people holiday in Scotland every year, but most do not go back. It is also a fact that 98% of the Scot's do not live in Scotland although they claim to love it?

[richard_f1]

Hi,

 

I just finished 7 straight months of backpacking in Iceland, eastern Europe and Central America. I had a film SLR, and a 20, 28, 50 and 135 lenses. I used the 28 the most, then the 50, then the 20, then the 135. I think I could have had just as much fun with only the 28 and the 50. The 20 was good in Iceland but I didn't use it much after that. And the 135 was usually too powerful. I often thought I would prefer an 85 or 90.

 

If I were you I'd leave the big one at home.

 

And I always had my trusty beaten up Olympus XA in my pocket! Lots of my "keepers" came from that even though I had the SLR in my shoulder bag almost always.

 

PS Scotland rocks. I lived a year in Glasgow and while they said it only had two seasons (winter and May), I'd be one of that percentage who would go back tomorrow if I could!

 

Have a great holiday!