Trying to figure out a good travel lens for my D80

[adam_chandler1]

I am getting ready for a trip to Kyoto, Japan soon and I am currently looking

for a new lens for my D80 for the trip (I am currently using the 18-55mm kit

that came with the camera).

 

I am looking for a lens with good versatility. I will be taking many pictures

of the temples, castles and gardens in the area.

 

I was looking at the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor, but a friend of

mine asked me if I planned on having this lens for awhile, 5 years+. I said of

course for $1200 I hoped to keep this lens for a long time. So he advised me to

stay away from the DX Nikkor lens since these lenses are made for small sensors

once Nikon updated and enlarges the size of their sensors then the DX lens will

be obsolete.

Is this a real concern? Will Nikon be updating to full sized sensors? And if so

will that make this lens worthless when I upgrade cameras 5 years down the road?

 

Thank you for anyone who responds.

[m_.]

i didn't know there is such a specific group of lens called "travel lens". i always thought they are the same lenses you use everyday.

[alvin_wong]

<p>Try searching for "full frame Nikon" on Google. Your question has come up innumerable times in the past few years. I think you will see that it has been all quiet on the Front, at least when it comes to Nikon and full-frame sensors.</p>

<p>If you can afford the best lens, and you can why not go for it? Besides, the 17-55/2.8 is still usable on a full-frame sensor, albeit only as a 26-55mm.</p>

[stephaniesavas]

I have a Nikon D70 and bought the Nikkor 24-85mm 1:2.8-4 D lens separately 5 years ago for about $500. I use this lens all the time, and found it was very versatile when travelling.

[crabseye]

Adam, even IF Nikon does release a full-frame sensor based DSLR, it would likely be comparably priced to Canon's full-frame cameras.

 

That leaves the rest of use, who don't or can't spend $2000 plus on cameras, out there to buy your DX lens.

 

It will never be "obsolete" because there will always be buyers for it.

 

People STILL buy Canon FD lenses, which have been "out of date" since the mid-80s.

[lex_jenkins]

I'd look at it this way: No dSLR maker has switched completely to 24x36 sensors. It's unlikely there will be many - if *any* - compact P&S digital cameras with a full frame sensor. Most buyers of digital cameras, whether P&S types or dSLRs, are enjoying miniaturization.

 

Image quality from smaller sensors will continue to improve. Not only is this more cost effective, it's what most consumers want, including a lot of serious amateurs.

 

Before any dSLR maker abandons smaller sensors I would expect a complete revolution in digital photography, with higher resolution digital video replacing still cameras as the weapon of choice for many folks. Even then I wouldn't look for the end of still cameras because of the time and effort required to extract a few high quality still photos from tens of thousands of frames of video.

 

I wouldn't worry about a high quality DX lens becoming obsolete.

[dirtlawyer]

I suggest you look at the Nikon 18-200. On vacation a year ago I had an 18-55 and a 28-200. I never seemed to have the right lens on the camera. Since I got the 17-200 I've used it for over 80% of my photos.

 

I also have a 17-44 f2.8, but it's used mainly for indoor shots. If I were trying to save weight, I'd use a f0mm f1.8 for indoors, and the 18-200 for outdoors.

[bruce_margolis]

Adam, the 17-55 is a great lens but there is no way to get telephoto shots with it so it is limiting as a travel lens. If you're okay with that, fine.

 

To me the ultimate lens for travel and versatility is the 18-200VR. It is certainly not the quality of the 17-55 but then, it doesn't cost as much either. I travel a lot. This lens always goes with me and other lenses are added depending on where I am going.

 

Next week, for example, I am going to Banff. No lens is both wide enough for landscapes and long enough for wildlife but the 18-200 comes the closest. I happen to have other lenses (wider/longer) for those shots but for the stuff in between, the 18-200 works very well.

If you have the $$$$$$, a combination of the 17-55 and 70-200VR is fabulous.

 

As for the full frame sensor, I say so what. The DX lenses will not become obsolete any more than the old AI/AIS lenses died with digital. Buy what you need today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

[mjt]

hi Adam ...

 

my opinion would be, hands down, the 18-200 VR ... great range, light weight, VR ... be forewarned this lens is known for zoom creep.

 

regards, michael

[mclain swift]

The 18-200 without a doubt is a very useful general purpose travel lens.

[vivid_earth_photographics]

The 18-200mm VR locks in place when set to 18mm and shouldn't 'creep' as you walk with the lens down, but once extended if you tilt the camera enough the zoom will creep. Personally, I've never found it a real issue in practice. Other than that, this relatively light-weight lens is a great way to have a lot of options when traveling without also having to dose up on Advil and demand neck rubs at end each day as I would with heavier set ups and extra lenses in my bag.

[Matt Laur]

About zoom creep on the 18-200: If you're carrying the lens around (say, over your shoulder), just back it up 18mm (which is pretty natural, carry-wise), and the lens parks itself and will NOT creep out. If you are zoomed out a bit, and then let the camera hang nose-down, then yes - over time, you'll get some creep. But then, it's not the lens you'd use for long-exposure look-down flower shots, anyway. I heartily recommend the 18-200 for general walk-around. I keep the 50/1.8, tiny as it is, in the bag, too, for lower light stuff. But if you had to go with one and only one, that 18-200 is very hard to beat. If you have the $ for the 17-55, that's nice... but it's a lot of mass to carry for a pretty narrow range. Have fun!

[iambaxter]

For travel you can not beat the 18-200 for convenience and versatility. I bought it for travel and use it a lot more often than I thought. Take one body, one lens and may be a flash, and you are set for almost all situations. If you know you are going to be indoors where you cannot use flash, add a 50mm f1.8. The 17-55 and 70-200VR are heavy lenses and carrying them around all day can be tiring. And you could miss shots while changing lenses.

[elliot1]

Keep your camera light - consider the 18-135 - same or better image quality than the 18-200, no VR of course, and many hundreds less expensive. If weight and money are not an issue. the 18-200 is probably your best choice.

[Hector Javkin]

If you are traveling without a tripod and with a single lens, the 18-200mm VR is the perfect choice. In the overwhelming majority of your shots, vibration reduction will help you more than the difference in speed between your present lens and the 17-55mm. I wish I had had the 18-200mm on my trips to the Kyoto area.

 

The one exception in which lens speed is more important is in action shots, but you rarely get those in most travel photography. Below is one such very rare exception, and I hope it doesn't dissuade you from the 18-200. It was taken in Nara Park (which you should visit -- it's a skip and a jump from Kyoto) with a 50mm f/1.4 on an Olympus OM-1.<div></div>

[msd52]

Adam,

I just got back from a trip to Yosemite with my D70 and 18-70 lens and 70-300g and was very happy with the results. My friend used his D80 with the 18-55 and his shots came out great. I can tell you that I am currently saving for the 18-200VR.

[msd52]

Adam, Half Dome from Galcier Point with a D70 and 18-70DX. I really ahve always liked this lens

[msd52]

Jeez... Sorry about the spelling!

[adam_chandler1]

Wow, all you guys are really awesome. Thanks for all the good info. Right now I am deciding between the 17-55mm 2.8f and the 18-200mm VR. At first I was thinking for the 17-55mm because I've heard it has better quality of the shots, but then again the 18-200mm has the better range and better versatility.

I just need to figure out if I'll need the zoom from the 18-200. I was thinking most of my shots are going to be in the 17-55mm range. I'm going to be moving from Japan back to the US soon and this is going to be my last trip to Kyoto (and yeah Hector I'm trying to get my girlfriend to take me to Nara too, I've heard Nara park is really cool) so I want the best possible image quality.

I'll also be taking a trip to Kamakura to photograph the Meigetsu-in temple (bright moon temple) and the gardens there.

So now I just need to figure out between the 17-55mm and the 18-200mm.

Those pictures from Nara park and Galcier Point are great too.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post and share your wisdom. It has been helping out this beginner photographer alot.<div></div>

[ned1]

Here's another way of looking at it. If most of your shooting will be mostly outdoors, get the 18-200. Indoors get the 17-50 'cause with the 2.8 aperture it will autofocus better in low light. Or get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 for a third the price. It's not a bad lens.

[Hector Javkin]

Adam,

 

Lovely photo. You were wondering if the range above 55mm will be useful, and you might find it useful in, say, getting details of some of the temples, Osaka Castle, etc. and in getting confrontations between the deer. You really can't go wrong with either choice. You could supplement the 17-55 with the 70-300mm VR, which is a very nice lens or, if the additional expense and weight are too much, the 55-200mm VR, which is flimsy but has gotten some good reviews for the images it makes.

 

I should post the conclusion to my deer story: deer -- piece of shopping bag, man -- shopping bag with hole in the bottom. Sadly, I would have had to be on the other side of the confrontation to get the hole in the bag.

 

BTW, in Nara Park you might want to buy the wafers they sell to feed the deer. It will help you keep them from trying to eat your camera bag.<div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

"I want the best possible image quality"

 

Adam, I really like the 18-200VR but is the image quality better than the 17-55? Hardly.

 

My point is, much of photography is about trade offs. The 17-55 will give you sharper images overall but 55mm is not even close to 200mm. OTOH, the 18-200 is versatile but generally a poor low light lens. This is why there are so many lens choices. Each serves a different market for a different purpose.

 

What's more important to you, overall quality or versatility? Answer that and you will know which lens to select.

 

Just to follow up on Edward's comment, the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 18-200VR costs about the same together as the Nikon 17-55 alone. Yeah, I know, another thing to consider. Such is the life of photography in the fast lane...... :-)

[ronald_moravec1]

I use the 18/70 and 55/200 vr. Gets me most anything in the sun.

 

One lens only, try 18/135.

[stephen_kinosh]

I have a SIgma 24-135 2.8-4.5 that i LOVE. i've done a few wwedding with it and have not had to change lenses. I think it was bout 469.00, but I have not seen it in the SIgma adds in a while. Maybe discontinued. I have seena few listed on E_baay in teh 250-275 range. This is MY walking around lens

 

Steve

[adam_chandler1]

Thanks again for the inputs guys. The more I have read and researched I'm thinking now about getting the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX for my indoor, low light and speed needs and supplementing that with a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR for outdoors when I need some zoom, which combined with the 4GB Lexar 133x SDHC and the Tamrac Adventure 9 Backpack is about as far as my budget will go (this money is from leasing my life once again to the Navy so I figured I'll use some of the money from my reenlistment on my new hobby)

 

That's great info Bruce, I'm still learning about the lens market. This forum has helped alot, I have a much better understanding about these lenses now.

 

And Hector, thanks for the advice, I'll definitely pick up some wafers too keep those deer from taking a bite out of my bags.