Is the 70-200 2.8 vr a must have lens for a European vacation?

[Dieter Schaefer]

Why not consider bringing along a 180/2.8 lens - certainly better optical quality then the 55-200 and 70-300 zooms mentioned above and it weighs much less than the 70-200/2.8?

[g._v.]

No Way would I take my 2.8 zoom on a European pleasure trip... Like others have noted,

200-300mm isn't required most of the time in Europe. Carrying too much camera gear is

a sure way to dampen a pleasant day on the streets of Europe. A wide-angle zoom is

much more important than a lens with a long reach... Zoom With Your Feet.

 

On an early trip to Europe a couple of days I wound up leaving my gear back at the hotel

because I was so tired of carrying it everywhere... and I missed some great shots!

 

The 75-150 zoom is a great idea if you must have something beyond 70mm... It is light,

small, reasonably fast and MUCH cheaper than the VR zoom.

 

What I would take is a good pocket digicam for those times when you don't want to carry

any standard-size photo gear... I use a Coolpix 8400 for its wide to moderate zoom,

relatively fast lens and RAW capability. But I will be looking closely at the Sigma DP-1

when it is released.

 

My basic Europe kit: D80, 12-24 Tokina, 35-70 2.8, Coolpix 8400 and a flash. 90% of the

time all I really need is the Tokina and the D80. The 8400 goes everywhere with me and I

don't notice it one bit. If I didn't own a bunch of Nikkors without internal focusing motors

I wouldn't be above considering a D40...

[dave_weber1]

Here's another vote for the Nikon 75-150mm Series E zoom. In addition to being light and sharp, it's also very sturdily built. I've dropped mine numerous times and downright abused it in the field with no ill affects at all.

[studor13]

The only thing really necessary for a European vacation are the credit cards.

 

The last "European" vacation I had was to the island of Mali Losinj which is only a few hundred kilometers away and I bought 3 lenses - 18-70mm DX, 50mm f1.8 and the 75-150mm Series E.

 

I could easily have done the whole lot with just the 18-70 but the 50mm f1.8 is so good that I used it a fair bit. The Series E never even came out of the bag.

 

As someone else suggested bring a P&S. You will be surprised just how handy it will be.

 

Have fun!<div></div>

[Jerry_]

"The 55-200 VR is perhaps one of the worst Nikon lenses I've used."

 

 

 

 

Here is one image taken with the VR 55-200mm lens.

 

 

 

 

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=96457&cat=505

 

 

 

 

 

It is a reasonably sharp lens (my estimation.)

[marcin berduszek]

"I have never been to Europe before and don't know if I will miss having a lens longer than the 24-70."

 

Edmond, you're writing about Europe, like it was some strange world on some strange planet. Europe, its perfectly normal environment :-) I can assure you, that if you use a lot 70-200 you will miss it on your trip. If you don't, you probably will not use it in Europe either.

[larrybc]

Jim (Tardio), do you find that the 18-200VR is good enough for your travel work?

 

BTW, I just had a look at Bill Hocker's India gallery. Wow, some absolutely gorgeous photos there! And you're sure they were all shot with the 18-200VR?

 

larsbc

[jose_angel]

I would never (unless absolutely necessary) took with me on an european tour something as big as a 70-200, neither three big (biggest?) zooms. It would be nice to have all such focal lenghts, but the bulk, weight and atention attracting power is unbearable.

Also, using that three lenses on only one body is unthinkable. If you don`t want to have a difficult time you must use at least two bodies.

 

The same for the 24-70 only, but I can understand you want to use this lens (me too). Probably you will be continuously bothered about your gear. I would.

 

My advice "as european citizen" is to travel as light as possible with just -one- lens on the camera, specially in southern europe. If you definitely -need- longer focals lenghts, the 18-200 (made for travelers) would be my choice.

[jose_angel]

Your 24-70 on a D300 is long enough to my liking. That`s not long enough to shot far mountain peaks or bell tower details in Switzerland, but enought for close portraits or "normal" details.

 

The 14-24 will be a wonder into the old city narrow streets, church indoors, coffee shops, etc.

[hannu]

Another vote for the 75-150 E. I recently showed some 30x45cm (about 12x18in) prints taken with that lens in Florence to my friends, and they had a really hard time believing a $80 lens could shine like that.

[ilkka_nissila]

What kind of transport will you be using? If it is by a rental car, then I suppose it makes sense to take all the gear you can pack into your carry-on bag.

 

If you'll be using buses and trains, so you'll have to carry everything, then you need to think about your priorities. I think the 70-200 is indispensable for close-up shots of architecture and some people photography. However, the 14-24 and 24-70 already weight quite a lot and 70mm on DX is probably long enough for portraits. I was in Germany last summer with D200, 17-55, and the 70-200. I didn't feel that they were heavy, and I found the telezoom very useful.

[lex1]

The 18-200mm is a do it all lens and the quality is really pretty good considering the range. I took it around the world last year and nearly all my pictures on photo.net were taken with it. However I ran it into the ground and the AF died so I don't think it's a very robust lens, it also had chronic lens creep almost from day one. I have since bought the new 70-200 f2.8 and am planning a backpacking trip with it. I am willing to carry the extra weight to get the extra quality, a sacrifice worth making in my mind, but then I travel alone. This lens is in a different league but with the 1.4x teleconverter and the lens hood mounted I'm worried I look like a paparazzi.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>Jim (Tardio), do you find that the 18-200VR is good enough for your travel work?</i>

<p>

Yes, it is. But I always carry a 35/2 and either/or 50/1.8 or 85/1.8...mainly for that very shallow DOF.

<p>

Lately I've been using a Canon 5D with the 24-105 lens.....with an 85/1.8, mainly for the full frame.

<p>

But the Nikon gets plenty of use as well. I'll be going to Argentina soon with just two D40s, the 18-200, 35/2 & 58/1.4 (Voiglander). I may swap one of the D40s for the new D60.

[aaron l]

As you can see, there are wildly differing opinions. It depends on your shooting style. I've traveled with my 18-70 and been very happy. Sometimes I've wanted my 12-24 or 70-200, but that's fairly rare. At the moments that I wish I'd had a tele, there would be a 1000 other moments where I wish I didn't. That's me, though.

[patricks]

another vote for traveling light (fast and hard). in my book, the lenses you are bringing are borderline to heavy/big, at least if you plan to be walking a fair bit.

 

i know people keep putting it down (snobbery?) but I own some first class glass (like the 70-200 VR) but I really like the 18-70 DX for traveling purposes. It is reasonably sharp, very light and a steal at under $200 mint used. If anything I'd buy a 18-200 VR and then bring a fast 50 prime for portrait.

 

just my 2 cents...

[g._v.]

Seeing as how this is your first European sojourn I'm going to make a non-photo

recommendation and suggest that you pick up a copy of "Europe Through The Back Door"

by Rick Steeves. When I first began traveling in Europe that book saved me a bunch of

money, time and trouble, and it may influence your choice of camera gear too...

 

One big thing that Steeves did was convince me to travel as lightly as possible and you

know what? He was right... I now travel with only an EagleCreek convertible bag (it has

wheels and stowaway backpack straps) and a similar-size daypack that holds my camera

gear and other essentials. Both bags are carry-on size for airplanes so I don't have to

check anything and they make traveling by train, taxi and on foot much easier and quicker

than one can imagine.

 

If you wind up taking too much stuff you will be cursing your bags by the end of the

second day...

 

His country/regional guides are also excellent, but I tend to read them before I go. I

usually take the DK guides for the countries and cities I will be visiting because they have

many good photos as well as useful 3-D walking tours.

 

I think that Steeves' books are the best of the lot (and I have read all the usual titles:

Lonely Planet, Rough Guides, etc., etc...) because they are intended to help Americans

avoid the typical travel pitfalls, save time and money and get the most out a trip (which

basically means avoiding doing many of the usual tourist things like focusing primarily on

museums and well-known landmarks).

 

All my trips have been remarkably easy, trouble-free and chock-full of amazing

experiences and I give much of the credit to Steeves for enlightening me about how to

travel "through the backdoor."

 

Happy Trails!

[michael_alger]

Living in Europe, I can confirm that photographically, it is not so much different from the US. Cities are cities and landscape is, well, just landscape...

If you never needed a 70-200 travelling at home, you most probably will get away just fine without it in Europe. If, well, go ahead or consider the 70-300VR which ist lighter.

[larrybc]

Jim, thx for the reply. Lex, you've taken some great photos with the 18-200VR!

 

I'll put throw my vote in with the travel light camp. I've got the fast and heavy glass but I've found that I just don't enjoy hauling a lot of gear when I'm spending hours and hours on the move. So I bought the 18-200VR and have paired it up with my 12-24/4. And if I think I will need something for low light shots of moving subjects, I'll bring a 24/2.8 or 50/1.4, although I'm contemplating a 35/2 as an in-between compromise.

 

larsbc

[edmondcarson]

Thanks for all the great feedback. Looks like I'll bring the 18-200 vr as my walk-around lens. Jim, thanks for the link to Bill Hockers India gallery. G.V., thanks for the Rick Steve's recommendation. I've already picked up a copy and it's a great resource.

Regards, Edmond

[bruce_stenman1]

In my travels through Europe I have never wished I had the 70-200mm lens on my DX cameras. It was too large, too heavy, too conspicuous, and not really needed. The only place I can see using a 70-200mm or 80-400 would be on a barge trip or similar situation where I needed more reach. Taking the 70-200mm f2.8 lens out of the bag opens up a lot of possibilities.

 

I have acquired a 50-150mm f2.8 Sigma which will be going on future trips. It is half the size (so you can take a smaller bag) and half the weight, and half the cost of the 70-200mm lens. No VR but with f2.8 and primarily outdoor use or the ISO 3200 of the D300 that is not really a concern.

 

For street photography it is a lot less conspicuous to be using any lens other than the 70-200mm canon. I would take the 85mm f1.4 that provides a 135mm FOV on the DX camera and it worked OK. The 50-150mm f2.8 is about the same size and will be better.

 

The other lenses that worked quite well are the 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye and the 12-24mm f4 zoom. For landscapes and cityscapes the 12-24mm is the perfect lens. For the interiors of cathedrals and buildings in general the 10.5mm fisheye is great both because it can take in the entire perspective and with its f2.8 speed it can be easily used hand held to take sharp pictures in dimly lit interiors.

 

The 10.5mm f2.8, 12-24mm f4, and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 lenses with a camera, and a SB800 (great for interior shots to add light and for the many situations where a tripod is not permitted), will easily fit in a relatively small camera bags like the LowePro Stealth D300 AW or the Mini Mag AW.

 

Take some time to look at pictures taken in Europe and published in travel publications or National Geographic and think about what focal length lens was used for these images that you too would like to be able to take. I think you will find less than 5% that were taken with focal lengths greater than 100mm (100mm lens on DX camera or equivalent FOV).

 

Do take the strobe and also a small travel tripod. A tripod I whole heartedly recommend is the Cullmann 1002, which with its ball head weighs just 19 ounces, collapses down to 12 inches, supports over 6 pounds, and costs just $55.

 

Depending upon the weather a rain cape makes it easy to protect yourself and your gear while being able to quickly pull out your camera for a shot.