18-55 VR vs. sigma 30mm 1.4

[BelaMolnar]

Definitely the 16-85 VR. And you going to have all the range, wide angle, stability (VR)

you required on the trip. The 18-200 VR is more expensive and not wide enough! And

you never going to need 200 mm !

 

Have a wonderful and safe trip.

[josephwalsh]

Hey Dave,

"It would be noble and romantic...I know it's silly and I usually scoff..."

 

I know what you mean, Dave.

No scoffing here.

 

I'm thinking Paris with a Nikon 24mm 2.8 AI on a D60.

 

J

[george_lestage]

I don't about you guys but 18 - 200 is the way to go. It is a little bit expensive but you can't get any better. I used that lens for quite sometimes and I never have to switch lenses in my D200.

[rjacksonphoto]

How about the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF-D? Wider than the 30mm, faster than the 18-

55mm.

 

I once just took an FM2n and 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 Nikkors to Paris, Joe. Got

great shots with minimal fuss. Go for it!

[._._z]

"I guess my question is part technical and part philosophical. If you were traveling around the world with one lens, would you want the 18-55 VR or the 30mm f1.4? "

 

No.

 

I wouldn't travel around the world with one lens. But the 16-85 and the 30/1.4 (or maybe Sigma's 24/1.8 instead of the 30mm) would be a very useful 2-lens combo that would handle the vast majority of travel photography needs.

[yuri_sopko]

I agree to the 18-55VR and I also own the 35/2.

 

I did some controlled tests indoors and I actually like the 18-55VR more as the overall IQ was better. Sure, the 35/2 is faster and a bit sharper. But, the design is older and so are the coatings and technologies applied. A lot of people won't accept this, but, it is true. The color and contrast was better on the 18-55VR compare to the 35/2.

 

The new Nikon lenses, be they prime or zoom, are much more advanced in their design. It's very difficult to get any lens flare and if you do it's so minimal and you almost have to be deliberate about it to get it.

 

I recently came back from a trip in the EU: Germany, Spain, and then France. Between walking around town, going to a museum, and then low-light street shots the 18-55VR was the dominant lens. My Tokina 12-24 had its specific applications where I needed to go wide and my Nikor 35/2 had its specific applications where I wanted a controlled DOF. But, other than that, the 18-55VR was the lens.

 

Also, the 18-55 VR is light and compact and I don't need a tripod. I used to be "one of those guys with the tripod" but after VR I don't use it unless I have a specific reason. Plus, when you have a tripod, you have to set it up, then WAIT for the moment when everyone is out of the way, then shoot. With the 18-55VR I can frame and shoot.

 

I did not see a mention of the camera you have. But, if you have a D300, you can set it to Auto-ISO after 1/8 of a second --or whatever-- and then have a delay after you depress the shutter release. With those two features and the VR lens it's hard to miss a shot.

 

Again, 18-55VR hands down for travel.

 

Yuri

[dave_raines]

Thanks a lot everyone for the responses!

 

Lots of information and points of view for me to think about and sort through and think about.

 

One last question, totally unrelated, is it a reasonable thing to do to order a couple lenses (from amazon, or whomever), try them for a few days and return one or both? I feel like I need to really shoot with them for a bit to decide if it's going to work for me, but is this the best way to do it? practically, ethically, whatever?

[nadopix]

"...certainly not going to bring a tripod."

 

Why not? Get VR then definitely, but I'd highly recommend at least some sort of extra support (mono pod, bean bag, etc)

[khor_frankie]

<p>See this !<br>

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop</p><div></div>