Your Favorite Vacation Lens?

[rjacksonphoto]

<p>Well, right now in England, I have a D300 with 12-24, 17-35, 50, and 80-200. Way more than I usually carry and way more than I should have brought. Could have easily done with the 12-24 and the 50. Or just with the Lumix LX-3 I also brought. But I've gone the P&S route only and usually end up missing the SLR. So, recommend the 12-24 and 50 for DX format. <strong>And</strong> the LX-3!</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>My vacation equipment last year: D200, 2x SB-800 with Su-800, 10.5 fisheye, 10-20 Sigma, 30/1.4 Sigma, 50/1.4 AF-D-Nikkor, 85/1.4 AF-D, a lightstand, umbrella, heavy tripod, several goodies (remote-control, lots of filters...), a Coolpix 8400 and a Ricoh GX100. I've never touched the D200 and shot everything with the Coolpix 8400 and the Ricoh and both of them most of the time at their widest zoom-setting (24mm FX-equivalent).<br>

This year the D700 with some fast primes (50/1.2, 28/2, 85/1.4 or 105/2.5) will be just the junior partner of my new darling, a Rolleiflex SL66 with (so far :-) 80/2.8 Planar and 50/4 Distagon. Maybe I will add a Leica M or Hexar AF or a Minox ML. <br>

Over the years I've used a lot of stuff on vacation - a wideangle of 24-28mm (35mm-equivalent) was everytime with me and is probably my favorite vacation lens-type.<br>

georg</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Khoa - I work full time in an art museum, and we just recently changed our rules about flashes - now we DO allow them, and I suspect most other museums do, too. The original reasons for banning flash began when there were flashBULBS and it was thought that the cumulative affect of all those flashbulbs would eventually degrade the museum pieces (especially the art). Now, of course, we have electronic flash so that is the reason most museums will now allow flash photography. But if you need to know for sure, you'll probably have to check their website, and remember that the Smithsonian is a collection of about a dozen different buildings and it's possible that the policy may not be consistent from one to the other (government run, remember?).</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I see another whole arsenal guy in Travis.</p>

[brians.]

<p>I'm retired so I'm on permanent vacation. My kit includes: D90, 16-85VR, 70-300VR, 1.4tc, 50 f/1.8. It all fits convieniently in a small bag. That covers a focal range of 16-420mm and aperture to f/1.8, which gets most situations for me.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I bought my 18-200 3 years ago specifically for my Alaska trip that year. I also brought along a 50mm f1.8, but shot 100% of the images I actually enjoy with the 18-200. It's an AWESOME vacation lens for a serious amateur.</p>

<p>Today I think I'd buy the 16-85 and the 70-300, and two bodies if I could swing it, so I don't have to switch lenses.</p>

<p>Also, I wouldn't travel without my 55mm micro, but I didn't have it then.</p>

<p>That said, I tend to be one of those dorks that has to travel with every lens he owns. But if I had to shoot everything with the 18-200, I could get away with it for sure.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Yep, Calvin, I leave the kitchen sink at home though...<br>

DX made things a bit more complicated for me - to do what the F5 with 24-85 could do, I now have to carry two lenses. I haven't tried the 18-35 as a walk-around yet - afraid it might be too short on the long end. On the other hand, I used to shoot with a 24-50 on film - so I might be OK.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Calvin - I was using the D700 so for some dumb idea I figured a true 24mm would be wide enough.... ;-) I was wrong.....<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[photo5]

<p>Walked all over London last year on vacation carrying D300, 16-85 VR (used for 90% of the shots I took during 10 day trip), Sigma 10-20mm, Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D, and Nikon 10.5mm f2.8 DX. The 16-85 is the ideal zoom lens, that I missed terribly when I went from the D300 to the D700.</p>

[rich_decristo]

<p>Since I bought my 35mm 1.8 I haven't used much else. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Lil - what kind of landscape were you shooting with the Sigmonster? ;-)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I would like to have a pro grade 28-105 mm AF-S zoom but Nikon isn't making it ;-)<br>

Failing that, I tend to pick based on where I travel. If it's a city with interesting buildings, then a PC lens comes along. I tend to need something wide, but DX has taught me not to use wide so... now it would be the 20/3.5 which I actually did use on my last trip to Sweden (although that doesn't feel like a "real trip").<br>

I tend to need something fast, the current favorite is the 35/1.4. I tend to need something long too, which has frequently been the 75-150/3.5, which, despite its rock bottom price amd low-end appearance, can really deliver when used right. If however I need to go further in quality especially at larger apertures, I'm leaning towards the 85/1.8. Of course Nikon might want bother in making a 70-200/4 for this need, but haven't seen it...<br>

I have a rule of a maximum of 3 or 4 lenses on a trip (and not large lenses). Also, I leave the macro stuff at home, since I don't really have chances for macros anyway on trips.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>50mm f/1.4. check this out - <a href="http://kostyanakazny.com/India_Thar_musicians/Thar_musicians.htm">http://kostyanakazny.com/India_Thar_musicians/Thar_musicians.htm</a> all this photos here were taken with that lens.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Unlike Dieter you did bring the kitchen sink, Georg. Honestly, a light stand, tripod and umbrella on vacation?</p>

[bsd230]

<p>The 18-200 is tough to beat for a one lens vacation solution. The 16-85 would probably be a little sharper but you loose the range.</p>

[tobycline]

<p>Some of these responses are jokes, I hope. It's vacation folks. For me, it's the D40 and the 18-200. I don't have an ego or a fetish to protect by carrying anything more. I have a lot of nice glass, but photos at Disney or on the Caribbean cruise don't need corner sharpness or 400mm length. Have fun on vacation and remember that if you carry everything, you won't get much of anything and have a sore back too!</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p><strong>Dieter</strong> - I was supposed to go to B.C. & go shooting Bald Eagles etc in Canada. But due to bad weather I just told my husband it's no use to drive to British Columbia only to get rain & more rain..... How about we drive back home the long coastal route so I can finally see the coastline from Washington state back down to California. He said OK lets do that. So that's what we did - we drove from Port Angeles, WA, back to LA instead. I saw about 20 BEs (Bald Eagles) but they were all either too far away or just in such a location that there was no way for me to get closer to them. I was rather upset but accepted my lot in life on the issue. :-( Next time I'm make him drive to the locations his family offered as BE locations. He was just a pill about driving to them.<br /> So I was hoping to do some birding..... Didn't get to.<br>

<strong>Toby</strong> - if I go on vacation I want to do some nice photograph while I'm at it. I'm not joking. When I travel from now on there will be good lenses along. When family comes for a visit I refuse doing anything but the type of photography I feel like doing.</p>

<p>Lil :)</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>The most versatile one lens DX travel option is the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR DX Nikkor. I will take these Nikkors with me: AFS 24-70 f/2.8 (for walk around), AFD 80-200 f/2.8 (for tele work), AF 85 f/1.8 (for low light situations) and micro AFD 60 f/2.8 (for close-ups) on D700 body.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>18-200 VR and Sigma 30 1.4 covers most of my bases for travel. If it's landscapes primarily, the Tokina 11-16 would replace the Sigma 30.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I see, Lil.</p>

<p>I guess 24mm on your camera is 16mm on mine. Which is, yeah, not ideally wide.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p><strong>Calvin</strong>, our cabin just called for some tasty and well-lit family portraits - too bad I've didn't managed to shoot at least a self-portrait...<br>

georg</p><div></div>

[osmankarabacak]

<p>24-105 L F.4 my number 1 :)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Some of these responses are jokes, I hope. [...]but photos at Disney or on the Caribbean cruise don't need corner sharpness or 400mm length</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are right Toby, they don't. However, if you like to photograph wildlife and happen to vacation in places like Yellowstone, 400mm focal length is actually quite handy. Or if you happen to like shooting landscape and get to good places during your vacation, corner sharpness well might be an issue too. Ditto with cityscape or inside of palaces or cathedrals.<br /> Thanks Lil. Tried to drive down the coast a few times myself - always had fog along the Oregon coast.<br /> I am with you re: your response to Toby. Why spend extra money on a lens with compromises if one already has the good ones at home? I don't travel often enough to justify the cost of a 16-85 or 18-200, and they wouldn't get used while at home. I don't often need the f/2.8 - that's why I don't own the 17-55 - especially regarding its hefty price tag. Provided I can stop down to at least f/5.6, the 18-35 will get the job done too.</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>Vacation vacation I'll bring my D300, 12-24 and 50mm f/1.8, my Agfa Isolette and I'll pack my Mamiya RB67, but that will probably only see a few frames of use. I bet the wide angle will stay on for the majority of the trip.</p>

<p>I'm camping at Berg Bay near Wrangell, Alaska this weekend and I'll be bringing my D300, 12-24, 50, 80-200, Agfa Isolette, Mamiya RB67 + 90mm, tripod and stack of film in addition to all of my hiking, camping and mountaineering gear. I'll be making camp at a cabin at the start of my hike, so most of the gear that I bring will live there while I'm actually in the bush. It's grizzly country and the salmon are running so I'll have the tripod over one shoulder and my 12-gauge over the other!</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Dave, have you tried the 24-70mm as a high end replacement for the 16-85mm? I think the former is what many call "the ideal zoom lens".</p>