Lens Equipment for travelling ...

[inetgrafx]

<p>Hi there!<br />I'm heading to the UK for some vacation end of may and I'm planning to shoot a bunch of photographs with my newly aquired D300s. I'll be taking my old D80 with me too, since it's also using my DX lenses.</p>

<p>I'm hoping not to carry tooooo many lenses with me.<br />If the image quality would change dramatically, I'd consider otherwise of course.</p>

<p>I'm currently in the process of looking for lenses to "upgrade" my equipment:</p>

<p>Nikon DX <strong>18-70mm</strong> ... my standard lens on the D80<br />Nikon<strong> 70-300mm </strong>VR ... tele, for far away stuff<br />Nikon <strong>35mm </strong>F1.8 Prime ... for lower light conditions, currently on my D300s.</p>

<p>I'm missing an other zoom lens for my D300s. I was wondering if you have any suggestions in a reasonable price range (up to 750-900$). I'm considering at the moment the 18-200mm VRII and the 16-85mm VRII.<br /><br />How's the 70-300mm compared to the 18-200mm (in the range where they overlap)?<br /><br />Any other suggestions, that could compliment my current equipment?</p>

<p>Your help is very much appreciated!<br />Best Regards,<br />Daniel Kvasznicza<br />

[dave wyman]

<p>"Nikon<strong > 70-300mm </strong>VR ... tele, for far away stuff"<br>

Don't assume its primary use is for photographing "far away stuff." It can work just as well for stuff that's up close and personal.</p>

<p>"I'm considering at the moment the 18-200mm VRII"<br>

This is the only lens you really need, but what fun would that be? </p>

<p>"Nikon <strong >35mm </strong>F1.8 Prime ... for lower light conditions, currently on my D300s"<br>

For me, the attraction of this lens is its ability to blur out the background as much as for photographing in low light. Not to mention that most of the time, no matter what the light, 35mm is the wrong focal length.</p>

<p><br /></p>

[jim_mohundro1]

<p>If you're going to be mostly in cities, e.g., London, York, Bath, Edinburgh, you may not need the reach of the 70-300, and, if you're walking around, rather than driving to visit sites, you may want to economize on weight. I've did quite well and comfortably with just the 16-85 (a gem for a DX body) and the 35 f/2.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>18-200 VRII is a good all around lens but it's performance is not equal with 70-300 VR and 16-85 VR. </p>

<p>One interesting option is Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. This would be my first option, because it's fast, with great IQ, at a very convenient price.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO you should be more concerned about your focal length selection, will you need something wider if you are in the city or if you are in the country in the magic hours get a good travel tripod. I was pretty happy with the quality, range, weight and speed of the 18-70mm when I used it on a D70 and D200.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I don't see what you gain by adding the 18-200 to your lens selection - the 18-70 and 70-300 are better. You could replace the 18-70 with the 16-85 but there are pluses and minuses to consider. VR and larger focal range are pluses but you also loose speed. And I would consider the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 HSM OS instead of the 16-85 anyway. Or if you want constant f/2.8 - consider the Tamron 17-50. Then add a wide angle zoom - the Tokina 11-16/2.8 comes highly recommended.</p>

[mightypir]

<p>I have the exact same outfit and see no need to upgrade at this point in time. Yes, the 16-85 is slightly wider and longer but it is not significant for me. Not to mention its slower at the top end. The 18-200 is not a viable contender, IMHO due to its speed, focus breathing and limitations due to extended range. The 18-70 is tough, relatively cheap and lighter that both these options.<br>

The 70-300VR is a gem, and perfect for vacations, especially if you go to a zoo or as you put it far away stuff!!! However, don't discount it for portraiture and close ups, it focuses pretty close, closer than my 70-200 does. <br>

You don't get really wide with this outfit, but that has not a major issue for me.<br>

What do you feel is lacking in your system that you feel the urge to upgrade?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'd keep what you have and add a wider zoom, of the 10-xx variety.</p>

<p>That said, the 18-200 is a FANTASTIC travel lens, and shouldn't be discounted. Will it give you better images than the 18-70? Absolutely not. If you are careful, probably the same. What it does give you is the ability to go from all the way wide to all the way tele and back in a fraction of a second. For travel, sometimes that can get you a photo you will never get any other way.</p>

<p>Me? I think you have a great kit. I'd add the ultra-wide and be done with it.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>What about a flash? Could come in useful. My travel kit usually consists of the 16-85/70-300vr/24mm2.8D but I find most of the time the 16-85 does the grunt work, 70-300 rarely leaves the bag. Sometimes i just go prime only.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>I'd look at the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 or the 16-35mm f/4 if you plan on photographing architecture. If not, I'd stick with what you have. <br>

I'm not one to stop someone from purchasing more equipment, but it looks like you have the majority of the focal lengths you need covered.<br>

Aside from spare batteries/charger and a polarizer for each lens, maybe a nice flash. The SB-400 is good for walk-around work. You could move up to the SB-600 if you want some more functions available.</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip<br>

RS</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>you have 18-300 and low light covered. not sure why you need another zoom which duplicates this range. actually, looks like you're set as far as a travel kit. only thing i would maybe add is an ultrawide, nikon 10-24, sigma 10-20, or tokina 11-16. and maybe a lightweight tripod and cable release, and an sb-400 for daytime fill flash.</p>

[michael_tam1]

<p>My travel kit is Tokina 12-24, Nikon 24-85, Nikon 70-300 VR & 50 1.8 on a Manfrotto tripod & monopod, dependent on the hike. On a backpack, it is functional enough for long tour which includes food and water. This gives me FX equivalent of 18 - 450 mm coverage, hopefully for any eventuality.</p>

[tr_gleason]

<p>So much depends on what you are shooting. I've taken D80 and D70 with a 18-200 and Tokina 12-24, and another time the D80 w/18-200 and a Canon G10. I found the latter pairing more helpful for street photography and times when I want to be more subtle in England. I hate carrying a lot of gear.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I have both the 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR. The 18-200 VR is very sharp from 18-100 and OK from 135-200. The 70-300 VR is sharper from 100-200. If I want to travel light or if I don't expect to shoot much over 100mm I carry just the 18-200 VR. Otherwise I take 70-300 VR also.</p>

<p>I live in NYC and my usual outfit for shooting around the city is my D90 with a Nikon 10.5mm FF FE, Sigma 10-20, and Nikon 18-200 VR. For shooting in the city, wide is usually more useful than long. I'd get an ultrawide zoom like the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. That and your 18-70 should cover most of your shooting.</p>

[janos_kovacs]

<p>I think you have most of you need for a vacation. If you plan to shoot some interiors you might need to go sometimes wider than 18mm . Most probaly an UWA (10-xx/12-24) would fit nicely in your lens setup.<br />During vacations I have the D300, 12-24, 50mm and the 18-200, for family photos they would provide me with enough quality.<br />The 18-200 is worth every cent I have paid for it. It is the best walkaround lens for this focal lenght. But then you need to trade some quality for your confort to be flexible to address a wide focal lenght without changing lenses.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>How about the 10,5mm fisheye as a fun lens for occasional travel use?<br>

When I still used to shoot slide film I carried the 16mm equivalent as a backup for shots planned to be a little weird or extreme wideangle shots where the distorsion was unobtrusive.</p>