Short-term Travel but Long-term Goals

[philip_tam]

<p>Lee,</p>

<p>I agree that you should have an ultra-wide angle lens with you, and should have something with macro capabilities, like the 60mm or a standard zoom that dabbles in macro. (Just to note however, there are 10-20mm and 10-24mm lenses available for cropped frame sensors, which are actually wider in coverage than 16-35mm. They are less bulky too. Anyways, that's my final plug for APS-C.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That's not too much gear to carry around... Or is it? The total weight with the D700 would be 7 lbs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're going to get lots of exercise, haha.</p>

<p>Japan: You arrive at Narita airport. Lift your backpack out of the overhead compartment. You haul it 1 km to customs/immigration. You stand 40 min in line (no carts) with the bag on. You get past there, board the train to Tokyo. You'll likely have to switch trains once, when means, drag the backpack + rolling luggage through the crowded train terminals, up the steps, down the steps (because you couldn't find the elevator), tripod knocking on little kid's heads, back on the train again. Then scamper up the hotel. Repeat for every country, haha. Add to this: weather.</p>

<p>But, to each his own. I tend to travel on tighter schedules than what you're looking forward to (my craziest was 4 countries in 4 days, no shared borders). I learned a lot from my cousin (who travels for months on end out of 1 shoulder bag), and it's insane watching her breeze through everything while all her companions (myself included) struggle.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>"You mention I'll get tired of carrying the big zooms - but then you suggest the 70-200?"<br>

You said you wanted to get some wildlife - I presume that meant wildlife that is still alive? :-) <br>

Only you know what is important to you - if you are serious about wildlife then a 70-200mm is the very least you will need and there is no way out of it. However wider zooms like the 16-35, 17-35mm and 24-70mm could be boiled down to a couple of top notch primes and require a bit more effort on your part to get the shot. For travel/landscapes and many other things manual focus is fine. Also you have to ask yourself how much wide angle action do you do? Action requiring telephoto lenses is common and hence my hybrid suggestion of MF and AF lenses. You are missing one of the greatest lenses in the entire FX lens universe if you skip the 35mm ZF - there is no SLR lens by any manufacturer that can touch it. And the 21mm. And the 100mm.</p>

[DickArnold]

I am not familiar with Nikon. However, I have done a lot of traveling with bag full of gear. . I also did professional work for several years. I have traveled solely with a Bronica ETRSi and a couple of lenses at times. Some pictures of Russia in my PN gallery taken with the Bronica. With what I have now, which is Canon, I would travel with my full frame body(I might stick a llight weight lens compatible body in my luggage as a backup and to use when I wanted a 1.6 crop), my 24-105 f4L, my thirteen year old 70-200 2.8L, and a single fixed focus lens at around 18mm although I don't like the barrel distortion of that focal length on full frame body and find I could travel without it. 24mm is enough for me. I would take a flash because in my professional work I used it a lot and have confidence in my ability to use it effectively. I also like the full frame for its excellent high ISO capability for dark sooks and marketplaces. I would take a couple of extenders (I have done a lot of salable wildlife with the 70-200 and a 1.4x or the hated Canon 2x. That would be it except for flash cards and a means to store, edit and categorize pictures. I know fixed focus lenses are better but having done a a lot of wildlife and sports there are times when I can get very close and I do not want to be changing lenses and miss the shot. I am not not the most fussy person about IQ if the blowup looks good I am happy. My customers look at pictures not pixels.

[james_symington1]

<p>Lee,<br>

Thanks for your kind words about the gallery. The front page was taken with the 25mm Distagon. Although super wide angle lenses are occasionally indispensible (narrow valleys for instance) I end up not using them much and that is in spite of finding excuses to pull out the 21mm ZF. 24mm is about as wide as I usually need.<br>

Good luck on the trip - sounds wonderful. Try and go to Easter Island in between Chile and NZ!</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p><strong>Philip</strong>,</p>

<p>You are correct - really I should figure out what I need and then leave half of it behind to be truly comfortable... I'm sticking to one backpack while moving around, so it's all gotta fit in there plus my clothes, etc. I think I can manage that with a D700 and a few lenses. We are also planning on spending 2-3 weeks per country, and limiting ourselves to one or two regions of each country. So hopefully a few nights at least in each location. Still, good points and I'll think a bit about the APS-C argument....</p>

<p><strong>James</strong>,</p>

<p>I was surprised you recommended the 70-200 over the 70-300 given the weight of the 70-300. There's a slight trade off in quality / speed but it sounds like it might be worth it given the weight (and cost).</p>

<p>You've got me seriously considering the Zeiss wide angles. I noticed there is also an 18 mm. Couple questions:<br>

1. For action, I can probably go to f/8 and focus to infinity, and the majority of the scene would be in focus, no? By action, I mean shots while driving, biking, people running past, etc. </p>

<p>2. Do you think 21 mm is enough given my trade off on weight / space, or will I regret not getting to the 16-18 mm range for landscapes? I think I would be ok with 21 mm for around-town / action. </p>

<p>3. The ZF is for Nikon, the ZE is for Canon? Aperture is controlled on the lens; can it be controlled in camera? I typically use A or M, but can you do Shutter Speed priority? Does it show all information in the view finder? Any other limitations on the D700 body in terms of control?</p>

<p>4. It looks like I can use the Zeiss lenses on the MFT system, if I ever chose to purchase a MFT body?</p>

<p><strong>All</strong>,</p>

<p>Given everyone's suggestion on primes, I could go with the following:</p>

<p>21 f/2.8 ZF, 35 f/2 ZF, 50 f/1.4 (or ditch this), 60 f/2.8 Macro, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6</p>

<p>Cost: $6,500 (w/o rebates), $6,100 (w/o 50 f/1.4)<br>

Weight: 8 lbs (7.5 lbs w/o 50 f/1.4)</p>

<p>FWIW - I original started thinking primes but then chickened out with the concept of switching lenses constantly. Keep in mind I've only ever used a single 28-105 mm (effective 45-168). I suppose I've used the WA converter with the LX3, which is sort of like switching lenses. I don't mind taking it on and off *too* much, so I'm willing to go primes if it offers advantages in terms of weight, quality, and cost. But now I'm looking at Primes PLUS Manual... I first started using the 10D manual only, never used the auto focus. Until one day I realized that this AF thing wasn't too bad! Now I look back at my manual focus shots and realize I sucked at MF. Maybe it was my lens, my inexperience, or both. So that's why I've left in the 60 mm and possible the 50 mm, for shots were I need to quickly focus. And of course I would have the 70-300 with AF.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input, keep it coming if you have more suggestions or thoughts.</p>

<p>Lee</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Consider the newer ZF.2 lenses that have a chip embedded, makes handling easier. Consider the 50/2 ZF.2 Macro instead of the Nikon 50/1.4 and the 60/2.8 or go for the 100/2 ZF.2 directly. Though you might want to have your main walk-around lens as an AF?</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>Good point, that answers my question #3 for James.</p>

<p>Hmm the 21, 35 Zeiss combo is heavier and more expensive than the 16-35, and I loose AF. Will have to think about this....</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmm the 21, 35 Zeiss combo is heavier and more expensive than the 16-35, and I loose AF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The price you pay for quality...<br /> Not sure if on a trip like yours and being unfamiliar with primes and MF I would go this route.<br /> Maybe consider separating the lens requirements for this trip from the ones you want to use after? So take the 16-35 along - sell it upon return and get the one or two Zeiss primes that suit you most.<br /> I am almost certain that you will sell the 70-300 as well in favor of the 70-200.<br /> I still think that 300mm is going to be too short for a lot of the wildlife you want to photograph - and suggest to take a D90 or similar along for when you need the additional reach. May also come handy as the body to mount the macro lens on.<br>

You could even go so far and include the DX in your lens considerations. Get the 24/1.4 which makes a nice wide angle on the D700 and provides the very useful 35mm FOV on the DX body, as well as coming in handy for night shots or of scenes that are dimly lit.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>For primes I'd just get the 17-35/2.8 and the 85/1.8.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Reality check: When you travel, you don't know exactly where you will stand and exactly what focal length you will need. Because of this, imho, zooms are a must. It has nothing to do with the nature of primes, it has everything to do with the unpredictability of shooting in places you don't live in.</p>

<p>Travel = zooms. Bring primes AS WELL if you can, but not instead of zooms.</p>

<p>And remember, at this level, comparing sharpness of Zeiss vs. a higher end Nikon lens? How big are you going to print. A properly exposed photo on any great lens with any good camera will yield a good image at a reasonable print size.</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>In regards to familiarity, I will have at least 6 months or more to get familiar with them, so I'm not too concerned about that. In between I'll be going to Scotland and Ireland so that will give me some good practice and a chance to test the weight / portability of the kit.</p>

<p>I didn't realize the D90 was so cheap, relatively. Adorama has it now for $850 after $50 rebate. All of these lenses I'm considering would work with the D90, and it is a pound less and smaller than the D700... I would loose a stop or two of ISO, some speed, durability, and the full format. I would have to get a 10 or 12 mm to get to the 18-21 range though. I would loose some quality with a DX WA lens on the D90 compared to the 21, 25 Zeiss or 16-25 Nikon on the D700 I would suspect...?</p>

[Two23]

<p>I would go with a D90 if for travel. It's plenty good enough. Lenses would be Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and the older (and more compact) Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFD or better the AFS version. That would give you a clean f2.8 from 11mm to 200mm with ISO up to 1600. Definitely would want flash, probably two SB-600. All of this is fairly compact and optically excellent. My guess is it would give results at least two "notches" above 10D. I just can't get excited about f5.6 zooms for use in low light. Sorry. As for durability of D90, I have used the D80 in the very worst conditions the Dakotas could throw at it, and it has held up just fine. I think this plus the Gitzo traveler tripod would make a very compact and capable travel outfit, especially for the cost.<br>

I'll add that I'm going to Iceland in July for a couple of weeks. I needed to pare down what I bring, so: D300, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 80-400mm VR (for puffins, volcano,) Canon 500D macro, two flash with Skyport triggers, Benro Travel tripod A-269, D80 backup camera with Nikon 18-55mm VR backup lens. I'm covered for just about everything and can get publishable quality. Lenses and camera will to into thin neoprene pouches to save bulk. Pouches to clip onto either a built or the harness of my regular (not camera) backpack.<br>

<br />Kent in SD</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Take the 80/20 approach. Consider what FL's you would need for the majority of your images - Make sure you have the absolute best for that FL range. Then, if you have to compromise, do so for the "secondary FL's.</p>

<p>That said, I think a D700 (with grip) and a 24-70mm/2.8 is the ideal combo. The 24mm on a 24-70mm is NOT mediocre. If you think you need wider, get a small 20mm AI/AIS lens. If you think you need longer , get a 105/2.5 AI/AIS. Both are very good lenses, but relatively small, which would you allow you to enjoy your trip.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p><br />I'd like something wider than 24 mm, hence the 16-35.<br>

Travel = zooms. Bring primes AS WELL if you can, but not instead of zooms.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>ok, so 16-35 it is. not a bad choice--i shot extensively with a tokina 12-24 in havana a few months back, and UWAs are nice to have abroad. i recommended the 24/1.4 because it does appear to be THAT good, and its within your budget. but if you really want wide, 16-35 would be better.</p>

<p>but if you're taking that and the 70-300 VR, you dont also need the 24-70. in fact all you would need in addition to that is a 50mm lens w/ a d700. 16-to-300 in a three-lens kit with a low light option would be pretty awesome IMO. of course if you dont want to switch lenses at all, a d5000+18-200 would be just fine.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

[philip_tam]

<p>Not that I've used any CZ lenses, but I think the difference between any CZ lenses and other makers (Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, et al) is probably marginal. You'd have to zoom in/blow up the pictures to notice any differences, and most of the marginal advantage of CZ lenses is overshadowed by a few nudges on Photoshop sliders. The CZ lenses might even be overkill in many circumstances: it's pointless to draw a highly resolved slice of an image on a single sensor pixel.<br>

 <br>

Counter that with loss of AF: it's a huge drawback.<br>

 </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I would loose some quality with a DX WA lens on the D90 compared to the 21, 25 Zeiss or 16-25 Nikon on the D700 I would suspect...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The difference is probably marginal. CZ lenses I think, are pretty far past the point of diminishing returns: the Tokina ultra-wides (for DX) are highly rated in terms of sharpness.<br>

 <br>

Remember though, it might be nice to have *one* prime, a 35mm if you go the DX route, or a 50mm. They're very light.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Lee, since you are new to Nikon, check out what Bjorn Rorslett says about a particular Nikon lens. He has first had exprience with just about all of them and he is an independent source. I still think you are better served forgoing the 70-300mm and substituting the 70-200mm f 2.8 VRII len. Yes, it is heavier, but it is a much better lens and works very well with a Nikon tc. I just got back from a safari and I used the earlier version on a D 300 and got great shots. The first version is OK on a cropped sensor, but not for your D 700. The VRII is the model you need for the FX bodies.<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p><strong>All</strong>,</p>

<p>Thanks again for all of the responses. Feel free to keep poking holes in my and others' arguments.</p>

<p>I've been looking over a ton of shots with the CZ 21 mm and admit the detail is better than the 16-35 mm. For now I wouldn't print above 20 x 30, but if I ever did, it would be with my wide angle landscape shots. Of course, the 16-35 gives you AF and VRII and a range. The VRII would be useful in low light, but I can give up hand held, low-light, wide angle in exchange for the 50 1.4 in low light. In regards to the AF, I am willing to give up fast focusing in the wide angle. Reading up on the 21 mm, it sounds like focusing isn't that tough, especially if you're in the f/8 and beyond range and are setting it to infinity. I also hear vague references that the body will give you a focus indication light......? The other draw back is that the 21 mm ZF.2 is actually $500 more than the 16-35, lol. But for landscape and WA work, long term it might be the better pick. It's also a bit lighter and smaller, though not by much. <strong>Eric </strong>- I think I'm willing to give up the zoom to get the best detail possible in a lighter, smaller package. <strong>Peter </strong>- Maybe I'm dillusional to think the CZ 21 is worth giving up the 16-35 range and paying more to do so?</p>

<p>As far as the 70-200 vs 70-300 goes. I just can't justify the cost and weight difference. If I used the 70-200 w/ D700, I would have to get the TC-1.7 or 2.0 to have it compare. That's $2,100 MORE and A LOT heavier than the 70-300. <strong>Dieter </strong>- Do you really think that extra 100 mm is going to help me out that much with wildlife? What about a bit of cropping on the D700, say 10-20%? I hate cropping but it's an option..... At some point I would want the 70-200, but maybe a used one after I return. Might as well keep the 70-300 at that point for light travel, it's so "cheap" =)</p>

<p>So let's say I go with the following:</p>

<p>D700; CZ 21 f/2.8 (for landscapes, wide angle, and macro @ 4 inches); 50 f/1.4 (for fast AF, evening, bokeh, light weight walk-around); 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 (wildlife, fast AF for street, portraits, landscape)</p>

<p>Cost: $5,400<br>

Weight: 5.9 lbs</p>

<p>Lightest and cheapest option yet! Now - should I fill it in with another macro (60 mm) or the CZ 35 mm f/2. Or leave it at that and be happy I'm not lugging more lens around? I am leaning towards not getting anything else or getting the 60 mm since it would give me an easier macro to work with, it's lighter, and $540 vs $1,000. </p>

 

[aladennis]

<p>You are going to do what you want, but let me make a pitch for going light. On a recent one month trip to Vietnam I carried a Canon G9 / small TTL flash (to light up faces under those conical hats) and off camera sync cord. This stuff fit in the pockets of my travel vest. My backup camera was a waterproof Pentax Optio. I got fairly decent photos. See:<br>

http://aladennis.blogspot.com/<br>

My travel partner took his Canon DSLR w/ 70 -300 zoom . He also got some good shots, but quite a few times his camera was in his rucksack when the shot appeared. He also carried more camera weight than I did. <br>

In the tropics the sun comes up at 0700 and sets at 7 pm (approx} There is a lot of street action in the hrs of low light. I purchased a D300 for its lo light ability, but am really having second thoughts about lugging it around on the next trip. With my liteweight rig I will miss some shots I know I could get w/ the DSLR, but on the other hand With the DSLR I will miss some shots I'd get If I had a camera that was more handy. We have to pick our poison.<br>

Another thought. Are you shooting for the National Geographic? 36 inch prints? I think we sit here in our chairs and read about IQ, Lens data, and other sorts of academically interesting stuff, but does it all really translate into better photos? The shooters eye can make great photos w/ minimalist gear. Look at some of the old classics. 99% of my shots are shared on the web, Streamed to my HDTV w/ Apple TV, and 4x6's go in the album. A handful of the G9 shots were blown up to 16x20 size and look great. <br>

The G9 and the little (size of a cigarette pack) Pentax waterproof gave me 90 % satisfaction. I missed the lower noise at hi ISO of the SLR, but Small and quick to use has a lot of advantages, especially on such a long trip as yours. Sometimes less is more.<br>

I envy you your journey. You'll have a blast. Enjoy!</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Baseed on my experience with Nikon MF lenses, the dot is not a good indicator of ACCURATE focus. Your eyes have to do it. If your eyes/light cannot do it, use an AF lens. If you take the 70-300mmm on the trip, you will sell it for the much better 70-200mm VR II when you get home.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lee, I've also traveled using a backpack, and am in agreement with those who have advised paring down to the <em>absolute</em> minimum. A D90 is a realistic option to consider, even if you have to sell everything when you get back. </p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been looking over a ton of shots with the CZ 21 mm and admit the detail is better than the 16-35 mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure about that? I wouldn't trust shot to shot comparisons because there's so many different factors that affect sharpness other than the lens.</p>

<p>If you look at the photozone comparisons (it's the only website I can find that has done comparisons of both lenses), its review of the Nikon 16-35mm isn't glowing, but it some respects it actually beats the CZ 21mm in sharpness tests.<br />Go here:<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/470-zeiss_zf_21_28_5d?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/470-zeiss_zf_21_28_5d?start=1</a><br />and<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1</a><br />According to that website at least, the distortion is worse on the Nikon, as well as Chromatic Aberrations (which can be easily fixed with software). But sharpness is actually better on the Nikon.<br /><br />As you can see, we're really just splitting hairs here, but with the CZ you lose range and autofocus.</p>

<p> </p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Lee, from what I've seen of your linked flickr photos, you would be just fine with a 28 or 35mm 1.4 lens, and a 75 or 85mm lens. Much smaller and lighter than one or two big clumsy zooms, and should produce better results. Just curious, if you are into travel photography, why the attraction of an dslr. a smaller more, discrete type of camera that accomodates smaller lenses, and isn't dependant on battery's may be a better option. Your budget puts you well and truly into Leica/Voigtlander/Zeiss territory (with the two lenses I suggested), which I consider to be far better suited to your purposes.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>D700 with 24/1.4, 50/1.4, D90 with 70-300, 60/2.8 or 105/2.8 macro optional; I'd go with a close-up lens for the 70-300 instead. Alternative: replace 24/1.4 with 16-35/4. Add an SB-600 flash that you can use either in the hot-shoe or as a slave with the D700/D90 on-board flash. And your tripod.</p>

<p>Or get the Canon 5D MkII, the 17/4 TS-E, the 35/1.4, the 24-105/4 and the 70-200/4 (IS or non-IS) with a 1.4x.</p>

[huntrbll]

<p>One thing I have not sees mentioned so far is a back-up camera. Extra weight, extra cost, but you don't want to be somewhere remote and three months into the trip and have a camera go bad. I like the idea of the D700 - wrestling over that will be my camera when I retire in a few months. But you need a back-up. I would think about a used D200 for a back-up. It won't break the bank, and will use CF cards like the D700. An advantage would be if shooting wildlife you could use the D200 with the 70-300 zoom and the field of view, crop factor or whatever you want to call it would give you a little more reach. If you are shooting wildlife, you often need all the reach you can get. For a trip that involves hiking, and this one sounds like that, I would carry a D700, a D200, a 24-70 and 70-300 zooms, a wide-angle prime if 24mm is not wide enough, and the 50 f1.8 and an SB400 flash. That flash is very light and simple, but has enough power for fill at a reasonable distance. Unless you are going to be shooting really slow, I would ditch the tripod and buy a carbon fiber monopod.</p>

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

One more vote. I would take the d700, 24-85 af-d, 70-300, 50mm. If you like wide 16-35 is a good one to add. I have both

70-300 and the new 70-200 and would not think about taking the 70-200 on such a trek - it is very heavy. Same for the

24-70 - it is an awesome lens that I love, but 24-84 is just a better option for travel. Now 16-35 is a bit smaller, but luckily,

that wide is not my thing. Be careful to consider dust and frequent lens changes. I got in trouble with that in the past with a wide and tele zoom option (and only one cam). That is why now I go with midrange zoom.

 

All that said, I would also seriously consider a dx system for this trip. Remember all this stuff is pretty .

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Dmitry