Short-term Travel but Long-term Goals

[lee_vgg]

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>Well if you're now saying this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That means that a 70-300mm even when mounted to a DX body with the 1.5x factor rarely gives you enough effective focal length. Unless you are prepared to carry a large and heavy lens around with you, your 70-300mm will be more of a feature and portrait lens than a wildlife lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why even go with the DX??? </p>

<p>Earlier you said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which means you got great shots with a 200 mm DX, or 300 mm! Even if you were using a TC, that would place it equivalent to the 70-300 on a DX. </p>

<p>Looking back at your posts you are clearly in favor of the 70-200. I will look again at the 70-200 in terms of the D700/D90 kit but I think it's just too heavy and expensive to justify for this trip. I will obviously want it at some point in the future though... </p>

<p>I need to check out the D90 vs D300s in the store to see if the difference in controls matters for me. The difference in cards is not a huge deal since I already have SD cards, and I'm not of huge fan of the grips. The additional few fps aren't a huge deal for me.</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>On a side note.... I noticed I had 50 hits on the LX3 desert campfire photo just today from this site. I guess a fair number of people are actually following this thread!</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Lee, on my safari trip, I had two D 300s with me. In my earlier post I had not made that clear. One had a 500mm on it all the time, and the 1.4x was on it a lot. The other had my 70-200mm on it or my 16-85 mm. I did not take any other lenses with me. All fit into my Kiboko bag. The 70-200mm was used for shots of elephant herds and similar such shots not that far away from the Land Rover. For solitary/smaller mammals and vbirds, I used the 500mm. The 16-85mm was for landscapes.<br>

IMO the optical quality of a 70-200mm even with a 1.4x on it will be better than the 70-300mm w/o a tc regardless whjether it is on a FX or DX body. My comments about these two lenses had nothing to do with their abilities to serve as a wildlife lens. That is why I suggested that for wildlife, the minimum lens you needed was a 300mm f 4.0 AFS. Even on a safari, where some animals can get pretty close, the usual minimum Nikon safari tele is the Nikon f 4.0 200-400mm AFS. For Canon it is their 100-400mm. Longer is usually always better. In Texas where I do most of my shooting, most use a 500mm or a Sigma zoom thru 500mm . If you do mostly birds a 600mm f 4.0 is what you really need to have. As others have stated, these lenses can be very heavy, expensive and not that easy to cart around on a travel trip. My first wildlife lens was a Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF used with 1.4x and 2x Nikon tcs in Yellowstone. One trip taught me I was 50% short on needed focal length even with the tcs mounted. Live and learn.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

 

[lee_vgg]

<p><strong>Joe,</strong></p>

<p>What about the 80-400 VR f/4.5-5.6. It is heavier than the 70-300 but lighter and $1,000 less than the 70-200 with the TC. And with the 400 mm (600 mm on DX), I could do without the TC.</p>

<p>What about non-Nikon options that would give me a lighter lens than the 70-200, and either w/ or w/o a TC get me in the range? I also thought about the 300 f/4 w/ TC, but the lens is longer and heavier than any of these options.</p>

<p>Lee</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I had mentioned the 80-400 earlier in this thread - and I own one too. Compared to the 70-300, it is about twice as heavy and three times as expensive. AF isn't the fastest on that lens since it isn't AF-S; VR also isn't as effective as the newer VR II. There has been much debate as to whether a 70-200/2.8 VR with TC-20EII is better than the 80-400; since I don't own a 70-200, I can't make a direct comparison. From what I have read and seen, I'd say that the performance of the older 70-200 with the older TC-20EII will not match the 80-400 (but I have seen sample variations for that lens as well). With the new 70-200 VRII and TC-20EIII the tables are turned in favor for the zoom/TC combination - but for $1000 more and another pound in weight.</p>

<p>The 300/4 AF-S is actually lighter than both 70-200/2.8 zooms; the difference becomes even larger when a TC-14EII is fitted to the prime and a TC-20EIII to either of the zooms. The 300/4 AF-S is only very slightly longer than either of the 70-200/2.8 zooms (and certainly shorter once the hoods are mounted on the zooms). The 80-400 is lighter than either of the 70-200 or the 300/4 AF-S;with the hood in place, it's length is about the same.<br /> The only other option that comes to mind is the Sigma 100-300/4 that could be combined with a 1.4x - though the weight is about the same as the 70-200/2.8 VR<br /> I doubt that the 300/4 will be a good solution for you, since it will leave you with nothing to fill the gap between 50 and 300.<br /> <br /> Lee, you keep adding pounds to your load. You state here:<br /> D700 & D90<br /> 16-35 f/4 VRII<br /> 50 f/1.4<br /> 70-300 f/4.5-5.6<br /> Weight: 7.5 lbs<br /> That's without batteries and charger, and not including the notebook and its charger. Your camera gear alone will already amount to some 15 pounds at the end. Looks to me the last thing you want to do is adding another 2 or 3 pounds by exchanging the 70-300 for the 80-400 (or whatever else is the current favorite). Not to mention that either of these options will take up substantially more space too.<br /> You simply can't have the optimum for all applications and eventualities - unless you are willing to travel with a pack mule.</p>

<p>PS: One advantage of a 16-35, Sigma (not Nikon) 50/1.4 and 80-400 would be that they all take 77mm filters.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I forgot to mention that the 70-300 is better optically at the lower end than the 80-400 - the gap is closing at 300mm with the 70-300 being sharper in the center but the 80-400 performing better in the corners. The 80-400 does fairly well at 400 in the center but not in the corners - unless stopped down one stop. Both perform not as well as the 70-200 in the range where they overlap.</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<blockquote>

<p>Lee, you keep adding pounds to your load.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. Not only that, but you're adding bulk, which is in many ways worse than weight. </p>

[knock_out]

<p>I am somewhat surprised no one mentioned the 14-24 f/2.8 Nikon for your super wide shots, but, given it's price over the 16-35 ($550) and weight (.75lb), I can understand if you weren't too happy about it.</p>

<p>I agree with a lot of comments here that you want something you're going to use, and not interrupt your responsiveness and accessibility. Any changing of lenses raises your public profile, increasing chances of theft/mugging. I do not agree with toting around many primes. You're traveling, not shooting a professional assignment, I don't see the benefit except one or two specialized ones, like the 50 f/1.4. </p>

<p>Please elaborate on your bags, it would help us understand and help you/learn from you. You mentioned a internal frame bag, this should concentrate the weight on your hips and relieve a lot of the strain. This could allow you carry it longer or carry more equipment; just a thought. I prefer ThinkTank bags; I traveled ultralight and carried my D90 with 18-105 kit lens in a Digital Holster 20 for three months in Germany, Austria and Slovakia.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3670956">Eric Arnold</a> mentioned using an internet cafe to backup photos. This will not work. You pay by the half or full hour and often limited to one hour max in order to accommodate other users. These computers usually have proprietary operating systems and won't allow connection of USB drive and launching of file browser. Not to mention, you'll only be able to upload about 500mb an hour max and tie up everyone's speed, pissing them off (that's only 35 RAW photos, kinda useless). You're real option is to either carry a portable hard drive and a netbook or just a laptop and burn DVDs and mail home. I chose the later, kept the photos on my laptop until I had confirmation the DVDs arrived home safely from a friend then deleted them and then repeated the cycle. </p>

<p>I agree with bringing two bodies unless someone can ship you one overnight if yours get damaged/stolen. I also suggest bringing a Canon G11 for going out at night, parties, dangerous parts of town, Sporting events, concerts, etc...wherever an SLR is prohibited or too much of a pain.</p>

<p>KO</p>

 

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Lee, I do not own the Nikon 80-400mm , but everything Dieter says makes sense to me. One other thing to factor into your decision matrix--air line carry on luggage rules. Do not assume that the weight and size rules that apply while leaving the US are the same for returning to the US. And within Europe and between other countries, they miht be vary different--more restrictive. See this link for an example of the craziness that exists for air flight these days: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/flying-jan-10.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/flying-jan-10.shtml</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Thanks again to everyone for their comments. I think I am settling on the following combo:</p>

<p>D700/D300s<br>

Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR<br>

Sigma 50 f/1.4<br>

Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6<br>

w/ Canon 250 & 500 D close up filters/lenses</p>

<p>Weight: 8 lbs Cost: $6,600 (w/ macro filters)</p>

<p>I swapped the Nikkor for the Sigma because I love the bokeh of it and am willing to have it a bit larger. It also matches with the 77 mm thread. Heck - I can buy a Nikkor 50 1.8 in the future if I ever need an extremely small 50 mm. I am a little worried about the Sigma focusing after reading a few threads, but the reviews at B&H and Amazon are all 4.5 stars. I can't image if it's still having issues that it would have a high ranking like that. Will I notice if it's not focusing well given my lack of experience with the Nikon bodies?? I don't know, guess I just need to take it into a shop and ask for their advice (I will probably order off B&H to avoid the 11.5% Chicago sales tax).</p>

<p>I decided the 70-300 is adequate. I am not a huge bird fan, and that's one of the main reasons for the 450-600 reach. Yes there will be other wildlife in that reach, but the light and small 70-300 will bring a lot to the table while walking around town. It's a trade off I'm willing to make, though will probably get frustrated a few times! =) </p>

<p>I thought about swapping out the 16-35 for the 24-70 and a Voigtlander 20 f/3.5. That would give me 24-300 walking in town. I decided I would rather have the 16-35 flexibility for landscapes and wide angle. If I want, I can put the 16-35 on the D300s and get 24-53, which while not 24-70 is still a nice range. To switch would also cost another $1,000 and 1.5 lbs, +/-. </p>

<p>I still have a while before purchase so I am going to think on it some more. Feel free to add any other thoughts. I still need to consider a flash, but I will leave that for another thread.</p>

<p>Thanks again, I will let everyone know what I get, and follow up with photos.</p>

<p>lee</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Oops... 8.5 lbs not 8.0. *sigh* I really like that Bokeh though....</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>A D700 and a D300s? Now you're carrying two bricks...plus the two pounds or so that the bag to carry this stuff will weigh. Really, get yourself a D90, a 16-85 and a 35/1.8, and don't worry about covering every possible situation that you may or may not encounter. You'll have a lot more fun.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>My 2 cents: Get (as has already been suggested) the 55mm Micro lens to doubl both as a macro AND to substitute the 50mm. It is a superb lens (I have it) and will serve you very, very well indeed...;-)</p>

<p>Get the 70-200 VRII - no question. You will not find a sharper lens for virtually anything! I've carried it through India and it was on my camera 70% of the time! Portrait, wildlife (especially when coupled with the new 2x - I have the old one which is not that good) and even macro are easily captured!</p>

<p>For a wide, I'd seriously consider the Nikon 12-24mm - an older lens for sure, but a good one, relatively light (well, lighter and more compact than the new 14-24 which I carry around everywhere but man...does it weigh...!).</p>

<p>And take, if you can squeeze it into your budget, the 24-70. Not for the 24, but it is quite possibly the most convenient walkaround lens I've worked with (and I have worked with quite a few: the Tamron, the Tokina, the Sigma...!)</p>

<p>Forget about the tripod - maybe pack a monopod, but personally, I'd get a good (initially empty) bean bag and fill it, when required, with whatever is locally available - rice, coffee beans, sand) to use as a camera/lens resting place - it'll save your bacon.</p>

<p>But above all, take with you some wet sensor cleaning solutions! you'll thank me!!!!</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip and your new camera....</p>

[lee_vgg]

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

<p>How would the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the D300s compare to the 16-35 f/4 on the D700, for landscapes with a tripod? Going to research that a bit.....</p>

<p><strong>Marios,</strong></p>

<p>Sounds like a very heavy option. I would have to ditch the backup camera if I wanted to even consider that kit. How did you get around India? Private driver or train? How long were you in India? How much did you travel, how many days in one place? All of that factors into whether a heavy setup becomes burdensome...</p>

<p>Have to disagree about the tripod... For landscape photography a bean bag won't cut it. But I will be taking a small bag I could fill with sand. </p>

<p><strong>Jim,</strong></p>

<p>But that hardly covers anything... Might as well just stick with the LX3 in that case. I know you also suggested a MFT. I may go check out those, but I really want the IQ and quickness of the DSLR, both for the trip and back at home. I also don't see the extra body solely as a "brick" given that it has several benefits in addition to shifting the range of all of the lenses I bring. But i get your point. This was my originally thinking when I took the LX3 to Guatemala and India. In both cases I enjoyed the portability but I would rather have carried a brick and gotten a better range of photos.</p>

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

<p>I will probably pick up a D300s, since I will likely get that body for the telephoto, cost, and weight regardless of whether I get the D700. I can then test out the ISO capabilities with the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and see whether I really need the extra ISO of the D700. Then I can judge whether to get the D700 (or maybe just D90) as a backup, and how to fill in the lenses. Alternatively, I use the LX3 as a backup and make sure I have someone who can buy a backup and ship it ASAP if I need it. I can take advantage of the current rebates (although - it seems these may not be truly represented on B&H/Adorama) and wait to see if the new D700s / D90s bodies are released.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Landscapes are not all about ultra-wide angle. There are other better, more interesting ways to use the wide ends of those lenses. But just shooting at 11mm on DX or 16mm on FX and "getting it all in" makes for some of the most boring photos you'll ever see. I know, I've taken some of them.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Lee, since you are interested in lenses with good bokeh, you need to know that one Nikon lens with the best is the Nikon 70-200mm f 2.8 AFS G VR and VRII. Another is the Nikon 85mm f 1.4. See this link about bokeh on the Nikon 60mm macro lenses, especially the latest version, the AFS G:<br>

<a href="http://www.dpnotes.com/nikon-60mm-af-s/">http://www.dpnotes.com/nikon-60mm-af-s/</a></p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>I agree. That's why in my previous posts I've said I am ok with leaving behind the 16-20 range. I literally got bored shooting 16 mm wide angle with the LX3. Got some cool shots but it gets old fast. That said, it's nice to have occasionally. Take a look at my nature/landscape gallery on Flickr, you will see that most of these have been with the 28-105 on 10D DX body. My favorite landscape shot of mine is a compressed view of the Sierras shot at 54 mm (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazzandlee/2571580953/in/set-72157621046480738/).</p>

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>We've talked about the 60 mm macro on this thread. I also know the 70-200 gives great Bokeh. How do you compute the effective focal length of a FX lens w/ TC on a DX body? For instance, the 70-200 plus TC2 plus DX would give 70x2x1.5=210 to 200x2x1.5=600? Previously you commented that the TC1.7 would be a better option than the TC2? Is that because of weight, auto focusing, and aperture?</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Lee, I prefer to use the 1.7x over the 2.0x for reasons of image quality. Most reviews and users of the 2.0x II have reported drop offs in image quality vs the 1.7x and the 1.4x. Regarding effective focal length, your math is correct, if I read it correctly. For a DX Nikon body: 300mm with a 1.4x tc results in 630mm effective focal length: 300 x 1.5 x 1.4 = 630. For a FX body it results in 420mm: 300 x 1.4 = 420mm. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Joe,<br>

<br />Is it <strong>mm x DX body x TC</strong> (as you wrote) or <strong>mm x TC x DX body</strong> (as I wrote). I would think it's the later since the TC is between the lens and body. Makes a difference depending on the TC.</p>

<p>I thought I read in one post somewhere that the 70-200 w/ TC on a DX would max out at 400 mm, but that doesn't make sense to me. I can't find this calculation anywhere online, lol.</p>

<p>Latest reviews of the 2.0x III are a little more favorable... But the 1.4 and 1.7 get consistent praise for sure.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it <strong>mm x DX body x TC</strong> (as you wrote) or <strong>mm x TC x DX body</strong> (as I wrote). I would think it's the later since the TC is between the lens and body. Makes a difference depending on the TC.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes absolutely no difference, 300x1.5x2 is exactly the same as 300x2x1.5. And while we are at it, a 70-200 with 2x will have 140-400mm focal length no matter what type of body you attach the lens to. The FOV will be smaller by the crop factor if you attach the combo on a DX camera - which is sometimes expressed by the effective focal length now being 210-600mm. However, focal length hasn't changed, the smaller sensor simply crops the image resulting in the narrower FOV.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How would the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on the D300s compare to the 16-35 f/4 on the D700, for landscapes with a tripod?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All depends on how large you want to print - plus the fact that there are likely optical differences between the two lenses. 12MP on DX should give you a bit better resolution than 12MP on FX but diffraction sets in at larger apertures for the smaller format. If you are so concerned about the differences than you would need to include the Canon 5D MKII in your considerations.</p>

[knock_out]

<p>Between the D300s and D90, it's your call, but I am surprised no one has mentioned the benefit of the video mode. Sure, it's not a video camera replacement, but I have captured some memorable events that I am glad my D90 had video for. </p>

<p>The D300s video is said to be better quality (less skew and rolling shutter) as well as accepts stereo mic input. </p>

<p>Just a thought! KO</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p><strong>Dieter,</strong></p>

<p>WOW - I can't believe I spaced out on the TC calculation Dieter. You are correct that it doesn't matter. What was I thinking......</p>

<p>If the different b/w a Tokina / Nikon DX lens on a D300s and a 16-35 on a D700 is that minimal then meh... If I were making a living on selling landscapes at 20 x 30 and above, like you say, I should consider the 5D MKII. Since I am not, maybe as you and others have mentioned, WA on the D300s is likely sufficient.</p>

<p>That leaves the D700 with the advantage of an extra 2 stops of ISO. If I have f/2.8 lenses and a f/1.4, then the D300s will probably be sufficient for any low-light situation I encounter. Interesting that I started off, a month ago, thinking I would want the D3s and have now worked my way down to the D300s... I think I'm going in the right direction =)</p>

<p><strong>Knock Out,</strong></p>

<p>Video isn't a main concern but I would enjoy having it. D300s also has autofocus on video, nice but probably not essential. I wish it had 1080p, but that's not a huge deal since video will be more for fun than anything.</p>

<p>Lee</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Lee, I am beginning to wonder how you will be carrying all that equipment? I am just packing for a short trip to Germany, taking along my D300, Tokina 11-16/2.8, Nikon 17-55/2.8, and Nikon 80-400; will also be carrying an IBM T42 notebook. My travel backpack is a Urbangear 120 which doesn't make the best use out of its volume because of its bag-in-a-bag style but which I like for the additional protection it offers. Together with a small tripod head, two notebook drives, some filters, CF card wallet, camera charger and spare battery, there isn't much space left in the bag - barely enough for a backup camera (which this time I am not planning on taking along - hoping I will not regret the decision) or a flash (which will also stay home). I could cramp those into the Lowepro CompuTrekker which has about the same external dimensions as the Urbangear 120 but makes better use of it inside. To make a long story short, a D700, D300s, 16-35, 50, 70-300 will take up quite some space, not to mention the smaller stuff as well as the notebook and backup drive. And you have to worry about clothes etc as well. And that tripod...<br /> Backpacks are great for carrying a bit of equipment but not for quick access to it. Are you planning on having most of your gear in your internal frame backpack all the time? Will you have to carry that all the time? Where will you put your gear if you don't have that backpack with you?</p>

[lee_vgg]

<p>Dieter,</p>

<p>Here is my backpack (http://www.rei.com/product/780623). It is considered a medium, 1-2 day backpacking pack. It's a cavernous monster in side, no padding. For India, a 3 week trip, it was just about full on the inside with everything packed inside. That included the tripod, Vivitar 285HV (huge), Cactus wireless triggers, 4 GND filters and mount, 4AA battery charger, clothes, LX3 w/ WA converter and charger. Clothes - two pants, two shorts, 4 underwear, 2 boxers, 3 low-cut socks, two lightweight sweaters, rain jacket, light jacket, 2 button shirts, 3 t-shirts, scarf, small first aid kit. Some other random stuff. </p>

<p>This still left the external two side pockets and front two pockets basically empty. Weight was not an issue since it's got great support. For the RWT, I would probably transfer the tripod out to the side mesh pocket, and some clothes to the other side zip pocket. My wife will have a similar backpack with the laptop / charger. Even with that, her clothes take up less space so I can likely transfer some clothes to her bag. So I should be able to get all the gear into the pack. Granted, that's without foam protection. But - I can stuff it between clothes when on the move. </p>

<p>Once we're settled in a place (likely staying 2-3 nights per location), I've been thinking of a few options. 1) If we're walking around the city I can use a small messenger bag that collapses really well. It's also padded decently. I can bring an padded insert or two and slide them in if necessary. 2) If we're touring the country, hiking, or heading out an overnight camping trip, I can transfer stuff to a collapsible duffel bag I have (very tiny) and just take my wife and my essentials, plus camera gear, in my main backpack. I also thought about taking another small backpack, but it would be tough to carry in addition to my main backpack, and to get into it while on the move I would have to take it off. It's also more of a security risk than a messenger back (although that's debatable). </p>

<p>I plan on packing up my bag with the non-camera gear and hauling it to the store. I may find it doesn't fit, in which case I re-think my strategy or get a bigger bag. But that U120 is TINY. I would say my bag has 1.5-2 times the capacity. </p>

<p>Oh, and we plan to not buy ANYTHING as we go. Maybe a trinket here or there, but anything of size we will ship home.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I just realized I wasn't clear - the Urbangear120 is just my camera backpack - clothes etc are in a duffel bag. I am not backpacking but visiting family. </p>

<p>You might want to have a look at a Lowepro Microtrekker 200; that's a tiny backpack but it can hold a lot of gear - might be sufficient to hold your two bodies and all three lenses and fit nicely into the big pack when needed.</p>