Need help to decide a lens for a once-in-a-lifetime holiday!

[raoul_g]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I have spent numerous hours on these forums trying to arrive at a conclusion on what equipment I would need on an upcoming trip to Europe (Edinburgh, London, Paris and Switzerland) and would really appreciate your advise to help me arrive at this decision.<br>

My photography background: got Nikon D90 (with then 18-105mm kit lens) a month ago and extremely keen to take this on as a serious hobby but as of now literally a rank beginner in digital SLR photography. <br>

I am aware that at this stage I really should be focusing more on learning the basics improving my “skills” as a photographer and not really worry about quality of equipment. And I really do understand this. However, my main concern is that this holiday, for me, will almost surely be a once-in-a-lifetime kind of journey and really wanted to know if having a better lens will make a difference to the photos (& hence memories!) that I capture. <br>

I am aware that as a beginner I probably won’t be able to put any equipment to it’s best use but at the same time I’m also curious to know if having better quality equipment will make up in some sense for lesser skill levels. For instance, will the Nikon 17-55mm capture significantly, noticeably, better photos than the standard 18-105mm in the hands of a beginner by the sheer virtue of having better optics? I have read the occasional threads where people have said their photos improved a lot after getting better lenses etc. <br>

I foresee my needs to be mainly for the beautiful landscapes (Scotland, Switzerland) but also for regular tourist places (tower of London, London Eye, Eiffel tower, etc.) and photos of my wife and son in these places. <br>

I also seem to have already made my first mistake by rushing in to a lens purchase so am doubly careful now before taking a decision. I bought a Nikon 50mm f1.4G lens thinking this would be a good lens for family and indoor photos but realized as soon as I got it that while 50mm may serve that purpose well, the 75mm that this lens effectively is on my D90 rendered it almost useless for anything other than individual portraits. My only consolation is that I can save this up for when I go FX (not for a few years for sure)! <br>

Appreciate any help with the following decisions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Will a better lens make a difference over the standard kit lens (18-105mm) in the hands of a beginner?</li>

<li>If I do buy a new lens, should I go for:<ol>

<li>Nikon 17-55mm: better all-round lens although then 18-105 use would be very limited? </li>

<li>Nikon 10-24mm: used only for wide angle and for everything else the 18-105?</li>

<li>Nikon 24-70mm: use the 18-105 for the 18-36 range and for the rest the 24-70 as IQ will be better?</li>

<li>Nikon 35mm f1.8: for evenings/indoors and everything else the 18-105?</li>

</ol></li>

</ol>

<p>3. Pls do recommend a good travel tripod for the D90 (I am a little over 6feet tall)<br>

At this point I am keen to only buy Nikon lenses and although price is a consideration and I don’t have money to burn on this I’d like to make as informed a decision as possible. I am looking to approach cost as a long term proposition and to that end would rather make more expensive decisions now rather than keep changing equipment frequently. From that perspective the 50mm 1.4g and 24-70mm are attractive as they are FX compatible and pro-grade as well. <br>

Sorry about the really long text but I hope I have been descriptive!</p>

[mightypir]

<p>A better lens can make a difference, but you still need to know how to get the best out of it! The 17-55 lens that you have listed weighs a ton (in comparison to your 18-105) and will not give you the range that you already have which could be a limitation on your trip. <br>

My suggestion would be that the best purchase that you can make right now is the 35mm as that would allow you to take photos indoors etc and would complement your 18-105. And its relatively cheap. The 18mm would be suitable as a walk around lens.<br>

The 10-24 would be great but it would be very expensive. You could get around the lack of "wideness" by stitching together several shots, however.<br>

A travel tripod for your height would be difficult to suggest. Do you have problems bending over? If not a Manfrotto 190 is probably the best one. I personally use a Slik Sprint Pro, which is lighter still, but I do not extend it fully and have no issues crouching which makes it a bit shorter but suitable for my purposes.<br>

Have you got a flashgun? Enough memory cards? Even more importantly do you have a method to back up all your images? For me that would be more of a priority!!!</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Yes, hypothetically a better lens can make a difference in the hands of anyone but sloppy technique renders all equipment upgrades moot.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the 75mm that this lens effectively is on my D90 rendered it almost useless for anything other than individual portraits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree........ using your feet as the zoom you can use this focal length on DX for all sorts of general photography whilst on tour. A fast aperture 50mm lens is a great compliment to your current utility zoom and is relatively light weight for travel convenience.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 17-55mm: better all-round lens although then 18-105 use would be very limited?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but the 17-55mm f/2.8 loses you the extra reach of your current zoom and is very much heavier than your current zoom lens from a travel point of view. If you are going to take a tri-pod with you on tour, then your slower 18-105mm zoom will not limit you from a slow shutter speed perspective.</p>

<p>There is going to be a massive compromise gap between your want for a tri-pod to cater for you @ 6 foot tall vs. the convenience of a compact lightweight tri-pod which is better suited to travel.</p>

<p>If you are indeed going to be dedicated and take a tri-pod, may I suggest you work out what load range your prospective tri-pod is likely to have to carry (i.e. camera + heaviest lens) and then consider a compact c/f set of 3 sectioned legs and a compact ball head to suit. I believe a kit like this is quite acceptable to lug about on travels but you have to decide if you are travelling primarliy for the photographic opportunities or for the travel experience itself.</p>

<p>I'd stay away from the FX lenses on the D90 as they are heavy, very expensive and Nikon makes a heap of excellent DX lenses for it's DX bodies like the D90.</p>

<p>I'm not adverse to carrying 'weighty' camera gear when I travel. My suggestion is to invest in a decent tri-pod and if funds allow a wide angle zoom for your D90 like the Nikkor 10-24mm you mention. This means you have three lenses a camera and a tri-pod to take on tour. Only you know if you can carry all of that for the duration.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 18-105 is a good travel lens. realistically, you wont need a 17-55. if you must buy new glass, i'd get the 10-24 and maybe the 35/1.8 for low-light--though the 50 you already have would work as well.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>No equipment can compensate a lack of experience. Sorry, to say this, but with 20+ years behind camera's I keep getting reminded of that myself quite often.</p>

<p>Like Eric said, if you really need to buy new glass, go for the 10-24 or the 12-24 used.</p>

<p>There is no substitute for experience, so get out there and (in a way of speaking) burn film. Take lots and lots of pictures and see for yourself what should be improved. And don't forget that postprocessing can indeed make a great picture from a mediocre shot.</p>

 

[karl_sch_rlund]

<p>First off, I think your 18-105 will do fine. It's a very useful lens with good optical quality and a nice zoom range.<br>

If you do want to get another lens, I would suggest the 35/1.8 to get a more general purpose focal length for low light. It's also lightweight and pretty reasonably priced. Another alternative would be a flash like a SB600, but getting good looking light from flash is another learning curve. (edit: noticed that you already had a 50/1.4.)<br>

I don't think any of the 2.8 zooms would make a dramatic difference to image quality at this point, especially since you would be losing VR. The wide angle zoom could possibly be useful depending on the type of pictures you want to take, but personally I think the ultra-wide parts are pretty hard to use effectively.<br>

Regarding tripods I can't really help you. I have a Manfrotto 055 that works well but I wouldn't want to travel with it.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I went on many trips and I have many memorable pictures taken with only the standard 50mm lens that came in the box with a consumer-level Pentax. But then, I also wipe my own behind.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Given your situation and your choices, I'd go for the 10-24 or alternatively, consider the Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 instead. 35/1.8 is a good choice too - though only you can decide if the 50/1.4 you already have can't serve in its place.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Too many times (that you can't predict) that you can't "zoom with your feet" when you're traveling. So a zoom is a must. a low-light lens is nice, but not as needed as you might guess. When I went on my "once in a lifetime" trip to Alaska 4 years ago, I purchased the 18-200 VR zoom JUST FOR that trip and was not disappointed (Today I'd choose the 16-85 btw). Your zoom is probably fine. I shot most of my favorite images either at the very short end or the very long end btw...</p>

<p>I also had a 50mm f1.8 with me and used it for, as I recall, none of my favorite pics from that trip. Go figure. I think the 35mm f1.8 would have been more useful. I didn't have a prime in that length yet, as I had just started my Nikon "collection". For many of us, something wider is great (I chose the Tokina 11-16 eventually... it is truly a WOW lens), but not everybody needs something that wide. I wouldn't travel without it now.</p>

<p>If you will be needing any real telephoto for anything, you might want to think about a 70-300 VR. That and your current outfit would be a GREAT travel rig. An SB600 in the bag would be great.</p>

<p>I don't know about travel 'pods. I only have an old big heavy beast (which I would and have traveled with) and think that VR is better than some of the cheap travel tripods I've seen.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Will a better lens make a difference over the standard kit lens "</em> Under most shooting conditions, especially with good lighting, when lighting favors use of the VR (static subjects) or when lighting is very poor and you use a tripod, you likely won't see any difference unless you are pixel peeping, making huge poster or making huge crops. And even then, the differences will likely be small. Keep in mind that a faster lens (aperture wise) and/or more expensive lens do not necessarily mean sharper pictures. Most of Nikon's consumer lenses offer exceptional sharpness and color.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Something else nobody's mentioning. If you had huge heavy nice f2.8 expensive glass there are a couple of huge drawbacks.</p>

<p>1. Your family is annoyed with all the heavy camera gear you are carrying, or you can't actually carry them to the places you want to shoot.<br>

2. Your rig says "steal me" to everybody around.</p>

<p>f8... and be there...</p>

[SCL]

<p>In my humble opinion, you have what you need for the trip. More glass will slow you down and create less overall enjoyment of the trip. I say that from experience. As a relatively inexperienced photographer I once spent 9 months visiting Europe with one lens (not a zoom) and found it perfectly adequate for almost everything. Once or twice I borrowed a lens from a companion, but everything was shot within the range of your kit lens. Take what you have and enjoy it...don't fall prey to gearheads (like most of us) who have more money than good sense sometimes, and tend to offer advice which is more suited to advanced photographers than newbies. Have a great trip and post some of your results here afterwards.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> The 18-105 is the ticket. Perhaps the 35/1.8 for available darkness. It doesn't weigh much or take much room. This being a family trip, focus on having an unforgettable time together and don't let the photography get in the way. Keep the camera bag <em>light.</em> For a tripod, I'd take a sturdy table tripod, something like a used Minolta TR-1 (if you can find one), or</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-709B-Table-Tripod-Black/dp/B0000YD2JC/ref=sr_1_1/190-2551219-6900617?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1279456411&sr=8-1</p>

<p>(With a better head)</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/LCTT.html</p>

<p>[Add a decent ball head]</p>

<p>If you don't have one, get a polarizer. Use the in-camera flash. Take a good compact P&S (Canon S90, or Fuji 200 EXR) as back-up, for your wife or kids to use, and for when you don't feel like carrying the main kit.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>My take: 35 f/1.8 for the low light, 18-105 for the rest, leave the tripod (VR will handle a lot) - and enjoy the trip.<br>

A wide-angle lens may be a great addition, but it takes some time to learn how to really use them. Just after I bought my wide angle (Tokina 12-24 - consider it versus the Nikons since it's the same quality at a lower price), I went on holiday. The photos I made with it are the "typical" wide angle shots: huge vast interiors and landscapes, nearly all boring because a wide angle does require more care and consideration for the composition.<br>

So, with relatively little time before you actually go, you may want to actually skip it.</p>

<p>For the tripod, you could consider something like a gorillapod DSLR, which should cope with your camera and light lenses with ease. It's small, light and not very expensive.</p>

<p>As others said, the other mentioned lenses are much heavier, require more lens changes etc. Since you do not travel alone, I would take the amount of time and effort spent on the photos in consideration.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>As for travel tripod - check out the Feisol CT3341T http://reallybigcameras.com/Feisol/Tall_Traveler.htm. Either get one of the Photo Clam ball heads with it, or better yet an Acratech GP-s. Yes, that's more than $700 for a complete tripod; but that is one item where it pays off to spend some more money up front and get something that lasts for some time to come. I'd prefer a 3-section tripod but then the folded length is usually too long to fit into carry-on luggage - so the 4-section is a compromise to make for a travel.</p>

[akira]

<p>Take 35/1.8. Otherwise you may lose too many shutter chances while you are fumbling the zoom ring.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>Rahul,<br>

Buy a mono pole for those low light shots and get the 35/1.8 or just use your 50/1.4. You will find that most of the old buildings you will go into will not allow flash so the 35 might be useful for this.. Don't forgetl to use the tools you have on your camera. The D90 takes great shots at higher ISO settings and the on board flash is useful when allowed. When I was in Italy every night I uploaded my pictures to an online sight for storage and would burn two CD's. one would go into the travel bag and the other in my wife's purse. Have a great trip and take a lot of pictures.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Your camera and lenses are just fine. If this is a "once in a life time" trip - get some back up equipment! - spend your money on good, compact "point and shoot" camera.</p>

[crow0806]

<p>People who say to buy a prime lens and use your feet as a zoom on vacation either haven't taken landscape photos, or if they do it is in a limited space area. When you are in the mountains there could be canyons/rivers/fences and miles between you and your subject that you can't walk up to. By all means, carry a prime, but the 18-105 will serve you well.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I don't think you <strong>need </strong>a new lens for this trip based on you stated goals. Your 18-105 is a good lens with a focal length range ideal for travel. It would be nice to have a faster lens, or one with VR. However, the D90 can be used at very high ISO settings with acceptible noise, a feature which offsets the need for these features.</p>

<p>What will help, especially for landscapes, is a good tripod - one which is stiff enough to hold the camera steady and light enough you are willing to travel with it. You will not be able to use a tripod (and often, not a camera either) in museums and churches. Most of these places will require you to check some items, and have facilities for this purpose.</p>

<p>The ideal tripod would be carbon fiber for lightness, four leg sections to fit in a storage locker (or a suitcase), and between 4 and 5 feet tall without a column. Plan to spend about as much (or more) for a good tripod and head as a good lens. Cheap tripods are either too bulky and heavy for foot travel (e.g., a Slik 700DX), or too flimsy to get good results. Gitzo and Manfrotto are good choices, and Induro seems to have improved their quality enough to be a lower-priced contender.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I really hate the phrase "zoom with your feet." It is for people who do not understand photography. Once you change your position, the relationship between your subject and the foreground/background changes and you will be capturing a different image, potentially a very different image.</p>

<p>The 18-105mm kit lens is ok. Optically it is fine but it is a little fragile just like all Nikon lenses with a plastic mount. I would add a 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX for indoor, low-light situations and in case you do damage your 18-105, you still have a second lens to take some pictures.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, no lens will make you a better photographer. There is also no "crash course" to make you a better travel photographer overnight. Perhaps reading a book like this one may help: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Masters-Travel-Photography-Documenting/dp/1600591108">http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Masters-Travel-Photography-Documenting/dp/1600591108</a> Full disclosure: I have never even seen that book, but Bob Krist is a good instructor and is well known for his travel photography articles on National Geographic Travelers. I have a couple of Nikon DVDs with him as the instructor, and he is good.</p>

[frank_mezzanini]

<p>i spent 2 weeks in Europe last year in 4 countries. being on a tour, Moving quickly to get it all in does not leave a lot of time to wait and get the perfect shot. I found myself doing "snapshot" photography a lot of the time. I had my d90, 18-200 3.5-5.6, no tripod and did just fine. I also brought a Canon s90 as my backup, used by my wife to use to get some pictures with me in them. it also shot raw and has a f2.0 lens. i had 15 SD cards all 4 or 8GB. nothing bigger since i had no backup system and if a card went bad i only lost what was on that card. And with both of us taking pictures, a bad card only lost half the pictures for the day. (keep the times synced on the cameras, it will help later) Three batteries for each camera, but only carried one extra. that gave me ability to charge one during day and later one at night. in the morning i would always have 2 fresh batteries. </p>

<p> Remember the more you bring the heavier it gets and the better target you are. dont bring a camera bag with NIKON all over it. i even changed my camera strap to one without NIKON on it and keep it in front of you not in a backpack (or slingpack). dont spend all your time looking for the perfect shot. ENJOY the adventure, talk to the locals, eat the food, and take pictures. i found it best to ask before taking pictures of the locals. if Phyllis was in their shot they were more likely to say yes. retail folks will almost always say yes. Gondoliers would say no and candid shots were all i got. Bring a short extension cord with 3 plugs on the end. there are not a lot of plugs and you will need to charge all the batteries each night. of course make sure you have the electrical converter plug for the right country. <br>

I know this was not a direct reply to your question and my be TMI, but i agonized over what to take and almost didn't take the d90 to keep the weight down. THAT would have been a mistake. Have fun. Share your pictures. </p><div></div>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>My thoughts pretty much echo those above. You do not need an expensive f 2.8 zoom. Even if you had one I would not take it. It is too big, too heavy and says, "steal me." Use your 18-105 correctly and you should be fine for 75% of your shots. Just remember to change our ISO so you can use the best f stop /shutter speed for sharp images. That means you know how to use Aperture priority mode and not Program mode for 99% of your shots. For those other 25% of the shots, you will need a fast lens like the 35mm f 1.8. I have it and it is a great lens for portraits and inside shots. And it does not a high profile lens that says "seal me." You might need a zoom like a 70-200 or a 70-300mm. Just make sure it is not real heavy. It does not have to be fast as you will using it outdoors in sunlight. I would take two tripods. One is a mini one that fits in your pocket. It is invaluable in Europe. Use it on a church pew for low light shots or outdoors for shots where you use the self timer so you can be in the picture too. During the day you do not want to lug around your regular tripod. Many places do not allow its use anyhow. But with the small one, you have it if you need it. And shooting from a low vantage point is often better anyhow. I would use my regular tripod in the morning for sunrise and early light shots when cities are just awakening. One other tip. I wear a windbreaker to hide my camera. My extra lens, the 35mm, would be in my pants pocket, or in the jacket pocket. This way no need for a bulky backpack in cities or museums. You need to keep a low profile while taking photographs and be able to be fast on your feet. The internet is full of excellent photo education materials. Just enter--exposure, composition, photo education, etc and you will be busy for hours. Joe Smith</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>It is too big, too heavy and says, "steal me."</em></p>

<p>You people make it sound like he was going to some kind of harbor of the underworld. If you look after your things normally, they won't get stolen. Some precautions though; if you sleep in a train make sure your equipment isn't visible or easily grabbed.</p>

<p>I suggest that you buy the lightweight 35mm f/1.8 DX as a second lens for the trip (with your 18-105 as the main lens). Walking around in a city with a small, yet excellent lens like that is fun and you will get experience with a wider range of apertures (and shutter speeds). A fast lens can be very useful when e.g. photographing a person or group in a narrow street. For landscape, I am sure the 18-105 will be very practical.</p>

<p>I am not sure if I would bring a tripod. The problem is that a good tripod is large and heavy; it can also be expensive. Your camera and current lenses are comparatively small so they can be supported by a reasonably portable tripod but if you get a wimpy one (most tripods you see in stores are just that) you might find that your results vary from shot to shot at the long end of your zoom, especially if it is at all windy. If you get a tripod, make sure it doesn't have a center column as the use of center columns in travel tripods lead to sharpness problems. By getting a model without center column you avoid the temptation (and inevitable disappointment) of using it and save some weight. Now, if you want a low-weight tripod solution you can sacrifice on the stability or height. I would recommend sacrificing some weight rather than stability. When tripod use is not a priority on my trips, I use acomparatively lightweight tripod, the Gitzo Ocean Traveler (of which you can remove the center column) but I use a Burzynski L-bracket to connect the camera to the tripod for vertical shots (otherwise the ball head would not hold the camera steady) and by using PC wide angles I can manage with the comparatively low height of the tripod. It's very lightweight and without the center column, it is adequately stable, but unfortunatelyit is quite expensive and I can't really say that it's worth what it costs. (You can get non-sealed variants in the Gitzo Traveler series though, they're a bit less expensive). The Ocean Traveler without column gets to quite a low height so if you want to shoot close-ups of flowers, it can provide support.</p>

<p>However, since you may want to shoot at eye level, a regular size tripod may be needed. This means about 2kg weight in a CF model (without the weight of the head). If you get serious about photography you will need one eventually - and it's less expensive to get it right in the first place. But for the trip it may feel too heavy. Since your zoom has VR, you might take the relaxed approach on camera support and travel light, relying on the stabilization technology to work well enough when the light is low and you're photographing static subjects. There's certainly merit in traveling light, it will keep your spirits up. ;-) (On the other hand many professional travel photographers will tell you they don't travel light. )</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>You've already got everything you need. Stop worrying about it and go shoot. Sounds a great trip, enjoy it. 18-105 is a great focal range. On your Dx camera it's app. a 28 - 160, that's perfect. If the light is low, you have your 50 1.4 a really good lens. Actually, despite what you think, the 50 is way more versatile even at effective 75mm. Remember the old adage, "zoom with your feet".</p>