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

[photo5]

<p>I spent 10 days in London with my wife and brought my D300 with the Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom lens as my primary lens. It was great and I got tons of superb photos with it. Range is great, and VR is a must for those dim churches and museums. Also brought my Sigma 10-20mm which I used for only about 10% of my photos, so would not bring that again. Also brought my Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye (since sold) which I only used for a handful of photos, though it's so small I'd bring it again. Also brought my 50mm f1.8 AF-D which I used for a dozen photos, and it's so small and lightweight I'd bring it again, though instead of it would bring my 35mm f1.8 since it's such a better focal length for DX.<br>

So my recommendation to you is the 16-85mm VR zoom. Very sharp, VR is a godsend on a trip (unless you have a tripod), and an excellent range from wide to telephoto.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I've traveled quite a bit in Europe, but it was my apartment at home where my camera gear was stolen. Take some precautions but I wouldn't make any decisions about what to bring or buy because it might get stolen. Buy the gear you want and use it. </p>

<p>I've been perfectly happy with an ultrawide and a 50mm in Istanbul and Amsterdam lately. No regrets and didn't feel like I was missing anything. I would rather have an 18-whatever zoom with VR and leave the tripod at home, though you don't need either. Ultrawides can help to get you some pretty special images, but they are not so easy to use well. It's hard to understand until you actually use one for yourself. I would definitely not get the 24-70 for DX as a general use lens. I would want something that goes wider, and it would be annoying to have to bring your 18-105 and switch to it for only the wide end. I have the 17-55 but never have brought it traveling. Don't worry too much about IQ.</p>

<p>All that said last week I was in Norway and only brought a fixed lens TLR shooting black and white film. Pics are great. Spent two weeks in the Swiss alps last year using mostly a holga because the thing is so light weight and I was hiking quite a bit. Shot color and black and white and the album I made from the prints is really nice. The camera doesn't matter. Actually shooting film is nice when your traveling because you don't spend time messing around with the camera. You just take a picture and then get on with enjoying your time.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>I think you have what you need. You have the 50 1.4 for extreme low light (and it is easy to carry) and the 18-105 will be fine for about 90% of your pictures. The optics are fine and the range just about perfect. Remember how light this combination will be. Who wants to carry a ton of weight.</p>

<p>Before you buy so much as another lens buy an SB-600 if you don't have one. That is as good as a whole pocket full of lenses. Then take a seminar or two. Only when you can complete the following sentence:</p>

<p>I need a _______lens because I can't shoot ______________.</p>

<p>Should you buy another lens.</p>

<p>Even if you have the entire Nikon lineup with you and the entire bench of Bishops to give you advice, you should take the pictures you think are cool and that you will want to see in a few years. So go with what you have. </p>

<p>Have a great trip. Make the best pictures you can.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The answer to your question is no. Better quality equipment won't make up for lesser skill levels. Save your money, use the equipment you have, and enjoy the vacation.<em> </em></p>

<p>Despite having said that, I'll put a vote in for the 35/f1.8. At USD200, it gives a pretty good price performance value, doesn't really weigh your kit down any and expands the kind of shots you'll be able to take in lower light levels. The suggestion to get an SB-600 is also a very good idea.</p>

<p>Finally, thinking outside of the box here and not trying to start a flame war, if it's a once in a lifetime trip, it's worth considering something like a Powershot G11. It adds better low-light capability and more reach than your kit zoom and includes image stabilizaiton too. It also gives you a backup camera body in case something goes wrong with the D90.</p>

<p>If you don't already have one, it's worth having at least one spare battery too.</p>

<p> </p>

[jyoungman]

<p>I'd suggest you concentrate on the vacation-of-a-lifetime part and not so much on the dragging of quantities of gear. If I was taking a DX body on such a trip I would probably go for:<br>

- 18-200 zoom <br>

- a strobe with a tilt head<br>

- maybe either a tripod or a monopod, but with the assmumption it will spend a lot of time in the room</p>

<p>Why the 18-200 zoom? To avoid carrying 97 lenses. Having a great vacation is partly about doing the things that are fun and spontaneous. Less about hauling gear [*]</p>

<p>[*] I'm a hypocrite. I always bring an UW zoom, a 50mm prime, and a 70-300. Plus a a strobe. </p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>get the 35mm f/1.8. that will complement well the kit 18-105mm which is a great travel lens. instead of buying one in your lens list get an sb-600 flash and a light tripod for your family portraits inside the hotel and outdoors. that's it for your once-in-a-lifetime travel. spend the extra money on your family.</p>

[john_morris4]

<blockquote>

<p>... So a zoom is a must....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should stop letting this bug me, but millions of people have taken rewarding travel pictures, in a hurry, without zoom lenses. So a zoom can be convenient, but that doesn't mean it's a must. Besides, you have one.</p>

<p>For a camera you're going to have with you all the time, you might do very well with the 35/1.8. It's a very convenient size with a D90. Carry the zoom in a bag with you, out of the way. That lens should be closer to what you had hoped the 50mm would be. It's too bad Nikon don't make a 24mm f/2 DX, since I would prefer that with a D90. The D90 will certainly work with the normal AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, though, and that would pair well with the 50. The Leica rangefinder folks often mention that a 35mm paired with either 75 or 90 is a great travel kit, and that's what you would have with a 24 and 50 on the D90.</p>

<p>Whatever you choose, don't make it too complicated, and have fun.</p>

 

[pc_sh]

<p>Rahul,<br>

Consider a Tokina 12-24, or even a 11-16.<br>

You'll spend a lot of your time photographing buildings, both outside and insider and a wide angle lens will come to good use.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>I really hate the phrase "zoom with your feet." It is for people who do not understand photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a silly statement. I'm sure it wasn't meant as a snark. <br /> It's about getting good photos. Many famous photographers made all of their photographs with out ever using a zoom or anything more than a 50 and or 35 mm lens. Yes it changes the angles, and you miss some dramatic types of shots, but it doesn't mean you can't still get fantastic photographs by just positioning and filling the frame as you want. Really, Its generally equipment geeks that get flummoxed about what they can't do with a certain lens combination, not photographers.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Barry, first of all, you are quoting me out of context. In my original text, I explained that once you change your position, you get a totally different perspective. Try shooting a "head and shoulder" portrait with a 85mm lens and then move much closer with a 24mm lens covering the same area of the face, you'll notice that the face will look very distorted because now the nose is much closer to the camera than the ears.</p>

<p>Nobody says you cannot get good pictures with several fixed-focal-length lenses, but zooming means you don't change camera position relative to the subject and you don't change the perspective. If you are stuck with 1 or 2 "primes" and need to move around to change your angle of coverage, you are completely changing the composition and that is no longer zooming.</p>

<p>And we haven't discussed situations where there are physcial barriers such that you cannot get closer or farther away, or it can be dangerous to get too close to certain subjects.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that frequently you need longer and/or wider lenses, either from zooms or additional "prime" lenses. "Zoom with your feet" is just nonsense.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>I do understand Shun's point about the wrong perspective with a wide angle distorting facial features. But for people who don't understand photography, moving closer to the subject will probably improve most of their compositions.</p>

<p>Could an alternative to "zooming with your feet" be "cropping in post-processing"? Cropping preserves the perspective. You only have to give up a few pixels and you aren't much worse off than a full-frame camera in DX mode.</p>

<p>Before we get too involved in a discussion about perspective and resolution trade-offs, remember that the OP presents himself as a beginner who is mostly interested in landscapes, tourist places, and photos of his family. The 18-105 lens will be adequate for almost anything he wants to do.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>P.S. First respondent made a good observation about memory cards. My preference would be to use a single 32GB card ($80, Kingston Class 4), never change the card, and make sure you don't lose the camera. Make sure you create a new folder ever day. The 32GB is enough for 2000 RAW images and if he's traveling with his wife and kid, he shouldn't be shooting more than that.</p>

<p>I realize the one large card vs. many small cards can become a religious issue and there can be advantages to using multiple cards. If this is a concern of the OP, he can be directed to the many entertaining threads on that topic.</p>

<p>So is Rahul, the OP, even had a chance to read any of this? We've probably overwhelmed him with information in the typical photo.net fashion.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>The expression "zoom with your feet" is frequently used to jestify that one only needs 1 or 2 "prime" lenses; if you need to cover a wider or narrower area, just move backward or forward. As far as I am concerned, only people don't understand photography will believe that is a workable solution, for reasons I have already explained above.</p>

<p>As far as memory cards go, I think having only one is kind of extreme. I would bring 2, 3 or 4. Bringing 10 to 20 small-size cards is simply asking for trouble: misplacing/losing cards, confusing about used and empty (not yet used) cards, etc. I find SD cards way too thin; they are fragile and easy to break.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>Well I'm a long way down this thread.</p>

<p>I travel a lot so know what you carry and use and what you carry and never gets out of the hotel room.</p>

<p>Simple recommendation from me is to get the 10-24 zoom and a small portable tripod like the SLIK Sprint Pro <br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=614702&Q=&is=REG&A=details">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=614702&Q=&is=REG&A=details</a></p>

<p>If the Nikon is a bit high dollar then try the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24. You might also get a 70-300 AFS.</p>

<p>That gives you 12-300 in not a lot of $$$ and still sharp glass.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>No, not nonsense. You give as an example of 24 and 85mm, sure, that is a bit extreme. But use a 50 and you can easily do both shots. When you use a zoom, you are also "changing the composition.<br /> "obstructions..." yes, of course. <br /> I'm not saying don't use zooms, I use them all the time when I shoot digitally. I'm just specifically addressing the OP's post. He has everything he needs to do what he says he wants to and if he only had the 50, he would still have everything he needs to make good pictures. It's been done time and time again. He, like countless before him, can move in and out with his feet to get what he wants in the frame, or he can use his lil zoom.</p>

<p>Again I see Shung, that you persist with the snarkiness. People who understand photography a lot more than you , will tell you to "zoom with your feet". And really you can make your point without resorting to this, I don't think they understand photography, business. It's not necessary and its simply not true. </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i am one of those who still use "zoom with your feet" even in my neighborhood community photography classes. but what i never forget to tell the students is the effect it will bring to their final image. as well as not always do it if they can avoid it, especially for event shooting..</p>

<p>by the way, i have always been a proponent of zooms, medium zooms that is. for fun and business travel, i myself bring the 18-70mm mounted and the 35mm in my pocket. to me a low-light capable lens is a must for travel. even if i bring the tamron 17-50mm or the sigma 18-50mm for travel, i still have the 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Barry and Ramon, please read my post from 10:29pm again. People use the expression "zoom with your feet" to justify that you only need 1 or 2 prime lenses because, in their mind, one can achieve the equivalent of zooms with just 1 focal length by changing the camera/photographer's position. It is NOT about whether you should use zoom lenses or not; it is about whether one needs multiple lenses with different focal lengths.</p>

<p>And I have already explained why that is not true at all.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>First of all Shun is absolutely correct that changing camera position with a fixed focus lens is not the same as zooming. A 35 mm at 10 feet is not the same as a 70 mm at 20 feet. </p>

<p>Barry. You don't know what Shun knows about photography. Your comments are uncalled for. I read his post and he was quite clear.</p>

<p>40 years ago we didn't have zooms like we do today. Certainly they were not as common anyway. Many of us could not afford much in the ay of zooms so we had a couple of primes. I spent 3 years in Europe shooting with a 50 mm F1.4, a 135 F2.8 and a 200 F4. So I zoomed with my feet or did my work in the dark room. And I missed a lot of pictures I would have gotten had I been in possession of (35 mm speaking) a 27 to 160. Add to that three stops of VR and I would have killed for my 27-160 F2.0 or so..</p>

<p>Good primes are nice. And damned inconvenient. And in most photographs I defy the average viewer or even pro to tell me the difference from an 8 X 10. Much is made of "pro equipment. I just shot an assignment tonight and used the 18-105 AFS VR that he OP has. (On a D300.) The pictures are fine. The customer will like them. I had a 17-35 f2.8 available. A raft of Nikon primes and an ultrawide zoom. They were not what I prefered to use though I never go anywhaere without a 50mm F1.4 in my pocket. I also used a 70-200 AFS VR F2.8. on the D3. It is a wonderful lens but I wouldn't take it on vacation if you carried it for me. </p>

[tsypkin]

<p>The best thing for your photography is ti buy Bryan Peterson's <em>Understanding Exposure</em> (the new edition is due on August 10, but the 2004 edition will work just fine.) As far as lenses are concerned, when I went to Venice, I bought, in addition to my Nikkor 18-200 mm, a Sigma 10-20 mm. Plus, graduated ND filters and circular polarizers. I wouldn't drag around a pro Nikkor lens: heavy and invites thieves. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Lee. Never said that changing camera position is the same as zooming with a lens. Read my words more carefully. I said changing position (zooming w/ft) changes the composition and so does racking your zoom. Is that not true? In fact its obvious. <br>

Also, just so you know, I don't care about who anyone thinks knows more about Photography actually, it's not pertinent. <br>

All I'm saying, if you read my posts carefully, is if you had one prime lens in your kit, especially a 35 or a 50, you can take pretty much 90 percent of the photos in an urban setting and not really miss any other lens. <br>

I also said, I believe this is now the third time, that the OP has everything he needs including his nice zoom lens. It's a lot lighter than either the 17-35, 24-70 and occasionally when I know I'll need it, 70-200 that I lug in certain situations. So I'm a guiltless hypocrite when it comes to zooms. On my Nikons I usually use nothing but, for the convenience. When I shoot 35mm film, I usually use one lens, a 35, and never feel a lack. I'm talking about walking around urban areas. Try it. In fact, if you aren't on a gig, and just on a friendly shoot, try it a few times. Just pic one lens and leave the rest at home. You'll be surprised what you can do and get. It's fun as soon you get over equipment mania. </p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I'm with Barry. Zooming with your feet works fine because usually there is more than one composition which can give you a good image. If you can't get a particular shot life will go on, there's another chance around the corner. On FX a 24 and 85mm would work just fine for me. IMO primes actually force you to think more about the composition, as you tend to move around, slow down, think, and actually compose, rather than just framing with the zoom.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I would carry a zoom and a prime but more importantly, I would also bring a compact. There are times when you just don't want to get the dslr out. Compact (pocket in pocket out) is so much easier than dslr in/out tamrac/kata/crumpler/lowepro or what have you backpack.</p>

<p>As for prime / zoom puzzle...There isn't any: just bring both. Shun is correct but so is Barry...they both has their drawbacks and uses. Primes are light and faster usually but they can't zoom. Zoom are more useful unless they are too big/heavy or too slow. Whatever you choose, have a memorable fun trip!!</p>

[ferdi_s]

<p>Flying is not a pleasant experience. Airlines strictly limit the weight of carry on to bring to the cabin and you don't want to check-in your equipment unless it's in a very well-protected specially-designed bag.<br>

My suggestion (as many others) is the excellent 35mm 1.8 and although you mention that you want nikon brand, the 12-24mm or 11-16mm tokina are great lenses (great focal length for those beautiful buildings) and the built quality is excellent for a fraction of the similar nikon brand.<br>

Enjoy your trip.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Never said that changing camera position is the same as zooming with a lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, but that is precisely what "zoom with your feet" suggests. Zooming is changing focal lengths of a lens. "Zoom with your feet" means you could achieve the effect of different focal lenghts by moving back and forth with your feet. Unfortunately that is a completely false statement and that is why I have a lot of problems with it.</p>

<p>You are now contradicting yourself. I wonder exactly what your position is.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>All I'm saying, if you read my posts carefully, is if you had one prime lens in your kit, especially a 35 or a 50, you can take pretty much 90 percent of the photos in an urban setting and not really miss any other lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is certainly not true in my case. A few years ago in Paris, I had the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and 12-24mm/f4 DX with the D2X, and I used the 12-24 a lot to photograph all sorts of buildings. Fortunately the OP has a 18-105 that gives him good coverage. However it is a slow lens so that the 35mm/f1.8 DX should complement that. If he is opened to adding another lens, I would go for a wide zoom that starts from 10 to 12mm as many others have suggested.</p>

<p>Leslie, I'll say that one more time: this discussion is NOT about one should use "primes" or zooms. "Zoom with your feet" is not at all about zoom lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Are we helping the OP at all?</p>

<p>Again, if it's a vacation, please ignore all these pro lens recommendations. Have a wonderful time with your family, don't annoy them with your photography.</p>

<p>For travel, or most of us, a wide to moderate tele zoom is ideal for most of your shots.</p>