An advice for a backpacker...

[andrea_magugliani]

<p>Hi everybody,</p>

<p>I'm organizing a trip to South Asia in the next months and I would like to complete my camera kit with a tele lens.</p>

<p>I currently have a D300 + 16-85 VR (that I use 90% of the time) and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8<br>

I love to shoot portraits and street life and I'm afraid that with the 16-85 I might loose some good shots.<br>

Recently I went to Tibet and I borrowed a SIGMA 70-200 f/2.8 HSM I and I found it too heavy to carry around. The 2.8 works well but without a consistent VR it becomes almost useless unless you have the arm of Ronny Coleman.<br>

This experience made me realize that probably the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is not what I need and perhaps the Nikon 70-300 VR is the best compromise.<br>

Do you have any suggestion? Ken Rockwell speaks very well of the 85mm f/1.8 but I can't zoom with it...</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I do backpack trips so I can see more and live on a shoestring ...</p>

<p>I suggest have a look at what aperture and focal lengths do you shoot .....</p>

<p>I had the Nikon 80-200/2.8 but I found it too heavy. </p>

<p>I guess I could say choose either the 50 or 85. Only you know that answer. If you want a low light lens for a wider view, maybe a 35/1.8. Or the real ultimate way for the time being, D700, a mid zoom, a 28/2.8 perhapas and a tele. </p>

<p>Dunno about the 70-300, what about a chepaer smaller 55-200mm? The size diff is quite so.. Both come in VR. You may not get so much creaminess if that is what you looking for, as a note the 85/1.8 has a lot more of that stuff and better color than the 50/1.8. I have both of them.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>SE Asia, you do know how hot it is right? ;-D But then again I am used to my 22 degrees celcius in my summers .... and my winters at 8 degrees with 0-2 degrees morning commuting ...</p>

[vince-p]

<p>You need to zoom? I was gonna say if you want a choice of shocking good lenses that you can carry, with a D300 you can input the following and get metering and a or s priority shooting: either the manual focus Nikkor 105mm f2.5 Ai-S (AI's fine too) or the Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI-s. You gotta manual focus but hell that's good for you. Either of these lenses is breathtaking, and both are light as air compared to these f/2.8 behemoths they're making now.<br>

To tell the truth, the 105/2.5 is the most beautiful tele lens -- perhaps the most beautiful lens -- I've ever used. It's really quite magical. Youcan score one eBay for anywhere from $80 and up.<br>

Among the AF zooms, the 55-200 cheapie might be all you need and is certainly lighter than the 70-300. Everyone says it's a great lens sharp etc but I've not used it so I don't know. I use the old AF 70-210 D which is not too heavy and I like it a lot, especially at 70-85mm a really nice portrait lens. I got it on the big bay for $110.</p>

<p> </p>

[vince-p]

<p>Oh oh oh, I forgot: I tried it out in the store. You can take just one lens! the Tamron 28-300. It's GREAT! I mean, I tried it in the store for a while, at different focal lengths etc, on my own camera. So I could process the images later, and did. Also, I have an online buddy who uses one exclusively on his SONY. Also, for us DXers who need wider, they make an 18-270 or an 18-250 or both -- look up which is rated best. The 28-300 was about the same size as my 18-70 and very light and had VR or whatever their version is called. If I were walking around all the time I'd have that and the 50 and that's it.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hi Andrea,<br /> I'd say : if weight is the most important issue, the 18-200 VRII might be an option ( also covering most of the reach of the 16-85 you have now...) otherwise the 200mm F4 is one of the best lenses available without adding the weight of all F2.8 options.<br /> Also , if money is not an issue, but weight is : You might want to look for a not so heavy camera (although the D300 is the best DX available for me....)<br /> If more reach is needed, also the 300MM F4 is an option, but not having VR often requires a tripod of some kind at this focal lenght ...</p>

<p>Maybe check out the Lens-review section at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> , it tells you weight as wel as quality for a lot of lenses available currently for Nikon DX cam's (amongst others..).</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

Definitely the Nikon 70-300 VR. It's an excellent lens, reasonably sharp wide open, etc. I find myself always using it on the D300 with Auto ISO set to 1/200s / ISO 3200 max, although I use VR. You can hold lower speeds, especially on the short end, but at effective 450mm and on foreign territory where shots are normally not repeatable, I don't like taking risks.

 

On our recent trip to Liguria, Italy, I used the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC and the Nikon 70-300 VR as the perfect stabilized travel combo, and only when I needed ultra-wide (which was in one place) I changed to the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6.

 

You may consider adding an ultra-wide as well. Most versatile would probably be the Nikon 10-24, highest quality and most exotic wide angle is the Sigma 8-16. You may not need something as wide though, and then the longer range of the Nikon is probably better.

[andrea_magugliani]

<p>Thanks for all the comments and suggestions!<br>

@Ray: I'm actually living in Nepal for work and during the monsoon season as dump and warm as hell...<br>

In general I'm fascinated by this old lenses that still work great but when I'm on the field I need a quick AF to catch what I want. Not all the beautiful people that live in the streets appreciate to be photographed, therfore I need to shoot from far and quick (not always that's why I will take the 50mm)...<br>

The 80-200 f/2.8 it's like a dream, but I don't think it's a very comfortable carry around lens.<br>

Do you think that changing the 50mm with the 85mm would give a considerable improvement?</p>

 

[RaymondC]

<p>I dunno, but if you are using it for a longer lens like candid photog, the 85mm may fit the bill. This is about a 135 on film or FX digital. A very common portrait lens, as too is the 85mm without the crop factor. When I do my limited portraits I prefer the 85mm on DX, the color and contrast is beautiful. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>The sigma 50-150mm f2.8 doesn't have VR but it is fairly compact and snappy, I hear. The 85mm on DX is more a head and shoulder lens for me...</p>

<p><a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9252121_73128eb8ef_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a><br /> For street life, I prefer wide and being close to subjects...</p>

<p><a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9322198_3de8b0f434_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="490" /></a><br /> Myanmar or "Burma"</p>

[andrea_magugliani]

<p>What if I trade the 50mm f/1.8 for the 85mm f.18 and instead of the 70-300 VR I take the 55-200 VR. In this way I would still stay in 500 USD that is my budget. Furthermore, for what I read, the 70-300 is very sharp from 70-200, instead from 200 to 300 it's a bit soft...</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I'll just say that the 70-300 is quite a bit more heavy and larger than the 55-200. I thought a 85 might be ok for you b/c if you are wanting to photog them further away. </p>

<p>Would you be able to have a look at a shop?</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

The 70-300 VR is not soft, not even wide open. It's only that you need to have the focus right, need a high enough shutter speed, but then it is an excellent lens, one of Nikon's best values, and for that length (450mm effectively) the only practical solution in so many cases.

[andrea_magugliani]

<p>I can not go to any shop becasue I'm asking to a friend going back to Boston to buy on B&H for me.<br>

70-300 VR: 499 USD<br>

85mm f/1.8 409 USD<br>

55-200 174 USD<br>

I was just thinking that, considering that I already have the excellent 16-85 VR, I might no need the 85mm even though it is f/1.8<br>

I'd rather take the 70-300 VR and with more calm (and money) than take the 85mm...</p>

[jonathan_maloney]

<p>Seeing as you are trying to stay under a $500 budget, I would look no further than the 70-300mm VR - but I think you knew that already!</p>

<p>Your 16-85mm covers a slight wide angle and acts as a normal zoom, the 50/1.8 handles low light and some nice portrait shots on your cropped sensor, while the 70-300mm VR can handle some pretty extreme telephoto.</p>

<p>If you really feel you won't go shooting past 300mm (equivalent), I would just get the 55-200mm VR and save some money - it is a very capable lens in daylight or with high ISO. Sharp as hell once you get to f5.6 or f8. Put the money that you save for something else in the future - that 3 lens combo you'd have right there is a backpackers dream...</p>

[allenahale]

<p>Take less clothing. Take less cosmetics. Start working out. Bring the Nikkor 80 -200 F2.8. You stated that it is like a dream - so make it happen. I use it extensively and take the same type of photos that you are looking to take. Why compromise for a few ounces? A few grams? When do you think that you will be able to take the trip once again to get all the photos that you missed because you didn't have your dream lens?</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Since weight is a concern and since you seem to like the range of the 80-200mm I suggest looking at the 55-200mm Nikkor. It is a small light lens. I do some backpacking and try to keep it as ultra light as possible even though I use a D700. No extra clothes or makeup ;~D</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I love to shoot portraits and street life</em></p>

<p>I think the 85/1.8 or 105 VR Micro would do well for tight head shots and details. These lenses are lighter than the 70/80-200/2.8. I don't think for portraits you should go much longer than that with a DX camera. I mean, of course you can shoot with e.g. a 200mm or a 300mm, but due to the long distance to subject involved, people will appear "stacked" on top of each other in the depth direction. Faces will appear less 3-dimensional. If you get the 70-300 VR, since it is f/5.6 at the long end and you need to stop down to f/8 to get good sharpness, you won't be able to effectively separate individual people from all the people at different distances that will often end up in the shots. Also, if someone doesn't want to be photographed, the answer is not to shoot them in secret from a distance, but to go talk to them (IMO). Of course, you <em>can </em>shoot them with a 300mm but will it be an interesting photograph? I have found that I prefer not to use my 300mm unless it's necessary because the "closed" perspective makes the shots not so good - and that's on FX where the 300mm behaves like a 200mm on DX. I do use the 300mm for sports and outdoor concerts when there is no other option to get the shot.</p>

<p>What I mean by closed is this: suppose you have a five people chatting with each other and looking at something. They're likely to form an arc (if they're looking at something) or a circle (if they're just talking). The arc is formed so that they can see each others faces. Now, if you go close with a wide angle you will get a view where the faces are open to the camera. If you shoot with a 300mm, you can perhaps see one or two faces, and most likely from an awkward angle.</p>

<p>By all means you can get the 70-300 VR - I used it myself for a few months. My initial reaction was wonder as I am not used to such light weight wide range convenience. But then I realized I wasn't getting the results I wanted because the images had this "cloudy" appearance - the primes and f/2.8 zooms have much better image clarity. Also, the apertures available did not work for my people photography; when doing long shots I need to use shallow DOF to clean the background for my shots to work. I can use small apertures with short lenses and often do, with (nearly) everything coming sharp; the wide depth of field doesn't bother me with wide angles as the more "open" 3D perspective allows me to easily point the viewer's eye to the main subject. I do sometimes use shallow DOF with wide angles too, but I don't find it as important as with teles.</p>

<p>Back to the lens question; my list of recommendation is in this order: 1) 105 VR, 2) 85/1.4 or 1.8, 3) 70-300 VR, and 4) some type of f/2.8 telezoom. The last would be the most effective but it's such a big lens that it does draw attention to it and also it gets heavy when used on long trips.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think the 85 would be a poor backpack travel lens. I think I'd bring what you have and add the 70-300 VR. I might try to scrape up some dough for a close-up lens, too, although the 16-85 can get really close.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>If you can find one, the 80-200/4.5-5.6 AF-D is very light and compact and also inexpensive. The trade-off is a lack of low-light capability but the lens does perform well. It does not have the heavyweight construction of the AIS lenses or the 80-200/2.8.<br>

http://www.bythom.com/80200ens.htm</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I spent two years travelling SE Asia/Australasia and started off (in Aisa) with three primes (28mm, 50mm and 180mm) and was happy with that - granted in 1991 the quality of zooms was nowhere near what it is now but I did not sit there thinking 'if only I had a 70mm lens'. Then my camera was stolen (I still miss that Pentax) and I got a Canon EOS with 28-70 and 80-200 zooms. Now I am spoilt and find it hard to use primes again but if weight was an issue, I may well go back to them. And the quality of digital images often means you can crop + or - 20% and imitate the framing of other focal lengths and then print up to 10x8 with very good quality. But as Ilkka says, this would not give the ideal perspective (though I think occasions where this is crucial is relatively unusual).</p>

<p>So if I had a limited budget and a wish for light lenses I would seriously consider re-introducing myself to primes, maybe adjusting choice for the fact I am using a APS-C camera.</p>

[ted_ron]

<p>I went to Tibet recently with D300, 24-70/2.8 and 35/2. I used mostly 24-70 for landscape and portraits. Your 16-85 should be able to cover most of the photos that you want to take. For portrait, I will bring prime either 105 or 135. </p>

[bk_waas]

<p>I've been to India several times. I took the 80-200 2.8 the first few times and have left it at home during those trips ever since. It's just too heavy when backpacking. Another thing is that in my limited experience, the large, conspicuous telezoom attracts a LOT of attention in Indian urban areas. For street photography, I'd actually forget about the big heavy lenses and spend that $500 on a Canon G11. Those cameras have fixed lenses that will spare you a lot of trouble cleaning up the dust that is omnipresent in India. And do not underestimate the importance of the significantly lighter load.<br>

If you MUST use an SLR, carry a light prime, like an 85 1.8.</p>

[bk_waas]

<p>That is, take a light prime like an 85 1.8 for the portraits. For other things, take the 16-85. I have one and love it for travel.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I just want to add one comment not directly addressing the issue at hand -- why is 16mm/24mm equiv now considered only "slightly" wide? I notice this all over, contemporary photographers talking as if 24mm is not 'really' a wide angle lens. It sure was a wide angle lens in Eugene Smith's time.<br>

Now I feel better. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.</p>