One lens solution?

[RaymondC]

<p>I just thought about the following combo's like to know your views. For travel use. </p>

<p>DX sensor dSLR with a 35/1.8 DX<br>

FX sensor dSLR with maybe a 50mm or a 35mm?</p>

<p>And maybe with a lighter 18-35mm for my landscape/cityscape interest. So the above is the main walking around lens. Maybe an alternative vs a 24-70 or a 24-120mm.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You mean, taking 2 bodies, and then have DX/35mm and FX/50mm which is effectively the same? Or choose one body?<br>

Anyway, I'd take one body; in fact, just got back from a city-trip with DX with 24mm, 35mm and 105mm primes. Small and light enough, and covered my wishes. I considered the 16-85VR (excellent travel companion), but decided I wanted primes this time. Have to add that I'm not a heavy wide angle user. So having 24mm as the widest on my D300 was OK for me.<br>

In addition, I know the city I visited extremely well, so I knew upfront what lenses I needed. Would it be a "unknown" city, I'd sure have added the 16-85VR for its versatility.</p>

<p>Point to me is: each and everyone has his/her own style, and lenses need to match that style. My choice would very possibly not be yours, and hence nobody can really advice you without understanding how you usually prefer to shoot.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Yeah just one either a DX with that lens or a FX with that .....</p>

[JakeQ]

<blockquote>One lens solution? For travel use.</blockquote>

<p>The perfect one-lens-solution is a 40mm prime. My personal travel combo is a film or smaller FX body and the very compact Voigtlander 40mm and 90mm lenses. One on the camera, the other fits in any pocket. The 50/1.8 AI-S is very compact, too.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The issue with 40mm primes is that usually are not the faster ones... I like the 45P a lot but it`s f2.8. I believe Voigtlander has a faster version.</p>

<p>I`m currently using a FX with<br /> 50/1.4 > when the setup have to be lighter, smaller, more rugged,<br /> 24-120/4 > when the setup can be used under "normal", controlled conditions, or when a wide angle (or tele) lens may be needed. They are not an alternative.</p>

<p>This is my Nikon "minimalist" choice, and by far, my most used gear, week after week.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Ray that is about the hardest question to answer. I have travelled with a Lieca M3 and 50mm in the past. Now if I had just one prime it would be a fast 28mm or 35mm. It really depends on your style though. I also liked using a 65mm and 150mm with a Mamiya 7. Kind of big for travel but still simple. With a D700 I currently use either a 28-75mm zoom or three primes with a greater range, depending.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>There is no perfect one-lens solution. There are compromises, and you have to decide what you want to compromise.</p>

<p>For me, my 18-70 and 35mm f1.8 (in the pocket) works well. But last night I had to go somewhere where I was sure I'd be shooting long and not wide (a kid thing), so I brought the 35 in my pocket an my 70-300. The 18-70 might have been a problem.</p>

<p>And I'm totally confused, looks like you're traveling with two cameras? That would imply two lenses at least, right?</p>

<p>Also 24-70 and 24-120 (at least the new f4 one) don't seem like great "walking around" lenses to me.</p>

<p>Cool walking around rig? Oly micro 4/3 with the teeny kit lens and maybe a tele zoom. WOW! That'd be small.</p>

[dwight200]

<p>My one-body-one-lens solution is a Nikon FX with 28-300 zoom. That's for primarily outdoor shooting, but if you can pump up the ISO level it works indoors also.</p>

<p>I haven't used a single focal length on my camera since about 1970. I like the flexibility, and today's zoom lenses are significantly better than the ones I had in 1970.</p>

<p>Before the 28-300 I used a backpack full of gear.</p>

[tom_rhyne]

<p>16-85mm VR Nikkor--been all over Europe and much of US with it. Love it!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For travel use, I can't imagine that the aperture of primes is a good substitute for flexibility in focal length. I use a lot of primes when I know what I'm shooting, but my "don't know what's coming next body cap" (the lens I leave on my D700) is a 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G. It's small, light, cheap and reasonably sharp. The biggest down-side is that you get camera dealers thinking you're a newbie who put a cheap lens on a decent camera; they then tend to try to sell you the old model 24-120 as an "upgrade"... On the plus side, since I've got a silver one rather than "professional black", it makes people ignore that my camera's worth stealing. Anyway, the new 28-300 is undoubtedly more flexible (both in length and VR), but it's also much heavier and more expensive (as is the 18-200 for DX cameras). If I'm wandering around, I tend to have a small top-loading camera bag with my D700 and 28-200 in it, and stick a 50mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.8 AI in the front pocket in case the light goes or I want to blur a background. I'd be fonder of the 50mm if it didn't stick so far forward of its front element and was more "pancakey".<br />

<br />

With a lot of dim light indoors or night shooting, primes are a much better idea, but that's not what I immediately think of when you say "for travel". I tend to take the 50mm if I want to photograph a gathering in a pub (although a 14-24 also works, if you want to be extravagant). I have a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 on order which might make me change my opinion. If I'm staying away from home somewhere where I might take photos, I tend to have everything from a 14-24 and a fish-eye to a 150-500 with me, but that may be because I don't have much of a personal style yet...</p>

[Two23]

<p>For something small, light, and capable I would go for the 16-85mm VR. Very quick in hand, and as a bonus it has VR to increase your rate of keepers.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>With the proviso that I'm speaking as someone who doesn't own a DX body, I'm surprised the 16-85 is so popular compared with the 18-200. It's only slightly wider, almost as expensive, almost as heavy and only slightly sharper at the wide end (from what I can tell from reviews), and you miss out on the 85-200mm range for that odd bit of wildlife/gargoyle. I have a 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 that's even lighter and cheaper than my 28-200 was, but it's almost never used; the long end of the range is too useful to me. There are those who never use long telephotos, admittedly, but for travel I'd want the flexibility. Just trying to understand the recommendation - I may have been given the wrong impression about the 16-85's abilities.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I'll probably get flack for this because of the plastic mount, but for travel I really like the Nikon AF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 for my DX setup (was D70s, now D300s). Very versatile and my copy is very sharp at all focal lengths. To me variable focal length is more important than fast shutter so I also carry an SB600 flash.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Lenses take up so little room. Why not take an extra one? Or two? Because you never know...</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>If I had to go with only one lens, for primes it would be a 24 or 28 on DX or 35mm on FX, for zooms, it would be my 28-105 D on either format. Honestly though, I rarely ever take just one lens, unless I know that I'm just going to be doing macro, then it's my 55/3.5 AI. Recently I've been going out with the 28-105 and either a 24,28, or 35 prime. My poor 50/1.8 tends to sit on the shelf looking lonely, except for the times when I shoot film. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Speaking as someone who once carried "a few" extra lenses up Snowdon, sometimes you really want only as much as will fit on the camera - although since I don't know how to travel light, I extend that to having a second lens in the front pocket of a small top-load bag, and sometimes a third lens in a draw-string pouch on the side. For my D700, that gives me a 135mm f/2.8 (portraits) in the front pocket, 50mm f/1.8 (dark conditions) in the pouch that, I think, came with a teleconverter, and the 28-200 left on the camera for surprises. Depending on what I'm doing, that's a pretty light-weight kit. Today, I'm taking photos in a pub, and have the 50mm on the camera and my 14-24 bag hooked to the top-loader, but the combo is unwieldy.<br />

<br />

It depends what you call "travel". It doesn't sound like you're willing to use your entire carry-on allowance for lenses, as I tend to when going somewhere pretty. I recently talked myself out of a fine for an 11kg carry-on bag by pointing out that 4kg of it was a camera + 200 f/2 that I could hang around my neck. I'm not looking forward to the first time I want to carry my 500mm f/4 anywhere.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If size and weight is important, I don't know why you are still considering a d700 when you should really be considering a m4/3rd or other mirrorless cameras for general travel use. If nikon, then stick with a dx camera like the smaller d3100. You are asking the wrong question.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Very interesting.<br /> Well, I want to think that I`m not the only one who live almost permanently stucked to a camera. I never expect to find anything interesting, but maybe a bit of time to shoot something, or to think what I want to shoot.</p>

<p>With this aim in mind most of the times I don`t need nothing but a confortable single tool that doesn`t feel too much noticeable to me. It makes me think that I can live with just one prime... maybe my approach is not so "journalistic" (as I think most photogs are here), prepared for what they could find, but quite the opposite, adapting whatever the gear I carry to what I have in mind.</p>

<p>Obviously when I have somekind of assignment (amateur), I like to use the most appropiated gear; I can easily pack a big sized bag with pro gear. When I take a zoom is also because I don`t want to run "risks".</p>

<p>After many years in photography, and dozens of lenses/cameras in my closet, I have found that I feel happy even with the singlest** setup (camera+standard lens)... it doesn`t prevent me from shooting many hundreds of pics per month.<br /> ---<br /> (**<em>Singlest setup</em>... from the highest quality, I mean. Don`t try me to be happy with a digital P&S... ;)</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>For traveling, if I can only have one lens, I'd go with a mid-range zoom. DX would be an 18-70mm (light) or 17-55mm f/2.8 (heavy), FX would be a 28-XX (light) or 24-70mm f/2.8(heavy).</p>

<p>It really depends on where I was going and what I "knew" I'd be shooting.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>As I wasn't totally concered about the sharpest photos possible but wanted something a little wide and with some reach - I borrowed my dad's 18-200mm VR to pair with my D90 on my trip to Florida last month. It was a nice combination size and weight wise - I carried it for 10 to 11 hours a day most days on a Black Rapid R-strap.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>actually, if i could have only one lens for travel, it would probably be a 12-24/4 or 17-50/2.8 OS on DX. i like wide shots. for utility, an 18-135 with a 35/1.8 would be a decent kit. the closest to a one-lens solution is the 18-270, but then i'd still want a small prime for low-light. and an UWA. since i don't own a superzoom, if i was hopping on a plane tomorrow, i'd probably take four lenses: 12-24/4, 17-50/2.8 OS, 70-300 VC and 35/1.8. i could always leave a few lenses in the hotel safe if i didnt think i'd need them.</p>

<p>traveling with an FX camera is a whole different can of worms. when i travel, the FX camera stays at home unless it's a paid shoot. too big, too heavy, too valuable, especially in developing nations where it represents more than a year's wages,in some cases.</p>

<p>if you really just want a compact kit for snaps and candids, the d5100 with the 35/1.8 will deliver good IQ in a compact package for not too much cash. but i'd probably get bored with the focal length and miss my UWA.</p>

 

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>when i gave away my D60, i toyed with the idea of getting the D3000/D3100 for size and weight to mate with my 18-70mm. so i checked in here for feedbacks. for my everyday-carry/travel combo, it is now the D90 (which i already have at the time with the D60) with the 18-70mm and the 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket. if i know what i am doing that day, it can be just the D90 and the 35mm......the D90 is not really that heavy compared to the D60 that i was used to.</p>

<p>i find it hard to go out of the house or travel with just one lens. the 35mm as a second lens doesn't occupy much space in one of your pockets.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>it depends on the look you prefer...a cropped 35mm is different to a 50mm lens in subtle ways. i haven't shot with a Nikon 35mm, but the 50mm modern lenses i've used have been pretty ordinary. the suggestion of a 40mm is great, but then again it depends on what you like to shoot. i just spent months in europe with two lenses; a 35mm and an 75mm, and at the end of the trip i realised that i could have easily taken just the 35mm. a lot of slr users like to shoot with longer focal lengths, but what do you prefer?</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>If I could travel with only one lens on my 5D Mark II it would surely be my 28 1.8. I like this lens because it is small, fast sharp works good for both low light video and photos without flash. My second option would be my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 which is also relatively small and light but not quite as fast. I really like primes when shooting street photography because you are just so much less noticeable and don't stand out or scare people when your taking photos.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>once again people mistake need with theiir own wants. The answer to your simple question is easily answered. Take the DX with the 35mm/1.8. Good IQ and lightweight.<br>

Standard lenses are very underrated. You could use one for the rest of your life and be very happy with it because there is hardly a thing you can't shoot with it.</p>