Wide angles, flashes and the Himalayas with D7000

[adam_nash2]

I have a few facets to my question so I will try to keep it as brief and concise as possible.

 

In December I will be heading off to the Himalayas to do some long treks and a lot of photography. I currently have a D7000 with a 16-85

and the 70-300. I will be shooting wildlife, landscapes (both day and night) as well as low-light monasteries and lots of timelapse and

astrolapses. I have been looking to expand my lens collection with a fast wide zoom or prime. I recently posted this http://www.photo.net/nikon-

camera-forum/00bpgX?start=10 question and got some very detailed responses but nothing that gave me th answer. I have been looking

at the Tokina 11-16, Nikkor 10-24, and the Nikkor 14mm f2.8. I would love to hear people thoughts and suggestions based on what I have

and my low light requirements.

 

I am also in the market for a flash. As I will be carrying all this stuff I need to balance what I need for the trip with what I want long term. I

do not mind spending on the right lens or flash or even carrying it around if it will last me long term. Currently nothing seems to sit

between the SB300 and the SB 700 in the flas range.

 

I also plan to post another question on camera backpack/ hiking bags.

 

Thanks in advance,

Adam

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Adam. Firstly, by Nikkor 14mm, I'm assuming you mean the 14-24. There is a 14mm prime, but it's not optically in the class of the zoom. On the other hand, the 14-24 is enormous (for a not-that-wide DX lens) - you're paying for the FX coverage as well as the speed. It also doesn't take filters (easily), which might be an issue if you're expecting anything to get on the lens. I love mine, but I wouldn't really recommend it for a DX camera in terms of value for money/weight.<br />

<br />

Given that you already have a 16-85 and you're looking at DX, I'd suggest checking out the Sigma 8-16mm. It's slower, but it's also the widest option available to you (equivalent to the full-frame 12-24) and has less cross-over with your 16-85 (which doesn't matter <i>that</i> much, but if you're trying to make the most of your weight allowance...); an alternative is to look at a fish-eye. It sounds as though you'll have a tripod with you anyway, in which case the slower aperture shouldn't matter too much - it's obviously not going to be as easy to hand-hold in a dark monastery as the Tokina f/2.8 lens, but maybe you don't need to be able to do that. I don't have direct experience of any of these, and can't vouch for "best", but at f/8 all lenses are pretty good. If you want a fast aperture for depth of field control... well, I assume you probably don't if you're using an ultrawide.<br />

<br />

As for flashes, there are some good third-party options, but you could consider a used SB600 (or two). The user interface is a pain compared with an SB700, but if you get it set up and leave it alone, this may not bother you. I have three (for CLS multi-flash shooting), on the basis that having got one, using a flash with a better interface wasn't going to save me from having to remember how to use at least one SB600! Lithium batteries are much lighter than Alkaline ones, although it's possible you're not supposed to use them (I've never had a problem). Take one out when you're not using them so they don't trickle flat.<br />

<br />

Is renting an 80-400 AF-S an option instead of your 70-300? It's heavier, but much better at the longer end, in addition to having reach. I'm imagining distant birds.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I envy you the opportunity (although not too much, with my current fitness level).</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>The Nikon 35mm f 1.8 DX prime has excellent image quality and is light weight. It may not be wide enough for your needs. I use it a lot on my DX bodies and I also use my 20mm f 2.8 AF-D lens on my DX bodies with good success. Like you I have the 16-85mm VR which is a good all around DX lens. See what lenses are for rent at lensrentals.com and borrowlens.com. That might give you some idea as to what is a "good lens" for you. Joe Smith</p>

[adam_nash2]

Hi Andrew, firstly I was actually refering to the 14mm prime as I ruled out the HUGE FX wide zoom. My next camera will

certainly be a full frame so it's a possibility to start a sensible FX collection where logical. Though I understand this lens

also doesn't take filters but is about $500 cheaper and 1/3 light/ smaller. Just seemed like a possibility.

 

A fisheye is probably not the aesthetic I'm after as I'm not keen on the distortion. The same may be said for the ultra, ultra

wide Sigma. That said do you know anything of the quality of this lens as well as things like coma on stars etc? This

would b a factor to me. I guess I'm after a high IQ, fast wide lens. I presume I will be handholding in some low light

scenarios so speed is probably important. Again the Toking 11-16 seems like a good bet still.

 

Regarding flashes I did read up on the SB600. Ken Rockwell seems to rave about it. The SB 700 is a possibility I'm just

worried about the size. I guess a trip to the mall to get hands on is in order. Do you think th SB 300 is just too basic? As

far as I can tell you don't have any control over the amount of light whatsoever.

 

Yep, hiring a lens seems to be pricy here in Dubai so ill be sticking with my 70-300. I bought this trip as a bday present to

my girlfriend so need to keep my spending in check : )

[greg_alton]

<p>Second the small, fast prime recommendation - you'll need something fast for monasteries and other situations where flash is not appropriate.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Ken Rockwell seems to rave about it." - KR raves about a lot of stuff that, frankly, isn't very good. In fact he's fairly uncritical all round, since that might hurt his website traffic and sponsorship.</p>

<p>I'd think very carefully about taking a flash at all Adam, since it sounds as if you're not very experienced in using one. Even the most powerful speedlight won't be enough to light an entire temple, and then there's the issue of charging or buying and carrying batteries for it. The SB-600 is about one whole stop less powerful than an SB-800, 900 or 910. Sure, you can pump up the camera ISO to compensate, but that kind of defeats its purpose.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ah, got you Adam. Well, you're right about the cheaper and smaller with the 14mm, but I've generally heard <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report?start=1">less than wonderful</a> things about the optics - and that test was on a 10MP crop sensor. If you can live with manual focus, the 14mm Samyang is probably a better budget route there.<br />

<br />

I've no personal experience with the 8-16, but <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/625-sigma816f4556dx?start=1">Photozone</a> seem to like it. If you don't want an ultrawide, though, I can see it may not appeal. Sigma's 12-24 was quite well-regarded (though not in the 14-24 class), and it's a full-frame lens if you want to be future-proof. It's slow, though; if you want speed, the Tokina may be the way. I'd consider a monopod, even if it's one of the cheap light ones that doubles as a walking pole.<br />

<br />

Or, as Joseph suggests, you could go for real speed and get a 35mm f/1.8 - or a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (the last of which would show up stars better than anything but possibly the 70-300mm, and be better wide open).<br />

<br />

I assume you have control over the light amount from the camera, if only from flash exposure compensation. Still, the SB-600 is not far off the price, much more powerful, rotates, can be used with CLS for off-camera use (the killer distinction for me - use the camera's integrated flash as a trigger) and has wider coverage for your ultrawide lenses. It's bigger, of course. I'll gladly disagree with much of Ken's raving, but - while I'm not about to claim the SB-600 is actively better than its bigger brothers - it's a big step up from the SB-300/SB-400 class.<br />

<br />

Good birthday present! Well, that shows me up. I still owe my wife a new dishwasher...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ - I'd imagine that the lighting inside a temple might be quite directional, and that seeing the details may be awkward. Not that I know anything about Himalayan temples. An SB-600 will light up the side of a building, especially at a wide aperture. It's not going to do a cathedral, but it might lift the shadows enough to make the difference, especially if hand-holding or trying to balance light from a door. I agree that the batteries won't last indefinitely, but a pack of lithiums will get you a decent number of shots if it's a record of travel. The 800/900/910 have more oomph, but they're also a lot bigger. Take your pick. :-)<br />

<br />

Would I take one? Well, it depends how much else I was carrying and how much of a difference it would make. If not, if you're trying to get the inside of an unlit temple, I'd think about the camera + long exposure + torch method. Or, if the sun isn't lighting things very well, bounce it in with a reflector. But all this is based entirely on how I'm imagining these temples might be, and I could be way off.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I do a lot of night photography, and also do my share of "adventure" travel. Some thoughts. First, I think the lens you want is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It's VERY wide. The f2.8 will do well with wide expanses of night sky, and dark interiors. The lens is excellent! It's also fairly small and compact. It will very easily outperform the old Nikon 14mm you are talking about in every way.</p>

<p>Next, let's talk about light. There are some nice & small Metz flashes that travel well, such as the Metz Mecablitz 24. There is another route you can go, though. What are you going to use the flash for? If it's for portraits and a little fill flash, something like a small Metz will do that very well. If you are trying to light up something larger, most here are (logically) discussing larger flash such as SB-900.) I have one of these, but I would NOT want to carry it around on a mountain trek. Here's what I, a night photographer, would suggest instead. Buy one of those insanely powerful tiny little flashlights. Find one that runs on AA batteries rather than hard to find special cells. By placing your camera on a tripod and setting the timer to something like 10 seconds, you can use that tiny but powerful little flashlight off camera to "paint with light". It's incredibly effective! Yes, I sometimes do this myself. For someone backpacking at altitude, I think it's your best bet.<br /> Now for some more general thoughts. For what you are doing, there is NO WAY that I would want to be lugging around a Nikon FX system. No way! It's heavy, bulky, and no one looking at the photos will ever be able to tell the difference. The Nikon I would choose is a D5200. It has the same excellent sensor as the D7100 but is much more compact. The rest of the system would be Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 18-55mm VR, and maybe Nikon 70-300mm VR (since you mentioned wildlife.) Add a powerful small flashlight and a Gitzo Traveler tripod and you're set! I can afford anything I want, and what I'm really looking hard at as a travel camera is that tiny Sony RX with maybe 3-4 small lenses, small flash, and a Gitzo Traveler tripod. Just a dozen years ago you would have been lusting for a Leica M6 with three Leica lenses as your camera--small, light, efficient, excellent quality. Now, something like the D5200 or even small Sony RX offers even more in a tiny package!</p>

<p>Below shot was made at the top of Mona Kea using D7100 a& Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Benro Travel Angel tripod. I wish I had brought my little Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 instead. It would have been perfect for sky/landscapes shots at night at 14, 000 ft.!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i think you'll find the 16-85 will be "wide enough" most of the time. that and a stabilized 70-300 should be 80-90% of what you'd need for your trip.i like the idea of the 35/1.8 for indoor/night shooting, as it's small, compact, fast, sharp, and cheap. for travel shooting, i also like the idea of a macro for detail shots, and the tokina 35/2.8 is about the same size as the nikon 35/1.8 and just a bit heavier. it might seem like overkill to carry two 35mm primes, but the tokina 35 is not only sharper than the nikon 35/1.8, but focuses way closer. if you don't want to take two 35mm primes, you could get the tokina 35 and the nikon 50/1.8 D, which is even more compact than the 35/1.8, but still gives you a fast aperture and fairly sharp optics, at an even lower price point than the 35/1.8.</p>

<p>as far as ultra wide-angles go, the 11-16 makes some sense, especially since your other lenses are rather slow. for available-light interiors, and "low-light monastery shots," 2.8 could be useful, especially if flash is not allowed. OTOH, the 8-16 is s-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y-w-i-d-e, and also makes sense when paired with the 16-85/70-300 combo. my thinking is, you won't use an ultrawide that much--maybe 10% of shooting at most--because of the 16-85's 16mm wide end, so you might as well go all-out for those wide shots. ultimately, this comes down to usefulness of 2.8 vs an extra 3mm on the wide end--which is considerable, especially on DX.</p>

<p>if possible, i would bring some sort of stabilization -- either a travel tripod or monopod. that could make up for the slow apertures of your zooms.</p>

<p>as far as flash is concerned, the sb-600 is worth looking into. the sb-300 is nice and portable and will bounce, but low-powered and sparse in terms of features. the sb-700 isn't really an improvement over the 600 unless you're planning on doing a lot of CLS remote use. for dialing down the flash in manual mode, the 600 is actually easier than the 700/800/910, etc. the sb-600/700 size is as large as you'd really want to go for travel. also the 600 is slightly more powerful than the 700.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you're OK with the size of a SB600, you'll be OK with the size of a SB700 - they're about equal weight, size. Having both of them, I must say I much prefer the SB700 over the SB600 - the user interface just is better in each and every way, in my view. Plus, the SB700 can be bought new with warranty, the SB600 only 2nd hand and with a flash it's a bit harder to establish how well the previous owner took care of it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think you have a great set of lenses to travel with there. The 11-16 would be a GREAT addition. I think the new 12-28 is more practical (but maybe not available yet). That said... I LOVE the 11-16. The Sigma is VERY much worth looking at, too, but 8mm is REALLY wide. I'm not sure I need that wide...</p>

<p>I second the idea of having a fast "normal" prime with you when you travel. The 35mm f1.8G is nice and teeny.</p>

[adam_nash2]

<p>Thank you all for your responses. They have proven invaluable and I think there seems to be a lot of agreement on many of the points and subsequently a clear route forward for me. <br>

Starting with Joseph's suggestion </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon 35mm f 1.8 DX prime has excellent image quality and is light weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will certainly be picking up one of these lenses as they seem great value at only $240.<br>

Andrew, I wonder if you could expand on this comment you made?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or, as Joseph suggests, you could go for real speed and get a 35mm f/1.8 - or a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (the last of which would show up stars better than anything but possibly the 70-300mm, and be better wide open). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>How would you suggest using the 70-300mm in astro photography. I read in one of my last question posts about using zooms like this to capture greater star detail. <br>

<br>

Kent, your advice here is super relevant and a real help. The Sony RX is a great camera and certainly something I would love to add to my "wish list". As I mentioned I will be travelling with my girlfriend and I just convinced only two days ago that she should get the D5200 for exactly the reasons you mentioned. So between that and the D7000, combined with the lenses I have and will be purchasing, we should be in pretty good shape. With the almost unanimous approval I will also certainly be getting the Tokina 11-16. Though I will certainly be looking into Peter's suggestion </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the new 12-28 is more practical (but maybe not available yet)<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does anyone have any more info on this lens, when it might be released and what we are looking at in terms of speed? <br>

<br>

Kent, another couple of points you mentioned were the flashlight method, which sounds really interesting and something I can experiment with before hand, as well as the Getz Traveller tripod. I was planning to make my rather heavy and bulky Manfrotto (not sure which series). But after your comments I may well get one of these instead.<br>

<br>

When it comes to the flash. I have to think beyond the trekking, which I will be doing at least once a year but presume I will want added capabilities in other situations as well as in the future. So size and weight are not my only considerations here. I have very little working knowledge of flash photography but the point being to get one now and take the interim three months before the trip to learn the basics.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you're OK with the size of a SB600, you'll be OK with the size of a SB700 - they're about equal weight, size. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the SB700 it is. </p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I forgot to mention in my earlier post my favorite traveling tripod, the Ultrapod 2. It is a fold up put in your pocket type that weighs next to nothing. It has saved my life many times inside churches and in other low light situations where exposure times were long and regular tripods were not allowed or not with me. I agree with Kent's thoughts about the Sony cameras. The NEX -7 looks great as does the RX-100. Here is info on the Ultrapod:<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239963-REG/Ultrapod_PD02010_2_Black.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/239963-REG/Ultrapod_PD02010_2_Black.html</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[adam_nash2]

Amazing. Thank you Joseph! The Sony NEX cameras are currently my absolute favourite point and shoot/ DSLR. I

bought two of my friends the Sony NEX 3 when it first came out (it's been three years now and nobody has got me one

back) and often borrow them for lightweight trips abroad. I was literally in the process of checking out travel tripods when

you replied and now have an extra tab open.

[purplealien]

<p>Adam</p>

<p>Lucky you! You'll have an amazing time! I visited in 1991 with an F801s, a couple of lenses, a tripod and a half a dozen rolls of Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Great recommendations above. I have no experience with the Tokina 11-16 (I use a Sigma 10-20), but I wouldn't be without my 35mm f/1.8G and SB700. The telephoto is worth taking just for the wonderful compression of perspective you can achieve - the mountains can be made to look very close. I'd be tempted to leave the 16-85 at base camp. Going up and down steps for 8 hours each day can be very hard on the legs and you'll feel every pound you carry. Do take your tripod though!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>Another thought for a travel tripod is the Benro C-0691 Travel Angel. It folds down to about 16 inches, weighs less than 3 pounds, and since it's carbon fiber it's pretty stiff/sturdy. I have the heavier aluminum 269 model and it's what I take on trips. I'd rather have the C-0691 though.</p>

<p>For flash, the SB-700 is a great smaller sized flash that is highly versatile for "general purpose." The smaller Metz flash would be a better choice for adventure travel. I generally don't take flash with me all that often any more, choosing instead to use the flashlight when I need to light things. </p>

<p>I do have a 30mm f1.4 Sigma lens which is excellent. Even though I'm a hardcore night photographer I find I just don't need it very often. I never take it on trips, preferring to streamline my camera bag. The f2.8 zooms I have are plenty fast enough, especially with a D7100/D5200. A 30/35mm just isn't at all wide or particularly useful on a DX camera. The problem with advice on message boards such as this one is you will get many POV. While that's certainly a good thing, the bad thing is you might end up buying a bunch of stuff you really won't actually use, just because it sounded good. I treat camera gear as a SYSTEM, not "pieces." Think carefully of what you want to do, the circumstances you will take the photos, and how to best allocate your resources to that system (System = flash, camera, lenses, tripod, camera bag.) For me, when it comes to travel (especially at high altitude,) I am trying to streamline as much as possible, and buy fewer but more versatile "pieces." For my trip to Hawaii in July I only took two lenses for my Nikons D7100/D5100: Nikons 17-55mm f2.8 & 80-400mm VR. For previous trips I was once taking four or five lenses! Now that I'm more experienced, I just don't need all that stuff.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[adam_nash2]

<blockquote>

<p>The telephoto is worth taking just for the wonderful compression of perspective you can achieve - the mountains can be made to look very close.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Thanks Chris, this is a technique I had forgotten. It's easy to get caught up in trying to capture the "whole" sometimes when a shot like the one you posted above can better capture the moment. <br>

<br>

Thank you also Kent, I agree and know what you mean. I have posted in the past and got a huge variety of POV on a given subject. I think I've been pretty lucky in this particular post as there seems to be quite a consensus on what's needed. Not too much variation to cut through. Thanks entirely to logical posts from people that have done or continually do exactly what I am about to. great advice all round. As is your systemic approach and when I apply it to what I have and are looking to get I think it stands up quite well. A super wide 11-16 for night, low-light and wide landscapes (this could travel with the porters). My 16-85 as a general purpose that I presume will be on my camera 80% of the time. I then have my 70-300 for the compression shots mentioned by Chris as well as for wildlife at a distance and to experiment with at night. Then there is the super compact, lightweight, cheap and fast 35mm for interior low light shots. I may not use it all that much but its weight and size earns it a place in the bag I believe. Then there is the question of the flash. I am still on the fence on this one. I am currently looking at the SB700 but haven't properly explored the Metz options mentioned earlier. The tripod. I have pretty much abandoned the idea of bringing my heavy Manfotto in favour of a more collapsible, portable version. Again I need to look into the options here. Then lastly the bag.... The Lowepro Rover, Vertex and Trekker seem good options as does the Crumpler Karachi Outbound but once again I need to do more research.<br>

Adam </p>

[mightypir]

<p>Adam:<br>

the lenses that you have will be perfect for 90% of the the time. You really don't need anything else, the ultra wides are very rarely used. A hotshoe flash is a very good idea, and the SB800/600700 size is far better than the 900 series and more likely to be carried. I also have a 35 1.8 that works well in low like situations and is wickedly sharp.</p>

<p>A tripod is a great idea for the times when you are shooting landscapes...I have used Slik sprint pro which is stable when not fully extended and quite compact. You should also carry polarizer and ND filters as they will come in handy. Don't forget extra batteries and a remote release!</p>

<p>As far as bags go, how are you traveling around? In a dedicated 4x4? Bus or public transport? Or mostly on foot? That will ultimately decide the kind of bag you should carry. </p>

<p>Last but not least what are you going to be doing to back up your images? I normally carry a netbook that allows me to do some editing on the fly but more importatly, it allows me the facility to carry my images on the HDD as well as copy them on to large capacity flash drives (2) for backup purposes. </p>

<p>Hope you have a great time!!!</p>

<p>Farooq</p>

<p> </p>

[adam_nash2]

Hi Farooq,

 

As you can imagine I'm pretty excited about the trip and being the person I am, buying new camera gear specifically for

the trip only adds to that excitement. Though I am constantly bringing myself back down to earth and trying to install a bit

of reality into my purchasing needs. With that in mind I think you're quite right in that my lenses are probably good for

90% of my needs. After all I conducted a similar amount of research before buying them in the first place.

 

That said, I really do see value in a light and portable tripod over my quite heavy (yet sturdy) Manfrotto as well as a fast,

sharp and portable 35mm prime.

 

I will be trekking the entire time on foot. I will need to carry everything with me but will have the help of porters/ Sherpas.

Each porter carries up to 20kh with them and I anticipate to carry all of my (and probably my girlfriend's who has an

aversion to carry anything larger then an iPhone) camera gear. I am looking at the Lowepro Trekker 300/400, the F-stop

Loka, Dakine Quest 28L and the Tamrac Expedition X7. So far the Lowepro and the F-stop are winning. .

 

Thanks for your advice,

Adam

[adam_nash2]

Forgot to mention that I will be carrying a MacBook Air with me too.

[michael_b10]

<p>Having made a few trips to the Indian Himalayas (I'm guessing you're going to Nepal?), I think Farooq is pretty much on the money with his lens advice. I dont recall ever regretting leaving my 12-24mm lens at home and only being able to go as wide as the 16mm on my 16-85. I agree you'll want a small fast prime. And I guess as long as you have the 70-300, no real reason not to take it. But even if you have a porter, it's always better not to bring more stuff than you're realistically going to use. (I'll try to attach a couple of shots here, one with D7000 and 16-85mm, one with the 35mm f1.8 - both images handheld. But I've never attached pix here before, so it may or may not work - hence my previous post with nothing in it!)</p><div></div>

[michael_b10]

<p>Here's one with the 35 mm - handheld - you can see why fast primes can be essential.</p><div></div>

[adam_nash2]

<p>Great shots! Thanks Michael.</p>

<p>Agreed, less is more. I just bought the Benro carbon fiber MeFoto. I know there are later models out now but I liked the design of this model better. GBP 200 on eBay. Will be getting the 35mm an SB700 Speedlight and I think I'm good to go. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly... (sorry Adam, I've been away):</p>

 

<blockquote>Andrew, I wonder if you could expand on this comment you made?

<blockquote>Or, as Joseph suggests, you could go for real speed and get a 35mm f/1.8 - or a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (the last of which would show up stars better than anything but possibly the 70-300mm, and be better wide open).</blockquote></blockquote>

 

<p>Exposure normally depends on relative aperture (i.e. f-stop: the effective "hole" for gathering light divided by the focal length). The bigger "hole" lets in more light, but the longer focal length spreads the light out again so the effect balances out. That's why you can calculate exposure in f-stops.<br />

<br />

This only works if the thing you're taking a photograph of actually spreads out with the longer focal length. Unless you have a lens many metres across, a star will remain a single point of light (at least in terms of detail), no matter the focal length you use. However, a larger aperture still gathers more of its light. Therefore a longer lens will make a star look brighter than a shorter lens of the same f-stop. This only works for single points of light - it doesn't help for deep-sky objects that actually cover a significant area (nebulae, galaxies, etc.) This is also why you can see a lot of stars through a telescope with quite a small relative aperture - for example, I have a 10" Dobsonian that has a 1200mm focal length, and is therefore roughly f/5, and probably a bit worse than that in T-stops because of the secondary mirror; however, it makes stars roughly twice as bright as my 200mm f/2. There's no substitute for aperture.<br />

<br />

Therefore if you want to make stars show up, you might want to go for a longer fast prime (although I don't suggest you actually take a telescope) - but it's much more of a problem if you're somewhere with light pollution, as I am, where just doing a longer exposure isn't such an option. It would also give you better subject separation if you want to take photos of people (the blurred background in a photo is enlarged more by a longer lens, which makes it look more blurry).<br />

<br />

The absolute aperture of the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 is actually larger than that of, say, an 85mm f/1.8 (300/5.6 is roughly 54mm; 85/1.8 is roughly 47mm), but the 85mm f/1.8 is known for being very sharp even wide open, whereas the 70-300VR sharpens up considerably if stopped down to f/8 or f/11, especially at the long end. The AF-S version has somewhat nicer bokeh, but the previous version was also very sharp. And the 85mm will be a more useful portrait lens for blurring the background unless the background is a really long way behind the subject.<br />

<br />

Of course, if you don't want to take portraits of anyone, if you want portraits that actually show the environment (so you don't blur it out), or if you just don't need a wide angle (and don't want to do a lot of stitching) then a long lens may not be your friend. The 50mm is probably a good trade-off between length and weight, but it's not everyone's favourite focal length on DX and it's not as sharp as the 85mm wide open.<br />

<br />

I'll be interested in how you get on with the Benro. I've recently picked up a Velbon REXi L for travel - it's not carbon, but it's pretty solid for its size, weight and cost.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope you enjoy your trip - I'm sure you'll get some great shots!</p>