Traveling light - what to take for a mid-range tele?

[lahuasteca]

<p>OK, after about a thousand posts of what to take to Central America, I'm finally going to Guatemala in November for Dia de Todos los Santos - candid ethnographic photography. I have to travel light and be discrete. So here's what I've got - after endless posts. P&S - Panasonic LX7. Main body - D700 with either a 28-105 (already have) or a 24-120vr (stretch the budget a little or rent). But I'm stumped on the 70-200 range - most are just too big and obvious, even the excellent 70-200 f4 - it will be noticed. I do have both 135 and 200 AIS primes, which are nice and compact and not too noticeable (used them in the film days). But I don't know if I can quickly manual focus to capture the scene.<br>

Other choices, which I currently don't have, but would have to purchase - 70-300VR. I know nothing about it, except lots of conflicting reports I've seen on the internet. Some love it, some don't. Then there's an old 70-210 f4-5.6, that got good reports in the film days, but I have no idea on how it would work on digital. Then there's a 180 AF 2.8 lens that's got my attention, small AF, but no AFS or VR.<br>

If this were an event I was shooting at home, I'd get the 70-200 f4 and that's be it. I'm open to suggestions.<br />Thanks<br>

Gene</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

If you want light is go with a 70-300 vr or the Tamron version. Both look really good on a 12mp camera - not as good as a

70-200, but they're a lot easier to carry.

[lahuasteca]

<p>Yes, Andy, I think it's between the 70-300vr and the 180 2.8 AF. Probably the 70-300 will be a little more useful.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I'm one of those who likes the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I keep bringing <strong><a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS">this thread</a></strong> up because I included a couple of photos with at 300mm, the focal length where it not supposed to be any good. I haven't owned the 180mm, but it has a reputation as a very fine lens. However, as you mention, it has no AF-S, and is one of the slower focusing screw-driven lenses. I had the old 70-210 f4-5.6, but traded it in when I bought the significantly better 70-300. For a little more weight and a whole lot more money, the 70-200mm f/4 AFS VR is amazingly sharp and has the best VR I've ever experienced. If you don't need 300mm, it would be my recommendation.<br>

All that said, I don't know why you're worried about small differences in the perceived size of the different lenses. Any lens will be noticed. Just interact with people before and/or after you shoot. You'll have a better trip and might bring back better photos.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>I had and liked the 70-300mm VR and recommend it, but would much prefer the 28-300mm VR if travelling really light equipment wise was your prime concern.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"I had and liked the 70-300mm VR and recommend it, but would much prefer the 28-300mm VR if travelling really light equipment wise was your prime concern."<br>

Maybe, hadn't considered it. Reviews are all over the place. Maybe supplement it with 35 and 85 mm primes. Definitely would not buy this lens, but would go to Lens Rentals. </p>

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>70-200 range - most are just too big and obvious</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your 70-200 f/4 is 7" long - the 70-300 VR is 5.6 inches but grows to about the same length as the 70-200 when zoomed out - so I don't see an advantage there: if the 70-200 gets noticed, so will the 70-300. The 180 is 5.7" long - but there is the AF noise to deal with. Similarly with the 70-210, 4.3" at the 70mm setting and 6.1" when zoomed out. The 28-300 starts at 4.5" - before you zoom - at which point it just grows, and grows, and grows. All those dimensions are without the hood - which in some cases adds another inch or two the the overall length (but can, of course, be removed).<br /> I can only second what Hector already said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All that said, I don't know why you're worried about small differences in the perceived size of the different lenses. Any lens will be noticed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Add to that the racket the D700 makes...</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>Well, just got off the Nikon USA website. Refurbished Nikon 70-200 f4 now $1099 plus a 10%<br />discount taking it down to $1,000. The 70-200 is starting to look better.<br>

I'll be photographing local fiestas, mainly the one at Sumpango, Guatemala - giant kites. There'll be plenty of noises so I don't think the shutter sound of the D700 will get noticed. Pointing the lens - well, that's a different story.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you can, see if you can check out the Nikon AF VR 55-300mm DX Nikkor. It is 'lighter' than the 70-300mm lens, in the Nikon line.</p>

<p> </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>mm Thinking about a "traveling light kit" also , and at the risk of some "responses" to this answer ... :<br>

<br /> I'm thinking hard at adding a Omlympus OM-3 D5 mark II Kit, and selling some of my Nikon stuff to make the whole affaire a bit more affordable..</p>

<p>This will save so much weight and space in my camerabag, and i think that most things i can do with my D300( which i will be selling then) can be done with the Olympus too, and at the cuurent status of the Oly Mft with at least the same quality..</p>

<p>Off course i will also hang on to some Nikon equpment, but this way i will have more choices / options for different circumstances..</p>

[steve_george3]

A long time ago I travelled through the Yucatan. Visited all of the (then) available Mayan sites, had nearly a week in Merida, and spent the

last week on the Caribbean coast letting my wife soak up the sun. And I took with me an F2 Photomic, a 24mm Nikkor, and a 55mm

Micro-Nikkor. No telephotos, no zooms. A few years later we went on a Nile cruise, followed by several days in Luxor, several in Cairo,

and a week going up Sinai, and crossing the Red Sea into Jordan to see Petra and the 7 Pillars of Wisdom. Same camera, same 24mm,

but the 55mm had by this time been swapped for a 105mm Micro-Nikkor. If I hadn't had a fascination for little things I'd probably have

substituted an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor for either of the Micros. You can travel a lot lighter using primes, rather than zooms. I later switched to

using Leicas, and one of the best lenses I owned was the 180mm Apo-Telyt: small, and incredibly sharp. Mind you, that was used on a

full frame (35mm) camera. But I'd test one, or a lens of that focal length, on a digital.

[johne37179]

<p>None of the longer lenses are unobtrusive, but you will be further from the subject. However, be aware that you need to be conscious of how people feel about having their picture taken. If they object, then the lens doesn't matter. The risk is that they "pose" and you lose the spontaneity. I have found one of the best ways to avoid becoming a influence on the picture is to find other photographers and hide in plain sight among them. Sometimes you stand out when you are alone, but if there are others taking photographs, then you become part of the background.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<blockquote>

<p>You can travel a lot lighter using primes, rather than zooms. I later switched to using Leicas, and one of the best lenses I owned was the 180mm Apo-Telyt: small, and incredibly sharp. Mind you, that was used on a full frame (35mm) camera. But I'd test one, or a lens of that focal length, on a digital.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back in the "old days" (film) I used to travel to Guatemala with an FE2 plus 35-85-135 primes.<br />Small footprint - I was never even noticed. I'm still displaying some of those images in local galleries. Seems like I'm agreeing with every poster, but I'm going to experiment with this. Shooting an event this afternoon - going to try and use just primes. The minimal footprint and IQ of the primes vs. the convenience and covering all focal lengths of the zooms. The primes I have, some AF and others AIS.<br>

</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Size-wise the 70-300VR isn't a huge advantage over the 70-200 f/4VR; if budget allows, that would be my choice. If I didn't already have the 180 f/2.8... :-) The 180 f/2.8 isn't supersmall nor superlight, but it is a really excellent lens. Optically, a 70-300VR won't beat it; the 70-200 f/4VR may come close. Personally, I prefer the rendering of the older lenses, not as contrasty and saturated maybe, but more subtle. In short, I really do like the 180 a lot.<br>

Alongside a 24-120 or similar, it makes a good portable kit. Maybe not as versatile as a 70-200, but the 28-105/24-120 is already taking care of the other end, so it's not that big an issue, in my view (I've got the 24-120 alongside).</p>

[doug_armstrong]

<p>Here's my experience in similar situations where I'm taking pictures of people I know, or at least am acquainted with, doing things and interacting with me. The focal lengths I mention are all FF equivalents. I like to take pictures of what I'm seeing -- that is comprehending -- with my eyes. I find that usually I see in two different ways. The first is taking in a whole scene. This is covered well by 35mm. The other is looking at details. This seems to be 90mm or a little over (but I can crop a little without too much pain). My digital camera has a kit zoom on it, but most of my images are at or near one of those two focal lengths. Sometimes I wish I had something closer to the 135 that I had for my Nikormat, but these are very different images. They are images from "outside", rather than images of people or things that I am interacting with.</p>

<p>Near the tail end of the film era I spent two weeks in Cuba. This was a visit to a sister church, not a tourist trip. The only camera I had was a Yashica T4, a P&S film camera with a 35mm lens. I sometimes wished that I had more camera, but I never felt that I missed anything really important. My best pictures followed a standard, boring format: A single person it one part of the frame -- close enough to be part of my "detail" seeing -- and the people and/or things that we are interacting with in the remainder of the frame -- the "whole scene" view. My interest in images is closer to the journalistic than the artistic, so this artistically boring approach keeps me quite happy.</p>

<p>My suggestion to you, Gene, is that when you need to travel light, you need to think hard about what you are trying to do and what has worked (most of the time) in the past. Take what is necessary to meet those needs and let go of the need to capture the occasional image that would require that you had brought twice as much gear. I <em>am</em> assuming that this is not a professional trip, where you have to capture certain images no matter what. </p>

 

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<h1>Traveling light - what to take for a mid-range tele?</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>Of the mid-range telephoto lenses I own, I would choose one of these two:<br />(A) Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 - f/5.6<br />(B) Nikkor 75-150mm Series E Zoom f/3.5</p>

<p> </div>

[lahuasteca]

<blockquote>

<p>My suggestion to you, Gene, is that when you need to travel light, you need to think hard about what you are trying to do and what has worked (most of the time) in the past. Take what is necessary to meet those needs and let go of the need to capture the occasional image that would require that you had brought twice as much gear. I <em>am</em> assuming that this is not a professional trip, where you have to capture certain images no matter what.</p>

<p>Of the mid-range telephoto lenses I own, I would choose one of these two:<br />(A) Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 - f/5.6<br />(B) Nikkor 75-150mm Series E Zoom f/3.5</p>

 

Doug,

 

Didn't realize this thread was still active. What worked for me in the past was an FE2 and three primes: 28 or 35, 85, and 135. The new 16-80 2.8-4.0 sort of covers all of these lengths in one lens. It may be time to compromise - a DX body with one lens. The trip is semi-professional - the better images will be put into a local gallery where I have a space.

 

John,

 

I had a 75-150 in the film days. If it were autofocus today there'd be no doubt I'd<br />take it. But I found it very hard to focus on digital. Wish someone made a fairly<br />compact mid-range zoom - AFS and VR. The Sigma 50-150 is quite big.<br /><br />

Thanks all for comments and suggestions.

 

Gene

 

 

</blockquote>