Photo Trip Asia

[ben_canavaggio]

 

<p>Hi all<br>

I am going to Asia for a 4months (Thailand,Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) can't shoose what lens to take with me for my D750 and my D7200...<br>

I currently own the following lens: <br />50mm 1.8<br />85mm 1.4<br />70-200mm 2.8<br />24-70mm 2.8<br />14_24mm 2.8<br />105mm macro 2.8<br>

the 24-70 mm is the obvious choice but i will face different situations and i also like doing some macro photography....will be travelling for 4months (Thailand,Laos,Vietnam and Cambodia)so don't want to be overloaded as i will also have tripod, filters, and the other gear... thanks for any constructive advice</p>

 

[Mary Doo]

<p>Suggestions based on what you already have: 24-70, 70-200, and the 105 macro. If this combo is heavy enough, then the 3.5lb 14-24 can probably stay home. Alternately, take that with you and leave the macro home. In my travel experience, the macro lens (if I brother to bring it) does not get to be used much, and the 24-70 may be able to perform a "macro" job at a pinch.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Most of the time, people use the same gear at home as they do on a trip. The lighter the bag, the more fun you'll have. My choice from above would be 24-70, 70-200, 50mm f1.8, flash, polarizer. I keep a Canon 500D in my bag to use on my 80-400mm AFS when I want macro, even though I own a Micro 105mm VR.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[erik_christensen3]

<p>I have been travelling in the same countries about 1 month each, and 95% of my photo were taken with 24-70 and 70-200. I had both 85 f/1.4 and 105mm along, but did only use the 85mm but could easily have used the 24-70 instead. Enjoy your trip there are numerous good locations in these countries. I have settled down i one of them -:)</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Not knowing what your shooting preferences are, my suggestion is based on what I would take if I owned your gear: 14-24, 24-70, 105 and both camera bodies. Or, if you feel the need for something longer, then replace the 105 with the 70-200 and add a 500D for macro. Carrying 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 would certainly exceed my comfort level of what to carry, and based on my preferences, I would leave the 24-70 home and take the 50 instead (actually, I would get a 35). And if I really wanted to go light, then I'd bring 14-24, 35 or 50, 105.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, I travel with far heavier camera gear, frequently with some super tele for wildlife photography, but I usually go with a group of photographers for only 2, 3 weeks. Ben has some fine lenses, but IMO they are way too heavy to be on the go for 4 months.</p>

<p>Are you at liberty to add a lens or two for the trip? If you don't need them for the long run, you can always buy used and then re-sell them afterwards. A 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S and 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR come to mind to replace those heavy 14-24, 70-200 and perhaps the 85mm/f1.4 as well.</p>

<p>I tend to bring a true macro lens. My 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR focuses to very close as well, but its quality is nowhere near that from a real macro lens from that kind of distance.</p>

<p>Definitely bring both camera bodies with two chargers such that if one of them fails, you won't be completely stuck. Get some high-capacity SD memory cards.</p>

[Keith S in Arizona USA]

<p>Ben -- Have you thought about "carrying what you think you would take" around here at home for a day or a few hours? That may help you decide what to pare the items down to as far as weight. A trip could turn out to be quite miserable if you are severely overloaded. That 24-70 2.8 can become a real burden over time. Believe me I know! Smaller-apertured lenses (therefore less weight) would be a good choice as the VR will help in that regard. I have learned from my travels that I could focus (sorry for that bad pun) on mostly "moving around" for my shots as opposed to relying on numerous focal lengths. A few prime lenses would be smaller and lighter over the more massive zooms. Just a few thoughts to consider. By the way, HAVE FUN on your trip!</p>

[chuck]

<p>What kind of photography would you do on your trip?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ben, some of us have provided a number of ideas. I think it is your turn to consider:</p>

<ol>

<li>How much gear and weight you can realistically carry, for 4 months. Take into account of a bit of redundancy such that the failure of one item, which could easily happen over 4 months of travel, will not totally disable your ability to photograph.</li>

<li>Whether you can add some (temporary) gear for the trip.</li>

</ol>

<p>You can try Keith's suggestion carrying around, at home, some of what you have in mind for a day or two and see how that works.</p>

<p>You have some excellent lenses great for local, low-light work, but they are not necessarily great for travel photography unless you have an assistant to carry them. In such situations, sometimes a super zoom can be very useful as a "catch all" lens. Obviously such a lens is compromised optically, but it can cover a lot. On top of that, you can add 2, 3 rally important lenses to do most of your photography with.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I think it depends on the image quality he expects from his travel photos. Is picture taking a primary, or secondary, purpose of the trip. <br>

I know taking photography too seriously on a trip has great potential to ruin the trip for everyone else going along.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I know taking photography too seriously on a trip has great potential to ruin the trip for everyone else going along.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck, absolutely. I don't know about the nature of Ben's trip and who else is going with him, but I typically I travel because I want to photograph. As I pointed out in my earlier post on this thread, I also go with other photographers with the same goal so that we won't "ruin" the trip for fellow travelers with a different objective. Check the image I posted yesterday: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dQrT-557971384.jpg<br>

I was there with a bunch of people all with 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses. A 200-400mm/f4 zoom was a "small" lens there.</p>

<p>Given Ben's gear selection, it sure doesn't look like casual travel photography to me.</p>

[Two23]

<p>After lugging around a backpack of heavy single focal lenses for about two weeks, plus 80-400mm AFS, I'm thinking the ideal camera for travel is probably an M43 system with three small but excellent lenses. For Nikon my choice would be D5300 + Sigma 18-50mm OS f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f4, Nikon 24mm f1.8G. OR, Nikon D750 + Nikon 18-35mm VR, 35mm f1.8G, 70-200mm f4. I had a chance to handle that little 70-200mm f4 and fell in love! No way I'd be hauling around f2.8 zooms for a travel situation if I could help it. As it is, I've been absolutely loving my Nikon F3/T with three small lenses (28mm f2, 50mm f1.2, 105mm f2.5 AiS). I've been shooting that as much as I have the D800E. Weight and bulk are such a fun killer!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I would take along a 24mm Tilt Shift lens - just for the architecture</p>

[chuck]

i think it's only the shift that counts in architecture photography. It seems to me the 14-24mm lens, some cropping, and

maybe little perspective and distortion correction in PS, will do for you everything a 24mm T/s lens will do in architectural

photography, plus a lot more.

[ben_canavaggio]

<p>Hi all<br>

<br />thanks for all theses suggestions, i am going alone so i wont bother anyone, i have just returned from a photo trip of 15 days to france and had all that gear on my back so i know what it feels like,<br>

hence my question so that i can travel more confortably...looking back at that trip in France i used the 24-70 98% of the time, took a fwe good ones with the 105mm macro and did some good ones with the 85mm ...<br>

when it comes to what i like to shoot is completely random but i think i might do lots of portraits in those countries as am sure there are loads of goods subjects around ....<br>

was thinking of taking my 70-200 for wildlife as i could stretch that with my D7200 for extra lengh, i am hesitating to leave the 14-24 as it is heavy and bulky and could easily do some stiching with the 24-70 when back home to achieve good panoramas... the 50mm is probably going to stay in the bag as extra light and discrete for urban shooting....<br>

still confused </p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Ben, you just made your own decision: 24-70, 70-200, 50, 105. Not that heavy in my book. :) However, one of these days, if you continue to travel that much, consider the lightweight Olympus OMD E-M1 + related lenses. This high quality mirrorless combo, equivalent to the Nikon focal lengths you have now, is light as feather in comparison, and the macro lens is incredible. Think you will be delighted.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>24-70 and 105mm macro.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>looking back at that trip in France i used the 24-70 98% of the time, took a fwe good ones with the 105mm macro and did some good ones with the 85mm ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That should tell enough indeed, and I'd keep things simpler: 24-70 and 105VR only. For real wildlife photos a 70-200 is still on the short side, and if you hardly used it in France, realistically will you use it a lot more over there? I'd leave it at home. Yes, you will regret that sometimes, but it's 1,5kg less and you will notice that every day. The 50mm, well... it's so small and light, so why not.</p>

<p>But, I would think seriously about Shun's first suggestion: 18-35 and 70-300. Nice pair, useful across both cameras, light and capable. Add a 50mm to that, and you've got everything covered. The 24-70 may be a great lens, but it's a brick. I just don't feel f/2.8 lenses are a logical choice for travelling - even if you have no issues carrying it, it's a lot of extra weight, size, value and balance between the smaller zoomrange versus the larger aperture doesn't swing the right way. For me personally, the 24-120VR is the obvious choice - add a fast 50 to that, and you've got a plenty versatile kit that doesn't weigh a ton.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>i have just returned from a photo trip of 15 days to france and had all that gear on my back so i know what it feels like,<br /> hence my question so that i can travel more confortably...looking back at that trip in France i used the 24-70 98% of the time</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, clearly weight is indeed an issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>50mm 1.8<br />85mm 1.4<br />70-200mm 2.8<br />24-70mm 2.8<br />14_24mm 2.8<br />105mm macro 2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, that is a great set of lenses to photograph an indoor wedding, not so much for travel photography unless you have an assistant to literally share the load.</p>

<p>Except for the 24-70, I have all of those lenses and the first one I would drop is the 14-24. It is large, heavy, and vulnerable. If you use the 24-70 that much, clearly it should be included, although I favor the lighter, more versatile 24-120mm/f4.</p>

<p>I would definitely bring more than just 1 or 2 lenses on such a trip. To me, some redundancy is important in case you drop a lens or a body malfunctions, although you can probably buy another body in Thailand or Vietnam. After all, they manufacture them in Thailand. I don't mean you need to buy an additional heavy weight 24-70mm/f2.8 E AF-S VR :-), but maybe some super zoom or some lighter zooms I mentioned earlier.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>So, only 2% of the shots were taken with the 85 and the 105 - seems hardly worth the trouble of carrying those along (together with the ones that didn't get used at all). The 70-200 could step in for both of them - and provide some more versatility in case it's needed (add the 500D for macro-capabilities). The only thing the 85 has over the 70-200 is the "look" and ability to provide shallower DOF - only the OP can evaluate how important that is. So 24-70, 70-200 (and the 50, for whatever that is worth). Then again, a 4-month trip to those four countries may demand a different set of lenses than a 15-day trip to France ;-)</p>

<p>If I was going on a photo-oriented trip alone, and had the equipment the OP has, there's no way I'd step down to a 18-35 and 70-300! After all, what did I pay all that money for? To leave the best at home and make do with second fiddle?</p>

<p>Shun brings up the issue of redundancy - of which the OP has virtually none for the range of focal lengths that he uses most (I would not consider the 50 a substitute in case the 24-70 failed). Naturally, adding a "redundant" lens to the bag does do nothing to lighten the load. Only the OP can decide if replacing the 24-70 with a 24-120 is worth considering - optical quality differences set aside.<br>

<br /> The OP has a D750 and D7200 - can the latter really act as a substitute in case the former fails? What purpose does it serve in the bag anyway? Macro? "Extend the reach" of the 70-200? Has the OP used the D7200 on that trip to France?<br /> <br /> To make taking the D7200 worthwhile - consider at least one lens to go along with it. I have not used the 16-85 VR on a D7100 - so I don't know how well it holds up on a higher MP sensor. If it does perform well, then it might be an option to have mounted "permanently" on the D7200. Certainly a lot lighter than the 24-120/4. Or consider the new 16-80/2.8-4. In either case, you now have something to fall back to in case either the D750 or the 24-70 fails - in addition to have a versatile combo in its own right.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I have not used the 16-85 VR on a D7100 - so I don't know how well it holds up on a higher MP sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have. A friend of mine bought one about three years ago from a Swiss guy, who originally bought it in Europe. That used 16-85 performs very well on my D7100. There is some chromatic aberration on the wide end, but IMO it is a very good DX zoom, although I thought its price was on the high side. Now that there is the new 16-80 E version, one can find the older 16-85 at a discount.</p>

<p>I would imagine that the new 16-80 E is even better, although even more expensive.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I sympathize with the OP. As one accumulates camera gear, travel photography becomes a "mo money, mo problems" thing. Usually, travel involves limitations so tough choices must be made. One option is to go with a flexible zoom to easily capture images at popular focal length. Sometimes though, I might prefer to think the other way. Choose a favorite focal length or two (or three) and let the gear dictate the photography. It is especially hard though when you are traveling to a new place. When I am really struggling to choose gear, I try to think about photos I have printed. An overwhelming percentage of my prints come from the Sigma 30mm, so that's the one I never leave behind :)</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>On the issue of redundancy - though about it a bit more. The OP's full bag has redundancy "build in" - in a sense that because of the two different format cameras, there's always a substitute lens in case one fails. That redundancy gets lost, however, once lenses are taken away from that bag.</p>

<p>Redundancy might be a bit hard to accomplish when traveling - especially when plane trips are involved where size and weight limitations exist. It's easy to throw a bag of "redundant" gear into the back of a car - not so much when one has to haul it oneself. The OP hasn't said how he is traveling - but by the amount of gear he is considering, I assume that he won't be backpacking (which is mode that would put the most stringent requirements on gear selection). But taking "redundant" gear (i.e. only intended to be used when another piece fails) onto a plane might quite rapidly exceed the size and weight limitations imposed by airlines (unless one takes the risk of putting camera equipment into checked luggage - a no no in my book).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... travel involves limitations so tough choices must be made... Choose a favorite focal length or two (or three) and let the gear dictate the photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think of it as "don't worry about the shots you can't take but make the best out of the ones that you can". Some years ago, based on experiences made prior, I acquired an all f/2.8 system that was supposed to cover all my travel needs: 10.5/2.8 fisheye, 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 80-200/2.8. IIRC, I never once traveled with all of them together. I also realized that most of the time f/2.8 wasn't needed to limit DOF but to get me into a range where I could hand hold shots of static subjects - to the detriment of the also needed deeper DOF. Which is why my travel kit is now f/4 and all VR. And yes, I know that I should be using a tripod - but my experience has been that there are a lot of places that don't allow them - and I want to increase my chances to walk away with some decent shots from those too.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ever since I bought the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, it has been my travel wildlife lens, usually with a DX-format DSLR. Now I also have the 80-400mm AF-S VR, in my last trip, I brought both of those lenses. In case I damage the 200-400, I would still have some backup.</p>

<p>If the 24-70mm/f2.8 indeed is used for 98% of Ben's travel images, maybe getting a 24-85mm AF-S VR could be an option. Or he could use a 16-85 DX as mentioned earlier. Worst comes to worst, he can always use the 16-85 in the DX crop mode on his D750 should the D7200 is also damaged.</p>

<p>There are a lot of way to do this. I think at least I have made a lot of suggestions. Eventually it is the OP's decision on what works best for me.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>When I have travelled it means that I am usually walking A LOT - between places of interest, stations and even going around the places I am visiting. At the end of the day I was usually pretty much dead on my legs and my shoulders aching from the ruck sack straps. Personally I value lightness and good quality so I took on my last trip:</p>

<p>28mm f/3.5 prime<br>

45mm f/2.8 prime<br>

100mm f/2.8 prime<br>

35-70mm f3.3-4.5 zoom</p>

<p>All of these were quite manageable and I got some lovely photos. Just a thought.</p>