What equipment should I bring?

[joxeankoret]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I'm planning a trip to Indonesia (back again). My idea is to take photographs, mainly, of nature (landscapes & jungle) as well as wild animals and plants. Most of the animals I'm going to see will be either very far (monkeys, orangutans, gibbons, etc...) or will be very small (insects). The plants/trees will be either too big (i.e., "damat" trees, which are really tall and only the roots can be as big as me) or rather small but colourful (like nepenthes).</p>

<p>I have the usual lens that works for pretty much everything (AF-S NIKKOR 18-140mm), a Raynox DCR-250 macro lent (which is really bad...), a telezoom SAMYANG 650-1300/8-16 MC (which I doubt could be of any real use in a jungle as it's bad and not as sharp as I would love), the usual common-use tripod and a UV filter. I have some money saved that I plan to expend on buying new equipment. I'm not rich, so I cannot expend crazy quantities. Also, I'm a hobbistic photographer, not a professional one.</p>

<p>What equipment do you recommend me for photographing nature in places like jungles where usually the light can be sparse (inside the jungle) due to the dense vegetation and the cloudy sky (when there is no dense fog too...)? And what kind of tele/macro do you recommend me for both big animals (that will be pretty far) and insects (macro lens)? Do you recommend expansion tubes instead of real macro lens?</p>

<p>Also, do you recommend me a gorilla (or similar) tripod for such places? Is it really worth it?</p>

<p>PS: Sorry if this question is already answered, I'm a newbie here. I have already checked similar questions but I don't think they really answer what I'm asking here as I'm trying to be very specific.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Can you give an indication of how much you'd be willing to spend? That will help constrain the ideas a bit - as especially the long telelenses of decent quality can easily become very expensive.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Sounds like a great trip!</p>

<p>First are you shooting digital or film? I *think* that you are shooting digital but you should state it for clarity.</p>

<p>Secondly, as Wooter says, what is your budget?</p>

<p>Thirdly, what camera system are you using? I *think* that you are using a Nikon (AF-S NIKKOR 18-140mm) but please let us know if your camera is a full frame or APS-C sized sensor model.</p>

<p>With all this info we will be happy to help you spend your money :) !</p>

[ShunCheung]

Nikon's 18-140 is a DX lens for their APS-C DSLRs. So the OP is shooting digital.

[stemked]

<p>As a nature photographer who has worked in rain forests (Costa Rica and Australia) I can tell you it is really helpful to have sealed gear. As a Pentax shooter there are lots of options for us. <br>

For focal lengths I like to have 4 lenses, a Macro (100mm), something wide say at least 15mm in a cropped sensor). A standard lens (24-90) and then, as I like wildlife, something that goes out to at least 300mm (400 even better). I also use a tripod fairly religiously. If you are going to be out in the rain forest at night it is very nice to use the macro with a popup filter and diffuser, or better still a fash gun with a diffuser. But then, that's me.</p>

[joxeankoret]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>First of all, thanks for all the comments! I'm shooting digital, I have 2 different cameras but I usually only use my Nikon D7200, which is APS-C. The other one is Canon Powershot SX60 HS, but now is the one my wife is using but, anyway, there is no way to "upgrade" it, so... The budget I have saved for buying new equipment for my Nikon camera is ~1000 euros (as of today, ~1050 USD).</p>

<p>My ideas for purchasing have been the following ones:</p>

<ul>

<li>AF-S DX NIKKOR<br />18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f%252f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr.html</li>

<li>AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor<br />105mm f/2.8G IF-ED http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-vr-micro-nikkor-105mm-f%252f2.8g-if-ed.html</li>

</ul>

<p>Perhaps, the 18-300 + expansion tubes for macro (these ones, for example: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Meike-AF-Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-for-Nikon-F-mount-metal-D810-D610-D7200-/221094524055) instead of a professional one (like the micro I mentioned).<br>

What do you think?</p>

<p>Douglas: Of course, I will carry something to protect my camera. I have been thinking about this: http://www.amazon.com/Altura-Photo%C2%AE-Professional-Cameras-Olympus/dp/B004AH10K8/ref=pd_bxgy_421_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=10660R8T7WE02VQZS9AV and, for carrying, I usually carry my camera behind my poncho when it's rainning.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Joxean,<br>

The 18-300 is optically a step back from your 18-140VR; there are better (and cheaper) options - even if the budget is a bit limiting to be honest. For the long end, I'd add either the Nikon 70-300VR or Tamron 70-300VC (neither as sealed as is desirable, but that too is consequence of the budget). 300mm is probably quite short for what you want to do, but longer than 300mm, and prices increase by a lot. If the light is really dim, the relatively slow aperture of these lenses will be a downside, but fast, long lenses do cost a considerable amount more, so it will be a compromise. Lenses as the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 are all pretty interesting, but large, heavy and quite a bit above what you want to spend.</p>

<p>As for macro, there are a lot of 3rd party options to the 105VR which are cheaper and optically at least as good. Lenses as the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm or Sigma 105mm are all worth considering. Performance of any of these lenses will be in a completely different league than a superzoom with tubes (if that even works, I doubt it as it lacks an aperture ring).</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<blockquote>

<p>Most of the animals I'm going to see will be either very far (monkeys, orangutans, gibbons, etc...) or will be very small (insects).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Prepare yourself to be surprised about the "very small" ;)<br>

The western pacific tropics are home to the largest known flying insects in the world (Hercules and Atlas moths, Queen Alexandria butterfly etc). You're bound to come across frankfurter sized millipedes in the leaf litter, and don't forget a riot of lizards, geckos etc etc.<br>

I'm no Nikon shooter and haven't been to Indonesia, but based on my experience from six trips to the Philippines I would recommend looking for a good used specimen of either a Tamron 60 f2 macro (lighter and shorter than any of the 90mm options) or Sigma's 70 2.8 macro (same weight as Tamron's 90mm macro but a little more compact) on the macro side. Both should cost you about $300 and will be a bit easier to pack. In addition to the 60 macro's extra wide maximum aperture, both will also capture a third to half stop more light than a 90 or 105 macro, just because of the wider angle covered by shorter focal lengths.<br>

You're probably not going to find too many open landscapes where a longer focal length for macro will be a significant advantage, and conversely you'll see plenty of small(er) critters in deep shade. Bring along a macro flash or (if budget's too tight) good LED illuminator that produces even light without sharp shadows.<br>

<br />On the tele side of things, 300mm is going to be a bit too short for birds in the canopy etc. On a very tight budget I would suggest getting a used specimen of Sigma/Quantaray's 135-400 4.5-5.6 apo (about $300ish) or if you can stretch a bit further then go for a Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 apo ($400-500ish used) or a Tamron 200-500 5-6.3 ($600-700ish). Get those from a dependable source like KEH where you have time to return and swap if in case you're sent a flaky copy, the Sigmas especially included lots of lemons during their initial production runs. The good specimens are optically great, especially as first long zoom to own on a budget and/or for traveling, although none of them focuses fast.</p>

[greg s]

<p>If it was me, I would consider a stabilized tele prime (or excellent stabilized tele zoom) as essential.<br>

In the Nikon family that would be either a stabilized 300mm F/4 prime or an 80-400 zoom. The new 200-500 zoom<br>

is really nice and a great bargain for the money, but you may consider it a bit hefty ... although it's the one I would<br>

bring for my purposes (carry in a day pack when moving around a lot). -g-</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>I think your best single option would be the new Nikon 300mm F4 PF lens. It is amazingly small and light, no tripod will be required because of the VR, and it focusses close enough to fill the frame with larger insects, as well as being excellent at distance. If you were able to pair it with a 1.4x teleconverter, you would have both as much reach for distanct wildlife as will be convenient to handle, and enough magnification for even average-sized insects. The downside is that this lens is not cheap at around $2000. It sounds as though your trip is too long for renting to be an option. The lens is is so close to your requirements, however, that perhaps you can consider buying new and selling upon your return? Very few of these lenses have appeared on the used market, it would not surprise me if you could recoup 85% of the purchase price by selling later. The older 300mm F4 AFS is probably equivalent optically, but at several times the size and weight and without VR it is going to be nowhere near as convenient and is unsuitable for use in forest shade without a tripod. Any kind of zoom lens (at least, any that is cheaper) is going to be at least 1 stop slower, and more in practice because the optical quality will be inferior unless stopped down. </p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I can't comment from experience about your chosen habitat but I shoot macro in dimly lit situations, such as temperate woods.<br>

On m4/3 I use a Kiron 105mm for genera telephotography down to (with crop factor) 2:1 (FOV 17.5mm). With it, for macro, I use two off-camera (on brackets) TTL flash with diffusion, both RC controlled by a master flash on the hot shoe set to not contribute light to the image.<br>

The Kiron is available in various mounts for which adapters are widely available. Beware of the FD version, on which the stop-down ring is easily rotated when detaching the lens, leaving it open wide when reattached.<br>

The lens was designed to shoot macro at f16 and has the performance to support that. It is excellent at f11, my default for medium-sized insects.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I should have added that very high quality teleconverters (x 1.5 and x2) are made for the Kirons. I have tried the x 1.5 behind my 150mm Printing Nikkor, on a test chart, and found no lost of fine detail when the lens is at its optimum 1:1 but at f11. I use these TCs behind various lenses.<br>

I should also have said that the Kiron 105mm is often available as the Vivitar Series 1.</p>

 

[allan_gint]

<p>Hi! If you going travel to Indonesia pay attention to your shoes, because there definitely another climate. Whats about equipment, I should say you must take this stuff <a href="http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/the-problem-of-macbeth">http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/the-problem-of-macbeth </a>, it's helps you to make good photos without difficult moments.</p>