What kit do you carry for what purposes?

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I recently got a virtually mint first model 80-400 VR at a bargain price off EBay. I have been working with it a lot, and am generally very pleased with its capabilities. It is a fairly large lens, and has gotten me thinking about my travelling kits. <br>

I have several "Modern" zoom lenses, gotten used or refurb, all of my old AI and pre AI glass, and cases of several sizes and types. When I am operating opportunistically, I take the DF or D 750, usually with the 28-300 (now probably the 80-400), and a filter or two in a pocket. If it is a dedicated photo day trip, I'll drag a medium bag, both bodies, 18-35, 24-120, 55 F1.2, formerly the 28-300, the last couple of trips, the 80-400. For a week long photo trip, it depends on where I am going, but usually there would be an old prime or two, teleconverter, plus a compact flash, a Leica tabletop tripod, and the usual "bits and pieces" of accessories in addition to the day trip set.<br>

I would be very interested in hearing what others carry under similar conditions. I'd also be curious about how you handle" overlaps" with zooms and / or primes in the kit you take. I'm thinking the 80-400 has effectively obsoleted the 28-300, wondering where it might still be useful.</p>

<p> </p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<p><strong>For casual shooting</strong>, just a d700 with either a 24mm f2.8 (scenics) or 50mm f1.4 (people). Wonderful pictures can be made with either lens. You just need to focus on different opportunities.</p>

<p><img src="http://s17.postimg.org/9qjkwqt8v/20151220_2792.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://s17.postimg.org/wqq892r2n/20140118_9476.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="360" /></p>

<p><strong>For friends & family</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 +50mm f1.4 + flash. Camera around the shoulder, the rest in a small fanny bag.</p>

<p><strong>For weddings & events</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 + 50mm f1.4 + 80-200mm f2.8 + flash. All in a messenger bag.</p>

<p><strong>For outdoor hikes</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 + 50mm f1.4 + 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 + polariser. Camera around the shoulder, lenses in a small fanny bag.</p>

<p>There's really no sense in carrying more than one or two lenses, three at most. Wide, medium, tele. Done. No need to worry about overlaps or gaps. For casual shooting, a single lens is more than enough. Don't fret, just shoot.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't use anything of what you've mentioned. But hey, make the best of whatever you have. <em>How</em> you use it matters more than <em>what</em> you use.</p>

<p> </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Wedding Photographer, Thanks! I find the 24 focal length very useful as well. When I go to my file manager to evaluate focal length usage, 24 usually comprises around a third of in town shots. I always carry my camera in hand with a wrist strap, second in a quick access case over the shoulder with a different set of focal lengths. The fast 55 goes on when I take the camera by itself at night. I used / use a Nikon FB 8 hard case from film days just that way -- now a Thinktank Suburban Disguise.<br>

Not fretting, just curious and interested in learning a little about how others work. Exactly what you supplied. Again, your input is appreciated.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"I would be very interested in hearing what others carry under similar conditions."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A. SLR body #1 with battery pack<br>

B. Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 lens<br>

C. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens<br>

D. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens<br>

E. One of the following Nikon prime lenses:<br>

[1] Fast prime (24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)<br>

[2] Macro (55mm f/3.5 or 105mm f/2.8)<br>

[3] Teleconverter (TC-17E II)<br>

F. SLR body #2 with battery pack<br>

G. Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 lens</p>

<p>Items stored in an outside pocket of the backpack:<br>

White balance tool<br>

White balance instructions on 3x5 index card<br>

Remote camera trigger<br>

Spirit leveler<br>

Extra camera batteries<br>

Extra CompactFlash memory cards<br>

One or two battery chargers when needed</p>

<p>When needed, speed lights, light stands, umbrellas, tripod or monopod, remote speed light triggers and receivers, and extra batteries for speed lights are carried separately.</p>

<div></div>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>John N, thanks!<br>

You added a lot of the essential extras that I just called "bits & pieces". <br>

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a White balance tool?<br>

Thanks for responding!</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>If I travel by car, I take everything I want, including a tripod. I don't carry zooms that overlap in focal length, but sometimes take both a 70-300 and an 85mm prime. If I fly and rent a car at my destination, I select two or three lenses, often primes. Ages ago, to Alaska, by plane and train and foot, I took a single body with a 35, a 50, a 135, a 400 and a solid tripod, along with everything else I needed in a huge, non-photo backpack. When a newspaper editor in Talkeetna asked me to shoot a local event, he lent me a second body. I don't consider a second body necessary for my own travel photography.</p>

<p>I've had some of my most interesting trips with a single body and one or two lenses. It's hard to run after a train or a bus while lugging a full kit. On one trip to England, I was happy to have taken a 70-210 (then my longest lens) along with a 50, because the opportunity came up to attend the Wimbledon tennis championship and shoot. I traveled to Varna, Bulgaria, on the Black Sea coast, with a 50 and a 135 in a small bag, a change of underwear and socks serving as padding. Looked for a hotel while walking and shooting, which would have been miserable with a heavier load. I once had a short connection in Tokyo on my way to China and feared that my luggage wouldn't make it. Everything, including business clothes, had to go in a carry-on, so I just took a little point-and-shoot.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>A photo didn't upload.</p><div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Pardon my ignorance, but what is a White balance tool?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On those rare occasions, when the camera’s automatic white balance or any of the camera’s other white balance settings do not give jpeg images the desired correct color, a white balance tool is very useful for creating a custom white balance.</p>

<p>I have created custom white balances using the following white balance tools:<br>

1.Gray card (cost less than $10)<br>

2.White card (cost less than $10)<br>

3.White paper plate (cost less than 10 cents)<br>

4.White notebook paper (cost less than 10 cents)<br>

5.White coffee filter (cost less than 10 cents)<br>

6.White tracing paper (cost less than 10 cents)<br>

7.White balance lens cap (cost $5 to $50)<br>

8.Expodisc (cost $50 to $100)</p>

<p> </div>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>John N, thanks! I do have a grey card or two, should carry a piece, no weight, no space lost. In respect to retro, I do carry a Tiffen B&W Viewer for times I am switching between cameras set for color and Monochrome (or even film!). Again, thanks! </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Duct tape around a piece of heavy card is fine as well for white balance. <br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768395-REG/WhiBal_WB7_PC_G7_White_Balance_Pocket.html">I use this.</a> </p>

[jaydann_walker]

<p>Gosh, what encouragement to post!</p>

<p>For general photography and most of my travels, a D700 with a 28mm 2.8 D. My 'walk around' kit is the D700, a 24, a 28, a 60 micro, and an 85 1.8, tho often as not the last two stay at home. </p>

<p>Occasionally I want to go ultra simple, and take only the D700 and an elderly 28-85 I picked up cheaply at a flea market. The lens is old, but one of the sharpest in my kit, almost (but not quite) as sharp as my 28 or 24 fixed lenses. </p>

<p>Now and then, when I go on treks and want to lighten the load on my almost 70 year old shoulders and back, I take a D90 with a 24mm 2.8 D. Or the standard 'kit' 17-55. Never, ever the D700 and D90 together. </p>

<p>I admired John's well packed bag, but at my age, I would have back problems if I tried to lug all that gear with me in my travels. Especially so as my air travel luggage is usually between 10-12 kilograms, which seems to satisfy all my needs. </p>

<p>As I have said in enough threads that I won't bother to repeat myself, hah! I do 90% of my photography with one camera and a 28mm lens. Anything else is luxury, 'tho in saying this, I am definitely not knocking the joys of luxurious travel... </p>

<p>Other 'musts' are a spare battery, a spare 8 GB card, L37a filters on all the lenses, a notebook and one pen, and a cleaning kit. Now and then a map (I tend to get lost easily). Also a small portable tripod I was given years ago, which fits into my back pack. It's a Gitzo, I think. </p>

<p>All packed in a small Sakata Tokyo cloth bag I acquired somewhere in an op shop, which in turn goes into my old backpack. The 'musts' get put into one of the small pockets of the backpack. </p>

<p>Now and then I carry a Fuji GA645i or wi (I have the two), with a lens hood and 10 rolls of film. If I take this along, then I also include the D90 and one or two lenses. No more. Never the D700. Weight... </p>

<p>I have an Expocap and Expodisk somewhere at home, but gave up lugging them along years ago. Also no gray cards. To my mind, taking too much is the equivalent of (in film times) carrying a developing tank and chemicals with you. I did it back then for a few years, but then I decided, why? Seriously, less is better. Most misteaks in shooting can be easily fixed up in post processing. </p>

<p>Ian and John, did you forget the Melitta coffee pot and drip? Laugh, I recently went around Sarawak with a small one cup French press coffee maker, and what's more, used it every day. Let us not underestimate the importance of small civilised comfort in one's travels... </p>

<p>Once again, heaps of good advice here. Interesting to know what others take along when they go shooting. </p>

<p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania. </p>

 

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>I do 90% of my photography with one camera and a 28mm lens. Anything else is luxury, 'tho in saying this, I am definitely not knocking the joys of luxurious travel...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I grow more into photography, I enjoy simplicity and end up with better pictures. A single wide prime is indeed a lovely walkaround. For landscapes and travel, I enjoy just a 24mm prime and 80-200mm zoom, with polarizer on each lens to avoid changing filters. Camera around the shoulder and one lens case around the belt.</p>

<p><br /> <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8221446">JayDann </a>, how is that 28mm f2.8 afd compared to 24mm f2.8 afd? I keep reading the 28 is a melon. The 24 surprised me: sharp, distortion free (big plus!) and reasonably low fall-off. But how's the 28 ?</p>

<p><br /> <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9277660">Sandy </a>, you're welcome. I used to think 24mm wasn't wide enough. Silly me. I used to wander with just a 35 but found it doesn't excel at anything: a shorter lens is more dramatic towards interiors and places, and a longer lens is much kinder to people and products. So I ended up with a pair of 24 & 50.</p>

[keith_burdett]

<p>I break it down somewhat like this:<br>

If I'm at home around the woods but meant to be doing something else, I'll usually be carrying D700 with 28-105. Compact (for full frame) and versatile. If I'm out and meant to be doing other things I'll take the 50 1.4 instead of the zoom, but with 16-35 and 85 1.8 in a small bag if possible.<br>

If I'm concentrating on photography then I'll take the D800 instead. Round the woods that's usually with the 300 f4, for the garden sigma 150 macro, for day trips, some combo including 16-35, 150 or 60 macro and either the 50 or 85.<br>

This week I got it wrong when I took the 300 on a firewooding mission and bashed it leaving mf very stiff. :-( </p>

<p> </p>

[Greg_Embree]

<p>For travel, I carry my D800, a Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF zoom, which stays on the camera 99 percent of the time, and a Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 DX semi-fisheye. I use the latter sparingly, with the camera in DX mode, but I often get one or two keepers with it from each trip, certainly enough to justify having it along. Last year in New Zealand I got a photo of the Auckland Sky Tower with the 10.5, plus one of the jib sail on our ship cruising Milford Sound. <img src="http://www.cherrydalelibrary.org/AucklandSkyTower.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

<img src="http://www.cherrydalelibrary.org/MilfordSoundCruise.JPG" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

<p> </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Hector, thanks! Fine photo!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>JayDann -- I don't find backpacks convenient, as you have to find a place to put most of them down to get at the gear. I probably carry as much as when I was a lot younger, but I pay for it physically later. A lot of the time, the case is in the car or hotel and I have one camera with a mid range zoom. Though it is a bit geeky, I have been thinking of making a small belt case for a couple of filters, spare battery, sdhc card and cleaning kit. Thanks for commenting!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Keith -- whenever I put a camera on the front seat of the old pickup, I think about what might happen. I did discover that with a load of wood chips in the back, the camera had better be in a bag even with the windows closed or serious cleaning will be needed. Good luck with your 300! Thanks for dropping in.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Greg -- very fine shots! The widest I have ever used is 18mm at the low end on my 18-35. I did use the fisheye effect on a circular staircase, fun, but nowhere near as dramatic as your photos. Thanks for sharing.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I'm not sure an 80-400 VR replaces the 28-300. One is an 8" monster, the other barely larger than a prime lens.</p>

<p>I use a backpack which holds everything I need for 80% (or more) of the situations. The net weight for my Sony A7 system is about 20 pounds, compared to 35 pounds for a Nikon kit with similar flexibility. Either is too heavy for a shoulder bag, which I prefer to limit to 10 pounds or so. On a walk in the woods (or city), I trim that down to 2-4 lenses, or just carry a single lens and explore how to use it creatively.</p>

<p>The Sony kit varies from time to time, but basically it is as follows (excluding miscellaneous items).</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Thinktank "Airport Essentials" backpack</li>

<li>Sony A7Rii</li>

<li>Sony A7ii</li>

<li>Sony 70-200 f/4</li>

<li>Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4</li>

<li>Sony 90 f/2.8 Macro</li>

<li>Zeiss Batis 85/1.8</li>

<li>Zeiss Batis 25/2</li>

<li>Zeiss Loxia 50/2</li>

<li>Zeiss Loxia 35/2</li>

</ul>

<p>The Sony camera lends itself to manual focus (e.g., Loxia) and to prime lenses, in keeping with the notion of a "compact" camera. The idea of images sharp to the extreme corners, even wide open, is habit forming, especially after years of shooting with Nikon gear and largely ignoring the edges. The 85/2 and 90/2.8 overlap each other, and the 70-200. The difference is size, weight and purpose. The 85/2 is very light and compact, and makes a nice lens to carry on the camera. It only focuses to about 3', however. For bugs, flowers and tabletop photography, the 90 Macro is invaluable. I couldn't live without the 70-200 for events and concerts (of the classical kind), but it's a bit large to carry on the camera, and definitely intimidating when you prefer to be discrete.</p>

<p>The lens on the camera when I put it away is usually the Batis 25/2. It's a little wide for general use, but you can usually move closer. It's a nice "people" lens, and at f/2 you can render the backgound OOF with nice bokeh. Since it focuses down to about a foot, I can use it for an occasional closeup.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Edward -- I'm not sure that the 80-400 replaces the 28-300, but it is certainly a fine lens to use from a vehicle.<br>

Actually, I have never weighed my full travel kit. Will have to make a point of doing that. I have been loading by volume, which necessary items will fit in one of two cases that will fit under the seat on aircraft. The Thinktank Suburban Disguise 30, current favorite, can even be gotten out from under the seat without disturbing adjacent passengers. <br>

Yours sounds like a very comprehensive and capable selection. I carry two full frame Nikons -- my small camera "died" and a new/used replacement is on the way, but that is a story for another day. Many thanks!</p>

[kerry_grim]

I use Canon 6D (full frame) but would use similar gear if I used nikon.

 

Outdoors, if using minimum equipment I will carry a 24 and 100 macro both with image stabliization.

 

Outdoors scenic location (like national parks in Utah), hiking: 24, 50 macro, 17-40, 100, 70-200 in a

backpack and RRS carbon fiber tripod I hand carry.

 

The 70-200 is a beast, weighs 3 lbs and I carry in field only when a good chance of using it. Otherwise,

usually carry in the car.

 

Depending on the type of outdoor photography I do (like events), a 24-70 or 24-105 would be very

useful, but I would not not use it enough to justify the cost.

 

I also carry 8x42 Leica binoculars as I am a very did birder. They are heavy and I may eventually get a

lighter pair (8x32) when doing more photography than birding.

 

Galen Rowell, world-reknown adventure photographer said he could have done almost all his

photography with just a 24 and 85 lens. However, he did own many lenses.

 

Everyones choice is personal. There is a lot to be said for the statement that the best lens is the one on

the camera. On a personal level, I would not carry three zoom lenses…two zooms max and supplement

with primed lenses. Some people think ever single millimeter must be covered and I don’t go along with

that idea at all.

 

A good tripod is essential in my opinion. If it gets in the way of enjoying the outdoors, leave it in the car.

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Kerry, thanks! I find that when on a photo trip energy level is so high that the macro never gets used. At home, much more use. <br>

The lens on the camera is absolutely best unless time and conditions permit switching to one better suited to the subject.<br>

Tripods, necessary for many things, have always been to me like the old fashioned ball and chain to a prisoner, just slows me down. I take a Leica Tabletop model, but can count on my fingers the times I have used it over many years. Have often thought about making a zip bag that I can fill with beans at destination, and dump before flying home.<br>

Thanks for contributing!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I mountain bike when I do landscape photography, so its important to have a way to carry the camera so it isn't banging around while riding. I have a Movo single camera vest (they also make a two camera vest) which is inexpensive and works very well. The camera attaches securely to a chest plate via a post screwed into the tripod mounting threads, and is pointing down to protect the lens. It is easy to grab by sliding out of the slot and re-inserting again. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I mountain bike when I do landscape photography, so its important to have a way to carry the camera so it isn't banging around while riding. I have a Movo single camera vest (they also make a two camera vest) which is inexpensive and works very well. The camera attaches securely to a chest plate via a post screwed into the tripod mounting threads, and is pointing down to protect the lens. It is easy to grab by sliding out of the slot and re-inserting again. The Movo would work well for hiking as well and leaves your hands free until you want to shoot.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It was not my intention to tout Sony gear, rather what I carry and why in response to the OP's question. A 70-200 lens is still 70-200, regardless of the camera, especially if it has a full-frame sensor.</p>

<p>For Nikon gear, I rely heavily on zoom lenses, to wit a 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR. I also carry a 300/4, 50/1.4, 24/2 and 21/2.8, but rarely use them. 80% of my shots are taken with the 28-70, which is on the camera when I put it away. The Nikon kit is in the medium-sized Thinktank Airport backpack, which will fit in the overhead compartment of a plane, but not under the seat. The "Essentials" Sony kit fits under the seat with room to spare.</p>

<p>Until now, Sony has not offered an high quality, mid-range zoom. Consequently I built that system starting with prime, manual focus lenses, including Nikon and Leica. The new Sony 24-70/2.8 changes that paradigm a bit. If it delivers "prime" quality, it may replace some of my prime lenses in this range. It's still a hunk, as large as the Nikon version, and the Zeiss primes are very easy on the back and neck. After trying the Nikon zooms on the Sony, I'm not inclined to move them over. They are too big and heavy, without yielding the image quality which might justify the extra burden and inconvenience of manual operation.</p>