Nikon Lenses for travel

[mila-g]

<p>Travelling to Southern Morocco and Sahara with D700, tripod, SB600 and lenses. Think markets, sand dunes, people round camp fires and maybe some night sky scenes. <br /><br />I have 70-200 F/2.8 VRII, Nikkor 20-35 F/2.8 and Sigma 50mm Art F/1.5.<br /><br />I am getting really stuck for space and weight.<br /><br />Can I dispense with one of the lenses or will I be missing some opportunities?</p>

[ShunCheung]

We are talking about one tele, one wide and one mid-range 50mm lens. If you skip one of those, of course you are going to miss

something. However, when your concern is size and weight, why are you taking a heavy 70-200mm f2.8 and a Sigma 50mm Art lens? There are much lighter alternatives that give you the same focal length range.

[jose_angel]

<p>I asume it is not a "photographic trip" (a dedicated photo-expedition, I mean), so I`d take the D700 and a 24-85, or for a longer range, a 24-120 instead. Nothing else.<br /> A "non-photographic" type bag or small backpack to carry the camera when not in use will make your life more relaxed. If you are loaded with gear or worried about your equipment, you will loose more opportunities than with a single camera&lens in your hands.<br /> If you think you need backup equipment, I`d add an inexpensive lens like a 50mm prime to be left at the hotel, and maybe your wife or a friend could carry/use a good small p&s digicam. Or use the phone camera if yours is a good one (if so, I`d take a tiny tripod to use with).</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Right. I'd go with an f4 70-200mm variant, or forget the 50mm altogether, but given this is what you have, I would take them rather than spend $$$ getting new stuff. Do really need a flash? Never quite sure why this is on so many lists. I hope the tripod is not huge.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I am getting really stuck for space and weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really two different issues; stuck for space --> get a larger bag?<br /> Stuck for weight --> then a bigger bag won't help (rather aggravate the issue) and you need to either leave something (and of course going to miss it) or find lighter alternatives (as Shun suggested). I try not to think of "missed opportunities" because of gear I didn't bring - my attempt is to make the best I can with what I actually have with me.<br /> <br /> Without the tripod, I estimate your bag can't weigh more than 14lbs - is that really "too heavy"? That's what my wife's travel backpack weighs - loaded with a 80-400, 16-85, 11-16, and 35/1.8. It's a rather small bag too, Lowepro Microtrekker.<br /> <br /> Personally, I don't consider the 70-200/2.8 a travel lens (I had one and traded it for the f/4 version) and of the three lenses you mention, it would be the one I'd ditch. Together with the flash. But that just reflects my personal preference (more of a wide-angle guy) and my experience when traveling - I rarely need (or miss) the longer focal length and can't recall when I would have needed (or missed) a flash. YMMV, of course.</p>

<p>I could probably make do with the 20-35 and 50 - and the vast majority of the shots would be with the 20-35. Though I would often wish I could go wider ;-)</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You have to decide which lenses to take, depending on how you shoot. Dieter would leave the 70-200mm behind. From my experience traveling, a long lens can be very useful. I might prefer to leave the 50mm, although I'd be torn about not taking a fast prime.</p>

<p>If you have some flexibility, substituting a 50mm f/1.8 and a 70-200mm f/4 VR for two of your lenses would make a huge difference.</p>

<p>BTW, how are you taking your tripod? When I take one, I put the legs in checked baggage and carry the head in a carry-on.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>If you're concerned about traveling light, you might consider leaving both the 70-200 and the tripod at home -- both useful pieces of equipment, but rather large and heavy to lug around on an international trip.</p>

<p>You might consider taking just two lenses, a 35mm prime and an 85mm prime -- the AF-S Nikkor35mm f/1.8G and the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, for example. Nothing exotic, but practical. Relatively small and light, higher image quality than most zooms, fast enough for available-light shooting without a tripod at higher ISOs, and affordable enough to be replaced without too much grief if stolen, damaged or lost. </p>

<p>On a recent trip, while I had a couple of other lenses along, I took almost all my photos with just two lenses: the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, and an old Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AiS. The goal was more straight-up photography than the kind of images requiring very long or wide focal lengths, but for me the 85 and 35 were a good, functional pair of lenses. You can assess the results for yourself (along with a smattering of images taken with other lenses or cameras) here:</p>

<p> http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=1089362</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Not sure the OP is at liberty to buy 1 or 2 additional lenses for the trip and perhaps beyond, or optionally rent/hire or borrow some lenses.</p>

<p>However, if one is into photography and goes on a trip with nothing longer than 50mm, you can potentially miss some photo opportunities. There are the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR and various options for a 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 type lens from Nikon and Tamron, etc. to consider. A 70-300 is not that expensive.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I think you would be missing opportunities if you leave any of the three at home. You need the wide zoom for tight spaces, sweeping vistas and making somebody "loom" big in front of big backgrounds. You need the telephoto zoom for compressing far and close things, pulling in distance things, isolating details, head and shoulder portraits, etc. And you need the fast prime for those campfire shots and just to cover something between the wide and the tele. Personally, I carry a 24-70 for the middle range.<br /><br />With the two Nikkors you've got top quality glass (I'm not familiar with the Sigma) so I would not downgrade to poorer quality optics for the sake of saving a few ounces. Once you're into a DSLR body you've committed yourself to a certain about of weight and bulk.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A Tamron SP VC 70-300mm wouldn't break the bank, would be much more compact and lighter than the monster 70-200 Nikkor, and would give a bit more focal length for getting those compressed perspectives of sand dunes. You'll lose two stops of aperture at the long end, but I don't think lack of light is going to be an issue in Morocco at this time of year.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron, and its image quality and VC stability are excellent. The picture below of a yet-to-be-identified wading bird was taken with it, handheld @ f/8. Inset at top-right is the full frame from which it's cropped.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I think the bird might be a Redshank with non-typical plumage, but if anyone knows different then I'd be glad to know exactly what it is.</p><div></div>

[User_6502147]

<p>I'd take a beanbag for support instead of a tripod, leave the flash at home and take different lenses. </p>

<p>Picking the "right" lenses is highly subjective. I've spend 7 weeks in Asia last Fall and the lens I used most was Tamron 90/2.8. I've left my 105mm at home, but I still wanted to have a portrait lens aaaaand a macro. If I didn't need the macro, the 85mm would have been an excellent contender (F1.8 or 1.4). The second runner up lens was 50/1.4, but a 1.8 would have done it.....and it was used often when the light was lower. Anyway, so often I like tight framing....so I also dragged a 300mm with me. Nonetheless, I was still dragging 1/2 dozen optics from 20-300mm + a 1.4 extender. The extender was never used. Personally I prefer using primes. </p>

<p>You can always rent an optic or two vs having to take lenses that are cumbersome and not effective for your type of shooting.</p>

<p>Les<br>

</p>

<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ive been to morocco. if you want to save weight, leave the 70-200 at home. also, you dont really want to use that in the city areas, unless you want to be baksheeshed to death and/or targeted for theft. i'd recommend a more low-profile, stealthy kit. also, the idea that you <em>need</em> more than 1 or 2 lenses for a non-photocentric trip isn't really accurate. you could easily get by with those two primes, mainly using the 50. honestly, my biggest concern would be changing lenses frequently in the middle of a desert. so a standard zoom might make more sense. the less opportunities for sand and grit to get in your gear, the better. unfortunately, the full frame superzooms are much more $$ than DX equivalents, but something like the 28-105 could handle everything except extreme low-light and can easily be found used. make sure you have filters for all your lenses too. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>another thing, i would recommend is not using a neck strap, especially in crowded areas. small shoulder/sling bag, waist pack, and hand grip/ black rapid-type cross-body strap are preferred options. the last thing you want to be is <em>that guy</em> with the obvious photo gear. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I'm with Jose on this one, </p>

<p><em>"I`d take the D700 and a 24-85, or for a longer range, a 24-120 instead. Nothing else"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'd be worrying about dust more than anything in Morocco, so I'd be keeping lens changing to a minimum. My kit would be D800 + 24-85 and my Fuji X100.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Your question is a common one on photography sites and pretty much ends up as the classic conundrum. How do I get full coverage across a wide range of focal lengths while keeping the weight low enough to comfortably carry daily and simultaneously maintain the highest level of optical quality? Despite the frequency of the question, the answer is actually pretty straight forward. Compromise. One has to get comfortable with the reality that you can either carry enough "pro" gear to max out every eventuality you may come across or you can slim down. <br>

If you are on a paid assignment, then you carry the gear you need to get the job done and hire an assistant or a porter. I spent 35 years carrying almost everything I could think of on my back and never learned that humping the gear when not being paid to shoot is just not fun. Yes, when I noticed a subject 100 meters away, I managed to get the shot with say the 70-200 plus the TC that I had in the pack, but was one or two memorable vacation shots worth the aggravation of 40 lbs of gear on my back for 15 hour days? Took me a long time to realize that it is often wiser to take along a selection of gear that is most likely to be used on the type of trip I was planning and sacrifice the occasional missed shot. Let's be real - If I were on safari in the Masa Mari, I would have my 400/2.8 plus TC's plus big honking Gitzo monopod. But walking around Marakesh or Rabat? <br>

Eventually, as I grew older and less able to carry the weight, I figured out (from necessity) that my camera with a 24-120 lens made for a terrific "compromise" lens for most applications. For times that I thought I must have added reach, I might carry a 70-300 and leave the 70-200 home. And I always have a 20mm/2.8 in my pocket for when I need to be wide. Are these lenses as good as the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200? Not if you are a pixel peeper who defines lens quality by shooting brick walls and checking for distortion and corner weakness. But for real wold use on vacation? Yes they are for me.<br>

That is my typical "on holiday" kit and I find that in real world use, I almost never need the 70-300 and end up leaving it in the hotel or bus or car. Again, in real life situations, I would guess that 90% of my shots are taken with the 24-120. It is just so easy to carry and always in my hand and instantly at the ready. I seldom have my camera/lens in the backpack or shoulder bag. I want it in my hand immediately. I probably missed more "great" shots by fiddling with lens/camera retrieval and lens changing than I ever did by not having long glass. And with the new Nikon D810 uncanny resolution, I have the luxury of cropping in deeply to make it appear that I had a longer lens. <br>

Just a couple of more points. My recent love affair with the 24-120 and the 70-300 has only existed since Nikon finally got each of those lenses right. The old 24-120's (all of them)sucked. The old 70-300 (and the 75-300 before it) were fair. But the new ones are terrific. The 24-120 is close enough in optical quality to the beloved 24-70 that I won't think twice about using it in non- critical shoots. Same for the 70-300. New one is really an excellent lens. <br>

A tripod? Again - unless I know that I will be shooting a lot of night shots (and I seldom do on vacation), I leave the tripod home. I have a small table top set of legs with a tiny RRS ball on it that weighs next to nothing which I carry in a pocket. I just brace it on a parked car, wall, tree, lightpole, rock, church pew or anything I can and it is stable as can be. <br>

Flash? I always carry a flash. I find it invaluable when shooting people outdoors, but many don't find that they need it. <br>

Just need to adjust your thinking (and unfortunately empty your wallet) when planning what to carry.</p>

<p> </p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Just noticed that you asked about shooting people around a campfire. Unless there was someplace to brace my tabletop tripod mentioned above, I would miss that shot with my travel kit. But is it worth it dragging along a full tripod and head to get an occasional campfire shot? I would prefer not to be saddled with the tripod and work out some attempts at interesting campfire shooting using slow shutter speeds and flash (dragging the shutter) or cranking up the ISO on the 700 and handholding or perhaps interesting fire lit shots or backlit sillhoettes (never could spell that word) or some other non traditional low light shooting. Compromise or work out at the gym before you go.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>But walking around Marakesh or Rabat? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>if the trip involves a caravan or mountaineering in the Atlas, i would adjust my gear accordingly. Rabat really isnt in Southern Morrocco btw, but Marrakech is stifling hot and very bustling, especially in j'ma al-f'naa. you definitely dont want heavy gear there. but if you're taking scenic landscape shots, a wide or tele might work. again, i would minimize lens changes in the desert and consider just 1-2 lenses. a 24-120 could work but it's also almost 2x as heavy as a 28-105.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless there was someplace to brace my tabletop tripod mentioned above, I would miss that shot with my travel kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you can always brace a small 'pod with a low center of gravity against a pack. the <a href="http://www.industrialrev.com/ultrapod-ii.html">Ultrapod II </a>is probably the most compact pocket tripod there is, and it's rated to 6 lbs. Cool thing about those is you can strap it to something, like a tree branch or park bench, with the velcro.</p>

[Two23]

<p>well, as is you are stuck. What you really need for travel is something like Nikons 24-85mm VR and 70-200mm f4, but you're probably already figuring that out. I'm currently in Chicago, chasing around down town. I brought Nikon D800E with Nikons 20mm f1.8G & 85mm f1.8G and Sigma 35mm f1.4. I also brought Nikon F3T with Nikon AiS 28/50/105mm (all 52mm filters.) Honestly, I'm shooting much more with the F3T system because it is smaller and easier to carry. I was missing the ISO 2000 speed today down in the tubes, so I brought d800E with 20mm f1.8G and Nikon 50mm f1.2, left everything else in my hotel room. I've been realizing over the past several years that these big Nikon cameras and lenses are just a drag for travel. Anyway, like I said, you are stuck. You pretty much have to take what you have. When you get back you might consider the Nikon f1.8G lenses. a set of 24mm, 50mm, and a 70-200mm f4 would be a nice travel set. Or just the two zooms I mentioned. I have been missing fast breaking shots with the single focal lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>A good picture is a good picture - regardless of the size, weight or cost of the gear that was used to take it. There are some brilliant compact and bridge-style cameras available now that have more than enough zoom range to cover almost any eventuality. Most of them cost around the same or less than a half-decent lens for a full-frame DSLR. Consider....</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Over the years my point of view has moved out to the edges. I like very wide (and with a D700, you have some cropping capability) and a medium to long telephoto. I rarely worry about hauling an extra lens or two if I'm traveling thousands of miles and unlikely to get back any time soon. In those circumstances I rarely worry about convenience or ease of doing things. It is the opportunity that I don't want to miss. How would you feel if you missed that shot you really wanted because you left a 2 lb. item at home?</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>"How would you feel if you missed that shot you really wanted because you left a 2 lb. item at home?"<br>

Honestly? If it was a personal trip, it would no longer bother me. The exact point of my reply was that as I grow older and less physically able to hump heavy gear, I have learned to make the compromise. The only time the money shot matters to me these days is if there is actually money attached to it.</p>

<p>When I was younger, if I missed <strong>any</strong> shot, even on my own time, I was hysterical and to prevent that, I carried the kitchen sink on my back. No more. Not sure how old you are, but I'd love to hear if you still feel the same way when you are in your late 60's and suffering from arthritis.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>How would you feel if you missed that shot you really wanted because you left a 2 lb. item at home?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you are talking about carrying an extra 2 lbs of weight around daily for two weeks in 105-degree heat just to get one shot, i would say, i wouldnt feel that bad about it at all. Morocco is super-photogenic anyway, and for a lot of the interesting things like zellij architecture, i'd want wide rather than long anyway. in general, having spent almost a month there a few years ago, i would opt for light kit over the kitchen sink. for the things where reach really mattered, i'd rather have a 70-300 than 70-200 as well. let's remember that a 70-200/2.8 is just not an ideal travel lens for many reasons. not only weight, but it's hardly unobtrusive, which isn't really a plus in foreign countries where visitors who are obviously tourists are harassed by street urchins.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i cant really stress enough that you dont want to stick out like a sore thumb in Morocco, especially in the cities. the whole "photo tourist" look is not what you want; you'll get your best photo opps by blending in as much as possible. also, be advised Muslim women especially dont want their picture taken by strangers, and if you do take a shot of a local, be prepared to baksheesh them for their graciousness. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>i cant really stress enough that you dont want to stick out like a sore thumb in Morocco, especially in the cities. the whole "photo tourist" look is not what you want;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cannot agree more, unless you are with a group. My travel equipment for my upcoming non-group trip to Eastern Europe would be an unobtrusive Olympus E-M1 and a few small lenses covering 12-300mm + fisheye that would fit into my pockets or a small bag.</p>

[andylynn]

I used to pack a large travel kit. Got thoroughly sick of carrying it all and made the switch to mirrorless. With my Fuji kit I

don't miss DSLRs at all. But if what you've got is a D700 I'd invest in a 24-85 VR and a Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR and

go as light as possible. Maybe add a 50/1.8G for evenings.