Nikon Lenses for travel

[johne37179]

<p>Eric, I'm 74, walk with a cane, I was a professional photographer back in the day, but now take pictures only for my own pleasure, but I still would make the effort. I do make compromises these days -- I leave my assistant behind and carry the gear myself.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>EJ - God bless. I cannot do that and I am younger than you.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I think all three lenses are useful for travel. The wide angle zoom is good for narrow streets, markets and interiors. The 70-200 is good for landscapes where you wish to emphasize the background (dunes, mountains, etc) and where your approach is limited. The 50 mm is useful too, especially for candids. If you take only one lens with you waling about, a 50 (or a 35) is probably the best choice - not too wide, not too long, and not as obtrusive. I find myself using a 50 more these days, because the perspective and FOV is "natural."</p>

<p>I left my 70-200 VR home for a major trip (to China), and often missed it. On the other hand, I carried an 80-200/2.8 (non-VR) to Europe, and rarely used it because it was inconvenient to carry a tripod. If you are able to buy one compact lens for travel, a Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 has surprisingly good quality and is very convenient.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>a Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 has surprisingly good quality and is very convenient.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's also DX lens and the OP has an FX camera. And I doubted he'll be happy with the 5.3MP the D700 yields in crop mode.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>I have 70-200 F/2.8 VRII, Nikkor 20-35 F/2.8 and Sigma 50mm Art F/1.5.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have the same.</p>

<p>Forget the tripod and flash. Rest is fine. </p>

<p>If you want lighter, get a lighter tele zoom (f4 or even variable aperture), a nikon 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 (much smaller than sigma) and a nikon 24mm f2.8 afd. </p>

<p> </p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Has it dawned on anyone yet that asking a question like that which the OP asked is an exercise in futility since every one who replies (me included) will give an opinion on what is "best" suited for <strong>his/her</strong> circumstances? I am old and advocate carrying light. EJ is older than I and carries heavy gear. I wouldn't leave home without a flash. Several others advocate omitting one. I carry a tabletop tripod; others insist that they need a larger one. Is anyone among us "right"? </p>

<p>I suppose in the end it all comes down to what you are able to do physically (and financially if buying new gear is a suggested option) and what is important to you image wise. </p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Or you can just take that fast 50 and worry more about capturing the light, color and ambience and less about what coverage you may or may not have. Smaller, less intrusive and with a fast enough lens to take advantage of spotty lighting situations. Even better, if you can afford it, get one of the excellent 4/3 cameras and an equivalent 24-70 ff range lens like the Panasonic 12-35 2.8, and if you really feel you "need" a longer lens also the 35-100. Two lite lenses giving you wide angle through reasonable telephoto and the whole kit and caboodle fitting into a small bag and weighing a lot lot less than the kit you are contemplating now. With very good results. Your tripod will help for the evening stuff.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>One of the things I find that I do these days is plan a lot better than I used to. I spent about six weeks planning a three day trip to the Grand Canyon - a place I had visited many times over the decades. I knew which shots I wanted (if the weather and light cooperated) and where I needed to be and when. Like going into battle plans last up until the first shot is fired -- but being prepared and giving lots of forethought into what you want to do makes the effort much easier. I remember a July back in 1968 which I was fortunate enough to spend with Ansel Adams in Yosemite. We went out every day to one planned location or another. Ansel had been shooting Yosemite for years and probably knew the park better than any other individual. In that month of daily excursions I think he exposed one sheet of film -- because the setting did not fit what he had in his mind for the shot he wanted. Every day he hauled all the gear for a 4x5 -- now he had an assistant to help, but the gear came along even when no shot was made.<br>

Ansel taught me that the photograph is made between your ears long before you go out on location. His great shots came from great planning (and superb print making). The question of what lens to take? is a good one -- but should be asked in the context of "for which shot?"<br>

If you answer in advance what shots you are going after and plan the equipment for those shots you will answer the question and not take gear you don't need. </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Just returned from an Arizona trip where I carried two Nikon FX bodies and four lenses. Everything worked well, but my go to lens was the 24-120 on my DF. It will do most things, including night shots very nicely. I never used my Leica tabletop tripod, third trip where that has been the case, next time it stays home. Worst comes to worst, I'll buy beans and fill a sock. The other work horse, though not as sharp as the 24-120 was the 28-300 which I almost left at home. I planned to use one of the cameras with the 18-35, but the working distances were generally greater than previous trips, so the 28-300 lived on the other body. If I had to use just one lens it would be the 24-120. Next trip I might go with one FX body with 24-120 and my little Ricoh GXR with 28-300 and macro modules. That would be about half the weight that I usually carry, with about the same coverage. Part of the issue is personal style, the nature of the trip and likely subject matter . I would certainly include longer lenses on a safari or wildlife trip. Best of luck, have fun!</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Obviously the 70-200/2.8 is the problem. <br>

One of my lightweight travel kits with D700 was either 35mm f2 and 75-150/3.5 Series E. You could pick up this lightweight MF zoom and take your other two lenses. <br>

Another cheap used lens that works fine on D700 is 28-105 AF-D. Combines well with a 180mm or 200mm lens. This zoom may not be wide enough for you, however.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>One of my lightweight travel kits with D700 was either 35mm f2 and 75-150/3.5 Series E. You could pick up this lightweight MF zoom and take your other two lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't you miss something wider? 24mm or 20mm is so useful to landscapes and interiors.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Another cheap used lens that works fine on D700 is 28-105 AF-D. Combines well with a 180mm or 200mm lens. This zoom may not be wide enough for you, however.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cheap zooms on an expensive body, what a waste. If you're going for a wide to tele zoom, why not stick to a dx body or a compact camera?</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

When I had a D700 I found that my 28-105 was a great lens for that camera. 12mp on full frame wasn't enough to show

the lens's weaknesses.

[mila-g]

<p>Thanks everyone. <br /><br />I omitted to mention some pertinent information to the original post.<br /><br />1. I left for Morocco the next day. It was a case of a last minute packing decision.<br /> 2. There were no funds to purchase further equipment.<br /><br />3. Whilst I am now over 50 Im active enough to bear the weight.<br /><br />4. I have been to Morocco many times but this was the first time where I would be concentrating on imaging. (The last time I was concentrating on a woman!)<br /><br />Subsequent to that I elected to leave the flash gun at home. This was a mistake. I missed it for a few shots. On camera flash saved things a bit but I would have been better with it for one particular series of shots.<br /><br />My travel plans were Basel to Marrakech via Barcelona with a 6 hour layover in Barcelona. Incredibly the airline / baggage handlers managed to lose my bag containing all my clothes, my tripod and Nikon F80. The loss of the tripod I felt was the worst hardship. Fortunately when I got to the desert I was lent a tripod by the Riad owner. On occasion I used my Lowepro rucksack as a makeshift tripod and which also carried everything I had for 9 days. Although I had to wash and dry clothes every evening to make my self look presentable although crumpled. My main bag turned up at Casablanca the day before my departure.<br /><br />Sand was a minor issue but one to watch out for. Care needed to be taken to keep it out of things. The mount mating surfaces were the worst affected.<br /><br />As for the lenses:- I used the 20-35 most and the 70-200 was useful too. The 50mm was the least used although I did get some nice portraits out of it. What I also realise is that personally 20mm isnt wide enough and that has now justified in my mind the planned purchase of the 14-24 :D<br /><br />I could have done with the following:-<br /><br />1. Some more larger memory cards<br />2. A lighter laptop.<br />3. Polarising filter.<br />4. Travelling by car instead of bus - so many missed shots of incredible landscapes because stopping was not under my own control.<br /><br />The country is incredible. Friendly and fascinating. People shots is do-able if you get permission or pay. I'm quite familiar and at ease in the culture but twice I had people a little upset with lenses pointed in their direction. What I also would do differently is spend more time in one place. I felt always rushed.<br /><br />If anyone would like to do a similar trip in Morocco I am happy to provide information or advice as to what to see or do as well as tips, do's and donts. (For example avoid leaving via Casablanca airport if at all possible - if you really must allow 3 hours from entry to boarding.) If you would like an arranged accompanied tour I also have excellent trustworthy contacts for anywhere in the country.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><div></div>

[mila-g]

<p>The above shot was with the 50mm Sigma.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[mila-g]

<p>And this one at 35mm. Next shot 20mm. Flare evident but i think its pleasing enough.</p><div></div>

[mila-g]

<p>I should add a damage report - D700 torn eyecup (caught on an airport trolley at Zurich on my return) - small crack in the top LCD glass - no idea what caused it. The rubber grips are also coming away slightly - no doubt due to the glue softening in the heat. It will be going in for a small service this month and maybe an excuse for a D810 as a first / second body :D Oh and that 14-24!</p>

 

[Rick Waller]

<p>Photo number 1 of the cool dude in the green hoodie is the poster child of why I never leave home without a flash. Lovely composition, great subject with a wonderful grin, excellent isolation, but the eyes lost in shadows translates into "nice snapshot" to me. </p>

<p>Glad to hear that it worked out well for you. </p>

[mila-g]

<p>Eric - right this is one where flash would have fixed the harsh shadows. Better positioning may have fixed it as well though. Here is another one without flash that worked well due to using better positioning. </p><div></div>

[mila-g]

<p>50mm with flash. Round the campfire in Merzouga.</p><div></div>

[Rick Waller]

<p>The group shot of the four is great and circumstances mitigated any need for fill flash.</p>

<p>By the way - I hope you unederstand that I wan't criticizing the shot of the hoodie man - my reply was simply to note the reason that I always carry a flash. I too love random people candids and while better positioning may well have solved the shadow problem, it may also have spoiled the mood of the shot. His lopsided grin and forward arm is what makes the shot. Repositioning is not always convenient so while strolling around a city or market, etc, I ten to leave my flash attached at all times and set one of the function buttons to "flash on/off" so that I can just lift and shoot when I see something I like. </p>

[mila-g]

<p>On the other hand having a nice SB900 on top of an already heavy D700 isnt always convenient - although I suppose it should be on your left hand in remote mode.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Mark, glad you had a good trip. Earlier I thought you might be upset by the responses and decided to stay away from the thread. :-)</p>

<p>While the 70-200mm/f2.8 and the Sigma 50mm/f1.4 Art are on the heavier side, those three lenses together are not that heavy for travel and I am glad that you managed. Nice pictures.</p>

[mila-g]

<p>Thx Shun. No, Im not upset at all. All valid points really. Cant wait to go back this time with a flash gun and probably even an umbrella or two.<br /><br />If I had a 24-75 that would take the Sigma and the 20-35 out of the bag but now that I see I want wider Id be taking a 14-24.</p>

<div></div>

[WAngell]

<p>A couple of years ago there was a photo show of shots from Morocco in a café I spend way too much time in. Can't remember the photog but is pro and well known. Phenomenal shots with some blown up to 50" - 70". Good colors, nice bokeh. Later learned they were all shot with a Nikon 1 and a 10-100mm lens.</p>

[mila-g]

<p>Walker 10-100 does most of the work I suppose.</p>