I am going to be doing a lot of traveling this coming year and I am trying to travel as light as possible (ie. backpacking) so I am trying to minimize the camera equipment I bring. I am wanting to buy a new lens before my trip that will give me more zoom capabilities than what I currently have. I will be spending 3 months at a nature preserve in Ecuador and am thinking I will want more zoom to capture wildlife (probably birds mostly). But I can also see myself wanting to take some wider angle shots (ie. landscapes). Here is what I currently have:
Nikon D3100
18-55mm kit lens
50mm/1.8f (this has become my primary lens and I rarely use the kit lens unless I need a wider angle. I am loving having a faster lens)
In an ideal world I would get the 18-200mm lens but I can not afford that lens. A couple other options I have come up with are:
1- get the 55-200mm/f4-5.6 lens and take all three of my lenses (I was hoping to limit myself to 2 lenses)
2- get the 18-105mm/f3.5-5.6 and leave the kit lens behind and be limited to 105mm zoom (I really don't have an idea of how much zoom 105 is versus 200 since I have never used this large of a zoom before).
So what do you think? I would love to hear some words of wisdom from more experienced photographers!
@agima
Brendan, many years ago I had a 2x extender on my film Pentax camera, but found when I used it the photos were ofetn quite grainy. Do you think that was due to lack of experience with the settings, or have the extenders improved in quality?
A 2x extender on a 55-200mm/f4-5.6 lens would turn that into a manual focus only 110-400 f11 lens ! At the very least you would need to carry a solid tripod in addition to your lenses to get some decent shots from that setup.
@jaimeratchford The experts always say that when you travel, do not bring lenses that duplicate focal lengths. If you are concerned with travelling light, this seems to be good advice. I also have the D3100, and I have the kit 18-55 lens, the 35 mm f/1.8, the 55-200 and a 70-300. For travelling, I would only take the kit lens and the 55-200, that way you have every focal length between 18-200 covered with no overlap. The 55-200 is an excellent lens and a real bargain - I picked it up on Amazon for under $150. That is the best bang for your buck solution.
My evil lens is a 18 to 270mm Tamron. It's not the sharpest tool in the shed at the long end but it covers most situations and I use it for travelling (which I sort of do a lot of)
For the longest time, all I had were my 18-55 and 55-200. They were a perfect complement to each other. For the 55-200 see if you can get the VR version. If you are a bit of a shaky shooter at the longer lengths, that VR can really be helpful to minimize camera movement. I used mine for our doors off helicopter tour in Kauai because I knew it would be a bumpy ride and all pics came out great. Anyway, those 2 lenses would be a good pair for travel. An extender, maybe only 1.4, might be enough. But as someone mentioned your maximum aperture goes up (gets smaller) by that same factor so your lens isn't as "fast" with the extender installed.
PS, I bought my 55-200 VR from someone who had placed an ad on Craigslist. Got it for much less than new and haven't had a bit of trouble with the lens.
I don't think the 18-105mm is going to have enough reach. If you're going to be doing a lot of outdoor shooting, you won't really need the 50mm lens (but it's small and light, so...)
Sigma has a decent 28-300 lens that, while not the sharpest, is certainly a good compromise lens for travel. Canon has a similar 28-300 L series lens, but it costs a small fortune and is a bit slow for the price.
I would find the cash for the 28-300 if you need to travel light. Sigma or Tamron will do a cheaper lens than the OEM. Tele Converters are bad news for 2 reasons- they stop or slow auto focus and they double up the minimum apperture. You can only use a tele converter on a 1st class lens and get away with it.
Get yourself a Nikon to Pentax PK mount ring adaptor, buy a Pentax 70-320mm and a 50mm 1.8 for portraits and chuck your kit lens in. the mount will cost you about $10 and the lens about $30, only thing is you have to use manual focus and shoot in AV or manual. You might even get a ton of lenses, or a job lot with a pentax film camera. there're cheap alternatives. You might even get a bridge camera like the Panasonic Lumix FZ range with a ridiculous zoom on it, for less and take two cameras, bonus if one breaks down. Like wise many point and shoots are ace at macro and wide angle shooting. big fancy branded lenses are a bad purchase in my mind since they cost more than the cameras and are pretty fragile.
Just went to Italy for a week. I found I kept the 18-200 on my camera most of the time. Used the 10.5mm fisheye sometimes and only used my 50mm 1.4 two or three times.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Of course this isnt that wide so you could take the 18-55 if you wanted.
Brendan, many years ago I had a 2x extender on my film Pentax camera, but found when I used it the photos were ofetn quite grainy. Do you think that was due to lack of experience with the settings, or have the extenders improved in quality?
If you get a cheapy then you might get issues.
PS, I bought my 55-200 VR from someone who had placed an ad on Craigslist. Got it for much less than new and haven't had a bit of trouble with the lens.
I'd suggest the 70-300mm VR.