Posted by Basil Greber on December 29, 2008 at 5:35 AM
Hi all
I'm going to Thailand for a month (soon! ) for a holiday trip (backpacking, not holiday resort style). I've decided to take the Nikon D300 with a 12-24/4 DX, a 18-135 DX, a 50/1.8 and a 70-300 VR. As much as I'd have loved to take the 105/2.8 Micro and the 17-55/2.8 DX, they're heavy and expensive (I need to keep the cost of my kit to a reasonable limit so it falls under the cover of my insurance). I hope the combination of flexibility (18-135 DX) and speed (50/1.8) will make up for the fast standard zoom that stays at home. Of course, a tripod and a cable release will join me on the trip.
Any comments on the equipment? Silly move? Also, if you have any other tips to share in terms of getting good shots on that sort of trip, please share them with me.
I loved my 18-70 for such trips, very sharp and a fine lens.
Have great fun.
Posted by Kent Staubus on December 29, 2008 at 10:36 AM
My strategy is to go as light as possible, and take my most flexible pieces. If I use everything I brought then I know I made wise selections. Currently I take: camera body, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, NIkon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, TC-17E, SB-800, Canon 500D (macro "filter".) Also have polarizer, spare battery, lens cleaner, ND grad filter in my bag, plus tripod. I generally use all of this at least a couple of times and get all the photos I want to take.
If I had your lenses to choose from I'd take: camera, 12-24mm, 18-135mm, 70-300mm, and a flash if you have one. If you will only be photo'ing outside in daylight, the 18-135mm would weigh less than the 17-55mm. I think the 17-55mm offers more flexibility though. You have the classic backpacker trade off of weight versus capability. I always error on the side of taking light weight.
I use a approximately the same core lenses when traveling: 12-24, 24-120, and 80-200. It's a very large decision to take more than that, and truthfully I seldom use the 80-200. If weight is an issue it usually stays home. The 24-120 takes care of about 75% of my needs and the 12-24 picks up another 20%. Any lenses I add to pick up the extra 5% are usually very specific to the destination and shooting ops, yet they are usually expensive and heavy.
Probably reflecting a difference in our shooting styles and subjects, I never leave home without an SB-800 and cable. My tripod goes too, of course!
Posted by Basil Greber on December 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Thanks for your suggestions. I think I'll shoot mostly outside, either during the day, or then in the evening with a tripod (I plan to make the trip more nature-oriented, but you never know where you end up ).
The 17-55/2.8 DX vs. 18-135 DX is a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, the faster zoom offers much more flexibility in terms of low light shooting and DOF isolation across a variety of focal lengths. And it probably takes some travel-associated abuse better than the kit zoom. On the other hand, it's heavy, and at the same time, the 18-135 DX is one heck of a sharp lens stopped down (really, you wouldn't think this is possible from a plastic zoom), and by adding back a 50/1.8 AF-D, I regain even more low-light capabilities as well as perfect sharpness stopped down across the entire frame. And the two lighter lenses combined are still lighter than the heavy one.
I think I'll have another thought about it. I guess that in the end, either choice will be fine.
Basil
Posted by Vandit Kalia on December 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM
For travel, I generally prefer to stick with 2 lenses, ideally - 1 allpurpose shooting lens (for me, a 17-40 on a crop body), and 1 spare lens (usually a telephoto). This way, if I feel like, I just go out with the walkabout, and leave the tele behind. Makes a big difference when traipsing around all day. As such, I'd consider giving up a little on the wide end and trying to pare it down to 2 lenses.
I'd also think of using a compact for general shooting and using the SLR only for situations where the compact cannot manage. That is actually my preferred strategy these days.
I'm with you on the compact, Vandit. And I'm not just talking about security issues. There are lots of places where the weight, bulk and distraction of a full sized DSLR are so troublesome you'll be tempted to leave it in the hotel room.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. A compact is out of consideration. I shoot very wide so often (12 mm APS-C/18 mm FF) that no compact I know of could really serve me well.
As for a two-lens line-up. I thought about it. In that case, I'd take the 12-24 DX and an 18-200 DX VR (I don't have the latter), probably. But I don't know if image quality and reach would be satisfactory. Before resorting to that, I'd probably take a 12-24 DX and a 70-300 VR, and fill the gap with a 50 mm prime (which weighs and costs almost nothing). But I'm quite sure I'd miss the midrange flexibility. Argh... sometimes, I miss the times when I could just take a crappy compact and be happy with the shots I was getting.
Discussion
7 repliesI'm going to Thailand for a month (soon!
Any comments on the equipment? Silly move?
Thanks!
Basil
Have great fun.
If I had your lenses to choose from I'd take: camera, 12-24mm, 18-135mm, 70-300mm, and a flash if you have one. If you will only be photo'ing outside in daylight, the 18-135mm would weigh less than the 17-55mm. I think the 17-55mm offers more flexibility though. You have the classic backpacker trade off of weight versus capability. I always error on the side of taking light weight.
Kent in SD
Probably reflecting a difference in our shooting styles and subjects, I never leave home without an SB-800 and cable. My tripod goes too, of course!
The 17-55/2.8 DX vs. 18-135 DX is a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, the faster zoom offers much more flexibility in terms of low light shooting and DOF isolation across a variety of focal lengths. And it probably takes some travel-associated abuse better than the kit zoom. On the other hand, it's heavy, and at the same time, the 18-135 DX is one heck of a sharp lens stopped down (really, you wouldn't think this is possible from a plastic zoom), and by adding back a 50/1.8 AF-D, I regain even more low-light capabilities as well as perfect sharpness stopped down across the entire frame. And the two lighter lenses combined are still lighter than the heavy one.
I think I'll have another thought about it. I guess that in the end, either choice will be fine.
Basil
I'd also think of using a compact for general shooting and using the SLR only for situations where the compact cannot manage. That is actually my preferred strategy these days.
Vandit
As for a two-lens line-up. I thought about it. In that case, I'd take the 12-24 DX and an 18-200 DX VR (I don't have the latter), probably. But I don't know if image quality and reach would be satisfactory. Before resorting to that, I'd probably take a 12-24 DX and a 70-300 VR, and fill the gap with a 50 mm prime (which weighs and costs almost nothing). But I'm quite sure I'd miss the midrange flexibility. Argh... sometimes, I miss the times when I could just take a crappy compact and be happy with the shots I was getting.
Basil