Lens suggestions for traveling

dervari

Senior Member
I'm torn between the 55-200 and the 55-300 DX. Will be going on a cruise in March and looking for a tele. Currently have an 18-55 and a 24 1.4 that a use for astrophotography.

Any advice appreciated.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Many people start out with the 55-200 and end up selling it to get the 55-300 or 70-300 (as i did). Spend a few bucks more now to cut your losses later. BTW, the 55-200 is a great little zoom, but many want more reach after a while.
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
I agree with Rick... get the 300 now.. I have the 55-200 and later added the 55-300. I have not sold the 200 (yet) but if I had it to do over, I would have gotten the 300 at the start.

Pat in NH
 

John101477

Senior Member
for a travel lens it really comes down to what you normally shoot. I litterally cringe when I say this but, the 18-200 is 1 lens with huge ability. It is a slow len but I know a lot of overland and expedition style travelers that use the 18-200 almost exclusively. Not me of course hahaha but for a walk around light lens...
If you choose the above, definitley go to the 300 and for me it would be the 70-300 but thats just me.
 

joe22

Senior Member
the question to ask yourself is 'do I need tele when I can crop'
same question over and over of course, but for convenience of travelling, I take 35mm f/1.8, great for everything!
 

John101477

Senior Member
the question to ask yourself is 'do I need tele when I can crop'
same question over and over of course, but for convenience of travelling, I take 35mm f/1.8, great for everything!

Cropping in very rarely the answer between needing a tele or not. A 35mm while a good lens is no substitute to an 85 much less a 200. Every lens has a purpose but a 35mm is far from a do it all travel lens.
 

joe22

Senior Member
you are right mate, he said he needed a tele! junior error on my part of not reading the thread fully before commenting!
 

Brusader

Senior Member
If you're going to be photographing stuff from a fair distance, I'd be tempted to take the 300mm.

When I traveled in Africa, I only had my kit lens (18-135mm) which was really good, but a longer lens would have been great when we went to the local National Park.

I also took a small point and click which ran on AA batteries (you can get AAs everywhere) which I could carry everywhere and not stress over crowds and standing out with expensive looking gear.

I took more photos with the point & shoot (Samsung S860) than with my D80 as I always had it with me and most things you photograph aren't too far away. :)
 
you can usually get closer but often not get far enough back so a 18-200 or 300 is the go ...changing and carrying lenses is crazy ..fit and forget (or use) is my motto ...leave the camera bag at home (makes you look a pratt anyway) and hang one camera under your coat.
PS dump the lens cap too ..true sign of an amateur....
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I'm torn between the 55-200 and the 55-300 DX. Will be going on a cruise in March and looking for a tele. Currently have an 18-55 and a 24 1.4 that a use for astrophotography.

Any advice appreciated.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

I have a two month African holiday in March and I am taking everything I can, so what I am basically saying is take what you can. If you are doing wildlife photos zoom is a must, if you are doing landscape a wider angle is a must. I honestly would go the 55 - 300mm if that was my only choice as it can be used in all aspects and at 55mm portrait you can get some great Panos if your stitching skills are up to grade ;)
 

John101477

Senior Member
you can usually get closer but often not get far enough back so a 18-200 or 300 is the go ...changing and carrying lenses is crazy ..fit and forget (or use) is my motto ...leave the camera bag at home (makes you look a pratt anyway) and hang one camera under your coat.
PS dump the lens cap too ..true sign of an amateur....

In what delusional world is it smart to leave the lens cap home in the dustiest country in the world? While I can sympothize with the fit and forget "motto". I cant with the leave the bag at home. That just ridiculous. Do you realize the crazy gear that pro photographers carry on a safari? Heck think of what a pro like Jarvis hauls just for a ski shoot. We are talking 500mm with 1.4 and 2.0 telecons a 300mm and 24-70. Mark Mauro takes at least 2 cameras just getting on a plane.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
If you're going on a cruise, usually you'll be with a group. There is no fun at constantly having to change lenses in the middle of a visit with a group. Groups don't usually wait for pictures to be taken, they move on.

This is why, I would advise you to get either the 18-200 or the 18-300 (which is even better IMHO). Of course that is if you can afford them. If money is your prime concern, then spend as less as possible and get the 55-200. It is lighter and will do the job.
But I will predict that after having to change lenses a few times you will wish you'd bought the 18-300. For travel (when photography is not the main goal (read pro shoot)), I think it is the best lens to have.
 

John101477

Senior Member
If you're going on a cruise, usually you'll be with a group. There is no fun at constantly having to change lenses in the middle of a visit with a group. Groups don't usually wait for pictures to be taken, they move on.

This is why, I would advise you to get either the 18-200 or the 18-300 (which is even better IMHO). Of course that is if you can afford them. If money is your prime concern, then spend as less as possible and get the 55-200. It is lighter and will do the job.
But I will predict that after having to change lenses a few times you will wish you'd bought the 18-300. For travel (when photography is not the main goal (read pro shoot)), I think it is the best lens to have.

Marcel is right on this. Groups do not like to wait for lens changes so a do it all lens might be the best option 90% of the time.
I carry 2 cameras one with a long lens and one with a wide angle lens almost all the time. I use a Black Rapids DR-1 most of the time but on the flip side of this. I rarely travel with groups and my wife has learned to accept my patience in getting the shots I want. If in fact you are going on a safari though you might be suprised by the number of monster lenses you see. Also dont forget you can RENT a lens far cheaper than you can buy it. That 18-300 is a meer $141 for 4 weeks of use.
Rent Telephoto lenses for Nikon Digital Cameras
 

AC016

Senior Member
You know, when i first came to this forum, i was made fun of when i suggested an all-around lens. I was told to get a point and shoot if i did not want to bother with changing lenses all the time. True enough, if you are going to set out to take landscapes, then you really only need one lens. But, if you are going to do a walkabout and don't really know what you may be shooting, an 18-200 or an 18-270 (Tamron) is a great thing to have. However, keep in mind that making an all-in-one, certain sacrifices have been made. if you can afford it, get one of those all-in-ones - perhaps look at sigma and tamron for something more cost effective. The only other option is to buy another camera, lol:)
 

stmv

Senior Member
For many many photographers,, the 18-200 is not a bad choice.. so,, see no reason to cringe.

I tend to use my 35-70 2.8 as my walk around, or 28-105 for,, but....

I just got the 18-200 VR as a convenient walkaround lens. My old 18x200 was busted up, and look forward to the replacement. I got many many fine shots with my older 18x200. and it is just so darn convenient.

Is it perfect, of course not, hence my primes, and other lens, but there are times, convenience is nice. and well, still a fine lens.

Lens snobs (me in that group often), can snub it,, but the results of composition, light, etc can more than make up the difference.
 

John101477

Senior Member
For many many photographers,, the 18-200 is not a bad choice.. so,, see no reason to cringe.

I cringe because the 18-200 is a far cry from a usable lens for me. As I said before I know a lot of great travel photogs that use the 18-200. But those same togs are not up at 4am looking for the elusive African Fish Eagle. The acceptable trade offs for one photographer might not be acceptable for another.
Lens Snobs... I like that term but lets face facts. there is a reason for certain lenses to get the snub and for a heck of a lot of photographers dependent on low light fast focusing glass, an all in one glass like the 18-200 or 18-300 is not going to come close.
 

Allen

Senior Member
I have to add my cent and a half for the 18-200 ... I assume you want this for off-ship excursions, then you most probably want to travel light (not carrying a bag full of lenses)....FWIW.
 

stmv

Senior Member
I cringe because the 18-200 is a far cry from a usable lens for me. As I said before I know a lot of great travel photogs that use the 18-200. But those same togs are not up at 4am looking for the elusive African Fish Eagle. The acceptable trade offs for one photographer might not be acceptable for another.
Lens Snobs... I like that term but lets face facts. there is a reason for certain lenses to get the snub and for a heck of a lot of photographers dependent on low light fast focusing glass, an all in one glass like the 18-200 or 18-300 is not going to come close.


well,, you are not a typical user, one that gets up at 4 AM looking for the elusive African Eagle..... yup. you are in the exclusive category,,, 2.8, 300 mm spend the bucks category.

like 300 mm 2.8 G..... course that lens is 5700 dollars.. ouch

Nikkor 70-200 2.8 g for 2100 dollars,, but not that much reach

When you get to looking for eagles at 4 AM category,, you are talking big bucks.. for the right
lens.

I use a 80-200 2.8 (but not enough reach)
or
my
300 mm F4 -> but not super fast.

if enough light

80-400 is nice,, but again need really good light.
 

John101477

Senior Member
well,, you are not a typical user, one that gets up at 4 AM looking for the elusive African Eagle..... yup. you are in the exclusive category,,, 2.8, 300 mm spend the bucks category.

like 300 mm 2.8 G..... course that lens is 5700 dollars.. ouch

Nikkor 70-200 2.8 g for 2100 dollars,, but not that much reach

When you get to looking for eagles at 4 AM category,, you are talking big bucks.. for the right
lens.

I use a 80-200 2.8 (but not enough reach)
or
my
300 mm F4 -> but not super fast.

if enough light

80-400 is nice,, but again need really good light.

eh we work with in the parameters that are set by our needs and our wallets lol. You might be suprised what I can do with a 70-200 2.8 and a 2x telecon lol. Kills my light ability but at 7am it is a good lens to have.
I am not saying by any means that an 18-200 or 18-300 is not a decent lens. I have seen to many shots out of them to know better.
 
Top