Picking Lenses for my trip to the Southern USA

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Heading down to Orlando and making my way north to Birmingham at the beginning of next month.

I want to travel light. I'm leaning towards taking my 7100 and a few lenses.
The DX 35mm 1.8 is a no brainer - too sharpe and takes up next to no room. May also tuck my 50mm 1.8 AF lens into a corner of my bag.
My main walk about lens will be the Nikkor 16-85, I like it's performance, and range - and it is not that big or heavy.
The stickler for me is the long lens. I'm not taking the 200-500mm ... :( Just too big (and too costly to risk on an airplane)

My options:
DSC_1144+pick one of three -0001.jpg

Tamron 70-300 the "F 4-5.6 Di VC USD" version. It is an FX lens and weighs in at 1735 grams, it is the one mounted on the camera
The smallest is the Nikkor DX 55-300 (1470 grams) and the 'tank' is a 70-200 2.8 VRI which came in at 2396 grams, or two pounds more than the smallest one.

I took all three for a test run today shooting birds in my backyard (it was 25 below - my fingers were numb).
I also tried all three with my Kenko 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. I double checked first to make sure no chance of glass to glass contact when the 55-300 was at 55 - it was fine. Both T.C.'s worked on all three lenses. Performance varied. The 2.0 on the 55-300 had too hard of a time focusing to be useful, better but still a bother on the 70-300, but the 70-200 took on the 2x TC without batting an eye and performed well at 400mm.

So I can get to 400 or 300x1.4 or 420mm on all three lenses with at T.C. or two.
T.C.'s are small (well the 2x is smallish) and I can find a corner for them in my luggage. It is just a bother to put them on and off.
Of course they do degrade I.Q. and speed (both in F stops and focus speed).

I wasn't surprised to find the 2.8 Tank out performed the other two easily. It also cost as much as the other two put together.
But it is heavy.

The surprise was in the marginal if any difference between the 55-300 and the 70-300. I had expected the Tamron to be better, but not really. It is an FX lens.
So based on that do I go for the 55-300, enjoy a bit more room at the wide end and only have to slap on the 1.4 if really need to get to that 420mm?
Or do I take the tank and get the best pictures I can get?

Here are three samples from my trials today

DSC_7351+woodpecker post Nikkor 70 200VRI Kenko 2x -0001.jpg
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 with Kenko 2x TC


DSC_7546+Tamron 70 300 TC14-0001.jpg
Tamron 70-300 with Kenko 1.4 TC

DSC_7634+nikkor 55 300-0001.jpg+
Nikkor 55-300 -
This one is cropped a lot

All three can do the job.
I just need to pick one.
The Tank - and say I just wanted to build some muscles while walking around the zoo, or the 55-300, enjoy the range and the light weight, and stop telling myself the pictures are 'good enough'.

"Have you ever had to make up your mind, take one and leave the other behind??" hum it with me you oldies out there.
 
Last edited:

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I also have toyed with the idea of dropping $429 and buying a Sigma 18-270 macro / superzoom and live with one lens. I've read good things about it.
But doubt the IQ would be any better than the 55-300 Nikkor and I have the 16-85mm going. Only advantage is no lens swapping while walking about the attractions. Hmmmm
 

Kevin H

Senior Member
Well if it were me I'd be taking the D500 with the 200-500
Here's what I'm taking to Florida
D7200
D5100
Sigma 150-500
Tamron 70-200
Tamron 90mm
Nikon 18-105
Nikon 35mm
Nikon sb700
tripod
flash triggers
Better Beamer
ETC :D
 

nikonpup

Senior Member
simple - d610 and rent a do it all lens. You have time to try different lens. This will cost less than buying a lens which you might not like.
Simple+ - d610 your 70-300 and rent a 24-120mm f4.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
D500, D610, D7100, D5100

Nikkor FX: AF 50 1.8,
AFS 60 2.8, AFS 85 1.8, AFD 105 2.8, AFS 70-200 2.8 VRI, AFS 200-500 5.6.
Nikkor DX: AFS 16-85 VR, AFS VR 55-300, AFS 35 1.8.
Tamron: SP 24-70 2.8, SP 70-300 4-5.6, SP 17-35 2.8-4
Tokina: ATX 11-20 2.8, Sigma: Art 50 1.4

From this list that is in your sig, I would take the following if I wanted to travel light in the south.

The D500. {if I couldn't take my 200-500mm lens due to weight issues, then I would definitely take the crop sensor D500}
There will be lots of opportunities for bird shooting and the 70-300 will leave you a little short on the D610.

The Tokina 11-20. (since taking the D500, You're going to need this lens for landscapes to get a really nice wide perspective.

Now that you have both ends of the spectrum covered, all you need to worry about is something in the middle for a nice walk around lens.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Why do you have both a Nikon 55-300mm and Tamron 70-300mm? What I'd do is to sell both of them and put the money towards a Nikon 70-300mm VR that's been out for years. You can probably find a nice, clean, pre-owned one. Guaranteed it would outperform both of these although I don't think the IQ with a Kenko tele could be all that great.

Question for you regarding your editing...are you using any type of color noise reduction? In Lightroom and ACR, you have the option to adjust the noise as well as the color noise. I found that really helps with my D7100 images. There is some color splotchiness in your images that should be able to be cleaned up somewhat (saying that as I've had my fair share of color noise with my D7100).

Hope you can come up with a decision that will allow you the best results in a light-weight gear bag! ;)
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Why do you have both a Nikon 55-300mm and Tamron 70-300mm? What I'd do is to sell both of them and put the money towards a Nikon 70-300mm VR that's been out for years. You can probably find a nice, clean, pre-owned one. Guaranteed it would outperform both of these although I don't think the IQ with a Kenko tele could be all that great.

Question for you regarding your editing...are you using any type of color noise reduction? In Lightroom and ACR, you have the option to adjust the noise as well as the color noise. I found that really helps with my D7100 images. There is some color splotchiness in your images that should be able to be cleaned up somewhat (saying that as I've had my fair share of color noise with my D7100).

Hope you can come up with a decision that will allow you the best results in a light-weight gear bag! ;)


"Why do you have both a Nikon 55-300mm and Tamron 70-300mm?" I have DX and FX, the 70-300 was added when I got my D610, the 55-300 was the kit lens with the D5100.

Sell a lens, never done that. Traded my 200-400 Tamron in on my 200-500 Nikkor but shouldn't have. Didn't get enough for it, but I had bought it real cheap too. I've given some away to my daughter-in-law and will get to play with those again when visiting them in Alabama.

Colour Noise Reduction - have to learn about that. I use Corel and DoX and others but not an Adobe user.

I do like the way DoX can clean up images, and I have a few plug ins that have noise reduction features to look into. I see the in the NIK Collection there is colour noise reduction. Will look into more.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
"Why do you have both a Nikon 55-300mm and Tamron 70-300mm?" I have DX and FX, the 70-300 was added when I got my D610, the 55-300 was the kit lens with the D5100.

I forgot about one being DX and the other FX. I had the 55-200mm VR (DX) which I'm assuming is similar in IQ to your 55-300mm. There was such a huge difference between my 55-200mm VR (DX) and my 70-300mm VR (FX) that I never went back to the DX. I hope you didn't take my post as being critical...if you did, my sincere apology! I know how much you like to shoot. It took me a very long time to make the decision to sell some of my things. Even now there are lenses I don't use, yet I am hesitant to let them go. Maybe because I have such good memories using them.

Since I had surgery on my right elbow many years ago, I don't like to carry really heavy lenses. Personally I wouldn't want to carry your 70-200mm VR. I have my own 70-200mm (that and my 300mm f/4 are close in weight). I feel for you! My only other suggestion would be to check out a holster if you decide to take that lens. I use a Think Tank belt and holster which is far more comfortable than a backpack or wearing the camera with a shoulder strap. Tough choice for sure!
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Going to try the 55-300 on the D500.
I suppose if you have a D500 I need to get over being afraid to use it.

I do have household insurance - will double check to make sure it is covered on a trip.

While the 70-200 2.8 is premium - I'm afraid the weight would get to me.
The DX lenses are all lighter and the 16-85 DX is probably my best walk about I have, but a bit short on the long end.
The 55-300 can work as a walk about. I can manage to carry those two in my carry on bag, which I noticed today has been reduced from a 9" width to 6" width flying on Air Canada. That really limits the bags I can take.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I took the D500 out today with the 55-300 DX.
With and without the T.C.

Shot the tower, I'm a poor judge of distance but lets just say its a long long walk.

The sample is cropped to about one quarter of the frame.
First the TC and second without.
There was some time between these two and I didn't have the exact same spot.

DSC_1223+D500 testing 55-300 1.4 TC-0008.jpgDSC_1423+Testing D500 with 55-300 -0001.jpg

Then a closer shot of a Chickadee

First with T.C. (1.4 Kenko 300) and then without.
DSC_1180+D500 testing 55-300 1.4 TC-0010.jpgDSC_1436+D500 testing -0008.jpg

T.C. really hurts with BIF shots.
The one without TC isn't a great shot but that was in deep shadows. And hand held.
I would think that the F5.6 vs F8 is going to make shots in the shadows very difficult and cut into the shutterspeed.
I was shooting A priority so that didn't help. In both cases these are accidental BIFs
DSC_1242+D500 testing 55-300 1.4 TC-0006.jpgDSC_1343+D500 testing 55-300-0004.jpg

BUT - my dearly beloved decided today we would check bags after all.
She hates losing bags, getting bags damaged, and mostly waiting for the luggage. And really wanted to just go with the checked bags to travel oh so light. That isn't going to work. Our bags we bought a couple of years ago qualified as carry on, now Air Canada limites luggage to max to 21.5 tall, and ours is at least an inch more than that. So there goes another $50 to check a bag (both ways). Upside, when I check a bag, then I get more room in my carry on for gear as I no longer have to also pack everything else I needed for two weeks into a small backpack (no more than 6" thick) and one rather small carry on case.

My trip Kit is shaping up to be the D500 (if you got it use it right?) . The 16-85 (I'm really liking this lens on the D500). The 55-300 DX for general walk about outside. I'm really going to try and pack the 70-200 for when I get to do some serious photography. And maybe the 60mm macro, double duty as a portrait lens at 90mm and macro if the flowers are out and anything else warranting extreme close up.

I'll also pack the SB-600 which may end up staying with my daughter-in-law if I can convince her that there is more to photography than 'natural light' - but she is so into organic and natural everything, flash photography is like GMO food to her.

Tested out the close capacity of the 16-85 - not macro but close up. These are my wife's not mine.

DSC_1485+D500 testing-0005.jpgDSC_1492+D500 testing-0004.jpg
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I took the D500 out today with the 55-300 DX.
With and without the T.C.

Shot the tower, I'm a poor judge of distance but lets just say its a long long walk.

The sample is cropped to about one quarter of the frame.
First the TC and second without.
There was some time between these two and I didn't have the exact same spot.

View attachment 278780

I hope you don't mind, but I ran this image through PCC. Please understand my intention is only to show you the possibilities with the gear you have. First I went to ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) which uses the same tools as Lightroom. I added a little clarity, sharpening, and noise reduction (both the regular as well as the color noise). Then I went back to PCC removed the cloud and the sensor spot in the upper right of the image. Ran it through Nik Dfine then used the Unsharp Mask. This was a quick edit. You should be fine with the 55-300mm and teleconverter!

For me, learning about post process is a never-ending one. I am in a different place than I was a year ago...yet each year I find there's so much more to learn! Enjoy your trip and get all the photos you can. :) Down the road as you grow in your knowledge, you will have the opportunity to re-edit your images if you choose to do so. Have fun and enjoy your trip, FKD! :encouragement:

fortkentdad Nikonites.jpg
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Sigma 18 250 one for two DSC_5987 -1.jpg

Decided that the benefit of one walk-about lens warranted buying a Sigma 18-250mm 'super-zoom'. Shown here on the D500 with the two lenses that will not now have to make the trip. (16-85 and 55-300). I just didn't see myself swapping lenses while walking about Florida attractions.
The Siggy is an older model but came in well below half of what they want for a new 18-400 Tamron.
There were so many options when it comes to super-zooms. But putting off the decision helped as my local brick and mortar shop only had this one in stock, and his price was way less than what B&H wanted for the lens in CDN$.

The 18-250 isn't the widest range as super zooms go, but reviews gave it better reviews than some other supers.

It is not the fastest lens in the bag at 3.5-6.3 but it is for walking about, in daylight. And I'll have it on a D500 pushing the ISO higher is an option. I'm also packing a SB-600 which I expect to leave with my daughter-in-law as she has my old D90 but no flash. She has my old lenses so there are some vintage ones I may play with when I'm there.

Feathers Close Up DSC_2488 -1.jpg

Have not used it outside yet (it was already dark when I get home from work)
But the 'macro' feature was something I wanted to test. This was shot at close range. Not true macro, but good for tight close ups.
DSC_2474+Sigma 18 250 close up-0001.jpg

Today, my trip-kit consists of the D500 with this new Siggy, my trusty 35mm 1.8 for low light indoor shots and the 2.8 70-200 VRI for when I get some serious photography time. I will pack my teleconverters. I have tried them out backyard birding with the 70-200 and am happy with the results. Depending on the light and distance I have the 1.4 or 2.0. And since I'm on holidays and may get into a creative mood I packed a couple of lens babies. They are smaller lenses.

Anyone else over-think what lenses to take on a trip?
 
Last edited:
When you are in Birmingham and decide to go birding maybe we can work out meeting up and you can shoot my Tamron 150-600. I am always up for a day of shooting and I go to Birmingham all the time anyway. It is just a quick run up there.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Took my new Siggy Superzoomer out to shoot the birds in the backyard and the bird in my computer room.

Also shot that cell tower across the highway from my home.
Fort Kent Tower DSC_2552 -1.jpg

Sparrow at the feeder by the garden shed
BIF sparrows at feeder DSC_2512 -1.jpg


And the bird in my room
DSC_2745+Pets with Flash Siggy Superzoom-0008.jpg


A mega Sir Crop-a-lot shot - very clear closeup (not true macro by extreme close up for sure.
DSC_2733+Pets with Flash Siggy Superzoom-0011.jpg

I'm thinking this will be fine as my walk about lens.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Wow, great lens, FKD! That should work very well. I'm looking forward to seeing everyone's photos. :)
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
20180302_110810+legoland papa with papa statue-0001+papa photographer better -0001.jpg

Time for a wrap up - results post.

The lenses I used on my trip were the new Siggy 18-250 and my 70-200 with the Kenko extensions.
I also took a 35mm 1.8 which I never used. All images were either the superzoom Siggy or the heavy 70-200.

In Legoland I only used the Siggy.
The results are posted below.
DSC_4748+legoland Entrance -0004+legoland entrance -0001.jpg
DSC_6081+legoland midevil world -0018+coaster -0001.jpgDSC_7288+Osprey at Legoland eating fish -0003+osprey at Legoland-0001.jpg
DSC_7354+DSC_7355 legoland budda reflection vertical-0001+budda reflection -0001.jpgDSC_7605+horse ride -0010+horse ride -0001.jpg

Fortunately we had a couple of very sunny days. I did get a few indoor pictures but almost all shots were taken outside.

I'm glad picked up this 'superzoom' lens and this one served me well. I did consider the new Tamron 18-400 but it was well more than twice as much and cost was a factor.

If I were to go again I might try and take the 200-500 as my carry on even if that in it's case was my only carry-on - I missed it. The 70-200 was good and the extensions worked well enough, but it ain't my big birder lens.
 
Top