Need some help please with a dilemma i'm having about lenses and a trip

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

Hi Everybody,

I have a Nikon D5100 with 2 lenses, the nikkor 50mm 1.8 and the nikkor 35mm 1.8. i going for a trip to north america and i need to be as light wight as possible with camera gear, preferably with 1 all around lens...my questions are :

1. should i get a kit lens that will cover the wide and telephoto range?, something like the :
[h=2]Nikon AF-S DX VR II Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED[/h][h=2]Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR[/h][h=2]Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD For Nikon

2. should i buy a super zoom bridge camera with the compromise of shooting in lower light? but with a versatility of 28-800mm zoom range and good enough image quality in day light conditions? - maybe the lens on the bridge camera will be actually better then the kit lenses?, though even then i guess the quality will be much better on the D5100 because of the sensor..., i thought about the[/h][h=2]Sony Cybershot DSC HX200V[/h][h=2]what do you think?

3. should i stay with my 35mm 1.8G on my D5100 for everything except zoom, and for zoom take my compact Canon Powershot sx130is which is small enough to put in a bag with no problem, with a zoom range of about 28-330mm? (this is the cheapest option, but it might work for daylight general use, although the question is, will i take out both cameras as often as when i use one camera?[/h]As you can see i'm a bit confused about all of this, and as much as i want, i can't see myself going around everywhere with 3 lens all the trip...any help with be much appreciated!, and btw - i'm new to the forum, nice to meet you!

, and thanks in advance.

Kind Regards,
Standing Bear.
[h=2][/h][h=2][/h]

Deo · Apr 24, 2012

For me I prever shooting with option 3, if you use large aperture lenses it is nearly impossible to take good night shot. But make sure you're comfortable shooting with only one and prime lens.

sovietdoc · Apr 24, 2012

Depends on what you want you pics to turn up like in terms of quality.

Quality-wise, 35 and 50mm f/1.8's > All-in-one zoom (18-200mm) > Powershot SX130IS

Personally, I'd just forget everything and take the mediocre all-in-one zoom with me, like 18-200. When traveling, you wan't to be as light as possible and not change lenses around. I could be wrong but I think that nikon 18-200 is better than the rest because it has lower aperture and covers wider focal lengths than 55-300. And even a mediocre lens like 18-200mm will take a lot better shots than a cheap point and shoot.

But this is just my personal opinion. I've traveled numerous times and found out that even carrying two lenses can be too much.

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

sovietdoc said:
Depends on what you want you pics to turn up like in terms of quality.

Quality-wise, 35 and 50mm f/1.8's > All-in-one zoom (18-200mm) > Powershot SX130IS

Personally, I'd just forget everything and take the mediocre all-in-one zoom with me, like 18-200. When traveling, you wan't to be as light as possible and not change lenses around. I could be wrong but I think that nikon 18-200 is better than the rest because it has lower aperture and covers wider focal lengths than 55-300. And even a mediocre lens like 18-200mm will take a lot better shots than a cheap point and shoot.

But this is just my personal opinion. I've traveled numerous times and found out that even carrying two lenses can be too much.

Thanks Sovietdoc, ok so now thoriticlly its a matter of choosing "the best" all around focal range lense...lets say what is at least a berrable lense to buy from all those types of lenses, because it's known that they don't really excel in Image Quality because of that huge focal range but is the nikkor 18-200 lens that i wrote on the OP a good lens or should i go with the tamron 18-270? - what do you use? - usually nikon glass is better then tamron glass isn't it?

What about low light?, usually at night i use my 35mm in a well lit room with ISO 2000 1.8f-2.8f, maybe if i double the ISO to 4000 with the 18-200, the resualts will be not as good, but not too bad either...of course that depends on what focal i will be with the 18-200...what do you say?.

Dp-PARIS · Apr 24, 2012

When I travel I usually take the 24-105 for daytime and a nifty fifty for night time photography. Not too heavy at all. I shoot on full frame. NOt sure what the equiv lens for cropped sensor woudl be.

Infinite_Day · Apr 24, 2012

I think a bit more info would probably help with suggestions as well. You say "North America". There are several countries here in North America with almost every type of shooting situation you could imagine. Are you going to the U.S., Canada, Mexico? Are you staying in cities, hitting big parks, climbing Mt. McKinley? These things impact what you're going to need. If you're headed to, say, Yellowstone you're going to want as much focal length as you can manage within your weight limitations for wildlife and you'll also want something very wide for landscapes. In a city, wide angle may be best because of the closed-in situations you're often in. Of course, a good P&S will cover many situations and do an acceptable job of it. Good luck with your trip either way!

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

That is exactly my point, lets say conditions are good, maybe the P&S will be enough, if anyway you mostly shoot on ISO 80 f8 with sunny days...the thing that bums me out is that i don't have a viewfinder on the P&S. the nikon 18-200 costs here 1000$, so i dunno if its worth it...but then again i have to go with 2 cameras the nikon D5100 and the P&S, and it doesnt make no sense in taking the D5100 only for low light...the most logical thing in my opinion is to get the 18-200 and have 1 camera with lesser night time quality shots, but with better overall quality of a P&S. or to use the zoom of the P&S only when i need it, and use my D5100 35mm1.8G in all other situations.

I'll be going mostly to California, maybe Canada...

Dao · Apr 24, 2012

Will a super zoom lens and one fast prime and one body works?

If I were you, I will just get the Tamron super zoom and bring either the 35mm or 50mm. (most likely the 50mm)

IgsEMT · Apr 24, 2012

I think for traveling 18-200 is good enough. Plus grab your 35 w/ you. Reality is that there's very little chance you'll be printing anything that you shoot and even if you do print, stopping down to f/8 to f/16 you'll get decent enough 16x20 prints.
My vacation/family camera is d90 with 18-105, sb600 and 50 1.8... I've yet to be in situation where I needed my Fx body with fx lenses. Yes, the quality is noticeable, even in the LCD screen, however, the hassle of carrying all that stuff and risk of having my work tools being damaged isn't worth it.

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

Dao - I guess your right, that is the best solution out of all the options...do you think the Tamron 18-270 is a better overall lens then the Nikon 18-200? only because of the extra zoom range, or because of the image quality or the build quality?.

IgsEMT - yep thats true, i don't think i'll print and if i will print, it will be 1-3 poster prints to frame and put on the wall.

IgsEMT · Apr 24, 2012

Nikon 18-200 vs Tamron 18-extreme

I used to own Tamron 18-200 and hated it. I sold it faster then bought it: outdoors it was a great lens, fast focused, decent sharpness, a bit soft around the edges at extreme zoom ranges but nothing that would be an issue. Indoors, it was horrible - very slow focus and it required more light then necessary for decent IQ. Nikon's 18-200 is a great all around lens - focus is pretty fast, when stopped down IQ is pretty good (not the greatest but good). I don't anything about 18-270 Tamron, but I'd guess its similar to its 18-200. One of my colleagues, uses combination of Tamron 17-50, Sigma 18-200 and Nikon 10.5 on his S5 and is pretty happy with the results (so are his clients). Perhaps Sigma's 18-200 is better IQ?

Gene Ho uses only Sigma lenses (Gene Ho Photography | Wedding Photography - Home). In this video he made with B&H he talks about it ()

Personally, I've never used Sigma glass and wouldn't know much about it, but did use Tamron 17-50 and its pretty good (especially since its about 1/3 the price of the Nikon's 17-55).

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

The tamron 18-270 is about 200$ less then the Nikon 18-200 but i read some reviews and it seems like from what i have read, the nikon is better, and if i invest already 800$, i don't mind paying a bit more for a lens that i will be able to use for a long time, also the fact that one should invest in good glass (though its not the best, i don't want to buy totally ****ty lense, just for another 70mm zoom), because it stays with you for a longer time...i'm just curious to know if anybody had any experiance with any of them...http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/44320.html

PapaMatt · Apr 24, 2012

You just can't find a "Do It All Lens" that will be good in every situation, maybe a 50-150 2.8 sigma and a 17-50 2.8 combo would be best or a fast prime 1.4 or 1.8 35mm or 50mm, just a thought. I really like the tamron 17-50 and the 28-75. both are 2.8

StandingBear1983 · Apr 24, 2012

Found this thread, it helped me out a bit :
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ucts/279107-nikon-18-200-tamron-18-270-a.html

Nikon_Josh · Apr 24, 2012

It depends on what you need, if you do not need to shoot wider than your 35 1.8?? (I assume you don't as you dont have a wide angle lens) Why not get a 55-300 VR to pair with your 35? The 55-300 VR is a very good lens whereas the 18-200 VR is a pretty average lens.

I just don't see why an all in one superzoom is your best option neccesarily.