Lens help for trip to Italy

[mbtravelphotography]

Hi,

I'm more of an intermediate photographer but want to get as many opinions as i can about this question... I'm taking a trip to Italy for three weeks and want a new lens. I'm hoping to not only shoot landscapes but street photography as well. I have a DX format Nikon with a APS-C system. I'm thinking about getting the 35mm (52mm equivalent) for my trip. I think it owuld be great on the streets but i also want to be able to shoot landscapes and small architecture. Would this be a good choice?

 

[Watchful]

What lenses do you have already?

 

[mbtravelphotography]

I have the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens. I'm also looking at getting the 18-140 or 18-200

 

[Watchful]

This one is a bit more, but with a lower zoom range it will be crisper focus most likely...
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
unless I am missing something...
I like the 150-600 sigma sport but it's twice the cost again higher.

I am sure others will have something to offer here soon.

 

[tirediron]

My absolute favorite DX lens is the Nikon 18-70; this can be had for a song on the used market and has excellent IQ. Add to this a 70-300 for reach, and perhaps a 35mm f1.8 for low light and you'd have pretty much all bases covered.

 

[wfooshee]

The 35 isn't going to be much use or walking-around photography, in my opinion. Being a "normal' field of view, for shots of architecture, scenics, etc., it's simply not wide enough. It might be a good supplement for your 18-55, and would be better in low light, but otherwise I think you'd be frustrated by it.

I have my 18-55, and the 70-300, and it's not very often at all that I miss having something in that 55-70 range, where this lens won't reach and this one won't cover. I have the very oldest 18-55 non-VR, which I've had since my D50 days, and it's not a bad lens, especially for a kit lens.

The 55-200 on the other hand...... I didn't realize how bad it was until I got the 70-300, and when a mid-range lens makes another one look like a kindergarten class made it, then you know the other lens was awful!

I like tirediron's concept of the pair of zooms. Unless you have to have a low-light lens, that's all you're gonna need.

 

[Ido]

I have the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens. I'm also looking at getting the 18-140 or 18-200

Do you find it challenging or problematic to change between the two lenses you have? The two lenses I use most myself are basically in the 16-67mm and 100-400mm ranges as it applies to your camera, and I rarely, if ever, miss a shot because of having the wrong lens on the camera. I plan ahead, think about what kind of photo I want to get and what opportunities may present themselves, so that the step of changing lenses doesn't occur while the action is unfolding.

If you do find it problematic, and would rather have one lens to cover both ranges, then replacing them with the 18-140mm can be a good option for you. Otherwise, stick with the two-zoom-lens solution; it's versatile and lightweight, and pretty darn good.

I'm thinking about getting the 35mm (52mm equivalent) for my trip. I think it owuld be great on the streets but i also want to be able to shoot landscapes and small architecture.

You have this focal length covered in your 18-55mm lens. You can try setting your lens to 35mm or thereabouts, maybe putting a piece of tape to prevent the zoom ring from turning, and then go out and use it on the street for a day's shooting. Even if it's a boring street in your hometown, just to get a feel of the focal length and the use of a prime lens. I'm sure it can't be a nice feeling, to buy a prime lens only to find out you don't like shooting with that particular focal length.

What the prime will give you over the 18-55mm zoom lens at that focal length is the maximum aperture. Forget about other arguments you hear online, about sharpness and optical quality, or that somehow it magically turns you into a better photographer. The maximum aperture is the first and biggest difference to note. It lets you use faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO, and it gives a shallower depth of field. If those are things you need in your photography, then by all means get the lens (if you like its focal length). If you don't need those, it won't really be useful to you, so you'll probably end up using the 18-55mm zoom lens a whole lot more.

My absolute favorite DX lens is the Nikon 18-70; this can be had for a song on the used market and has excellent IQ. Add to this a 70-300 for reach, and perhaps a 35mm f1.8 for low light and you'd have pretty much all bases covered.

Well, the OP already has the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. I don't think replacing them with the 18-70mm and a 70-300mm will be very beneficial.

 

[tirediron]

My absolute favorite DX lens is the Nikon 18-70; this can be had for a song on the used market and has excellent IQ. Add to this a 70-300 for reach, and perhaps a 35mm f1.8 for low light and you'd have pretty much all bases covered.

Well, the OP already has the 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. I don't think replacing them with the 18-70mm and a 70-300mm will be very beneficial.

That's the beauty of a forum like this: We can all express our opinions!

 

[Dave442]

As you have a wide range covered with the two current zooms then I think the 35mm f/1.8 is a nice addition. I use that lens quite extensively on my camera when walking around and travel. You know looking at what you are walking up to where you will need to stand to have the subject in the shot so you just plan that as you are approaching the scene. With a zoom may stand in one spot and do a wide and close shot, with the prime you know you are going to need to move back and forth and that also helps as while you move you can also go side to side and open up new compositions that you would miss by standing in one spot. For street I like a prime as I am not going to try and zoom when I bring the camera up, I know beforehand where to be to have what is going to be in the frame so its just: raise the camera and shoot.

The other big factor with the faster lens is the larger aperture for indoor and night. As noted, the 35mm field of view is limiting for some things and I have more than a few architectural and landscape shots that were stitched together later in photoshop when using this lens.

The rest of my kit when travelling is the 18-70 and 70-300. I like to put on a lens and sort of force myself to think of the best shots for the focal range I am using at the moment. This also helps to give a nice range of different shots at the end of the trip without those - here is the bridge at 18mm and here it is at 200mm sets of shots.

While I do like a small lens for walking around, I do think that a very nice lens for a trip to Italy is the new Tokina 14-20mm f/2. It covers the 21-30mm equivalent FOV of full frame and that is probably my favorite wide range. If you can swing that then add in the 35mm f/1.8 as you won't notice the extra cost or weight and throw in your 55-200mm and go.

 

[xenskhe]

AFD 20mm or 24mm Nikkors could be good, if your DX body has the AF drive.

 

[Braineack]

I'm bringing a 16-50mm to Italy in May. That's it.

I don't want to be bogged down.
I don't want to have to carry more than I already will be carrying.
I don't want to worry about equipment getting stolen by gypsies.


my recommendation would be a good single lens that can cover your needs. Like a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 or 17-50mm 2.8.

 

[thereyougo!]

I'm bringing a 16-50mm to Italy in May. That's it.

I don't want to be bogged down.
I don't want to have to carry more than I already will be carrying.
I don't want to worry about equipment getting stolen by gypsies.


my recommendation would be a good single lens that can cover your needs. Like a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 or 17-50mm 2.8.

Bit of a pejorative statement that. What evidence do you have that gypsies have more thieves per capita than any o there group?

 

[Nevermore1]

I'm bringing a 16-50mm to Italy in May. That's it.

I don't want to be bogged down.
I don't want to have to carry more than I already will be carrying.
I don't want to worry about equipment getting stolen by gypsies.


my recommendation would be a good single lens that can cover your needs. Like a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 or 17-50mm 2.8.

I don't shoot Nikon but have to agree with Braineack to try to limit the # of lenses you are carrying. I would try to get something with a decent zoom range (I have an 18-135mm and notice that is the one I use the most when traveling, only wish it had a wider aperture) with a wide aperture for low light performance. Some historical places do not allow flash so you would want something with a wide enough aperture that you could get a photo without flash if needed.

Going with only one lens makes sense as it is less to carry and fumble with, you don't want to be spending all your time switching out lenses especially if you have to keep up with a tour group or something. It will also save your back, by the end of the day that extra lens or two could feel like they weigh 20 pounds. It will also give you more room in whatever bag you carry during the day for any items you may purchase while doing whole tourist bit.

Sent from my SM-N915T using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

Bit of a pejorative statement that. What evidence do you have that gypsies have more thieves per capita than any o there group?

It really doesn't matter if i have all the evidence in the world or none--I simply worry about my equipment getting stolen by gypsies regardless. It's not my fault they made a name for themselves and all travelers to Italy are warned about them and other bag snatchers.

 

[Designer]

Hi,

I'm more of an intermediate photographer but want to get as many opinions as i can about this question... I'm taking a trip to Italy for three weeks and want a new lens. I'm hoping to not only shoot landscapes but street photography as well. I have a DX format Nikon with a APS-C system. I'm thinking about getting the 35mm (52mm equivalent) for my trip. I think it owuld be great on the streets but i also want to be able to shoot landscapes and small architecture. Would this be a good choice?

Changing lenses is a serious hassle, and there is never a convenient place in which to do so smoothly. The 35 1.8 would be a very nice lens for evening/low light shots, but the distant shots would be disappointing with that lens. Either a high-end zoom or change lenses several times per day.