Looking for just one lens that is good for travel

[aneet01]

Hello,

I am new to photography. I recently bought Nikon D7200 and looking to buy one lens that is sufficient for travel. I wanted to know what is the difference between the following two lens and which one which one should I buy?
Nikon 18-300 f3.5-6.3G ($699)
Nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6G ($999)

Thanks,

 

[Cortian]

Well, the f/3.5-5.6 is going to be faster at 300mm, and possibly at shorter focal lengths, than the other. That may not be a factor unless you're shooting wildlife or sports, or in low light.

"Sufficient" is in the hands of the user, and I'm a Canon user, so I cannot speak to those two lenses, but, in general terms...

For a "walking-about" lens those may be kind of big and/or heavy. Secondly: It's been mentioned that anything over a zoom factor of about 10:1 you start running into fairly significant compromises in image quality. Those are 17:1.

There are a lot of good comments about zoom lengths and the like in Does anyone have a Tamron 18-400 lens..just want to hear about it ,incl some comments about some Nikon lenses.

 

[jccash]

I use the Tamron 18-400 with my D500. First nine Nikon lens I’ve ever owned. Works great for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Superzoom (10x+ zoom range) lenses are convenient but all of them have optical aberrations (image quality issues) of one sort or another at various ranges of their zoom range. There's just no way to design a lens with that much focal length range that doesn't have the optical aberrations.

Many people are willing to accept superzoom lens image quality issues because of the convenience.

The lower cost version has VR. The higher cost version has VR II.
VR is ineffective (can't react fast enough) at shutter speeds faster than 1/500.
The difference between f/6.3 and f/5.6 is small, just 1/3 of a stop.

You might want to consider refurbished or used lenses and a lower focal length range. At 300 mm you would want to use a tripod, but should be able to hand hold at 140 mm:
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (Certified Refurbished)

When I travel I use an 18-55 mm lens or a 24-85 mm lens on my DSLR.

 

[Designer]

I am new to photography. I recently bought Nikon D7200 and looking to buy one lens that is sufficient for travel.

Hello!

I once considered a superzoom for travel because I thought changing lenses several times a day (often without a quiet place in which to do it) was more than merely a hassle, it also increased the risk of something bad happening to my camera or a lens, or both. Nothing like standing in line and trying to change lenses without dropping something or getting contaminants in the camera.

Now, however, I would not try to change lenses. In future travel, I would just take a good mid-range zoom or even a prime and just won't change lenses.

Hope this helps.

 

[aneet01]

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate all the responses. My camera did come with 18-140 lens. I also have an old 35mm lens. Should I just consider 70-300 instead? I was hoping to carry just one lens instead of 3.

 

[Designer]

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate all the responses. My camera did come with 18-140 lens. I also have an old 35mm lens. Should I just consider 70-300 instead? I was hoping to carry just one lens instead of 3.

No.

 

[ACS641]

Hello,

I am new to photography. I recently bought Nikon D7200 and looking to buy one lens that is sufficient for travel. I wanted to know what is the difference between the following two lens and which one which one should I buy?
Nikon 18-300 f3.5-6.3G ($699)
Nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6G ($999)

Thanks,

If you have a decent 18-140 lens I think you already have a good travel lens as you can cover 27 to 210 full frame equivalent. I'd travel with that if I only wanted to carry one lens.

 

[ac12]

Where are you going, and what are you shooting?
Do you really need/want the extra reach beyond 140mm, out to 300mm?

Check the specs of the 18-300 lenses, specifically the weight, then compare to your 18-140.
I find the 18-140 is as heavy as I want to carry. In fact I would rather go lighter.
Gear gets heavier the longer you have to carry it. What feels fine for an hour, will feel HEAVY after carrying all day, every day, for 2 weeks.

I would just use your 18-140.
200mm was the longest lens I carried with my 35mm film camera.
On the long end, the 18-140 is the equiv to a 210mm lens.

If you REALLY want a longer all-in-one lens, I would go with the newer 18-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR-II lens.

If you feel comfortable changing lenses during a trip, I would go with the latest 70-300. But I think you need to update the firmware in the D7200 for the P lens. Optically, I think the 70-300 is better than the 18-300.
But you are carrying a 2nd lens, and more weight.

 

[UpperSpoon]

I traveled for 5 years with a Nikon D750 and used a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.
It was horribly insufficient in so many scenarios!!!

The things I wish I had was a wide angle lens and also a little more focal length.

Before you leave I encourage you to find 10 photos that you love about the place you're going, and then reverse engineer those photos too see what lense they are likely using (the forums can help with that). Different people want to photograph different things.
- Some want nothing but macro shots of market items, flowers, and bugs.
- Others only want photos of surfers, birds and the lovely couple that always seem to be on the other side of the lake.
- And other just like landscapes, to show the immense depth and size of train stations and shopping malls, caves... so on. (this was me).

Others feel like they must be able to shoot all of these things, without exception and have a bag full of lenses.

If you want my advice I think the 18-140mm is the perfect versatile lens for travel. Yes, there are going to be birds up in trees you probably won't get the best shot of, but after cropping, they will be good and those situations are rare. So stick with what you have, 200mm is the very most of focal length I would go for travel.

I think you should consider getting a wide angle prime lens for travel, the things I was shooting 9 times out of ten did not seem to fit into the frame. Or it did not look the way I saw it when I was looking out over the beauty of it all.

Also, the zoom lens is very heavy, and the travelers best friend is one of those small tripods with the flexible feet, but it won't hold up a zoom lens, it's too heavy, so the lighter lense comes in handy in low light too.

I am no professional photographer, just a hobbyist, so maybe someone else can weigh in here. But I think that if you get a good 35mm wide angle lens it will be your goto most the time, it will give you amazing depth of field and a beautiful 180-degree view of what you're seeing. Coupled with the 18-140mm zoom you will not feel like you need anything else.

Sorry, that ended up WAY longer than I had originally planned.

 

[dunfly]

My travel lens is the Nikon 18-140 mm. I use it with both my D5200 and my D7200. In fact, I shoot with this lens 90% of the time. Unless you are shooting wildlife, it is sufficiently long. I also have a 1.4 teleconverter that I take with me, but I rarely need it.

 

[photoflyer]

I also have a 1.4 teleconverter that I take with me, bu

A good teleconverter matched to a fast low ratio zoom is an interesting idea. But, I emphasize good and make sure it is matched to the lens for on which you will use it.

 

[dennybeall]

I also keep my 18-140 lens on the camera all the time. If time and conditions permit I will change it out for the 10mm or the 300 or 500mm or a macro but the 18-140 stays on most of the time.

 

[ac12]

General traveling with photo gear is always a compromise.

Bringing ALL my gear, lets me cover most anything I run into. But the bulk and weight is prohibitive, for two reasons:
1 - As you get older, you cannot carry as much weight as a 25 year old.
2 - Your travel mode may restrict how much gear you can carry, by bulk and/or weight.
So I compromise in what I bring to what I can reasonably carry.

You have to compromise on what you bring to what you can comfortably carry, for every day of your vacation.

• What feels easy to carry at home for a few minutes, may be too HEAVY after a few hours.
  
• What feels easy to carry on day 1, will very likely feel HEAVY after 14 or 21 days of constant carry.
  
• HEAT will make it feel even heavier. Just carrying a 35mm slr with one lens was tiring, in the hot summer Florida heat and humidity at Disney World/Epcot.

The old 80/20 rule applies to travel photography.
You can shoot 80% of the stuff with only 20% of your gear, if you pick right.
And how important is that last 20%?

You plan the best you can for where you are going and what you are likely to shoot.
Make your decision and live with it.

Example, shooting with a 35mm film camera.

• There were a few times when I wanted a lens wider than my 24mm lens. But that would have been another lens to carry, and get used only a few times. So I lived with the 24 as my widest lens.
  
• There were a few times when I wanted a 50 f/1.4, but that was another lens to carry that would only be used a few times. So I lived without a f/1.4 lens.
  
• There was ONE time when I wanted a 400 or 500mm tele, but it was only ONE time in many trips. So for all the other trips, it would have been unused baggage. I made do with my 200mm.
  
• I would have loved to have my flash, bracket and High Voltage pack, but it was way too much to carry, so I just brought the small shoe flash.

Other "general" comments and summary:

• As you get older, your ability to carry a load decreases. So you have to trim down the kit.
  
• I would not carry ALL my lenses. Too bulky and heavy, and some of the lens would not or rarely get used.
  
• I would not carry a 70-200 f/2.8. Too bulky and heavy. The f/4 lens is about half the weight. Or can you do without that lens?
  
• I would not carry my full flash kit. Too bulky. I would carry just a shoe flash.
• I would not carry my heavy tripod. Too bulky and heavy. I would carry a smaller/lighter 'travel' tripod.

Note that this is all for "general travel photography."
If you are going for something specific, like wolves in Yellowstone, then things are different, as you need specific gear. And in that case it will be LONG lens(es).

 

[ac12]

I am no professional photographer, just a hobbyist, so maybe someone else can weigh in here. But I think that if you get a good 35mm wide angle lens it will be your goto most the time, it will give you amazing depth of field and a beautiful 180-degree view of what you're seeing. Coupled with the 18-140mm zoom you will not feel like you need anything else.

A 35mm lens on a DX camera = normal lens, not a wide angle lens.
The 18-140 DX lens, is the equivalent of a 27-210mm lens on a FX body.