what lens(es) would you take for travel for a full frame camera?

[DorkSterr]

In any situation i always bring my 14-24 & 24-70. The rest is just icing on the cake. But if I'm shooting wild life I'll add a rented 600mm lol.

 

[Janmc]

wow I guess the consensus is clear as mud
But I know everyone has good valid points.
Ideally I would take a zoom that ranges 14-300mm fixed at 1.4 accross the board, produces impeccable IQ and weighs less than half a pound. Well, if it existed I'd take it.

I don't relish the thought of carrying around a TON of equipment, and even more so changing lenses way too often, but at the same time I have this chance to be in some amazing places and have the photo bug to want to take some nice shots.
I know a long time ago I used to travel with my point and shoot and not even think about SLRs - and I came away with some awesome shots too. I suppose without having to worry about settings or the perfect lens, I worried only about composition, and actually got some creative stuff. There is so much one can do in post too nowadays.
BUT... all that said, I think for me at least, once you go to SLR you can't go back. And those awesome lenses, heavy as they are, are awesome for a reason.

I guess I just need to find a compromise somewhere. I want to take enough to not feel like I missed anything and was covered pretty well for various situations, and yet I truly do not want to take the kitchen sink.

I need to get educated more on the longer end. I have only really done stuff with the normal range zooms (17-55 on DX, 24-70 on full) and played with the wider side of things. I love the looks that wide lenses can create, but wow, they sure aren't the easiest lenses to shoot with (to get those shots you "want" to get)

On the tele end, can someone tell me in what situation (lets say shooting around Denmark or something) would I need one? (I don't expect to shoot wild-life - although I'm not sure if my kids count

 

[Derrel]

On FX, for travel, a 24mm lens is VERY,VERY handy. And it is smallish. The 35mm f/2 is a nice lens for scenic, semi-wide-angle stuff. The ultra-compact,ultra-lightweight,manual focus but CPU-equipped 45mm/P-Nikkor is very handy as a body cap/scenic lens! it is sooooo small! And quite sharp too at landscape apertures. It is a lovely lens for close-in work,and also works with an extension tube. These lenses all share 52mm filter size and lens cap size. The 60mm f/2.8 macro models, AFG-S and the older AF-D, are 62mm filter lenses, but are quite sharp. Doubling focal length is a nice way to sdpoace primes, ie, 24/50/105 for example, but on the wide end, the gaps are useful, ie, 24/35/45 or 24/35/50 are REALLY useful to have for locations where yo simply can not move farther back or closer.

When does one need a telephoto???? Whenever more-distant objects are desired subjects or when narrow-angle shots are of interest. The 80-200 f/4 Ai-S is a nice,sharp $110 lens used. Manual focus, but sharp and low-cost. The 70-300 VR is the *only* useful 70-300 made for an FX Nikon...the older and cheaper 70-300 models are simply not good enough to waste time on. For me, small and lightweight lenses are a joy, hence my suggestion in my first post of 24/2.8 then 35/2, then 50/1.8, then 70-300 VR. The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G is one of the SHARPEST, best optics available for under $2,000, from any brand.

 

[bratkinson]

One of my considerations when travelling on a vacation is my mode of travel while taking pictures. Ie, am I sitting in a vehicle driven by someone else (bus, train, tram?) or am I driving? How much time will I be walking and what would I want to carry while walking...for hours, perhaps. I'd be more inclined to carry 3 zooms if I'm mostly sitting and someone else driving, but only 2 if mostly walking. I'd also consider a fast prime for indoor work, although with the almost unbelievable ISO capabilities of the 5D3, my 24-105 f4L doesn't have a problem with low light. I proved that just 2 days ago at ISO 6000..and even 12800!